As always, a good podcast by James Corbett. Very thought-provoking.
While I have commented on the topic of the post, I have not up voted nor down voted anything.
If I am your first up vote your comment, I am proud, but I suspect others have done so as well.
you must have not read my post!
This is for all the conspiracy kooks out there that think I am a Troll……first of all… thanks……but please I am way too old to be a troll. I have been at this a long time….much longer than most you have been alive. At first I was a conspiracy kook too, but after years and years of searching for something that resembled the “Truth” and after years of a pain staking journey I came to realize that I too believed all the crap I was feed over a lifetime and then in a moment that I couldn’t take the lies any further I let go of the naïve nonsense that we are all taught about history and realized that our government is not only corrupt from top to bottom, but it was corrupt from the beginning. This is why I refer to y’all as kooks…….you think I am defending the “official story”……But I am really challenging you for not taking that next step……for not really swallowing the “red pill”…..for staying in the Matrix of the fairy-tale that is “the official historical story”. The winner's get to write the history.I am challenging you to pull back the “veil” and see the world for what it is and that we not only live in but also worship the religion of “Statism”.
Finally someone has posted a thread opening up the discussion so that I can as least voice my opinion. Those that have seen my post know I don’t care for James Corbett. I think his work is shallow and doesn’t follow logical cognitive thought. It is full of rumor and innuendo and this piece on “The Religion of Statism” is no different, Sorry Mr. Corbett….I’m just not a fan. But I do thank him for bringing it up; even though the post in question was from July it was recently posted here on the DP and caught my intention. I do not want to waste a lot of time dissecting the podcast, because you can listen for yourselves. The Russian writer Bakunin elucidation of the Greeks and Romans quite frankly sounded like a bunch of gobbley gook…… so it’s no wonder Corbett can’t figure out where the religion of Statism started.
But by reading Murray Rothbard’s outline of the Greek philosophers you would know exactly where the religion of the State comes from, you would also know the concept of “natural law” that was the basis of “wisdom” that was espoused by the likes of John Locke, George Mason, James Otis and Thomas Jefferson. You would also know the origin of the brilliance of the Declaration of Independence. In this piece you will also discover “ABSOLUTISM” and how the likes of Robert Morris, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln brought this insidious form of religion of Statist or Nationalism to this country by way of the U.S. Constitution in the form of Mercantilism.
Here is a link that some enterprising person posted on the DP. It is a comparison of the U.S. Constitution vs the Constitution of the Confederated States of America. His premise was that by comparing the two he could prove the Civil War was all about slavery. As an unintended consequence of the comparison he proved that the South was actually trying to right the wrongs of ever allowing the religion of Statism in the form of Mercantilism to be planted in this country’s form of government.
A good definition of Mercantilism:
Mercantilists considered the benefit of the State as the end and object of economic activities, in their view the interests of the State had always to take precedence to the interests of the individual. The aim of all mercantilist doctrines is to increase the economic power of the State. Moreover, the interests of the state were, in their eyes, by no means necessarily in harmony with the activities of the individual. According to them, wages, interest, industry, and trade should be regulated so as to benefit the State. Finally, the importance of “treasure” to a State was greatly emphasized. The reasons given in support of their advocacy of the accumulation of the precious metals changed from one time to another, but all mercantilists agreed that a nation must try by all means to increase its “treasure.” In general, they recognized that countries which did not possess gold or silver mines could not increase their stocks of the precious metals except by an annually recurring favorable balance of trade. (Today you may know of this in the form of the petrodollar conspiracy, but it reality it is much worse, the external debt position through the perverse reverse mercantilist agenda of the “strong dollar policies” from the early 1980’s of exporting our inflation by way of the dollar being the world reserve currency has situated a NET 15 trillion dollar liability off our shores that at any moment could wash back like a tsunami that’s never been seen…..this is truly our most vulnerable weakness.)
Back to the Mercantilist
The Mercantilist tool box is a political system which doles out favors to the strong in order to win and keep their adherence to the government(station in life). This system offered shelter to devious schemes and corrupt enterprises. The strategy was as simple as it is corrupt; promise to plunder the taxpayers for the benefit of corporations and banks in return for the everlasting financial support (and kickback) from those same entities all the while drowning the public in the false rhetoric opposing executive tyranny, championing the little guy. (boy doesn’t that all sound familiar…..sounds like the fairy-tale). They used the same tools as today.
1. Central bank-inflationary finance through the printing of paper money by a central bank or if need be by state government banks and was an ardent opponent of a monetary system based on gold or any other precious metal. They only sought gold and silver through a trade surplus so that the monetary base could expand for greater leverage of inflationary finance. This was to cover the deficits of war and internal improvements.
2. Internal Improvements and corporate welfare is code for crony capitalism- patronage was the route to political power and to personal wealth.
3. High protectionist tariff- this protected favored business from overseas competition at the expense of the consuming public and help to create monopolies…….a huge reason for the Civil War. The South was financing the North because all the industry was in the North and the South could not import without being taxed to the benefit of the North.
4. War- There is no greater opportunity then in the time of war to increase size and scope of the State. Every increase in the size of the State decreases the LIBERTY of the individual…..IT IS A ZERO SUM GAME.
So like I said compare the two constitutions, now that you know what to look for it will pop out at you very easily. The reasons I have spent so much time on mercantilism is because that is where we end up in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. It is important that you see how easily the states were fooled in to a BIGGER form of government. They were promised that they could keep their sovereignty and they would be relieved from collecting the taxes for the Revolutionary War. They were boone doggled and then tried to save face with the Bill of Rights.
Sometime soon we will be faced with a decision. When the dollar collapses will we give up our sovereignty or will we choose smaller government……like a return to the Articles of Confederation? It’s better to make the decision now before the next crisis…..because by then it will be too late.
Milton Friedman defined corruption as “The interference of the free market through government regulation”.
I would also add from von Mises
“Every government intervention creates new problems in the course of vain attempts to solve the old. The government is then confronted with the choice: pile on new interventions to solve the inexplicable new problems, or repeal the original intervention. Government's instinct, of course, is to maximize its wealth and power by adding new interventions.”
Just one definition before you start your journey into the “Religion of Statism” and the is the translation: polis, ……..translates to City, but you have to remember that the City to them at the time is the State and that is State as in the apparatus as government.
Enjoy….this is from Rothbard: The History of Economic Thought
It all began, as usual, with the Greeks. The ancient Greeks were the first civilized people to use their reason to think systematically about the world around them. The Greeks were the first philosophers (philo sophia -lovers of wisdom), the first people to think deeply and to figure out how to attain and verify knowledge about the world. Other tribes and peoples had tended to attribute natural events to arbitrary whims of the gods. A violent thunderstorm, for example, might be ascribed to something that had irritated the god of thunder. The way to bring on rain, then, or to curb violent thunderstorms, would be to find out what acts of man would please the god of rain or appease the thunder god. Such people would have considered it foolish to try to figure
out the natural causes of rain or of thunder. Instead, the thing to do was to find out what the relevant gods wanted and then try to supply their needs. The Greeks, in contrast, were eager to use their reason - their sense observations and their command of logic - to investigate and learn about their world. In so doing, they gradually stopped worrying about the whims of the gods and to investigate actual entities around them. Led in particular by the great Athenian philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), a magnificent and creative systematizer known to later ages as The Philosopher, the Greeks evolved a theory and a method of reasoning and of science which later came to be called the natural law.
The natural law
Natural law rests on the crucial insight that to be necessarily means to be something, that is, some particular thing or entity. There is no Being in the abstract. Everything that is, is some particular thing, whether it be a stone, a cat, or a tree. By empirical fact there is more than one kind of thing in the universe; in fact there are thousands, if not millions of kinds of things. Each thing has its own particular set of properties or attributes, its own nature, which distinguishes it from other kinds of things. A stone, a cat, an elm tree; each has its own particular nature, which man can discover, study and identify. Man studies the world, then, by examining entities, identifying similar kinds of things, and classifying them into categories each with its own properties and nature. If we see a cat walking down the street, we can immediately include it into a set of things, or animals, called 'cats' whose
nature we have already discovered and analysed. If we can discover and learn about the natures of entities X and Y, then we can discover what happens when these two entities interact. Suppose, for example, that when a certain amount of X interacts with a given amount of Y we get a certain quantity of another thing, Z. We can then say that the effect, Z, has been caused by the interaction of X and Y. Thus, chemists may discover that when two molecules of hydrogen interact with one molecule of oxygen, the result is one molecule of a new entity, water. All these entities -hydrogen, oxygen and water - have specific discoverable properties or natures which can be identified.
We see, then, that the concepts of cause and effect are part and parcel of natural law analysis. Events in the world can be traced back to the interactions of specific entities. Since natures are given and identifiable, the interactions of the various entities will be replicable under the same conditions. The same causes will always yield the same effects.
For the Aristotelian philosophers, logic was not a separate and isolated discipline, but an integral part of the natural law. Thus, the basic process of identifying entities led, in 'classical' or Aristotelian logic, to the Law of Identity: a thing is, and cannot be anything other than, what it is: a is a. It follows, then, that an entity cannot be the negation of itself. Or, put another way, we have the Law of Non-Contradiction: a thing cannot be both a and non-a. a is not and cannot be non-a. Finally, in our world of numerous kinds of entities, anything must be either a or it won't be; in short, it will either be a or non-a. Nothing can be both. This gives us the third well-known law of classical logic: the Law of the Excluded Middle: everything in the universe is either a or non-a.
But if every entity in the universe - if hydrogen, oxygen, stone, or cats can be identified, classified, and its nature examined, then so too can man. Human beings must also have a specific nature with specific properties that can be studied, and from which we can obtain knowledge. Human beings are unique in the universe because they can and do study themselves, as well as the world around them, and try to figure out what goals they should pursue and what means they can employ to achieve them. The concept of 'good' .(and therefore of 'bad') is only relevant to living entities. Since stones or molecules have no goals or purposes, any idea of what might be 'good' for a molecule or stone would properly be considered bizarre. But what might be 'good' for an elm tree or a dog makes a great deal of sense: specifically, 'the good' is whatever conduces to the life and the flourishing of the living entity. The 'bad' is whatever injures such an entity's life or prosperity. Thus, it is possible to develop an 'elm tree ethics' by discovering the best conditions: soil, sunshine, climate, etc., for the growth and sustenance of elm trees; and by trying to avoid conditions deemed 'bad' for elm trees: elm blight, excessive drought, etc. A similar set of ethical properties can be worked out for various breeds of animals.
Thus, natural law sees ethics as living-entity- (or species-) relative. What is good for cabbages will differ from what is good for rabbits, which in turn will differ from what is good or bad for man. The ethic for each species will differ according to their respective natures. Man is the only species which can - and indeed must - carve out an ethic for himself. Plants lack consciousness, and therefore cannot choose or act.
The consciousness of animals is narrowly perceptual and lacks the conceptual: the ability to frame concepts and to act upon them. Man, in the famous Aristotelian phrase, is uniquely the rational animal - the species that uses reason to adopt values and ethical principles, and that acts to attain these ends. Man acts; that is, he adopts values and purposes, and chooses the ways to achieve them. Man, therefore, in seeking goals and ways to attain them, must discover and work within the framework of the natural law: the properties of himself and of other entities and the ways in which they may interact.
Western civilization is in many ways Greek; and the two great philosophic traditions of ancient Greece which have been shaping the Western mind ever since have been those of Aristotle and his great teacher and antagonist Plato (428-347 BC). It has been said that every man, deep down, is either a Platonist or an Aristotelian, and the divisions run throughout their thought. Plato pioneered the natural law approach which Aristotle developed and systematized; but the basic thrust was quite different. For Aristotle and his followers, man's existence, like that of all other creatures, is 'contingent', i.e. it is not necessary and eternal. Only God's existence is necessary and transcends time. The contingency of man's existence is simply an unalterable part of the natural order, and must be accepted as such.
To the Platonists, however, especially as elaborated by Plato's follower, the Egyptian Plotinus (204-270 AD), these inevitable limitations of man's natural state were intolerable and must be transcended. To the Platonists, the actual, concrete, temporal factual existence of man was too limited. Instead, this existence (which is all that any of us has ever seen) is a fall from grace, a fall from the original non-existent, ideal, perfect, eternal being of man, a godlike being perfect and therefore without limits. In a bizarre twist of language, this perfect and never-existent being was held up by the Platonists as the truly existent, the true essence of man, from which we have all been alienated or cut off. The nature of man (and of all other entities) in the world is to be something and to exist in time; but in the semantic twist of the Platonists, the truly existent man is to be eternal, to live outside of time, and to have no limits.
Man's condition on earth is therefore supposed to be a state of degradation and alienation, and his purpose is supposed to be to work his way back to the 'true' limitless and perfect self-alleged to be his original state. Alleged, of course, on the basis of no evidence whatever - indeed, evidence itself identifies, limits, and therefore, to the Platonic mind, corrupts. Plato's and Plotinus's views of man's allegedly alienated state were highly influential, as we shall see, in the writings of Karl Marx and his followers. Another Greek philosopher, emphatically different from the Aristotelian tradition, who prefigured Hegel and Marx was the early pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus (c.535-475 BC). He was pre-Socratic in the sense of predating Plato's great teacher Socrates (470-399 BC), who wrote nothing but has come down to us as interpreted by Plato and by several other followers.
Heraclitus, who was aptly given the title 'The Obscure' by the Greeks, taught that sometimes opposites, a and non-a, can be identical, or, in other words, that a can be non-a. This defiance of elemental logic can perhaps be excused in someone like Heraclitus, who wrote before Aristotle developed classical logic, but it is hard to be so forbearing to his later followers.
The politics of the polis
When man turns the use of his reason from the inanimate world to man himself and to social organization, it becomes difficult for pure reason to avoid giving way to the biases and prejudices of the political framework of the age. This was all too true of the Greeks, including the Socratics, Plato and Aristotle. Greek life was organized in small city-states (the polis) some of which were able to carve out overseas empires. The largest city-state, Athens, covered an area of only about one thousand square miles, or half the size of modern Delaware. The key facet of Greek political life was that the city-state was run by a tight oligarchy of privileged citizens, most of whom were large landowners. Most of the population of the city-state were slaves or resident foreigners, who generally performed the manual labour and commercial enterprise respectively. The privilege of citizenship was
reserved to descendants of citizens. While Greek city-states fluctuated between outright tyrannies and democracies, at its most 'democratic' Athens, for example, reserved the privileges of democratic rule to 7 per cent of the population, the rest of whom were either slaves or resident aliens. (Thus, in Athens of the fifth century BC, there were approximately 30 000 citizens out of a total population of 400 000.)
As privileged landowners living off taxes and the product of slaves, Athenian citizens had the leisure for voting, discussion, the arts and - in the case of the particularly intelligent - philosophizing. Although the philosopher Socrates was himself the son of a stonemason, his political views were ultra-elitist. In the year 404 BC, the despotic state of Sparta conquered Athens and established a reign of terror known as the Rule of the Thirty Tyrants. When the Athenians overthrew this short-lived rule a year later, the restored democracy executed the aged Socrates, largely on suspicion of sympathy with the Spartan cause. This experience confirmed Socrates's brilliant young disciple, Plato, the scion of a noble Athenian family, in what would now be called an 'ultra-right' devotion to aristocratic and despotic rule.( Absolutism) A decade later, Plato set up his Academy on the outskirts of Athens as a think-tank not only of abstract philosophic teaching and research, but also as a fountainhead of policy programmes for social despotism. He himself tried three times unsuccessfully to set up despotic regimes in the city state of Syracuse, while no less than nine of Plato's students succeeded in establishing themselves as tyrants over Greek city-states.
While Aristotle was politically more moderate than Plato, his aristocratic devotion to the polis was fully as evident. Aristotle was born of an aristocratic family in the Macedonian coastal town of Stagira, and entered Plato's Academy as a student at the age of 17, in 367 BC. There he remained until Plato's death 20 years later, after which he left Athens and eventually returned to Macedonia, where he joined the court of King Philip and tutored the young future world conqueror, Alexander the Great. After Alexander ascended the throne, Aristotle returned to Athens in 335 BC and established his own school of philosophy at the Lyceum, from which his great works
have come down to us as lecture notes written by himself or transcribed by his students. When Alexander died in 323 BC, the Athenians felt free to vent their anger at Macedonians and their sympathizers, and Aristotle was ousted from the city, dying shortly thereafter.
Their aristocratic bent and their lives within the matrix of an oligarchic polis had a greater impact on the thought of the Socratics than Plato's various excursions into theoretical right-wing collectivist Utopias or in his students' practical attempts at establishing tyranny. For the social status and political bent of the Socratics coloured their ethical and political philosophies and their economic views. Thus, for both Plato and Aristotle, 'the good' for man was not something to be pursued by the individual, and neither was the individual a person with rights that were not to be abridged or invaded by his fellows. For Plato and Aristotle, 'the good' was naturally not to be pursued
by the individual but by the polis. Virtue and the good life were polis- rather than individual-oriented. All this means that Plato's and Aristotle's thought was statist and elitist to the core, a statism which unfortunately permeated 'classical' (Greek and Roman) philosophy as well as heavily influencing Christian and medieval thought. Classical 'natural law' philosophy therefore never arrived at the later elaboration, first in the Middle Ages and then in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, of the 'natural rights' of the individual which may not be invaded by man or by government. In the more strictly economic realm, the statism of the Greeks means the usual aristocratic exaltation of the alleged virtues of the military, arts and of agriculture, as well as a pervasive contempt for labour and for trade, and consequently of money-making and the seeking and earning of profit.
Thus Socrates, openly despising labour as unhealthy and vulgar, quotes the king of Persia to the effect that by far the noblest arts are agriculture and war. And Aristotle wrote that no good citizens 'should be permitted to exercise any low mechanical employment or traffic, as being ignoble and destructive to virtue.'
Furthermore, the Greek elevation of the polis over the individual led to their taking a dim view of economic innovation and entrepreneurship. The entrepreneur, the dynamic innovator, is after all the locus of individual ego and creativity, and is therefore the harbinger of often disturbing social change, as well as economic growth. But the Greek and Socratic ethical ideal for the individual was not an unfolding and flowering of inner possibilities, but rather a public/political creature moulded to conform to the demands of the polis. That kind of social ideal was designed to promote a frozen society of politically determined status, and certainly not a society of creative and dynamic individuals and innovators.
Plato's search for a hierarchical, collectivist utopia found its classic expression in his most famous and influential work, The Republic. There, and later in The Laws, Plato sets forth the outline of his ideal city-state: one in which right oligarchic rule is maintained by philosopher-kings and their philosophic colleagues, thus supposedly ensuring rule by the best and wisest in the community. Underneath the philosophers in the coercive hierarchy are the 'guardians' - the soldiers, whose role is to aggress against other cities and lands and to defend their polis from external aggression. Underneath them are to be the body of the people, the despised producers: labourers, peasants and merchants who produce the material goods on which the lordly philosophers and guardians are to live. These three broad classes are supposed to reflect a shaky and pernicious leap if there ever was one - the proper rule over the soul in each human being. To Plato, each human being is divided into three parts: 'one that craves, one that fights, and one that thinks', and the proper hierarchy of rule within each soul is supposed to be reason first, fighting next, and finally, and the lowest, grubby desire.
If any of the philosophers or guardians find themselves unhappy about this arrangement, they will have to learn that their personal happiness means nothing compared to the happiness of the polis as a whole - a rather murky concept at best. In fact, who are not seduced by Plato's theory of the essential reality of ideas will not believe that there is such a real living entity as a polis. Instead, the city-state or community consists only of living, choosing individuals.
To keep the elite and the subject masses in line, Plato instructs the philosopher- rulers to spread the 'noble' lie that they themselves are descended from the gods whereas the other classes are of inferior heritage. Freedom of speech or of inquiry was, as one might expect, anathema to Plato. The arts are frowned on, and the life of the citizens was to be policed to suppress any dangerous thoughts or ideas that might come to the surface.
The use of gold and silver as money greatly accelerated with the invention of coinage in Lydia in the early seventh century Be and coined money quickly spread to Greece. In keeping with his distaste for money-making, trade and private property, Plato was perhaps the first theorist to denounce the use of gold and silver as money. He also disliked gold and silver precisely because they served as international currencies accepted by all peoples. Since these precious metals are universally accepted and exist apart from the imprimatur
of government, gold and silver constitute a potential threat to economic and moral regulation of the polis by the rulers. Plato called for a government fiat currency, heavy fines on the importation of gold from outside the city-state, and the exclusion from citizenship of all traders and workers who deal with money.
One of the hallmarks of an ordered utopia sought by Plato is that, to
remain ordered and controlled, it must be kept relatively static. (The definition of conservative thought).
The most interesting and influential school of Greek philosophers after Aristotle was the Stoics, founded by Zeno of Clitium (c.336-264 BC), who appeared about the year 300 BC in Athens to teach at a painted porch (stoapoikile) after which he and his followers were called Stoics. The most important contribution of Stoic thought was in ethical, political and legal philosophy, for it was the Stoics who first developed and systematized, especially in the legal sphere, the concept and the philosophy of natural law. It was precisely because Plato and Aristotle were circumscribed politically by the Greek polis that their moral and legal philosophy became closely intertwined with the Greek city-state. For the Socratics, the city-state, not the individual, was the locus of human virtue. But the destruction or subjugation of the Greek polis after Aristotle freed the thought of the Stoics from its admixture with politics. The Stoics were therefore free to use their reason to set forth a doctrine of natural law focusing not on the polis buton each individual, and not on each state but on all states everywhere. In short, in the hands of the Stoics, natural law became absolute and universal, transcending political barriers or fleeting limitations of time and place. Law and ethics, the principles of justice, became transcultural and transnational, applying to all human beings everywhere. And since every man possesses the faculty of reason, he can employ right reason to understand the truths of the natural law. The important implication for politics is that the natural law, the just and proper moral law discovered by man's right reason, can and should be used to engage in a moral critique of the positive man-made laws of any state or polis. For the first time, positive law became continually subject to a transcendent critique based on the universal and eternal nature of man.
Stoicism lasted 500 years, and its most important influence was transmitted from Greece to Rome. The later Stoics, during the first two centuries after the birth of Christ, were Roman rather than Greek. The great transmitter of Stoic ideas from Greece to Rome was the famous Roman statesman, jurist, and orator Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC). Following Cicero, Stoic natural law doctrines heavily influenced the Roman jurists of the second and third centuries AD, and thus helped shape the great structures of Roman law which became pervasive in Western civilization. Cicero's influence was assured by his lucid and sparkling style, and by the fact that he was the first Stoic to write in Latin, the language of Roman law and of all thinkers and writers in the West down to the end of the seventeenth century. Moreover, Cicero's and other Latin writings have been far better preserved than the fragmentary remains we have from the Greeks.
There is a true law, right reason, agreeable to nature, known to all men, constant and eternal, which calls to duty by its precepts, deters from evil by its prohibition
... This law cannot be departed from without guilt ... Nor is there one law at Rome and another at Athens, one thing now and another afterward; but the same law, unchanging and eternal, binds all races of man and all times; and there is one common, as it were, master and ruler - God, the author, promulgator and mover of this law. Whoever does not obey it departs from [his true] self, contemns the nature of man and inflicts upon himself the greatest penalties.
Roman private law elaborated, for the first time in the West, the idea of property rights as absolute, with each owner having the right to use his property as he saw fit. From this stemmed the right to make contracts freely, with contracts interpreted as transfers of titles to property. Some Roman jurists declared that property rights were required by the natural law. The Romans also founded the law merchant, and Roman law strongly influenced the common law of the English-speaking countries and the civil law of the continent of Europe.
Canon law' was the law governing the Church, and during the early Christian era and the Middle Ages the intertwining of Church and state often meant that canon law and state law were one and the same. We have seen that later canon law also incorporated much of the Roman law. During the medieval synthesis of the High Middle Ages there was a balance between the power of Church and state, with the Church slightly more powerful. In the fourteenth century that balance was broken, and the nation-state came to hold sway, breaking the power of the Church, taxing, regulating, controlling and wreaking devastation through virtually continuous war for over a century (the Hundred Years' War, from 1337 to 1453)
In the medieval era, while the king was supposed to be all-powerful in his own sphere, that sphere was restricted by the sanctity of private property. The king was supposed to be an armed enforcer and upholder of the law, and his revenues were supposed to derive from rents on royal lands, feudal dues and tolls. There was nothing that we would call regular taxation. In an emergency, such as an invasion or the launching of a crusade, the prince, in addition to invoking the feudal duty of fighting on his behalf, might ask his vassals for a subsidy; but that aid would be requested rather than ordered, and be limited in duration to the emergency period.
The merchants and capitalists may have had money, but the largest and most tempting source for royal plunder was the Catholic Church. Both the English and French monarchs proceeded to tax the Church, which brought them into a collision course with the pope. The decline of Church authority, then, was matched by the rise in the power of the absolute state. Not content with confiscating, plundering, taxing, and bringing the Catholic Church under their heels, the monarchs also obtained revenue for his eternal wars by debasement of the coinage and thereby generated a secular inflation.
Originating as a response to wartime 'emergency', the new taxes tended to become permanent: not only because the warfare, but because the state, always on the lookout for an increase in its income and power, seized upon the golden opportunity to convert wartime taxes into a permanent part of the national heritage.
This is what gave rise to the Absolute State.
Along with the rise of the absolute state, theories of “ absolutism” arose and began to throw natural law doctrines into the shade. The adoption of natural law theory, after all, meant that the state was bound to limit itself to the dictates of the natural or the divine law. But new political theorists arose, asserting the dominance of the temporal over the spiritual, and of the state's positive law over the natural or divine order.
The state is supreme and must be obeyed in and for itself. This glorification of the state went hand in hand with a denial that human reason could come to know any natural law outside of positive edicts of the state. Reason had to be separated from justice or human society. Justice has no rational foundation; it is purely mystical and solely a matter of faith. God's commands are purely arbitrary and mysterious, and not be understood in terms of rational or ethical content.
As a corollary, positive law has nothing to do with right reason; it is promulgated to advance the 'life and health of the state'. The nation is an organism, The state is a living organism not subject to reason because, like a plant, it develops in accord with in born impulses. The practical conclusion is the political philosophy of the state, whether kingdom or city-republic, must have absolute power within its domain, and must not be subject to any temporal check or jurisdiction by ANYONE OR ANYTHING.
This existed through the mercantilist States of the Italy, Spain, France & England and finally to the new world...... America.
I suggest you do some honest looking around to the reality of today. The illusion you continue to endorse is falling apart at the seams.
I doubt you give the advice to your clients, should they be real investors the actually have to face, that you do here on DP.
If you do, I'd suggest a get away plan.
when the Mexican debt crisis occured. I only trade my own money.
I don't think you read my post. You claim to be so in tune to the truth and don't buy the "official story” of the government lies but you swallow the "official historical story” of the USG hook, line and sinker……that is delusional.
when you have demonstrated yourself to be a troll?
I have no idea what you do in Real Life, but your persona here absolutely has clients that you are working for.
That said, I always enjoy your posts as they are clues to a trolls intentions.
To think this generation is the only generation to suffer at the hand of a tyrannical government is either so arrogant or so ignorant that I just can’t decide which one you really are. But after the last couple posts it appears to be both, you’re as bad as Granger. It is naive to say the least.
Your Messiah, Corbett introduced the topic and as usual failed to make a coherent argument, so I thought I would help him out and that makes me a troll. Once you get tired of splashing around in the kiddy pool with Granger and the rest of the children……..and you decide you want to be taken seriously you can come to the “deeper” end here with the adults and we will hold your hand until you learn to swim on your own.
are the downfall of your argument, and why you are nothing but a troll.
I never claimed anyone but the Prince of Truth as the Messiah. Truth, 'Get it'?
The fact that you Hate anything James Corbett says is also telling. All you can do is try to demonize him, it's your playbook, and all you have.
It's obvious that you Hate the Truth, you only show up on DP to destroy it. The fact that you link me with The Grangers post is very interesting.
What a pitiful effort.
If you have Honest Ideas, and a sense of decency, post them on the Front Page.
I proclaim that the posts you make under Goldspan=Granger=McCain.
Epic Fail by all.
The fact that you would send that as an effort to squelch James Corbett is telling. The entire post is nothing but confusion.
You either spent a lot of time preparing this, or it was written for you, Please don't stop posting.