TargetFreedom.com

Benito Mussolini said: “The merger of Government power & Corporate power is FASCISM.”

The Fascist View of Private Property is the Destruction of Property Rights

The concept of eminent domain was established solely so that the government would be able serve the vital needs of the public.

The concept of eminent domain was not established so that the government could partner with certain select corporations to use the force of law for making profits for those corporations.

The fact that these corporations might increase the tax base for the government, or contribute to political campaigns is not a justification for government involvement in what should be a purely private enterprise.

If government is to seize property for private use by simply claiming that it is for “the public good” we have destroyed the fourth Amendment.

While there will always be a claim that the force of law is being used for “the public good” we should recognize that the destruction of property rights is the ultimate assault on “the public good”.

It is an outrageous usurpation to use eminent domain to force people off their land, or put them out of their homes, so that corporations can make profits. This is true even if those corporations will pay more in taxes, or make bigger political campaign contributions.

The justification that is claimed by every form of totalitarianism is always claimed in every type of eminent domain case: 

“The greatest good for the greatest number”.

So we are told that we will only destroy the lives, the lands, and the homes of a small number of people, and that this will be done for the benefit of the larger community.

This is like saying that there will only be a small amount of AIDS virus injected into our blood, or that we will only have a few malignant cancer cells in our bodies.

This is like saying that there will only be a few cockroaches in our food.

Martin Luther King said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.

If you hear a term like “public-private partnership” a swastika should appear in your mind. “Public-private partnership” is the definition of fascism.

The merger of Government power and Corporate power is the creation of tyranny.

Government power is the FORCE OF LAW.

Corporate power is the FORCE OF MONEY.

When those two forces are combined corruption is UNAVOIDABLE.

We will be told all about “safeguards” that will eliminate corruption.

We will be told that the honor of our public servants will eliminate corruption.

I submit to you that, at the VERY MOMENT that the force of law is used on behalf of a corporation, the corruption HAS ALREADY OCCURED.

The authority that is being cited for this radical change in law is not even a legislative act, but a Supreme Court decision.

We continuously hear an outrageous myth:

“The Supreme Court has ruled. This is the law of the land”.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong:

Is not the Supreme Court a part of the JUDICIAL BRANCH of our government?

The definition of the Supreme Court is found in:

Article. III.  Section. 1. of the Constitution for the United States of America:

“The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

On the other hand Legislative powers are defined in:

Article. I. Section. 1. Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the Constitution for the United States of America:

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Now let us go back and refresh our understanding of algebra.

If All legislative powers are vested in Congress how much legislative power does the Supreme Court have?

The Supreme Court is nine political appointees. They were not elected by the people. Our constitution provides that laws will be made by legislators, who are elected by the people, in the legislative branch.

What part of the constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority to order violate our constitutionally guaranteed property rights?

“Fascism” is a term that is frequently misused. It is often used simply as a insult for those of any opposing political camp. Yet there is a correct usage for this term.  Fascism is a governmental system which permits a certain degree of “private” property or business ownership, but the management of the property is under governmental oversight.

1st plank of the Communist Manifesto: Abolition of Private Property

The most disgusting part of the scenario is the attempt to justify the taking of property rights of the individual on the grounds that it will benefit the community as a whole. In reality the whole of the community is equally devastated by the destruction of property rights.

Totalitarians, who have been unable to achieve their desired degree of control over our society, through other arguments, have shifted their plan of attack to an appeal that is based on the false objective of protection of a “community” values.

Laws are being made by judges and unelected bureaucrats, who pretend to be “representatives of the people”. This is the common model of every type of tyranny.

This coat of paint on the face of tyranny does nothing to alter the essence of fascism. 

And as do most totalitarians, the fascists always say they want to take power “for our own good.”

Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941) – American judge wrote:

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

Of course this is an open door for corruption. The coercion placed upon one person is often the creation of income for some other insider cohort of the bureaucrats, or even for the bureaucrats themselves.

The government that “robs Peter to pay Paul” will always have the support of Paul.

The most important thing to understand about Fascism is that it progresses through stages. It begins with government “regulating” business. Then it progresses into government actually managing the business. When government manages an entire industry there are no longer any competing enterprises, but there is just one government monopoly. No longer is there any regulation of that monopoly, because the “regulator” is actually the senior partner in the enterprise. Great care is taken to create the appearance that everything is for the benefit of the people. In reality the people are exploited by insiders both in and out of government. In the final analysis it all comes down to money and power for the few.

Of course, the ultimate stage of fascism is national centralization of power at the highest level. At this stage the central government controls every industry, and every municipality.

Like a pack of wolves, each part of this monster contributes to the strength of the whole. The control over goods and services will be used to control, and monitor, the people.

Control of health care is the power of life and death. Control of communications is the ability to stifle dissent. Control of food, water, shelter, and energy is control of the ability to survive.

The ramifications go on and on.

Private property rights are essential to liberty. The more secure private property rights are, the more individuals can protect themselves against the attacks of tyrants and bureaucrats. Limitations on private property rights results in coercion, plunder and tyranny. 

As in all forms of tyranny the “endless rules and regulations of the government” creates a mechanism for a subtle form of terrorism that can be used against those who might try to defend their rights. Government now has the ability to impose the selective enforcement of law against any subject who might resist oppression. Any protest of the destruction of liberty will be met with a myriad of new citations for other contrived “violations”. The tactic will usually terrorize the victim, or simply wear him down, until he just decides to go along.  

Usually the victim will be told that these citations do not need to be put before a real judge and a jury of peers, as our constitution requires.  Instead, the victim will be required to “exhaust his administrative remedies” before seeing anything that appears similar to the justice system that is defined in our constitution. This process is more accurately called being exhausted BY administrative remedies. This is the time consuming frustration of being tried by a so called “administrative judge” who is an employee of the accuser. Theaccuser’s agent generally rules that the accuser was right.  

A murderer would be tried before a real judge and a jury of peers. A property owner, who is accused of not cutting his lawn often enough has no such rights.

The Declaration of Independence includes the following:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Private property rights are an essential part of the pursuit of happiness.

A progression occurs in the deterioration from liberty into totalitarianism. There are a number of measurable parameters that can be readily used as a measure, and to define, the loss of freedom. The central measurement is the tabulation of what the people actually control. Of course that which the people control is diminished every time that any function is given over to government. Whatever the government is allowed to control becomes an increase in the power of government and a loss of liberty to the people.

Every time that the government increases its power we are told that there is some benefit for the people in that increase in the power of government. The increase in the power of government is camouflaged by the assertion that the people are receiving more “services” from government. When government provides a service we should never forget the fact that the government has the ability to use force against its customers, and against competitors.

Often the first step in this progression is that we move from services being provided by several competing private entities, to services being provided by a government regulated monopoly.  Often the next step is that we move to services being provided by a monopoly that is operated by the government itself.

When services are provided by several competing private entities the customer has the ability to choose between those competing private entities. The customer might be influenced by price, or by the quality of the service, or by any other factor that is important to that customer.

When services are provided by a government regulated monopoly the customer has no ability to choose between competing entities, but the assertion will be made that the customer will be protected from the abuse of the monopoly by virtue of the regulation from the government. Of course this assertion is based on the theory that the government has no goals of its own in the regulation of the monopoly, and that the government has no bias of any sort.

When services are provided by a government monopoly the customer has no ability to choose between competing entities. More importantly, there is no longer any way to make the assertion that the customer will be protected from the abuse of the monopoly by the regulation from the government.  Of course there will be a claim that the government will regulate itself. At best, this scenario is the fox protecting the hen house.

Of course the jump from services that are provided by several competing private entities, to services that are provided by a government monopoly can be made without going through the stage of services that are provided by a government regulated monopoly.

We re-iterate that when government provides a service we should never forget the fact that the government has the ability to use force against it customers, and against its competitors.  

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” –
–  George Washington

If you want to know who is the servant, and who is the master, just determine this: Who is asking for permission, and who is granting (or denying) permission? Does government accept the fact that they operate with the consent of the governed, or does government tell the governed that they need a permit topeacefully interact with their fellow citizens?

The free citizen does not need permission from government to enjoy the peaceable use of his property. The government needs permission, from the people, for every use of force that they seek. Permission, from the people is only possible where people would have the right to use force on their on behalf.

The proper function of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. Government is an agency of force. The use of force is only morally justifiable if it is in self defense, or in the defense of someone else, who has authorized us to act in their behalf. Government is the agency which we have collectively authorized to act on behalf of the entire population. A law is a statement of a responsibility which is required by government through the use or the threat of the use of force. Everything that government does involves the use of force. Government uses force to compel the compliance with each of it laws, by providing penalties for violation of laws. Laws may require a specific action from the citizen or they may prohibit a specific action of a citizen. At the very least, in all cases, the actions of government are funded by tax revenues that are taken from citizens through the use, or threat of the use of force. This means that a moral government may only do those things, for which the use of force, would be morally justifiable.

When government uses force beyond the specific consent of the governed, or beyond the only moral justification for the use of force, then government is in violation of ITS PERMIT.

Beyond the lack of a moral justification for the agency of force to become a vendor of goods and services there is a more fundamental problem. The hard reality is that the fascist mixture of government and business can never exist for very long without the habitual use of governmental force becoming the central factor in the government’s standard operating procedures.

In the private sector the customer is king. When we negotiate with government we understand that government has the power to coerce what no private company would ever even request. 

It is a common error to assume that government should promote or provide everything that the people see as good, and prevent everything that the people see as bad. To remain free people must find other ways to solve all but a few of their problems.

The individual rights for every human being, and government coercion, are opposites.

Yet, at the same time, we recognize the fact that the weaker need to be protected from the stronger. Protection is the only reason that we allow government to exist, and is the only legitimate function of government. When government is not limited to its only legitimate functions, then the people need to be protected from their protectors. 

All that needs to be done, to protect individual rights, is to limit government to protecting life, liberty, and property. The limitation of government, historically, has been a difficult task; in that criminals will seek to control government, and to use it as an instrument of plunder.

Our founding fathers wrote, in the Declaration of Independence, that governments are instituted among men to protect our rights, and that they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The governed citizens have no authority to give consent to the government for any action, that they; as individuals have no right to perform. We have no authority to authorize government to use force, when it is not justified by the need for defense. Each time that government acts, we should be able to ask for the moral justification for this use of force.

In any discussion of expanding the function of government beyond its legitimate function of protecting life liberty and property there is a common sense question that should be asked:  Is government doing such a good job of protecting life liberty and property that it seems wise to divide their efforts into other areas? Is there no more crime in your area? If the government cannot perform its primary function, why would we think it wise to give them other duties?

Government must be limited to protecting us from aggressors. There is no human agency; which can morally use force to require or prohibit anything, unless one citizen would have a moral right to use force in the same situation. If there is not a citizen whose life, liberty or property is being put at risk, then there is no government function.

The ends do not justify the means. As soon as you begin to plead the benefits of allowing government to cross this line, there is no where else to close the gate. If we take the first step onto the slippery slope, then we slide all the way to the chasm.

=

One of the “Abuses and Usurpations” listed in the American Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 by our founding fathers was:

“He has erected a Multitude of New Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance”

Another one of those “Abuses and Usurpations” was:

“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury”

These were cited as evidence of

“a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.”

Are we now at the same point, which caused the American Revolution?