Temporary Abuses Of The System Become Permanent Abuses, AKA Entitlements

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – People love to call radio shows and make Twitter and Facebook posts all about Saul Alinsky, who’s dead, and whose Rules for Radicals can inspire us to be Obama-like and understand what the Obamabots are doing.  I think what the Obamabot zombies are doing is a lot more related to, as I discussed earlier, the transfer of wealth than you may be willing to admit.  The reason why people are not willing to admit it or don’t want to admit it is because that means they have to bail on much of the visual and aural that has been created that says this is all a pinko-commie, Eastern bloc, socialist plot that we’re in the middle of.  Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

 

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  I was talking earlier about the Affordable Care Act and about the paper system that it has engendered — I’m not going to say it created it because it didn’t create it, it’s just making it more obvious to be able to spot these days.  There was no greater expounder and no greater explainer and foreseer of what we are currently experiencing than the [r]epublican master, the agrarian master John Taylor of Caroline.  [mocking] “Between you and Ron Paul and John Taylor, is there anyone else!?”  Actually, there are many.  Taylor, because he was writing just as this was beginning, and was able to accurately predict it and accurately spell out why it shouldn’t occur, and if it did what to do about it might be worth reading today.

People love to call radio shows and make Twitter and Facebook posts all about Saul Alinsky, who’s dead, and whose Rules for Radicals can inspire us to be Obama-like and understand what the Obamabots are doing.  I think what the Obamabot zombies are doing is a lot more related to, as I discussed earlier, the transfer of wealth than you may be willing to admit.  The reason why people are not willing to admit it or don’t want to admit it is because that means they have to bail on much of the visual and aural that has been created that says this is all a pinko-commie, Eastern bloc, socialist plot that we’re in the middle of.  It might be that you can characterize is, if you choose, socialist or communist.  It might have been that those terms did not exist when Taylor of Caroline was writing, and he may have been writing about what Marx would ultimately write about.  I tend to think not, but he does describe the deceit.  He describes why the deceit is going to happen and how it’s happened and how you can prevent it.  The way you can prevent it is to design a government and make it structured so that power is not concentrated anywhere, that it’s almost impossible to get anything done like this.

If we go to 1813’s Tyranny Unmasked — I can pick almost any page from this book and it would make sense today.  I’m just going to pick this one from page 113 of the paperback copy I have from the Liberty Fund.  He’s writing about “A Tax On The Many, A Bounty To The Few.”  See if this sounds familiar:

For the rest of today’s transcript please sign up for a Founders Pass or if you’re already a member, make sure you are logged in!
[private FP-Yearly-So76|FP-Yearly|FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly-WLK]

[reading]

Some capitalists, contented with the existing protecting-duty monopoly, or fearful of pushing it further lest it should burst, are opposed to its augmentation. When the policy of bounties, monopolies, and exclusive privileges is introduced, those deriving emolument from any item of it, may find an interest in opposing another, but they will never contend that the policy itself is bad, and ought to be abandoned. Neither the landlord nor capitalist-interest in England, will admit that the system of bounties and exclusive privileges is radically vicious, though each will contend that its antagonist gets too much, and itself too little by it. Of what value can the authority of either, asserting that a system is good by which both get money, be to an enquirer who is considering whether it is also good for a nation? Such admissions are a vice in the system itself, because they are purchased concessions, not for disclosing truth to advance the public good, but for concealing it to enrich combinations. However the family of exclusive interests may quarrel among themselves, yet they will unite when the whole craft is in danger; and even when at variance, they will be careful to advance arguments in favour of the principle which sustains their common interest. Leaving, therefore, this extract from the report of the Boston Committee, as proving nothing, let us proceed to the words of the Congressional Committee, and consider what they prove.

A tax on the many to raise a bounty for the few, is allowed by the Committee to be radically wrong, if the tax is permanent. It is impossible to find a better argument in favour of abuses, because it will fit all. The conciliating candour of acknowledging a policy to be bad if permanent, is a solicitation of confidence in the assurance that it is good, if temporary. Few things in this fluctuating world are less permanent than the promises of statesmen and the calculations of financiers; and the nation which submits to exclusive privileges, bounties, monopolies, and other abuses, because they are told they will not be permanent, instead of obtaining felicity like ancient wiseacres, by bestowing their temporary property on priests, will obtain the most permanent political machine we know of; a machine invariably constructed by temporary abuses, namely, a bad government.

[end reading]

Mike:  I’m just going to stop right there because I could read this all day long and never grow tired of it.  As he’s sitting there writing, he’s got the crystal ball from the Wizard of Oz that the Wicked Witch of the West has.  He’s looking in the crystal ball and he’s watching 2013.  He’s watching any session of Congress, any session of a state legislature, just sitting there watching it going: Oh, man, you dummies.  You guys aren’t going to fall for that, are you?  To translate or put into perspective what Taylor is trying to say, if you introduce an abuse into the system and allow it, even if it’s temporary to occur, without denouncing it or doing something about it, then it’s going to remain and become permanent.

Once it becomes permanent, then you’re going to have someone that’s going to abuse, for the privilege of, I don’t know, transferring wealth in the name of healthcare, and then someone else that’s going to contend for the continual transfer of wealth for environmental care, for education.  Name your occupation, name your industry, name your field, and it has been invaded by the federal entity.  You can see that exactly what Taylor was predicting has come true, meaning once you allow one grifter inside the house, the walls of Jericho are going to crash.  What he was watching was northern mercantilists trying and successfully getting Congress to tariff goods shipped into and out of southern states while protecting goods shipped into and out of northern states.  He wasn’t even talking about an internal distribution, although they were talking about it.  He was talking about an external distribution.  My, oh my, if he could see the internal one we have today.

Folks, this is what inspires me to think along the lines I think along, that is that our system has introduced every conceivable form of monopoly and privilege that could possibly be conceived of and introduced.  Not only have we conceived them and introduced them, we have now made them somewhat permanent and protected.  We’re now told they’re called what?  What are they called?  Pop quiz, hotshot: What are they called?  They’re called entitlements.  The people that administer entitlements, you don’t think there are people in on the grift of administering the entitlements?  Of course there are.  We’re also told [mocking] “We’re the United States.  We’ve gotta protect the rest of the planet.”  That’s another entitlement, the military-industrial complex.  [mocking] “Well, we can’t let our guard down.”  We’ve got to spy and do this and that and the other.

What is to be done?  It is probably less likely for things like what he’s talking about to happen in a government that has been, by design, limited in the scope of its powers.  It was specifically created to be limited.  The federal constitution claimed and attempted to do this.  I think it’s safe to say in the 20^th century that we have finished off the job of seeing to it that the federal constitution no longer does and might not be able to do this because of the scale of the endeavor.  What is to be done?  Maybe listen to the clip that I played at the top of the hour and think about it.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

[/private]