Restraining the Political Caste

As outlined earlier, an individual must be a fully qualified member of their local militia in order to be eligible to hold any form of public office and, while required to maintain proficiency, is suspended from enforcement operations for the duration of their time on the tax dole. Legislation may be set by public officials but is executed by the people themselves, as militia or their subordinates.

Since the people as militia have discretion over which laws they enforce, and the manner in which they execute those laws, whether personally or through subcontracted agents, any legislation that is repugnant of the constitution, designed to protect life, liberty, or property, becomes void. There are no permanent tax-funded enforcement bureaucracies that answer directly to legislators. Thus, the legislative and executive branches are thoroughly separated in design and practice.

A political caste, those that derive their living through taxation, regulation, or some other legally enforced privilege does not exist in a private law society, and institutional mechanisms prevent one from forming. Public officials may receive remuneration for their periods of service in office and reimbursement for their expenses, but these payments are determined by their constituents, with only standardization guidelines recommended by the federation. Legislators cannot vote on salary increases or exclusive privileges for themselves with any guarantee of seeing them carried into policy. Nor can they offer benefits to lobbyists or special interest groups with impunity. A political entity that squanders resources on excessively generous compensation packages for their employees will lose constituent subscriptions and network affiliations. Again, private property implies contracts for services must be voluntary and severable. Unsatisfied customers and partners will simply take their business elsewhere or form new safeguards for their liberty.

Each political organization operates according to its own internal business rules, but most follow best industry practices for transparency, with all proceedings, reports, contracts, and expenditures readily searchable through artificial intelligence-enabled online portals. As part of their law enforcement functions, militia members monitor legislative and policy actions to ensure compliance with the limits of delegated authorities and prevent malfeasance.

As a matter of efficiency, legislative actions are largely coordinated remotely. Legislative and policy documents are generated in secure collaborative environments and voted upon using encrypted, auditable systems. Requirements for in-person meetings are minimal, thereby denying opportunities for lobbyists, provocateurs, or other corruption actors to compromise policymakers in a permanent capital location. Ceremonies and other formal proceedings largely occur on the sidelines of the “militia Olympics” and other regular training events.

Executive protection services for public officials are not provided by a centralized general fund or bureaucratic agency, but by the individual’s own militia unit or a subcontracted commercial provider. There is no permanent Secret Service, U.S. Marshals, Diplomatic Security Service, or other Federal Protective Service eating off the tax dole. Each public official relies upon their home militia unit for their security and, reciprocally, is expected to act honorably as that militia unit’s representative. As stated earlier, a militia unit may recall, remove, or simply withdraw protective escort services from any representatives under their watch in the event of any justified fidelity concerns. Of course, this does not happen over unsubstantiated allegations, routine controversies, or petty personality squabbles. Upholding a reputation for integrity and quality service is paramount to militia units and protection contractors that seek expanded subscriber bases and positive institutional legacies. Therefore, protection details fervently guard their principals while seeking to minimize disturbances or untoward appearances.

Fiat Funded Corruption

Questions remain about the source of Epstein’s wealth, financial structures, and the extent of his global activities. The first thing to note is that, under a private law framework and a market-chosen commodity money regime, it is unlikely that Epstein would have commanded the resources necessary to orchestrate such crimes.

Epstein built his empire with fiat money substitutes, unevenly distributed to preferred investment firms through the loose monetary policies of central banks. He and his ilk were foremost beneficiaries of the Cantillon Effect, where politically connected financial institutions receive newly created fiduciary media ahead of the rest of the population, allowing them to invest in assets at lower prices before the inflationary effects are fully manifested.

Without the state-centered fiat monetary system propping up crony financial firms, it is doubtful that Epstein would have profitably operated a money-management advisory or have been awarded such inordinate consulting fees that led to his roughly $600 million net worth. Nor would Epstein have been able to afford the ecosystem of elite properties, private aviation, and structured financial entities that facilitated his crimes.

Next, allegations that Epstein was acting on behalf of a foreign state as part of an intelligence operation to blackmail public officials and subvert key institutions invoke the need for decentralized law enforcement. Local police and state investigators were allegedly told by “federal officials” to back down or look the other way because of “national security” interests.

Again, with the United States operating as a federation of subsidiary republics and the “militia of the several states” responsible for executing “the laws of the union” at the local level, there would be no ability or capacity for officers of the general government to impede local law enforcement activities. The general government of the United States is only constitutionally delegated jurisdiction over three crimes, piracy, counterfeiting, and treason. Epstein was accused of none of these or, for that matter, anything tantamount to making war or threatening the “common defense” of the United States.

The National Security Myth

Further, there is no such thing as “national security” for the United States. Once again, the United States is, not a monolithic nation, but a federation of republics composed of multiple nations. It is important to distinguish between a nation, which is an ethno-linguistic cultural community, and a state or political organization incorporated to orchestrate security and justice functions in a given geographic territory.

While on the topic, in contrast to a state, government consists of the people, offices, agencies, and institutions erected to implement a state’s authority. Both states and governments are political entities with distinct activities. Politics is the dynamic of social coercion through combinations of psychological influence and physical force. Maintaining clear definitions of the terms, nation, state, government, and politics is imperative because blurring such distinctions is one of the ways in which cunning individuals undermine the proper administration of political authority (which should be solely for the protection of life, liberty, and property).

Referring to the United States as a nation is a form of cognitive warfare aimed at normalizing the idea of centralized authority at the expense of each member state’s local autonomy. Artificially lumping all the citizens of a state into a homogeneous nation erodes the distinct social bonds and genuine cultural identity of the people. It is an act of usurpation that undermines the subsidiarity principle and threatens the security of a “free state” within the federal structure. The same can be said for transforming the “militia of the several states” into National Guard structures, which are merely state-administered adjuncts of the United States Army or Air Force.

Centralization of power continues with the concentration of “national security” activities in the Executive Branch, the military-industrial complex, and various war powers resolutions that yield congressional responsibilities to the President. Easily corrupted by their physical presence in a capital city teeming with lobbyists, senators and representatives continually defer decision-making with vaguely worded “authorizations to use military force,” and unbridled military spending.

So, for a private property legal order to operate under the United States Constitution, there can be no National Guard or authorities invented pursuant to “national” security. Congress can raise an army for up to two years at a time and maintain a navy for patrolling territorial waters. They can declare war or issue letters of marque and reprisal. Any public official that strays from these constitutional limitations, as detailed above, faces harsh and immediate penalties from their constituents and personal liability for their actions.

Espionage and Treason

With local polities monitoring their public officers for any trespasses on the limits of delegated authorities, and grand juries working with the militia to investigate allegations of criminal violations, politicians and bureaucrats must walk a narrow path in the performance of their duties. Beyond mere recall from office, penalties for gross misconduct and oath breaking could result in an ignominious death if a public official is found guilty of making war on the people whose life, liberty, and property they swore to protect.

A private law society, and any Free State established to uphold that legal order, protects the property of its members. In contrast, the various manifestations of socialism institutionalize aggression against property and routinely interfere with contracts for the exchange thereof. Eternal vigilance is the necessary condition for people oriented toward preventing those entrusted with coordinating policy from perverting those institutions created for protection into mechanisms of parasitism and plunder.

Since the militia is the chief institution charged with implementing the policies promulgated by public officers, the people themselves who compose the militia are the ultimate check on which polices are put into effect at the local level, as well as the manner of implementation. Any public official supporting, advocating, or voting for policies that violate the rights and properties of their constituents is immediately pulled from office and subject to prosecution and penalty.

Remember, public officials conduct most business and voting through cryptographically secure remote means, and the absence of a permanent central capital denies convenient access to lobbyists and other corrupting influences. Public officers depend upon the local militia or a subcontracted provider for security escort on all official travel. This allows for immediate recall of any public official who steps out of line, assumes an undelegated authority, gets embroiled in scandal, or otherwise defiles the organization they represent.

Treason is a particularly egregious crime defined by hostile acts aimed at overthrowing the legal order or government an individual has previously sworn allegiance. The ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu rightly posited that “all war is based on deception” and, similarly, treason normally occurs through surreptitious means, such as espionage or aiding an enemy force.

Taxation is robbery, and there is no place for it in a free society. Political entities under a private property legal order gain revenue through voluntary subscriptions and are only authorized to spend from the public treasury according to the limits of contractually delegated functions. Any public official seeking to alter the voluntary and contractual nature of this arrangement is swiftly removed through the civil monitoring, grand jury, recall, and militia mechanisms built into the constitutional order.

Further, any public official spending, or conspiring to spend, from the public treasury in violation of contractual terms, particularly to benefit a hostile entity or foreign state, is committing treason, an act of war. Just as the political theorist Lysander Spooner wrote in his 1882 Natural Law; or the Science of Justice, the dividing line between peace and war is the treatment of property; what he called the science of mine versus thine.

In a private law society, any attack on another’s justly held property is treated as an act of war and there is no immunity for public officials. Jeffrey Epstein’s blackmail and bribery activities targeted U.S. public officials in order to, allegedly, provide diplomatic and material aid to a foreign state. Thus, any public official caught in the Epstein web would have been either deterred from advancing the corrupt agenda by fear of harsher penalties, removed from office at the first sign of compromise, or swiftly prosecuted as soon as they tried to leverage their positions for nefarious purposes.

Subscribe now

Prosecuting Official Misconduct

Allegations of official misconduct are taken seriously, not only because of the victim or victims’ right to justice, but on account of the reputational harm incurred to a political entity when one of its representatives goes rogue. Again, in a private law society, organic political associations only attract members, partners, and network affiliations through voluntary consent. An impeccable record of upstanding conduct and competent service delivery is indispensable to institutional sustenance and growth. Scandals and accusations of misconduct threaten an organization’s survivability. Thus, the members have powerful incentives to “police their own” with a variety of corrective mechanisms.

As detailed earlier, political industry standards and best practices maintain that all proceedings, contracts, policies, and transactions undertaken by politicians, bureaucrats, and subcontractors are transparent, with immutable records immediately subject to open-source monitoring. A representative’s voting record speaks for itself, yet the details of legislation and how policy gets practically implemented are often buried in minutiae. Therefore, citizen subcommittees, supported by Large Language Model (LLM), Machine Learning (ML), and Artificial Intelligence (AI) computer systems, scan official records to detect any hints of fraud, bribery, resource diversion, non-competitive steering, or procurement manipulation.

It is important to remember that in a private law society there are no tax-funded incentives or inducements for distractive pastimes, like sports and entertainment. There is no standing military bureaucracy with liaison outposts to the movie industry, sporting associations, or gaming tournaments. There’s no standing military to provide flyovers, parachute demonstrations, or band performances at various sporting events. There are no disbursements from public treasuries for “bread and circuses” used by public officials to distract the populace. While a variety of sports activities exist, they receive no official support from public officials, financial or otherwise. Instead, polities are, by charter, limited to only subsidizing activities that help organize, arm, and discipline the militia to perform necessary security and law enforcement functions, as detailed in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 of the United States Constitution.

Therefore, citizens are highly civic-minded, practiced in the principles of discernment regarding policy, and oriented toward the administration of local self-government. While one’s militia unit is the most prominent aspect of civic and political life, other constituent-staffed activities and committees handle a variety of administrative functions. Second to the militia, grand juries are the most important vehicle for criminal investigations and law enforcement in a property-centered legal order.

Grand juries receive complaints, subpoena evidence, call witnesses, hear testimony, and issue indictments on all matters of public officer misconduct, independently of any “official” prosecutor or bureaucratic court system. Most grand jury proceedings occur in cryptographically secure online spaces and are not reliant upon state-furnished workspaces or facilitators.

While all able-bodied citizens are, in principle, obliged to perpetually serve their local militia as a condition of membership in a political community, service on a grand jury is limited to specific periods of time. Further, militia service is overt and nearly universal, yet grand jury participation is largely confidential and randomly selected to prevent any interference with the proceedings. Like other public officials, grand jury members are required to maintain militia proficiency during their periods of empanelment but are excused from law enforcement activities.

Grand juries issue orders to the militia for gathering records and witnesses, or to make arrests. In this way, the grand jury guides the militia toward addressing legitimate legal concerns but, since they face liability for any unlawful harms committed in the act investigation or enforcement, militia members create a check on the power of the grand jury and ensure a due process of law in all cases under their jurisdiction.

The combined efforts of subcommittee monitoring, grand jury indictments, and militia enforcement dissuade public officer misconduct, leading to the “frugal government” described in Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address. That is, decentralized popular constitutionalism and civic engagement, channeled into specific institutions for enforcing a common law oriented on private property, prevent public officers from perverting the mechanisms of security and justice into instruments of predation and plunder.

Wither Crime and Corruption

Having sketched key aspects of economics, society, law enforcement, and governmental institutions under a private property-centered legal order, solutions to Jeffrey Epstein’s adjudicated and alleged crimes become clear.

In 2008, Epstein pled guilty to two Florida state charges, felony solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution, in a highly controversial agreement that allowed him to evade federal sex trafficking charges. Victims and investigators have long alleged that Epstein ran a “vast network” where underage girls were sexually abused and lent to powerful business executives, politicians, and world leaders for illicit purposes.

Under a private property legal framework, such a state-orchestrated “sweetheart deal” would never have been brokered. Epstein’s evasion of justice occurred through the fundamental error of allowing state attorneys and federal prosecutors to conclude such an easy arrangement and end the investigation into what later turned out to be a vast conspiracy with geopolitical implications.

In a private property legal order, as outlined above, parents, guardians, and victim advocates seek restitution on behalf of children through common law courts and only settle when an adequate compensation plan is reached, up to and including corporeal punishment, depending on the severity of the crimes. Tax-funded bureaucrats do not get to decide on behalf of individual citizens what cases get settled, dropped, or prosecuted. Nor do public officials hold privileged access to relevant evidence. Information discovered by grand jury investigations and other legal proceedings becomes subject to public examination. This then opens the field for market-based justice actions.

Profit-motivated attorneys are incentivized to vigorously advocate on behalf of crime victims and seek the maximum restitution package based on precedent and custom. Further, private attorneys are driven to expand their client base of victims and implicate the widest field of criminal co-conspirators to hold liable. Simultaneously, grand juries and militia, working on behalf of each political entity in the federation, would have conducted inquests on any public officials involved under their jurisdiction. Thus, numerous investigations, public and private, acting independently and in concert, would have probed Jeffrey Epstein’s activities to reveal the fullest possible tapestry of facilitators, clients, and victims.

The Culture of Accountability

Ultimately, a private property legal order depends upon the values of the people composing that society and their willingness to assert self-government through continual action. Sustainable social justice requires continued popular participation in the necessary institutions of vigilance committees, grand juries, and, especially, the militia. Leaving these crucial functions in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, affording them a near monopoly on justice and security functions, is a path to ruination.

The United States could operate as an organic, voluntary, and decentralized federation of independent republics with the most local polities retaining the preponderance of authority. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits this type of operational practice, and, in fact, the member states could, as Madison described in Federalist 45, assert their “indefinite” powers over the “few and defined” of the general government at any time. However, the multifarious reasons why the member states of the federation do not rein in the out-of-control regime in Washington D.C. stem from more than just a lack of popular will. Everyone knows there are problems but lack clarity about what to do. To effectuate positive change, dissatisfaction with the status quo must be channeled into constructive reforms, and that first requires discernment as to what constitutes right action.

Right action is that which promotes a social and legal order that protects private property through the enforcement of two fundamental laws: Do all you have agreed to do and do not encroach upon other people or their property. These two laws encourage discernment by providing clear, intersubjectively ascertainable boundaries for the legitimate application of force. Property boundaries, beginning with the human body and culturally appropriate buffer zones, are physical demarcations for applying, as Lysander Spooner, cited above, termed the science of justice, or the science of mine versus thine.

Violations of property, also known as crimes, or contracts to exchange property, also known as breaches, are the only justifiably enforceable claims in a private law society. All other assertions of rights must be rejected, particularly by those involved in the enforcement, lest they face liability. There can be no special interest group rights (minorities, inanimate objects, abstractions, irrational actors (non-humans), forces of nature, etc.). All rights are rooted in property titles, and all law is orchestrated toward maintaining the integrity of, or arranging restitution for, violations of legitimately held property claims.

Passing strict laws is meaningless unless people uphold them. There can never be enough paid law enforcement officers to overcome a depraved population. That politics is downstream from culture, and that institutions only reflect prevailing social attitudes, is an inescapable fact that is especially true for a private law society.

The present description of how a private property legal order could function as a federation of republics under a constitutional framework, like the United States, assumes that the people are sufficiently civic minded to staff the key institutions, namely grand juries and militia.

There are ways, as outlined above, to align financial and psychological incentives to encourage participation in these organizations that are “necessary” for securing a Free State. Yet, there is much more to be explored on how to make the arrangement sustainable, resistant to the Iron Law of Oligarchy or other forms of centralization.

Another issue for future research is how a private law society can overcome the atrophy of security consciousness over time. The adage that “hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times” speaks to observable sociological phenomenon and theories of generational cycles. The tremendous prosperity made possible through a private law society’s productivity makes the population susceptible to indulgence and lethargy.

Having the militia act as a training center for not only teaching “when” the use of force is legitimate, through studies in history, law and political economy, but also “how” to apply force through technical and tactical means, is essential to both inculcating and integrating a disciplined population, with a shared baseline of values, that is capable of self-government.

This discipline is also imperative for instilling the type of self-esteem that prevents elevating public officials to an exclusive status or falling prey to propaganda. Indeed, the militia, both as an educational institution and enforcement mechanism, is vital to keeping all government actors restrained to the limits of their delegated authority.

The Swiss political theorist Karl Ludwig von Haller conceived of a private law arrangement as an “eidgenosse,” or a network of alliances based on oaths. In German, “eid” means oath and “genosse” means companion or comrade. An “eidgenossenschaft” or federation of oath-fellows, implies a voluntary agreement among people with equal legal standing.

Of course, Switzerland is not a utopia, and Swiss history is not free from episodes of injustice and subjugation. Further, political theory always differs from political practice. The map is never the territory, and no plan survives contact with reality.

However, the idea of an “eidgenossenschaft,” an oath-based legal order between equals, precludes any privileges or immunities for the likes of a corruption agent like Jeffrey Epstein. Citizen-based law enforcement and prosecution, without dependence upon tax-funded politicians and bureaucrats, is the key. These necessary institutions already exist in the legacy of Anglo-American jurisprudence and the United States Constitution.

A private law society becomes ever more achievable as people orient on the goal of inviolate property rights, enforceable through two fundamental laws, and activating the legal remedies already available. The necessary substratum for putting rogue officials, along with the insidious racket that Epstein leveraged, is an organized, armed, and disciplined population willing to assert and enforce the principle of equal justice under a common law.

Share Everyday Samurai

Law, Customs, and Culture

A property-centered legal order encompasses a broad variety of enforceable crimes. As expected, all of them are oriented toward the integrity of private property. The basic principles of natural law, do all you have agreed to do and do not encroach upon other persons or their property, provide the basis for contract and criminal law. Both are rooted in the integrity of property and its conflict-free exchange.

The first property, of course, is the human body, and any non-consensual contact can fit the common definitions of assault, battery, murder, or rape, etc., depending on the nature of the incident. An individual’s justly held possessions, whether acquired through original appropriation from the raw state of nature, or through voluntary transactions, such as trade or gifts, are protected from violations by law and customs.

Discussing customs, as a cultural phenomenon of accepted and expected ways of behaving, given particular social attitudes according to certain times and places, is an important aspect of law because there can never be enough enforcement resources to overcome a disrespectful culture. A society that does not largely accept the tenets of natural law is, by definition, uncivilized and tends toward chaos, upheaval, and tyranny. This is why the Federalist Papers describe democracy, a variant of the political philosophy now known as socialism, as being turbulent in their lives and violent in their deaths.

Many people have been conditioned through public schooling and mass media propaganda to associate democracy with freedom. Misplaced faith in the validity of voting as a euphemism for self-government only benefits the political caste by relinquishing to them centralized power, ill-defined governmental authorities, and passivity while the masses wait for the next election. These erroneous beliefs do not hold in a private law society. The security of individuals in their lives, liberties, and properties, along with the best means of defending them, holds greater importance than demagoguery and winning popularity contests.

Customs set the boundaries of order much more than legal codes when considering social interactions. The expectation that a customer will pay after a restaurant serves them a meal is an example of an informal contract, largely enforced through cultural norms. The dominant service relationship would fundamentally change if people did not respect this mode of behavior, and there could never be enough law enforcement officers to impose payment in the event of mass non-compliance.

The point here is to illustrate how important customs are to social order and, indeed, are more fundamental to domestic tranquility than legal codes. A private property legal order, with well-regulated militia as the indispensable node in the matrix governance landscape, addresses both law and customs. The population is organized and disciplined for militia service, and expected modes of behavior are inculcated along with preparations to conduct security and law enforcement operations. People learn to interact with each other in a respectful manner while recognizing, through direct experience in weapons handling, the implications of conflict. Again, an armed society is a polite one, and avoiding quarrels is paramount as a matter of personal survival. Social harmony is the product of this discipline.

So, courtesy, manners, and respect for others prevail in a private law society. Informal contracts are upheld through customs, and laws are designed to affirm the integrity of private property, which inherently includes the unfettered exchange thereof. A free market in arms is especially important as a necessary precondition for the people to perform their civic duty of helping to secure a Free State. Thus, a virtuous cycle of social evolution exists through participation in militia service as the primary institution of self-governance. The people are organized, armed, and disciplined to secure lives, liberty, and property for themselves and their fellow citizens.

Those that refuse to participate in this aspect of community service are ostracized, those that violate the law are harshly rebuked, and no one is forced to subsidize the profligate lifestyles of others. So, criminality and anti-social behaviors are kept to a minimum by this incentive structure.

The Humanity of Cold Legal Analysis

A private property legal order appears highly materialistic to some observers. However, property provides a common denominator by which the correctness of human action can be judged. In this way, a private law society is more humanistic, with people assessed by the conduct of their character, than what is found in a socialist, state-centric legal order, where a person’s status takes precedence over the relationships they hold or the agreements they have made.

The British historian and jurist Henry Sumner Maine rightly observed that the greatest advance in legal thought was the move from status to contract. A private property order operationalizes this evolution so that no individual can pervert the law based on who they are or the positions they hold. Every legal case, for everyone, is based upon ownership of their bodies, their personal possessions, or the transferred authority given to them by others via implicit or explicit contracts.

Public officials are subject to these same strictures to the same degree as any other citizen. No one can interfere with the rights to property, nor abrogate or invent a contract, which are nothing more than agreements to exchange property, without a valid claim to established law or custom. There are no privileges or immunities, no subsidies or dispensations, for anyone based on race, color, religion, sex, or office. One only has authority over their own property, acquired through original appropriation, trade, or gift, or the property of others conditionally made available for their use through contracted arrangements.

Children also possess natural self-ownership rights, but also due to the disability of their biological development, exist under the guardianship of their parents or legal caretakers. Until they reach full maturity, a child’s rights are held in trust by their guardians, who in turn have the authority to assert property rights on behalf of their children.

Accusations of abuse or negligence made against parents are difficult to prosecute, since few, if any, can claim a stronger property trusteeship than a parent, and there are no tax-funded child and family regulatory bureaucracies in a private property legal order (no one in their right mind would voluntarily join such an invasive political arrangement). However, social institutions, such as churches, fraternities, and mutual aid societies, can impose significant pressure and sanctions on parents to behave responsibly. Some may even include a code of conduct regarding the status of children as a condition of membership, with penalties and procedures for dealing with accusations or confirmed cases of child abuse.

The same is situation applies to the highly contentious issue of abortion. No one has a stronger claim of property ownership over a woman’s body, or a baby growing inside it, than the mother. Rightly, then, no one can interfere with her decisions about how to dispose of it. Most members of a mutual defense community or political society would not elect to pay extra to build the surveillance and enforcement mechanisms necessary to prevent every doctor, pharmacist, herbalist, or folk healer from servicing every birthing-age female within their jurisdiction with abortion services or products, and those that would only have very limited jurisdictional ranges. Therefore, under a private property legal code, abortion is legal, yet can be highly discouraged through social institutions and customs. Further, because of the soundness of free-market money and a low time preference, high-trust society, charitable institutions that offer relief to pregnant teens and orphans are prolific.

Simultaneously, many church communities have young girls, under their parents’ consent, enter contracts in which they promise to deliver the child unto the religious community’s care rather than seek an abortion. Again, community pressure and the fear of ostracism are much more effective at dealing with thorny issues than building an expensive, intrusive, and authoritarian police state.

Share

Arbitration and Restitution

Recognizing that children are self-owning individuals whose rights are held in trust by their parents or guardians allows for analyzing crimes committed against them with a private law lens. Parents or guardians hold the property rights of the children in their care until the age of emancipation, from which a child can assert their own agency. Those who violate children’s rights are liable for restitution to the child’s parents or legal guardian.

Assault, battery, theft, fraud, robbery, or negligent homicide are, to describe it dispassionately, fairly straightforward cases and easily handled through existing precedents and case law. Remedies will vary among jurisdictions and according to local customs and conditions; however, there is a general rule of “two teeth for a tooth” in libertarian legal theory. This posits that an offender owes compensation to a victim in the form of whatever costs they’ve imposed by their offensive actions, first to restore the victim to their prior state, then double that amount as punishment and to compensate for the inconvenience caused by the offense. Added to this are the costs of administering justice, paid to the rights enforcement and arbitration agencies involved, both political and commercial.

Most of the settlement issues between two upstanding members of society would likely be sorted out between the individuals’ insurance agencies, to minimize the disruptions to a victim’s life and livelihood, in stark contrast to statist-bureaucratic legal procedures that tend to drag on at minimal efficiency. In a private law society, the perpetrators’ comeuppance is normally felt most severely after the victim receives compensation from their insurance company. The financial reckoning comes with the cost of maintaining membership in the matrix of relationships that depend on good character and conduct, such as employment, liability coverage, militia affiliation, political community, and other civic groups. The road to rehabilitation is quite extensive and involves many steps when people are not forced to accept someone they disagree with onto their properties, or in their businesses or clubs.

Those without strong social bonds or some form of political affiliation, as covered previously, lack insurance or militia membership coverage, and therefore, are considered outside the law’s protection. They are more colloquially known as outlaws. It is very difficult to live as an outlaw in a private property legal order.

Property rights inherently entail the prerogative to include or exclude, to associate or disassociate, to collaborate or separate. With equal justice under a common law, no public official or political body can override property rights and compel artificial social integration. Everyone reserves the right to refuse service or affiliation with anyone for any reason. When property owners insist upon evidence of a person’s character, or in some cases liability coverage, before admitting them onto their premises or into their organizations, those without social proof will be pushed outside the bounds of civil society.

Outlaws will only find respite in unincorporated spaces that lack the infrastructure and conveniences of a developed economy or functioning civil society. Alternatively, they can find refuge inside specialty facilities, along with the strict supervisory rules and agreements discussed earlier with regard to criminal rehabilitation.

Extreme Criminal Cases

Then, what about egregious cases, such as child or elder abuse, sexual assault, rape, premeditated murder, or sadistic torture? With an emphasis on restitution, is there a place for the death penalty in a private property legal order? The short answer is, yes.

A liability verdict rendered in a criminal case against an offender offers the victim a claim to restitution. A restitution claim acts like a corporate bond. The offender must legally make regular coupon payments in accordance with the terms of the judgement until the principal is fully discharged. The offender becomes a debtor and the victim becomes a creditor. The adjudicated bond is a claim to future payments and, from this, it is easy to conceive the emergence of a market for trading and servicing such “criminal justice” bonds.

Some creditors (former victims) would prefer a lump sum payment in the present rather than waiting on incremental coupon payments. Capital management firms offer discounted cash buyouts to the holders of criminal justice bonds in exchange for the claim to the full remaining value in the future. This is similar to how financial services companies purchase loans from banks. Through these sales, banks free up liquidity to offer more loans to retail or commercial clients while the loan buyers collect future coupon payments or sell the loans on the secondary market. Sometimes loans are bundled into other financial products, such as the mortgage-backed securities that became famous during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.

Criminal justice bonds also carry significant risk, again, similar to how mortgage-backed securities turned out to be chock-full of non-performing loans in 2008. Criminals generally tend to neglect social obligations, and it is readily conceivable that repaying debts to their victims would follow this pattern. Therefore, their creditors in many cases happily accept a discounted price for the bonds they hold in the present. Firms that purchase these bonds accept the possibility of default in the future but receive the premium value for, first, shouldering the risk, and, second, accepting the time-bound terms of a bond coming into maturity.

In a private law society, there is no official lender of last resort, no tax-funded bailout mechanisms, and no business is too big to fail. Under hard money standards, no central bank exists with the power to “print” fiduciary media ex nihilo to provide financial institutions with emergency liquidity injections. To remain viable, capital management firms take risk analysis seriously, and contractual relationships for insurance and reinsurance are made with due diligence.

Analyzing criminal justice bonds is a niche skill requiring due consideration for the nature of the crime, the compensation due, the conditions of the debtor, and the likelihood of repayment.

At some point, the liabilities incurred from a person’s criminal behavior exceed their ability to make restitution or garner support from criminal rehabilitation firms, insurance companies, or charitable organizations. Particularly egregious crimes may lead to a victim, or the caretakers of a victim’s estate, to refuse any amount of monetary compensation for their loss. Such cases are generally rare, but there are legal provisions that lead to criminals facing corporal forms of punishment. Rapists and other sexual assaulters, for example, may submit to chemical castration in return for reduced financial penalties or other, harsher, retributions. Again, the law and social customs in a private property legal order tend to prefer restitution and other efforts to restore victims of crime to wholeness, rather than punishment, yet a holistic approach to justice encompasses a full gamut of remedies.

Imposing the death penalty opens the market for justice services from a variety of angles. First, the victims’ adjudicated claims to an offender’s death are relatively rare and fetch a commensurate premium. A variety of market actors bid on the right to overtake these death penalty claims.

First, charitable groups and compassionate criminal rehabilitation organizations, which may have been previously uninterested in a case, take notice of death penalty claims after they are issued. These groups raise the compensation levels, liability bonds, and control conditions in order to save the offender’s life. On the other hand, “tough on crime” groups, vigilance associations, and chivalric societies offer to purchase the right to the execution claim in hopes of seeing “harsh justice” done. The bid and counter-bid process leads to higher compensation for the victim and relief from the burdens of finalizing execution arrangements.

Next, the actual conduct of executing the offender also sees a variety of market opportunities. Various groups negotiate over the circumstances and methods of execution. Even the condemned offender, usually working through advocates, gets a say on whether the event will be public-facing or a private affair. An offender may agree to make their own execution a type of “pay-per-view” event, with a negotiated portion of the proceeds set aside for their offspring, estate, or some other beneficiary. Promotional agents bid for the rights to host the events among a tapestry of venues, insurers, and standardization bodies that strive toward a professional and profitable performance.

Personal integrity and esprit de corps are esteemed in a private law society. Alongside the duty to serve in the militia, and the corresponding requirements to be organized, armed, and disciplined to carry out security and justice functions, an honor code exists that inspires upstanding individuals to act courageously, pursue excellence in the martial arts, and perform admirably in matters of life and death. Alongside the personal responsibility imposed by a hard money standard, and strict adherence to contracts, one’s reputation for fidelity and martial virtue is a prize that cannot be commoditized like what is seen in a world of fiat money and politically perverted law. Performing a lawful execution well becomes both an expression of skill and a solemn responsibility that reflects upon the executioner’s own character as well as the organizations they are a part of.

So, martial adepts, militia units, vigilance committees, and other criminal justice advocates vie for the opportunity to carry out a death sentence for a variety of reasons. Foremost among these is raising restitution funds for the victim, derived from the bidding process, charitable donations, and, in many cases, ticket sales for the event. However, many do it in hopes of elevating their reputations as skillful and dutiful citizen-warriors. It is an honor to “swing the sword” of justice in a worthy case and earning the privilege, as well as the remuneration for the act, requires demonstrable skill. Militia units, insurance firms, standardization bodies, and a variety of interest groups take due care to ensure the event will be conducted competently and without incident.

This also leads to related preparatory training, competition, and certification events at various sorts of “militia Olympics” that ensure only mentally, physically, and technically prepared individuals are selected for the task. Only those qualified through an arduous pipeline of preparation, and endorsed by their militia units, can become an official executioner. Further, militia units, their insurers and reinsurers, along with other affiliated groups, provide psychological counseling and spiritual aftercare for those who conduct executions. Indeed, there is popular acclaim and prestige for performing these necessary duties, but the burdens of taking a human life outside of direct combat weigh heavily over the long-term. Portions of the proceeds are set aside for restoring the executioner to personal wholeness as well as social reintegration.

Thus, the death penalty is rare in a private law society that prizes restitution over retribution, but there are cases that require extreme justice remedies, and the free market readily adapts to provide a variety of solutions

.

It is not a “civil war” for Americans to “execute the laws of the Union” upon rogue officials that are abusing the limits of their delegated authority.

The Revolution was won in 1776 and no “second revolution” is necessary for We The People to reassert self-governance amid the corrupt actions of criminals holding the reins of government. It does, however, require individual patriots to develop clear thinking about the nature of political authority, constitutional order, and civic duty. Most importantly, it requires overcoming propaganda, operant conditioning, and the personal fear barrier.

This is just another way of saying an organized, armed, and, most importantly, disciplined population is “necessary” for securing a Free State. The remedy for most of the political ills plaguing society, e.g., central banking, fractional reserves, inflation, welfare, cronyism, boom-bust cycles, incompatible immigration, property violations, foreign interventionism, illegitimate elections, etc., is empowered individuals that act entrepreneurially, accumulate wealth, and cultivate influence to contribute to the mutual well-being of their communities.

This is The Way.

Learn more:

TheEndOfGunControl.com

Connect:

Link.EverydaySamurai.Life

Merch:

Shop.EverydaySamurai.Life

Imagine a scenario for dealing with the Epstein scandal under a private property legal order. Such a system does not preclude the existence of the United States as a compound republic, although it does require a radical reinterpretation of the political order operating through the Constitution. First, the United States is a federation of political entities, each one an independent republic, cooperating for mutual protection and commerce according to the stipulations of a written contract. The general government can only act on the limited authorities delegated to it via the contract, while the member states retain sovereignty within their geographic territories, except for those things prohibited to them by the federal operating charter.

Political Economic Contours

The monetary standard is based on coins minted according to fixed weights and measures of commodity metals, gold and silver, purchased at market prices. There is no such thing as a Federal Reserve Note, because there are no constitutional provisions for the general government to establish a central bank, no political entity may issue bills of credit, and all fiduciary media must be backed by the commodity coin held by the issuer. In other words, there can be no inflation because issuing unbacked fiduciary media is a crime of fraud, and those holding public office can only spend from the public treasury in pursuit of a delegated authority. Therefore, the private law society enjoys price stability and increased material standards of living that come from sound money, secure property titles, and the productivity gains generated through free trade.

Share

Individual states are also constituted through specific contracts between the citizens, based on voluntary consent, that delineate responsibilities and authorities, as well as the costs involved for the benefits of security and justice provided by the political association. Each member state enters the United States for a fixed duration through a voluntary ratification process that can also be used for exiting the union at will.

Again, all monetary transactions are based on a commodity metal standard denominated by fixed weights and measures, such as grains, grams, ounces, and pounds, and there is no authority for public officials to manipulate or otherwise fix market prices, including the price ratio between gold and silver. All prices, including the price of political membership, are identified through the market process of supply and demand.

Localities attract members and expand their coverage areas based on providing higher quality property protection and dispute resolution at reasonable prices. Localities affiliate with each other to form counties, or enter an existing county, that also compete for membership by providing effective security coordination and reinsurance with attractive terms. Counties affiliate with states, or form their own, based on mutual contracts oriented on protecting their constituent’s property via security service provision, insurance, and related industries, such as intelligence analysis, defense technology development, and legal case codification.

Duties and Service Limitations

Citizenship has costs. Aside from paying membership fees and agreeing to abide by established rules of civilized conduct, each able-bodied citizen has a duty to perform militia service. This means being organized, armed, and disciplined to perform certain security and justice functions, such as executing the laws, repelling invasions, and suppressing insurrections. Militia units are formed at the local level, according to the particular customs and affiliations of that area and are left to manage their own affairs so long as they meet the performance standards set forth by the rules of affiliation with the county, state, and federation.

The militia of the several states are the key institutions for law enforcement, with all police, sheriffs, and constables falling subordinate to their local jurisdiction, and all state or federal agents are obliged to work through those local offices to implement policy. Specialized services not organic to the militia or their subordinate enforcement agencies, such as forensics, laboratory analysis, cyber, or, cryptography, etc., are supplemented by market-based providers on a contract basis.

A hard money standard with contractual service relationships imposes fiscal discipline on all public officials and administrators, leaving no common pool of idle resources to divert toward servicing special interests. The general government of the United States maintains a Navy for patrolling the territorial waters of the federation and coastal defense, but none of its assets can go beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone of two hundred nautical miles without a specific congressional declaration of war that temporarily establishes a joint operations area until the cessation of hostilities.

There is no tax funded Coast Guard, but each member state of the federation has a variety of maritime law enforcement entities under its militia, and several market-based firms provide emergency rescue services to subscribers. Congress can also raise an Army for up to two years at a time, and those forces can only campaign outside the United States upon a legislated war declaration with specific military objectives identified by Congress. Of course, Congress can also issue letters of marque and reprisal that grant privateers rewards and bounties for achieving certain external security objectives, such as punishing hostile foreign entities. However, privateers are subject to the legal jurisdictions in which they operate and generally confine their activities to ungoverned spaces and the high seas.

Multinational corporations and international shipping concerns that take their business outside the geographic jurisdiction of the United States must arrange for their own security and navigate the legal environments in which they operate. This has several positive effects on the U.S. political economy.

First, it alleviates financial and other resource drains on American taxpayers. The public treasury, Army, Navy, and diplomatic corps are not expended on foreign interests that have nothing to do with the ‘common defense’ of the United States. Second, absent these security subsidies, more companies are incentivized to focus domestically, leading to more investment, employment, and production at home. Third, the prices of imports are more accurately reflected at the points of sale, leading to an increased search for domestically sourced substitute goods. Fourth, rather than depending upon tax-funded bureaucracies, a thriving market in protective services, technologies, and insurance products caters to the particular needs of multinational corporations and international shipping carriers, leading to greater specialization and technological progress that spills into other niches in the overall security industry.

Subscribe now

Homeland Security and Justice

There are no permanent federal law enforcement bureaucracies. The militia of the several states are the primary institutions for security against external threats, repelling invasions, as well as ‘executing the laws of the union’ inside the federation’s jurisdiction. This ensures that legislators cannot pass laws that cause harm or impose undue costs on the people. The prevailing political philosophy and cultural norm is equal justice under a common law, with no privileges or immunities for anyone, whether or not they hold public office, and all enforcement is oriented toward the protection of life, liberty, and property.

Therefore, there are no wars on inanimate objects, like drugs or guns, nor any coercive redistribution schemes, like the war on poverty and its various subsidies for the indolent. Charity is no part of the legislative duties of government, but it proliferates in the private sector with tax credits and political membership dues discounts to those that donate toward the social good. However, since governments are humble, frugal, and restrained to their limited functions, there is no reckless unconstitutional spending that eats out the peoples’ substance, no inflation occurs on a hard monetary standard that destroys purchasing power and depletes savings. Nothing prevents capital formation or investment. This means technological progress and increased material abundance. The security people enjoy in their justly held property means high-trust, low time preference attitudes prevail throughout society.

Anyone can create, cultivate, possess, buy, or sell anything they want from whomever they choose, so long as the transactions are voluntary and cause no verifiable harm to anyone else. This is an application of the equal justice under a common law principle. This means an accuser must show material harm from a defendant’s actions. The burden to prove harm is on the accuser, and the integrity of private property is the standard of proof, covering all forms of cases, from noise pollution to murder, necessitating highly conservative yet entrepreneurial social attitudes. There is no ownership of thoughts, so there are no frivolous cases of antitrust, intellectual property, defamation, hate speech, or wrong-think. Since there is no obligatory welfare, food assistance, or unemployment benefits, people are incentivized to look after their own health, work to the best of their abilities, and abide by the rules of private insurance and mutual aid societies in order to reduce risk and prepare for their long-term care. Additionally, the discipline involved with militia service inculcates a health and fitness orientation that promotes the mind-body-spirit wellness usually associated with traditional martial arts training.

The Role and Conditions of Public Officials

Much of the political gravity and popular discussion surrounding the American federation of republics is focused on the member states and general government. However, in terms of practical operations, the preponderance of government activity occurs in sub-county entities. Just as Thomas Jefferson’s plans for “ward-republics” involved local self-government organized around territories and population densities large enough to compose a militia company, so too would a private property legal order largely revolve around participation in the militia and activities at the unit level.

As stated earlier, the militia depends upon having a population that is organized, armed, and disciplined (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16) so that they can actively participate in executing the laws of the union, repelling invasions, and suppressing insurrections (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15), as a necessary contribution to securing a free state (Second Amendment). The “free state” aspect applies to both the entire federation, which forms a compound republic, in relation to foreign states, as well as the member states vis-à-vis each other and the general government. Viewing the multi-dimensional, i.e., interstate, inter-federal, and intra-state, and full-spectrum security functions of the militia, i.e., law enforcement, territorial security, and domestic order, only reinforces why these crucial institutions are the only ones listed in the United States Constitution as necessary.

The militia of the several states are the indispensable node for government to function; they are the key to justice, defense, and domestic tranquility. The militia also provide training that ensures citizens possess moral virtues, sociability, and practical skills to maintain a private property legal order. Organizing and disciplining the militia is how shared values are inculcated, community spirit is fostered, and where leadership (as well as followership) skills are cultivated.

The militia companies are led by officers selected from within, by only the fully qualified members, with fixed durations and terms of office. The selection process is determined by individual militia company charters, so long as the provisions conform with the general organizational regulations set forth by the U.S. Congress and the individual state. However, the federal and state regulations, as a matter of principle, simply delineate the task organization expected of the militia to deal with the prevailing security conditions on behalf of those legislative bodies. Otherwise, the militia are left to attend to their own affairs within the sphere of their local ward-republic.

In this scenario, most ward-republics require that only fully qualified militia members, in good standing, are eligible to hold public office of any kind. Under a private property legal order, there would be little incentive, or authority, for communities to maintain tax-funded schools, animal control, sanitation services, or other utilities, with all those activities best conducted through voluntary contracts, disciplined by the market forces of supply and demand, and constantly guided by profit-and-loss signals. However, in the event that a ward-republic agrees by charter to establish such bureaucracies, those holding tax-funded positions must, for the duration of their parasitic employment, lose their qualified militia member status, the right to vote as a citizen, and, while still needing to maintain proficiencies, cease all involvement in law enforcement activity.

Those who live from taxes cannot be involved in tax collection. To be on the dole is looked down upon in a free society. To paraphrase Thomas Paine, people supporting a private property legal order view government as, at best, a necessary evil that easily transforms into an intolerable one.

Legislation and governmental administration are part of the political landscape under the mosaic of federal, state, county, city, town, village, and ward charters, and there are defined roles for those holding public office to fulfill. However, these are largely focused on arranging for mutual protection among these various political entities, again, with private property being the common denominator and sole unit of analysis for evaluating the effectiveness of the service. Each polity has its own prerogatives within the respective networks, yet ultimately, the consumer of their services determines which services are most highly valued.

Membership dues are paid by individual and organizational constituent members to orchestrate security operations aimed at the “common defense” of subscribers. This means directing resources, funding, training, equipment, and personnel to specific areas to address genuine concerns. The “power of the purse” carries with it tremendous influence and, commensurately, an equal potential for corruption. Public officials are, out of necessity for securing a Free State, surveilled with constant suspicion, most notably by their peer groups in the local militia, because any wrongdoing by one of their members besmirches the entire unit.

Thus, the servant should never become the master in a service relationship, and a “monopoly on the use of force coupled with the power to tax” cannot be tolerated in a private law society. Anyone who enters public office wields the proverbial “power of the purse” and, therefore, must be denied the “power of the sword,” so to speak. The two, purse and sword, can never be held by the same political entity or officer. Therefore, legislators can determine the “what,” but it must always be the militia members themselves that determine “how” to achieve those security and justice priorities at the local level (recognize, again, that all police agencies are subordinate to the militia, who can also subcontract to private firms for supplementary and specialized services, but none enjoy any “sovereign” immunity for this would violate the principle of equal justice under a common law).

To summarize, public officials must be full-fledged militia members in order to qualify for elected or appointed offices. They must maintain their proficiency during the term of office but lose enforcement authority as an essential element in the separation of political powers. The militia unit, by this arrangement, has the immediate power to recall a public official that cannot maintain proficiency standards or one that acts in a manner contrary to the interests of their ward-republic back home. This feature has important implications for maintaining the integrity of the law as a vehicle for security, justice, and domestic tranquility, and for preventing government from becoming an instrument of conflict, predation, and tyranny.

Practical Implementation of Policy

Local militia units maintain relationships with other subscribing polities through voluntary affiliations. Being organized and disciplined to provide mutual aid means that geographically proximate units regularly train together and conduct combined operations to address shared concerns. Each political unit also maintains Committees of Correspondence to convey pertinent information, share intelligence, and coordinate events. During America’s colonial and founding periods, Committees of Correspondence dispatched letters and met in person to deal with security issues, whether from criminals, hostile natives, or illegitimate government actions. In contemporary times, modern communication technologies enable near real-time information flow, further empowering interoperability and the ability of decentralized units to act in concert.

Since the citizenry themselves compose the militia, with supplementation from contracted providers, and activities are largely self-funded, there is an emphasis on efficiency. Units are obliged to reimburse other militia companies that render aid or incur losses, and accomplishing security objectives is always balanced with thoughtful risk analysis. While most militia companies and governmental service entities have robust treasuries, from years of prudent management and sound investment, operations and training are conducted with the aim of preserving capital stocks, increasing property values, and expeditiously eliminating all threats to the contrary.

Just as in earlier days, civilized people face the greatest threats to their lives, liberties, and properties from anti-civilizational humans, whether they be petty criminals, feral savages, or the political caste (those whose subsistence strategy depends upon taxation, regulation, or other parasitic privileges or immunities afforded to them through perversions of the law and backed by governmental power).

Dealing with criminals under a private property legal order is premised upon restitution. First, everyone has the right and duty to be organized, armed, and disciplined (Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 16) to execute the laws, repel invasions, and suppress insurrections (Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 15), which includes at the instance of their own case. Therefore, incidents of crime are extremely low.

An armed society is a polite society. A disciplined society upholds standards of just conduct. An organized society has high-trust from frequent contact and low-time preferences from anticipation of continuous dealings. Anti-social actors are quickly recognized in a property-centered society. Those who refuse to abide by the two simple laws of natural justice, do all you’ve agreed to do (uphold contracts to exchange property), and do not encroach upon other people or their property, are readily marginalized by the rest of the community.

Reputations and relationships matter immensely under a private property legal order. Just as, historically, most traditional martial arts schools in Japan would not admit students without two letters of introduction, so too does accessing services require maintaining a good name and strong social connections. In many business relationships, a surety bond is required to begin operations. Therefore, commercial and familiar relations with bond issuers and designated guarantors remain imperative.

No one can be forced to provide food, shelter, employment, or any other form of care to anyone they choose not to associate with. There is no forced integration, no artificial multiculturalism, and no diversity quotas in a free society. Everyone and every organization is free to determine their own criteria for membership, and all people reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

Criminals will, predictably, be expelled from their militia unit, dropped from their insurance coverage, and banished from most reputable establishments. All property is privately owned, whether by individuals, commercial firms, cooperatives, or other associations, and each has the right to oust trespassers at will and with commensurate force. There is simply no place for an outlaw to physically stand in civil society.

With no one willing to house, feed, or employ a criminal, they can either retreat into the wilderness or seek shelter from specialty firms that offer respite under strict rules and supervision. These are not prisons in a conventional sense, but expert facilities that arrange for criminal rehabilitation and opportunities to work through controlled conditions.

Those who seek a return to the benefits of social cooperation are bound to restore property to owners for any damage they’ve inflicted, remunerate the legal administrators who adjudicated the case, and pay for the services of the rehabilitation house. None of these costs can be foisted upon taxpayers, although charitable benefactors, pro bono legal teams, and altruistic patrons may assist criminals along the reintegration journey with their own resources.

Important note: While everyone has a right to legal representation, there is no mechanism for public funds to subsidize defense attorneys for criminals. It is easy to conceive how any ward-republic, city, county, or state that diverted public funds toward supporting criminality, the very thing they are constituted to suppress, would quickly lose their subscriber base and either reform their ways or go out of business. A criminal’s legal defense will come at their own expense or from the merch of a sympathetic donor. This is another reason why citizens of a private law society are dissuaded from criminal behavior, barbarism, or undue conflicts, and are incentivized to maintain an excellent reputation with strong social bonds.

After nearly five months since the start of the U.S. initiated 2026 Straight of Hormuz Crisis, it should be clear that bombing, blockades, and rhetorical bluster cannot compel the flow of commerce through the region. Since February 28, 2026, the movement of crude oil and other commodities remains at a standstill.

Former Navy SEAL, apocalyptic novelist, and social commentator, Matt Bracken highlights the impossibility U.S. forces controlling Iran’s coastal islands, Kharg and Qeshm. His X, Gab and Substack accounts are worth following. Aside from the World Trade Organization data on crude oil movement, all of the graphics in this post are Bracken’s creations.

Queshm is larger than Japan’s Okinawa island where it took 180,000 troops with 30,000 casualties and 12,000 American death over 82 days to defeat an enemy already on the verge of collapse. Kharg island is roughly the same size as Iwo Jima where during World War II 70,000 Marines fought for 36 days and lost 19,000 wounded and 7,000 killed despite having relatively uncontested supply lines.

Both Kharg and Qeshm exist behind the range rings of Iranian missiles and other aymmetric threats where the U.S. Navy does not enjoy freedom of movement. Delivering supplies and combat power to Kharg island, deep within the Persian Gulf, means contending with the tyrrany of distance, moving under fire, and surrounded by unreliable Arab allies. Moreover, the U.S. Navy has largely remained east of Hormuz with the aircraft carriers and cruiser escorts floating in safer waters in the Gulf of Oman. The carrier airwing jets have reduced loiter time and heavier reliance on midair refueling. The 5th Fleet Headquarters in Bahrain was crippled by Iranian strikes and is functionally inoperable. Sure, the U.S. can use smaller, faster combat ships, unmanned vessels, and airpower to conduct limited attacks but they cannot force the Straight of Hormuz open or ensure safe travel for commercial traffic.

If taking just two islands off the coast of Iran appears daunting, then consider escalating into a fight for the whole territory. Overlaying the 174,000 square kilometers of South Vietnam on a roughly equivalent patch at the south end of Iran’s 1,650,000 square kilometers provides a striking juxtaposition. Since the United States could not secure South Vietnam, a country one tenth the size and with two tenths the population, with an allied, albeit puppet, friendly government in place over eight years of sustained combat operations and a surge force of over 500,000 troops, what conceivable chance is there in a country like Iran?

During Vietnam, despite congestion and primitive in-country distribution systems, the United States enjoyed unchallenged command of the high seas and relatively unfettered access to seaports from which to deliver troops and supplies. Not so with Iran. Mines, unmanned vessels, aerial drones, fast attack ships, missiles, mortars, sabateurs, and snipers would plague all waterborne supply runs. Attacking Iran’s eastern and western flanks means contending with inhospitable regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, scenes of recent U.S. military humiliations.

While Turkiye remains a NATO member and an ostensible U.S. ally, penetrating Iran from the northwest sliver implies negotiating arduous terrain at a point furthest from the primary conflict zone in Straight of Hormuz. Unless the plan was to topple the regime in Tehran and occupy the entire country, attacking Iran from Turkiye makes little strategic sense, and such a scheme appears logistically infeasible given the lack of political support for such an enormous undertaking.

Since the strategic defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan proved the folly of applying military force in hopes of overcoming intractable cultural and political problems, the Iran quagmire willl persist until public officials are compelled into adopting policies of restraint. Economic and geopolitical reality cannot be glossed over with demagoguery and propaganda. The ramifications of inhibited trade from the region, particularly with hydrocarbons and their derivative products, will reverberate around the globe in the form of higher prices, shortages, substitutions, and disrupted product lines.

As largely export-driven, industrialized economies with virtually no domestic hydrocarbon resources, U.S. allies Japan and South Korea are particularly vulnerable to a closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Unlike the United States, which has buffered its energy security through domestic production and advanced shale processing technologies, these two East Asian allies rely on imported hydrocarbons for the vast majority of their primary energy needs—roughly 87% for Japan and 81% for South Korea. Because of these dependencies, a disproportionate amount of their crude oil supply is anchored to the Middle East, with Japan at 90% and South Korea routing approximately 70% of its crude imports directly through the narrow Persian Gulf chokepoint. A prolonged blockade not only triggers an immediate domestic energy crisis and soaring freight insurance rates, but also starves their massive, energy-intensive manufacturing sectors with downstream affects in semiconductors, automobiles, and petrochemicals, leading to cascading economic shocks that directly compromises both nations’ domestic sufficiency and security capacity.

Along with the Strait of Hormuz, the Bab al Mandeb, between southwest Yemen and Djibouti in northeast Africa, compose twin maritime gatekeepers to the Arabian Peninsula. They form a sequential trade corridor for energy resources heading to Europe.

A ships bound for Europe from the Persian Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz must travel around the southern tip of Oman and pass directly through the Bab al-Mandeb to enter the Red Sea and access the Suez Canal. If any of these chokepoints are closed, it effectively severs the shortest maritime route to the Mediterranean Sea, forcing ships to bypass the region entirely and take a lengthy detour around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope.

The Houthis in Yeman are a Shia Islamic group ideologically aligned with Iran in an Axis of Resistance network to oppose U.S. hegemony in the region and Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. Applying decentralized coordination structures and insurgent tactics, the network uses Iranian-supplied anti-ship ballistic missiles, one-way attack drones, and uncrewed surface vessels (USVs) to target commercial shipping.

Due to its dependence on transit fees, Egypt maintains tight security on the Suez Canal and overland smuggling routes to Resistance proxies in Lebanon and Palestine are heavily surveilled by U.S. and allied forces. However, even without direct attacks on the Suez, according to the Internation Monetary Fund’s Portwatch, traffic volume is down approximately 60% since late 2023 when the Houthis started firing on ships transiting the Red Sea. Just imagine what would happen to global trade and downstream manufacturing if all three chokepoints around the Arabian Peninsula were restricted.

In Chapter 8 of the 1949 economics treatise, Human Action, Ludwig Von Mises has a section entitled The Instinct of Aggression and Destruction. In it, Mises recognizes that human beings possess a propensity toward aggression and brutality, but civilization progresses precisely when people realize that voluntary cooperation and trade yield greater material prosperity than violent plunder. Lasting peace is required for increasing living standards and this must be preceded by a widespread, rational recognition of global economic interdependence, understanding that when people and nations participate in a global market, war transitions from a tool of one-sided enrichment into an act of mutual economic suicide. “Wars, civil wars, and revolutions are detrimental to man’s success in the struggle for existence because they disintegrate the apparatus of social cooperation.”

Let’s hope that people of reason overtake the impulses of public officials currently indulging in foolish brinksmanship that threaten global catastrophe.

The 1776 American Declaration of Independence is a foundational legal document for the United States and the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” deny the legitimacy of martial law, whether imposed through domestic tyranny or globalist technocracy. Dispelling the illegitimate claims of authority by those that would assert “martial governance” is a key step toward securing a Free State, a duty shared by every responsible citizen.

Learn more:

TheEndOfGunControl.com

Connect:

Link.EverydaySamurai.Life

Merch:

Shop.EverydaySamurai.Life

More: shop.everydaysamurai.life

Share

First, each individual is impacted by their own biases and personal prerogatives. By depicting the various functionaries in the military, and various government watch centers as human beings dealing with their own issues, the movie reveals that personal problems and character flaws impact their ability to perform. The Army Major having a squabble with his wife, the Combatant Commander preoccupied with the sports game he watched last night, the subject matter expert that complains about it being her day off, the Defense Secretary that is more concerned with his daughter’s safety than the activities of his department, the President that is unprepared to make a decision all betray the fact that it is not “the government” that is attending to national defense but individuals acting according to their own subjectivity. They do not execute according to plans but select from the range of available options according to limited perceptions based on their subjective slice of reality. They bristle against circumstances, resist accepting things as presented, and act according to their personal preferences before carrying out their assigned duties.

This human subjectivity is also evidenced by the situation room watch commander who violates protocols by having personal cell phones in a secure compartment so that she and her subordinate can contact loved ones at will. Standard operating procedures go out the window when people think a real emergency is unfolding. This is important to remember when thinking about “limited government” and constitutional contracts that are supposed to protect individual and constituent polity rights from political encroachment.

Share Everyday Samurai

Equipment does not perform as expected, particularly when trying to strike a multi-warhead intercontinental reentry vehicle with an interceptor missile. That a 63% success rate amounts to an even-odds toss-up leaves decision makers bewildered and aghast when considering the cost of these Star Wars, Golden or Iron Dome type ballistic missile defense systems. The tax-paying public should take particular note of just what their national defense funds are buying and what the actual opportunity costs are when viewing such scenes. The success probabilities described in the movie are drawn from the real world, and even those are based on highly suspicious estimates generated by the same industrial complex that depends upon glimmers of hope to ensure continued congressional funding.

Governmental departments do not act in unison but are often in conflict with one another. Personalities matter, and the best opinions do not always prevail. Admirals sometimes defer to Lieutenant Commanders; the full context of conversations with foreign leaders is not accurately conveyed; Presidents do not believe the information being reported and dismiss course of action analysis as a waste of time.

The movie concludes without resolution as the President’s decision on how to respond to the attack is not shown. The runtime essentially revolves around the same twenty minutes from differing perspectives, that culminates with a fade to black while everyone awaits a retaliatory strike order from the Commander In Chief.

Some reviewers have complained about the movie not really having a point or following plot lines to a satisfying conclusion. If anything, the key takeaway from this expose is that government functions as a confused mess of individuals making decisions with imperfect information that do not necessarily intend or result in a tangible thing commonly known as national defense. The movie will be highly effective if viewers walk away impacted by the ambiguity of politics and bureaucracy in the practice of security.

Politico-bureaucratic jackassery is on display rather than the cold execution of well-rehearsed crisis response procedures. My highest hopes for the film is that citizens will wonder why their taxes go to fund such incompetence and return to the realization that security is an individual responsibility best left to be organized by private property owners and organic communities, that the federation known as the United States would best be composed of by “ward republics” that hold the preponderance of authority and that the chief security concern is arresting the corrupt ambitions of the political caste that aggravate both inter and intra-state relations.

Subscribe now

What is not mentioned in the film, or largely understood by modern Americans, is that politicians, bureaucrats, and the factional interests they serve, use the resources at government disposal as common pool assets for their own enrichment and aggrandizement while putting the lives and fortunes of average citizens at risk. In the game of monopoly governments, there can be only one. This arrangeement puts states on a collision course in a global battle for supremacy over the prize of taxable jurisdictions. Power junkies start conflicts in hopes of gaining more territory and people to plunder. Encroachment, provocation, grey zone attacks, and aggressive brinksmanship are just tactics in the political quest for more authority, control, and access to other people’s resources.

The source of the missile launch in A House of Dynamite is never disclosed, and the confusion caused trying to find out where it came from supports the narrative for the limited time it is presented to the audience. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. The movie is about the way people in powerful positions react to the stress of this type of impending doom.

In the real world, states compete with one another for power, prestige, and property because of the benefits conflict provides to those that live from the proceeds. Regular people are best able to increase their well-being and standards of living from peaceful cooperation and an ever-expanding division of labor. Expropriation and war are antithetical to peace and prosperity, both domestically and internationally. The German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer described these two distinct subsistence strategies as the political versus the economic means of enrichment. The political caste depends upon predation and parasitism while common people resort to production and voluntary transactions. American legal theorist Lysander Spooner described this as the dividing line between peace and war in his description of natural law and the science of justice.

Preventing situations like those depicted in A House of Dynamite requires restraining the aggressive ambitions of the political caste and curtailing the wasteful bureaucracies established to eat out the people’s substance under the false promise of national security.

Thus, again, the political caste must be made dependent upon We The People to execute the laws, repel invasions, and suppress insurrections, as constitutional order demands. They must also be surrounded by an organized, armed, and disciplined population that is engaged and able to restrain their corrupt ambitions, with force. It all comes down to the individual responsibility to be organized, armed, and disciplined as a civic duty and contribution to the security of a free state that the United States Constitution made abundantly clear.

One can hope that A House of Dynamite leads to people questioning, since the politicians and bureaucrats fail so spectacularly: What will it take to actually secure a free and prosperous commonwealth?

theendofguncontrol.com

shop.everydaysamurai.life

Share Everyday Samurai

Constitutional Resilience

The United States Constitution is framed in such a way that specific safeguards empower the citizenry to address governmental tyranny without necessarily resorting to a second American revolution or civil war. Such mechanisms are not merely supplementary but essential components of the federal system of government. Understanding these original enforcement mechanisms should be of interest to constitutionalists, libertarians, conservatives, and Second Amendment advocates who are dismayed with the current political trajectory yet lack a clear corrective action plan. They may be correct in assessing that voting is not a decisive solution, or that the deep state swamp is formidable. However, as Benjamin Franklin allegedly told Elizabeth Willing in 1787, the republican form of government can only function so long as We The People can “keep it” in proper functioning order. In other words, self-government requires engagement rather than relying upon representatives and other public officials. In fact, distrust of public officials is an essential component of constitutional order. Further prevention of “mischief” on the part of those holding office requires “binding” them down with the “chains” of the contractual government charter, as Thomas Jefferson rightly declared in 1798.

What then, specifically, should We The People do in order to arrest official transgressions and violative behavior? The first action is to reframe the narratives and terms, both within individual minds as well as in public discourse, about the legal construct of constitutional government.

Constitutional Foundations of Law Enforcement

The United States Constitution explicitly identifies itself as “the supreme Law of the Land” in Article VI. This supremacy clause establishes the Constitution as the paramount authority to which all officials, at every level of government, must adhere. Any action by government officials that contravenes constitutional boundaries is, by definition, unlawful and a crime in need of a legal remedy.

This principle is fundamental: Constitutional government is, at essence, a binding contract between a political community, composed of people with equal rights under a common law, and the subset of the population holding positions within governmental offices tasked with administering security and justice functions. Taken further, the United States is a contract between the American people, the individual member states, and a general government created to fulfill an enumerated amount of specified tasks.

Together, this contract of people, states, and a general government, each with articulated rights, functions, and responsibilities, composes a federal system with multiple branches and levels in a subsidiary institutional framework. This federal subsidiarity principle ensures that governing authority remains primarily at the most local level, with decreasing authorities granted to entities further removed from the people themselves. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this concept by explicitly stating that powers not delegated to the federal government “are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

When officials exceed their constitutionally delegated powers, they operate outside of legitimate governmental authority and incur personal civil or criminal liability for their actions. The problem of how to enforce the law in the face of crimes committed by public officials really boils down to who is supposed to do the enforcing.

We the People as the Ultimate Authority

The Constitution’s opening phrase, “We the People”, is not merely rhetorical flourish but a declaration of where sovereignty ultimately resides. In the American system of political philosophy, the people themselves are the government and not merely those holding public office. Public officials serve as agents, bound by the limitations of their delegated authorities. When any official, officer, agent, or subcontractor exceeds these limitations, they cease acting in a governmental capacity and, instead, become individually responsible for any harms they have committed.

This principle finds statutory expression in 18 U.S.C. § 242, which criminalizes the deprivation of constitutional rights by anyone acting “under color of any law.” This federal statute acknowledges that rights violations by officials require accountability mechanisms independent of the very bureaucracies employing the offenders. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” and all taxing authority must also be pursuant to a constitutionally delegated authority. Therefore, any public official involved with spending from the public treasury on anything other than an enumerated function is depriving every net taxpayer of their right to be secure in their life and property. This has wide-reaching implications and contemplating the scale of needed corrective action can be overwhelming when considering just how much the current political configuration operates completely untethered to a legitimately enumerated authority. Nevertheless, the remedy remains the same and just as demolishing a condemned building need not be done brick by brick, so too can dismantling an illegitimate governmental edifice be done with precise charges in strategic locations.

Constitutional Law Enforcement Mechanisms

The Militia of the Several States

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution designates the militia of the several states as the “necessary” institution for “executing the Laws of the Union.” This constitutional designation is frequently overlooked in contemporary discourse about law enforcement. The clause states Congress has power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

Several critical observations arise from this constitutional provision:

1. The militia is explicitly identified as the institution for executing federal laws, not federal executive branch bureaucracies or agencies.

2. The Constitution recognizes only “the Militia of the several States” (Article II, Section 2), not a national militia. The reference to “several States” emphasizes the local, decentralized nature of this institution.

3. The National Guard, contrary to common misconception, is not the constitutional militia but rather functions as an adjunct of the national army with a distinctly different constitutional status.

4. All other law enforcement entities, to include police, sheriffs, constables, or special agents, must be constitutionally understood as subordinate to or derived from the militia’s fundamental law enforcement authority designated by the supreme Law of the Land.

This constitutional designation of the militia as the primary law enforcement mechanism within the federal system reflects the framers’ commitment to localized control over law enforcement rather than centralized authority. The militia, comprising virtually every able-bodied citizen, represents the ultimate check against official abuse and guarantee of local self-government.

Grand Juries and Public Trials

The Constitution similarly establishes juries as essential to the administration of justice. The Fifth Amendment requires that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,” while the Sixth Amendment guarantees trial “by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”

Article III, Section 2 further reinforces that “The Trial of all Crimes...shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed.”

These provisions establish several important principles:

1. Grand juries possess independent investigative and indictment powers without requiring approval from prosecutors or other officials.

2. Each county or local polity, as constituent members of the federation, has constitutional authority to impanel grand juries to investigate violations of federal law, including misconduct by public officials.

3. Juries represent a direct mechanism for citizens to enforce legal accountability independent of potentially compromised bureaucratic structures. There is no need to wait on a federal Department of Justice to take action.

The grand jury system was specifically designed to serve as a check against errant prosecutorial discretion and official misconduct. When properly understood and implemented, it provides communities with powerful tools to address governmental overreach without relying on the very institutions potentially implicated in wrongdoing.

Practical Implementation of Constitutional Enforcement

Local Grand Juries and 18 U.S.C. § 242

The practical application of these constitutional principles provides a roadmap for addressing official misconduct. Local grand juries have the authority to investigate and indict officials who violate constitutional rights under 18 U.S.C. § 242, which states:

“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned...”

This statute provides clear legal grounds for prosecuting officials who exceed their constitutional authority, and, importantly, does not require initiation by federal prosecutors. Local grand juries can independently investigate such violations and issue indictments, thereby activating the constitutional enforcement process without dependence on federal agencies like the Department of Justice—an entity with no explicit constitutional standing.

Local communities have the means to investigate, arrest, and prosecute any public officer that exceeds the limits of their delegated authorities, regardless of what level of government they are involved with throughout the federation. This means any politician or bureaucrat participating in the redistribution of other people’s property for anything other than a constitutionally enumerated purpose can, and should, face legal penalties where they reside.

Interstate Cooperation in Law Enforcement

The Constitution also anticipates interstate, or inter-county, cooperation in law enforcement operations. When a grand jury in one jurisdiction issues an indictment or a court issues an arrest warrant, constitutional principles support mechanisms for executing these instruments across jurisdictional lines:

1. Arrest warrants and other judicial processes can be issued to the local militia for service and execution.

2. Details of such warrants can specify charges, terms and bounties for arrest, and transportation costs the originating jurisdiction will bear to have the offender returned to face justice.

3. Cooperating jurisdictions can arrange for their respective militias to transport arrested individuals back to the warrant-issuing jurisdiction for trial through mutual aid agreements and compensation mechanisms.

4. Modern communications technologies facilitate notification of existing warrants to every polity in the federation, creating an effective decentralized enforcement network as a modern version of colonial era Committees of Correspondence.

This approach reflects the federalist structure of the Constitution, respecting both state sovereignty and the need for coordinated law enforcement without centralizing power in federal agencies.

The Constitutional Alternative to Bureaucratic Enforcement

The Department of Justice, FBI, ATF, and other federal law enforcement agencies are not mentioned in the Constitution. Their existence stems from dubious statutory creations, not a constitutional mandate. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution states that Congress is supposed to “call forth” the militia of the several States in order to “execute the laws of the union,” not set up permanent tax funded bureaucracies that answer exclusively to the general government at the expense of local prerogatives. Through understanding and implementing the constitutional mechanisms of militias and juries, citizens can exercise their rightful authority in law enforcement without dependence on these bureaucracies.

The Constitution provides a complete framework for law enforcement that includes:

1. Investigation through locally impaneled grand juries

2. Indictment through these same grand juries

3. Investigation and criminal apprehension through a network of local militia

4. Trial by jury in the jurisdiction where the offense occurred or was discovered

5. Execution of legal proceedings through organic constitutional mechanisms

This system provides full due process without requiring centralized federal agencies, ensuring that “We the People” maintain ultimate control over law enforcement rather than delegating it to potentially unaccountable bureaucrats. It is also the means of handling highly corruptible politicians.

Securing a Free State Against Rogue Officials

The question of how constitutional mechanisms can secure a free state against rogue officials finds its answer in these original constitutional provisions. The Constitution establishes a comprehensive system for addressing official misconduct:

1. Independent Investigations: Grand juries can have the local militia collect witnesses and evidence to investigate allegations of misconduct without approval from permanent bureaucrats.

2. Citizen Indictment: Grand juries can indict officials who violate constitutional rights under 18 U.S.C. § 242 without depending on tax-funded prosecutors who may have conflicting interests.

3. Organic Enforcement: The militia of the several states, the body of citizens themselves, possesses constitutional authority to execute laws and judicial processes against offending officials.

4. Impartial Judgment: Trial by jury ensures the citizens who bear the burdens of supporting government, and not officials who subsist from it, determine guilt or innocence in matters of constitutional malfeasance.

5. Decentralized Authority: The people themselves operate the system without dependence on centralized bureaucracies, thereby preventing institutional obstructions of justice by the tapestry of rogue officials and illegitimate agencies.

When politicians and bureaucrats exceed their delegated authorities, they cease acting as government officials and become violators who are individually liable for their actions. The constitutional mechanisms of militias and juries provide citizens with the tools to enforce this accountability without relying on potentially compromised individuals and institutions.

Conclusion

The U.S. Constitution provides a robust framework for securing liberty through decentralized law enforcement mechanisms controlled by citizens rather than ineffectual and biased officials. The militia of the several states and the jury system represent a constitutional means for executing laws and ensuring justice. These institutions place law enforcement authority directly in the hands of “We the People” rather than corruptible politicians and lethargic bureaucrats.

Modern Americans have largely forgotten these original constitutional mechanisms, instead accepting an increasingly centralized system of law enforcement dominated by executive branch agencies with questionable constitutional standing. Reclaiming knowledge of these constitutional provisions offers a pathway to restoring proper checks on governmental power. In fact, it places We The People as the final check valve in the circuit of sovereignty. We The People are the source of law enforcement power and, through grand juries and militia, the ultimate executor of it.

For constitutionalists, libertarians, conservatives, and Second Amendment advocates concerned with governmental overreach, understanding and revitalizing these constitutional enforcement mechanisms represents a peaceful, lawful strategy for securing the blessings of liberty. By returning to these fundamental principles, citizens can fulfill their rightful role as the ultimate guarantors of constitutional governance and enforcers of the supreme law of the land.

Therefore, the policy prescription, also incorporated into the United States Constitution, is for governments to purchase gold and silver at market prices and coin the metals into money according to fixed weights and measures. This service provides people with relative certainty about the commodity’s authenticity and readily facilitates trade within the political jurisdiction of the currency’s issuance.

Of course, it is natural for people to want a safe place to store their monetary metals and even to carry or use warehouse receipts for the sake of convenience. Thus, paper or digital money substitutes, also known as fiduciary media, can also enable commerce as a representative of the commodity money held at a bank or other financial institution.

Under a strict property-based legal regime, banks would be prohibited from issuing fiduciary media that did not represent a determined quantity of the designated commodity, such as the weight and fineness of gold or silver. The amount of fiduciary media issued by a financial institution would, of necessity, need to always equal the demand deposits held in inventory. Issuing a warehouse receipt for money that is not held in deposit would constitute the crime of fraud.

However, the simplicity of this approach for a market-chosen, government-certified commodity money affords no opportunity for political manipulation or favoritism. Sound money imposes fiscal discipline upon politicians and other political actors and, therefore, elaborate propaganda campaigns are issued to justify deviation from the principles of political economy.

Bankers and other fiduciary service providers also support the idea of being able to issue money substitutes beyond what is held in inventory because it offers increased profit opportunities from selling loan contracts and collecting interest payments. It is not surprising, then, that bankers often form alliances with politicians to cooperate on shaping public narratives on the need for regulatory frameworks that erode a sound monetary regime in favor of fractional reserve banking, credit-based money substitutes, and custodial ownership arrangements that erode property rights while also imparting economic uncertainty from the variability of the money supply.

The policy prescription under a causal realist political economy is always to protect private property and the free exchange thereof via voluntary contracts. Politicians and other politically connected actors have an interest in undermining the direct implementation of a property-centric common law. Money and banking is just one area in which to observe this phenomenon.

The often-heard complaint of “shipping jobs overseas” while domestic manufacturing and production languish only looks at one manifestation of the political manipulation of international trade. Economist Murray Rothbard decried the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as not only favoring politically connected “Big Businesses” at the expense of average market players, but also acting as a vehicle for cartelizing industries and entrenching a government led interventionist economy. For Rothbard and other free market advocates, international agreements are not merely about domestic jobs and trade balances but about subjecting all economic affairs to political control.

https://mises.org/mises-daily/nafta-myth

Following World War II, trade policies involved rebuilding devastated friendly nations in Europe and Japan while building an alliance against communist and other out of favor nation-states. Access to capital, the American consumer market, and technology transfers were a means of “spreading democracy” by having taxpayers subsidize politically connected export firms, financial institutions, and multinational corporations. These arrangements were also a means for American and globalist elites to control international political regimes to ensure compliance with the new, U.S. led, global order.

There is nothing new about this type of arrangement. It has gone by many names in the past, most notably mercantilism. However, the salient features of interventionism, no matter what it is called, involve the alignment of political officials and politically connected economic actors. Mercantilism and interventionism both involve the marriage of the force of law with the moneyed elite in a way that shapes the economic landscape to favor the few at the expense of the individual or smaller, less politically influential organizations. It is a regression to a centralized leviathan state dictating policy over ever-increasing swaths of private life.

The United States, as a federation, was never immune from the tendency of cunning individuals to use the power of government for their own ambitions. Among the American founding generation, according to economist Tom DiLorenzo, Alexander Hamilton was an “old-fashioned mercantilist” who wanted to pervert the newly formed general government into a mechanism that centralized power, subsidized internal public works, indulged in banking, accumulated debt, and imposed oppressive taxes to benefit the wealthy while buying their loyalty through a spoils system. Many of these impulses were held in check by the Jeffersonian-Jacksonian influence that largely dominated the United States until the middle of the 19th Century.

https://mises.org/library/book/hamiltons-curse

The United States military has historically been at the forefront of foreign mercantilist interventionism. Not only did Army troops help expand the territorial borders of the United States upon the North American Continent, but the Navy also helped secure shipping lanes and facilitate access to foreign ports, whether welcomed or not. The infamous case of Commodore Perry in 1853 forcibly demanding Japan open to trade with the United States and offer coaling stations for U.S. merchant vessels transiting to China, offers one point of illustration.

https://mises.org/mises-wire/free-trade-japan-circa-1853

In the early part of the 20th Century, the U.S. military was used to directly support well-connected American businesses operating on foreign soil. Retired Marine Corps Major General, and two-time winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, Smedley D. Butler conveyed in his 1935 book War is a Racket, conveyed how his units were involved in providing tax-subsidized security services for Rockefeller Oil in China, and the United Fruit Company, among others, in the Caribbean and South and Central America.

The pace of military led foreign intervention to the benefit of politically connected multinational corporations has only accelerated post-World War II. Murray Rothbard highlighted the “war for oil” thesis in the runup to the first Iraq War, noting that it was an “effort on behalf of Rockefeller control of {the} Middle East.” The subsequent Global War on Terror only expanded the range of beneficiaries, the area of operations, and scope of the industrial complexes involved. The vast array of foreign aid, military assistance, and international development contracts issued by governments and globalist institutions needs to also be included in such tallies.

For now, I’d like to focus on the United States Navy’s (USN) role in securing international shipping lanes and also envision what the world would look like if taxpayers were let off the hook for subsidizing the security of multinational corporations operating outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Not only does the USN have a long history of waste and corruption, but even if it was operating at maximum efficiency and with complete integrity the fact that is dispatched around the world creates a moral hazard that distorts the global political economy and harms the “American jobs” today’s tariffs are intended to assist.

https://mises.org/mises-wire/us-navy-history-waste-and-corruption

First, the general government of the United States is chartered to arrange for the common defense of the United States and, to this end, can lay and collect taxes to provide and maintain a navy, as well as define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas or against the law of nations. According to maritime law customs, a coastal state’s sovereignty extends twelve nautical miles from its baselines and includes the airspace above as well as the seabed below. However, the high seas are defined as the maritime areas that lie beyond the jurisdiction of a political state.

This creates several problems. First, punishing felonious acts and piracies that occur on the high seas does not necessarily require funding patrol services that venture outside a state’s territorial waters. The general government of the United States could simply prosecute cases that are reported within its jurisdiction and issue arrest warrants for bounty hunters, without sovereign immunity or privileges, to pursue the accused.

Share

However, that has not been the interpretation put into practice. During the campaigns against piracy in the so-called Barbary Wars of 1801-1805 and 1815-1816, Congress never formally issued a declaration of war but authorized the USN to protect “American” commerce and seamen. President James Madison even requested a formal war declaration but instead congress deferred to the chief executive’s judgement and authorized operations in the Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas.

Herein lies a second problem. Congress started dispatching the USN outside of its jurisdiction during the first generation after the U.S. Constitution’s ratification. It was a descent into the same pattern of empire that the American Revolution sought to escape.

Congress has the power to declare war or issue letters of marque and reprisal but, in the case of piracy from the Barbary Coast, they did neither. Instead, Congress granted the commander-in-chief an authorization to use military force based on the chief executive’s discretion. To exercise military force, congress can either declare war or issues letters of marque and reprisal. There is no delegated authority in the Constitution for Congress to grant ambiguous military force authorizations to the executive branch. This unconstitutional legislative action was repeated after the 9/11 attacks and gave rise to the disastrous Global War of Terrorism (GWOT) that marred the first two decades of the 21st Century.

The situation creates a moral hazard wherein American taxpayers are compelled to subsidize patrol services, security escorts, and prosecute crimes anywhere in the world. It also opens the door to empire building through “gunboat diplomacy” and other foreign interventions, like those described by Major General Smedley Butler. Furthermore, returning to the domestic economy implications, it subsidizes the security of American corporations operating outside the United States.

Consumers, in general, only assess the value of a product based on the price at the point of sale. Entrepreneurs and firms, on the other hand, must calculate the profitability of a business line by imputing costs for the factors of production. Allowing political intervention to socialize the costs of operating overseas by leveraging the tax-funded navy to secure international shipping routes, for instance, only distorts the signals conveyed through market signals. Absent the crucial feedback provided by unhampered market transactions, there is no way to accurately know if consumers authentically value a product or service procured from overseas at a level that justifies the entrepreneurial risk.

Without the USN patrolling the high seas, would domestic producers operate outside the United States at the same levels witnessed today? It is impossible to provide empirical data given the current arrangement of state-based navies dominating the globe. However, sound political-economic reasoning dictates that subsidies incentivize human and institutional behavior. Corporations are encouraged to operate overseas because the United States Navy is largely providing for their maritime transportation security. Consequently, more businesses move across international waters than would otherwise, if securing foreign corporate operations came at their own expense.

https://mises.org/online-book/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto/chapter-14-war-and-foreign-policy/foreign-policy-program

Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley R. Butler advocated a policy of restricting the USN, and all the other U.S. armed service branches, from operating over five hundred miles from the shores of the United States. However, even this geographic zone may leave entirely too much latitude for free riding and geopolitical mischief. After all, many of the “Banana Wars” Butler participated in occurred in South and Central America, right in the American backyard. Five hundred miles of American imperialism still presents a threat to Mexico, Cuba, the Caribbean, Canada, the Arctic, and Russia.

Instead, politically controlled, tax-funded military bureaucracies should be kept within territorial boundaries and leave protective services in unincorporated seas to a free market of competitive providers. The maritime domain has a rich history of spurring entrepreneurial innovations, such as insurance, re-insurance, lighthouses and other positioning systems, intelligence products, piloting services, and a variety of risk-management practices, as well as privateering.

https://mises.org/quarterly-journal-austrian-economics/public-goods-and-private-solutions-maritime-history

Entrepreneurial security production should be encouraged through a policy of restraining the U.S. Navy to solely patrolling territorial waters. Private companies should be kicked off of the taxpayers’ dole and compelled by circumstances to arrange for their own security when operating outside the United States. Only then will consumers be able to signal an authentic demand for overseas materials and goods. Rather than imposing tariffs, simply cease subsidizing the security of multinational corporations and let the market process inform consumptive and business choices through undistorted price discovery.

In an environment where tax-funded protective services are restricted to politically incorporated territories and multinational corporations are required to secure their foreign operations via contractual arrangements, what do you think the impact would be on the amount of jobs shipped overseas?

The discussion then pivots to a critical examination of the modern nation-state's use of war, arguing that it often serves nefarious purposes, benefiting a select few at the expense of the many. The speakers delve into the constitutional implications of war, emphasizing the importance of Congress's power to declare war and the dangers of the military-industrial complex.

The latter half of the podcast focuses on Dr. Edwin Vieira's work, "By Tyranny out of Necessity, the Bastardy of Martial Law," examining the illegitimacy of martial law under the Declaration of Independence and the historical context of the American Revolution. Martial law is antithetical to a free society, violating fundamental principles of liberty and self-governance, and that the well-regulated militia, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, is crucial for maintaining domestic order and preventing the tyranny of a standing army. The episode concludes with a call to action, urging listeners to stay informed, vigilant, and committed to the principles of liberty.

Chapters:

00:00:00 - Dojo Philosophy & Combat

00:03:42 - War Footage & Humanity

07:04 - War, Liberty, & Martial Law

11:01:50 - Martial Law & Declaration

14:41 - Dangers of a Standing Army

17:49 - Martial Law: Contradiction

21:46 - Colonial Grievances & Oppression

28:43 - Martial Law: Unjust & Unconstitutional

40:05 - State Constitutions & Military

44:01 - Civil vs. Military Power

Shop.EverydaySamurai.Life

Link.EverydaySamurai.Life

The discussion revolves around the themes of liberty and security, drawing on historical and contemporary contexts. The episode begins with a Samurai maxim, "After the victory, tighten your helmet strap," attributed to Toyotomi Hideyoshi, a Sengoku Jidai warlord who rose from peasant roots to become a de facto leader before Tokugawa Ieyasu's victory at Sekigahara. Hideyoshi's philosophy of preparing for future challenges even after victories is emphasized, highlighting the nature of change and impermanence.

The episode then transitions to contemporary political changes, noting favorable shifts towards liberty in December 2024 but also recognizing opposing forces, such as attacks on private property and ongoing global conflicts. The speakers stress the importance of warriors expecting the unexpected and practicing mindfulness, sensory clarity, and equanimity.

A significant portion of the episode is dedicated to discussing Dr. Edwin Vieira's book, "By Tyranny Out of Necessity, the Bastardy of Martial Law," which explores the concept of martial law and its implications. The speakers outline the plans and policies for martial law, emphasizing the constitutional remedies available and the role of the Second Amendment in supporting a well-regulated militia. They argue that decentralized, localized execution of law prevents tyranny and highlight tools of liberty like jury nullification, secession, and revolution.

The episode delves into the theory of martial governance, where military deployment imposes law and order, potentially leading to the suppression of legitimate governments by rogue officials. The speakers discuss the authority of the occupant in occupied territories, the potential for martial governance to override constitutional protections, and the imposition of censorship, control of communication, and restriction of movement.

Share

The speakers also address the potential for a national paramilitary police state, justified by emergencies and war powers, and call for refutation of legal arguments for martial law and governance. They emphasize the importance of martial arts training, armed self-defense, and the need for the public to be organized, armed, and disciplined to maintain constitutional order.

Stay in touch:

Link.EverydaySamurai.Life

Book:

https://go.everydaysamurai.life/EoGCS

00:00 Mindfulness skills to combat technocracy and tyranny.

00:36 - Samurai Maxim and Political Changes

03:21 - Martial Law and Government Authority

05:39 Military occupation replaces legitimate government's authority.

06:43 - Military Occupation and Governance Rules

07:25 War could lead to military governance overriding laws.

11:01 - Control Over Occupied Territories

11:25 Occupier may suspend or corrupt local courts.

14:47 - Martial Law Regulations

15:49 General rule: aid enemy, tried by military.

18:42 - Authority and Requisition Rights

20:36 Loss of communication, freedom, and forced labor.

22:25 - Occupation Law and Governance

22:42 Occupiers exploit immunities, fostering lawless institutional culture.

26:19 - Legal Rationalizations of Martial Governance

29:49 - Analysis of Police State Apparatus

29:31 Constitution opposes martial governance; skepticism warranted.

33:22 - Role of Martial Governance

34:52 Martial arts: truth, discernment, governance, freedom.

35:45 Discernment, books, training: securing a free state.

Operation Gothic Serpent, the U.S. military intervention in war torn Somalia from August to October 1993, illustrates this point. The true story, fictionalized in the movie Black Hawk Down, depicts the story of two Delta Force operators, Gary Gordon and Randy Shughart, who volunteered to secure a helicopter crash site and protect the surviving crew. Despite their superior training, weaponry, and equipment, the mob of poorly trained and ill-equipped, yet overtly hostile, Somalis soon overwhelmed the two Tier 1 special forces operators.

Gothic Serpent was a fiasco. Somalia in 1992 was a country that typified Richard Maybury’s concept of Chaostan. Longstanding tribal feuds among people with little or no understanding of the System of Natural Liberty that delivered the economic miracle of the Industrial Revolution, coupled with the failed communism of dictator Mohammed Siad Barre’s twenty-two-year reign, left the country in a state of famine and civil strife.

Yet, the Somali people resented Western interference in their domestic affairs and were offended by foreign troops flying around in helicopters showing off the bottoms of their feet (an insult in Somali culture). Plus, Islamists from all over the regions saw an opportunity to humiliate the Western powers that were, in their view, supporting apostate regimes, occupying Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and helping oppress the people of Palestine. Task Force Ranger and the United Nations missions in Somalia were fiascos. They failed to capture the warlords deemed responsible for the conflict, and humanitarian relief became another source of contention among the domestic factions. The 2024 Fragile States Index lists Somalia as the weakest central government in the world.

The point is that the most capable, well-equipped, and lethal individual will inevitably succumb to the sheer numerical superiority of an antagonistic population. No man is an island unto themselves. Humans are social creatures, and the quality of a one’s life depends wholly upon the people that populate their interactions. This is equally true in terms of love and affection, economic exchanges, and matters of defense and justice.

When looking at what it takes to “secure a free state” as found in the text of the Second Amendment, one must reference Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 to understand the composition and conduct of well regulated militia. These local governmental institutions, composed of the whole people except the few public officers, must be organized, armed, and disciplined. Only then can We The People effectively execute the law, repel invasions, and suppress insurrections. Notice that organization and discipline, qualitative rather than material descriptors, make up two of the three components of the definition.

Share

Most people are focused on “arms” with regard to the Second Amendment while ignoring the crucial qualitative aspects of the militia that make self-government possible. Indeed, without well regulated militia security in a free state is impossible. Culture counts, and The Way is in training. This is the real, yet currently unrealized, potential of the Second Amendment. It is the key to local self-governance.

Technology and weapon systems can, however, fundamentally alter the incentives for criminality and compliance. Development and acquisition of advanced material resources is always a competitive race between liberty and tyranny. Parasites and predators always seek the path of least resistance. This is why simple efforts at target hardening, such as a flood lamp on a motion sensor or a cactus planted in front of a window, can create real deterrence against burglars. Cryptography and cyber-monies will, in alignment with Davidson and Reese-Mogg’s Sovereign Individual thesis posits, alter the returns on violence and compel a restructuring of the nature of government.

However, without a culture of disciplined people that respect private property and the rule of law, the material things that make life comfortable and enjoyable will inevitably come to ruin. The protection of people and property in a free society remains a challenge that can only be met with cultural attitudes that are best developed through martial training.

I will argue that the key provisions of the United States Constitution, particularly those pertaining to money and militia, are the most expeditious and realistic means of achieving liberty in our lifetimes through radical decentralization and local autonomy. Some might call me a statist or “minarchist” because of this position. Some will argue that it is only relevant to Americans and does little for liberty in the rest of the world. So be it.

The American Revolution was the shot heard ‘round the world that lit the brushfires of liberty and provided a model for others to follow. Now, if the “good people” of the United States can use the Supreme Law of the Land to arrest the corrupt ambitions of rogue public officials and reorient government toward the protection of life, liberty, and property, the rest of the world will have another example of what must be done. However, it is indeed contingent upon those countries incorporating provisions for sound money and citizen militia into their governing charters.

Some people claim that fixing the money will fix the world. I see that as only half of the equation. In alignment with Davidson and Reese-Mogg’s Sovereign Individual thesis, I agree that technological advances in micro-processing, cryptographic security, and cyber-monies will necessarily transform the very nature of politics and government. When politicians and bureaucrats can no longer seize the financial resources of individuals and private firms, when digital assets and payment networks are beyond the reach of tax authorities, governments will need to change their mode of operation and learn how to attract clients like insurance providers and clubs do.

Davidson and Reese-Mogg also emphasized that governments would become particularly nasty during the transition period and that those losing their livelihood through technological obsolescence will shift into alternative predatory behaviors. In other words, a free society will need to find new safeguards for liberty even when sovereign individuals are empowered with cryptographically impervious cyber-assets.

Share

Add to this the potential for governments to assert the other instruments of national power upon the populace. These are DIME: Diplomatic, Informational, Military, as well as Economic measures. Money, albeit supremely important, is just one aspect of economic policy. In conjunction with information operations and the use of force, those wielding the instruments of state power still control a variety of means for interfering with private property.

Indeed, diplomats and military officials have become more overt in recent years about the need for asserting influence in the cognitive space as social media and online information sources proliferate. The late Zbigniew Brzezinski, Polish-American political scientist and former National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, once remarked a global political awakening, facilitated by near instantaneous unregulated information flows, is making governing more difficult. Of course, as an arch swamp creature, Brzezinski’s definition of governing is anathema to a private property legal order. Dr. Brzezinksi viewed the general government of the United States as an apparatus for international interventionism and a vehicle for settling his geopolitical vendettas. Predictably, he denounced the freedom of information that might lead to popular resistance to hegemonic domination or the latitude to govern, i.e., the ability of public officials to use public resources to satisfy their personal interests.

This is just one example. The point is that so long as public officials can use their positions as a platform to frame issues and shape public discourse, the threat to private property and a libertarian social order. Bitcoin will not fix this, particularly during the transition period.

There is more work to be done, and there is much more to write on these topics. All in due time.

The Inherent Conflict of Governance

Governance, by its very nature, is fraught with contradictions. If we accept the principle that each individual owns themselves and is entitled to security, it follows that they should have the freedom to choose who protects them and advocates for their rights. However, when a political organization claims to represent a collective body without explicit contracts with each individual, a moral hazard arises. Decision-makers may prioritize their self-interest over the needs of those they claim to represent.

In a compound republic like the United States, the Constitution delegates specific powers to political officeholders, yet it inadvertently allows public officials a monopoly on the use of force. This situation sets the stage for potential abuses of power. To address these challenges, there must be mechanisms for redress and correction to ensure compliance with the governing charter.

The Role of the Militia

The solution to the governance dilemma lies within the framework of the militia, as outlined in the Constitution. Article One, Section Eight, Clauses Fifteen and Sixteen, along with Article Two, Section Two, and the Second Amendment, collectively position the people as the primary law enforcement body across the federation. The militia serves as a check to determine which laws are enforced and how they are implemented, ensuring that laws reflect the needs of individuals in their communities.

Local Control and Power Decentralization

Unfortunately, political organizations often centralize power, which can corrupt the law from a protective tool into a mechanism for exploitation. Without a decentralized enforcement structure, abuses proliferate, benefiting those in power while undermining the average citizen's rights. The assertion that a government exists by, of, and for the people rings hollow if a small subset of the population dictates the rules and costs associated with maintaining law and security.

Moreover, the security of life, liberty, and property is jeopardized if public officials can arbitrarily seize or destroy these rights. This principle is underscored by the Second Amendment, which emphasizes the necessity of well-regulated militias for the security of a free state. The militia is not merely a relic of the past; it is a vital mechanism for ensuring that the people retain control over the use of force.

The Consequences of Monopoly Power

The most pressing law enforcement task within any political union is to prevent a monopoly on the use of force from forming and to ensure it is not controlled by those who profit from taxation. Under such monopolistic conditions, the cost of security and justice inevitably rises, eroding the populace's resources while diminishing the quality of justice. This decline leaves citizens increasingly insecure in their lives, liberties, and property.

Political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli famously stated that good law cannot exist without a good militia. For Machiavelli, the militia was foundational to all republics. This principle remains crucial for maintaining constitutional order today. The Second Amendment's purpose is to prevent monopolistic governance by ensuring that the right to keep and bear arms is a necessary condition for securing a free state—one that is insulated from the corruption and exploitation associated with political monopolies.

Reasserting the Role of the People

In an era where bureaucratic reliance is prevalent, emphasizing the originally intended role of well-regulated, decentralized militias is essential. Tolerance of political monopolies that enjoy exclusive legal privileges fosters an environment ripe for tyranny and impoverishment. The populace must reassert its position as the driving force behind government existence, whose primary purpose is the security of life, liberty, and property.

Liberty and property cannot thrive when politicians and bureaucrats dictate the narrative, policies, and governmental execution imperatives. The concept of "We the People" must extend beyond mere rhetoric; it should reflect the reality that the populace is as integral to governance as those holding public office. Otherwise, the ideal of equality under a common law becomes a mere facade.

Conclusion: A Call for a Balanced Governance Structure

The discourse surrounding governance, power distribution, and the role of the militia highlights the complexities of ensuring a just and equitable society. By recognizing the need for decentralized power and the importance of local militias, citizens can reclaim their rights and reinforce the principles of democracy. In doing so, the essence of governance—serving the people—can be restored, ensuring that liberty and justice are not just ideals but lived realities for all.

When a political organization claims to represent a body politic without a specific contract for services with each individual within that body, it creates a moral hazard situation. Decision-makers may, under such an arrangement, pursue their own self-interest and act contrary to the desires and needs of the individuals they purport to represent.

In a compound republic like the United States, where a constitution delegates certain powers and authorities to political officeholders in the general government, yet in practice affords public officials a monopoly on the use of force, abuses are destined to occur. Therefore, a mechanism for redress and course correction must exist to ensure compliance with the terms of the operating charter.

This needed enforcement mechanism is the militia of the several states, as outlined in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16, as well as in Article II, Section 2, besides the Second Amendment. This positions the people, the entire populace except for public officials according to George Mason's definition, as the primary law enforcement arm throughout the federation. The militia, in their localities, serve as the check valve that determines which laws are enforced and how they are implemented. This ensures that laws support the needs of the people in their respective areas.

Unfortunately, political organizations tend to centralize power and corrupt the law from a tool intended to protect people and their property into a mechanism for exploitation. Without the "necessary" militia structure that decentralizes enforcement power and keeps it in the hands of the people, abuses will proliferate, benefiting those in political power, or the political caste, at the expense of the average citizen. To claim that a government exists by, of, and for the people is meaningless if a subset of the population can dictate the rules and costs of maintaining the law and security institutions.

In essence, a monopoly government is a contradiction. It undermines the very purpose of having a government. People cannot be secure in their persons, houses, papers, or effects if public officials can arbitrarily seize or destroy their life, liberty, and property. This is why the Second Amendment clearly states that well-regulated militias are necessary for the security of a free state within the federation of several states.

Share

The most urgently needed law enforcement task within any political union is to prevent a monopoly on the use of force from a) forming in the first place and b) being controlled by those that make their living through taxation. Under monopoly auspices, the price of security and justice will predictably increase, eating out ever widening swaths of the people's substance, and the quality of justice will progressively decline, leaving the people less secure in their lives, liberty, and property. It is also why the Republican theorist and political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli stated in his Discourses that there can be no good law without good militia, nor aught else that is good. For Machiavelli, the militia was the foundation of all republics and that principle remains as an inescapable imperative for maintaining constitutional order.

Preventing monopoly is the purpose of the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is a necessary precondition for securing a free state, one that is free from the corruption and maladies associated with political monopoly, namely perverting the social mechanism of law and security into a vehicle for parasitism and predation. Even, or especially, in the current era, it is crucial that the originally intended purpose of having well-regulated, decentralized militias is emphasized to reduce reliance on permanent bureaucracies.

Reliance upon, or tolerance of, a political caste enjoying exclusive legal privileges, is a sure recipe for tyranny and impoverishment. The people must reassert themselves as the driving force behind the very existence of government, the chief end of which is the security of life, liberty, and property. Liberty nor property cannot securely exist so long as politicians and bureaucrats dictate the narrative, policies, and execution imperatives of a government. We The People are just as much "the government" as anyone holding public office. Otherwise, equality under a common law is little more than a farce.

Subscribe

Discover how Hitomi Akamatsu's remote viewing session at CERN sheds light on the Higgs boson experiment and its implications for consciousness and reality.

Watch the documentary here:
https://www.everydaysamurai.life/blog/remote-viewing-hitomi-and-the-god-particle/

Watch The Documentary

The Role of Banks in Money Creation

Banks play a pivotal role in the economy, acting as intermediaries between savers and borrowers. The introduction of fractional reserve banking has allowed banks to create money out of thin air, significantly altering the dynamics of financial sovereignty.

Under fractional reserve banking, banks are only required to keep a fraction of deposits in reserve. This means that when you deposit $1,000, the bank can lend out $900 while keeping just $100 in reserve. This practice leads to an increase in the money supply, which can create economic distortions and instability.

When banks lend money, they do not simply hand out physical cash. Instead, they create deposits through bookkeeping entries, effectively increasing the money supply. This process can lead to economic booms, but it also sets the stage for busts when the loans are not repaid.

The implications of this system are profound. As more money enters circulation, it can lead to inflation, eroding the purchasing power of the dollar. Hence, the actions of banks directly impact financial sovereignty, as individuals and families find their savings diminished over time.

Government and the Fiscal Illusion

The government plays an essential role in the banking system and the broader economy. Central banks, like the Federal Reserve, are often seen as tools of the government, aimed at stabilizing the economy. However, this relationship can create significant risks.

Governments tend to favor policies that allow them to spend more than they earn, leading to a reliance on central banks to finance their deficits. This creates a cycle of debt that can ultimately undermine financial sovereignty, as citizens bear the burden of increased taxes and inflation.

One of the most significant issues with government involvement in banking is the creation of a fiscal illusion. When governments finance spending through debt rather than taxes, citizens may not feel the immediate impact of their financial decisions. This can lead to a lack of accountability and irresponsible fiscal policies.

The Federal Reserve’s role as a lender of last resort has allowed governments to avoid the consequences of their spending decisions. This dynamic perpetuates a system where financial sovereignty is compromised, as citizens must deal with the fallout of inflation and economic instability.

Share Everyday Samurai

The Federal Reserve's Dual Mandate

The Federal Reserve, as the central bank of the United States, has a profound influence on the economy. Established in 1913, its primary purpose was to provide stability to the banking system. However, its actions often lead to unintended consequences that can destabilize the economy instead.

By adjusting interest rates and controlling the money supply, the Fed aims to manage inflation and unemployment. However, these interventions can create economic distortions, leading to cycles of boom and bust that challenge the notion of financial sovereignty.

The Fed serves both as a regulator and a participant in the financial system. This dual role can create conflicts of interest, as the Fed may prioritize its own stability over the needs of the economy. As it injects money into the system, it often benefits those who are already in positions of power, further widening the wealth gap.

This dynamic raises questions about the necessity of the Fed in securing a stable economic future. Are the benefits of its interventions worth the risks they pose to financial sovereignty?

Resource Misallocation and Business Cycles

The Austrian Business Cycle Theory offers a crucial perspective on the impact of credit expansion and monetary policy on the economy. According to this theory, artificially low interest rates lead to misallocated resources, resulting in unsustainable economic growth.

When the Fed lowers interest rates, it encourages borrowing and spending, creating an economic boom. However, this boom is built on shaky foundations, as resources are directed towards unsustainable projects. Eventually, the economy must correct itself, leading to a painful bust.

The misallocation of resources during the boom phase often results in over-investment in specific sectors, such as real estate or technology. When the inevitable correction occurs, these sectors suffer disproportionately, leading to widespread economic hardship.

This cycle not only affects large corporations but also impacts everyday Americans, who may lose jobs and savings. The Austrian perspective highlights the dangers of relying on central banks to manage the economy, as their interventions can exacerbate the very problems they seek to solve.

Politically Directed Winners and Losers

The economic landscape shaped by the Federal Reserve creates clear winners and losers. The policies enacted by the Fed often benefit large corporations and financial institutions while leaving average Americans at a disadvantage.

As the Fed injects new money into the economy, those closest to the source—such as banks and major corporations—reap the rewards first. This creates a system where wealth is concentrated among the elite, while the average citizen faces rising prices and declining purchasing power.

For the average working American, the consequences of Fed policies are dire. While the wealthy can leverage their assets to benefit from inflation, everyday families struggle to keep up with rising costs. This disparity highlights the erosion of financial sovereignty for the middle and lower classes.

As the Fed continues to prioritize the interests of the few over the many, the gap between the winners and losers in the economy widens. This systemic inequality poses a significant threat to the fabric of society, as social mobility becomes increasingly elusive.

Subscribe now

Crisis and the FED

The relationship between crises and the Federal Reserve is a recurring theme in economic history. The Fed often uses emergencies as a justification to expand its powers, intervening in ways that can have long-lasting repercussions.

In the wake of each financial crisis, the Fed has implemented new policies aimed at stabilizing the economy. However, these interventions frequently lead to more significant problems down the line, as they fail to address the root causes of economic instability.

During times of economic distress, the Fed's emergency measures often prioritize short-term stability over long-term solutions. This approach can create a cycle of dependency, where the economy relies on Fed interventions to function properly.

As the Fed continues to intervene, it risks further entrenching its power and influence over the economy. The long-term consequences of these actions can lead to increased volatility and uncertainty, undermining financial sovereignty for all Americans.

The FED, Inflation, and Prices

Inflation is a critical issue that arises from the Fed's monetary policies. As the central bank increases the money supply, the value of the dollar diminishes, leading to rising prices for goods and services.

This persistent inflationary environment erodes the purchasing power of consumers, making it increasingly challenging for families to maintain their standard of living. The Fed's target of 2% inflation may seem benign, but it represents a systematic theft of value from the average American.

The Fed's role in creating inflation is often justified as a means of stimulating economic growth. However, the reality is that inflation disproportionately affects those with fixed incomes and savings, leading to financial instability for many.

As the Fed continues to manipulate interest rates and the money supply, it risks creating an environment where inflation spirals out of control. This scenario poses a significant threat to financial sovereignty, as citizens find their savings eroded by rising costs.

Watch The Documentary

What Happened in 2008

The financial crisis of 2008 serves as a stark example of the consequences of unchecked Fed policies. The housing bubble, fueled by low interest rates and easy credit, ultimately burst, leading to widespread economic devastation.

In the aftermath, the Fed implemented a series of unprecedented measures to stabilize the economy. However, these interventions often favored large banks and corporations, further entrenching the systemic inequalities that plague the financial system.

Following the 2008 crisis, the Fed's actions resulted in an "everything bubble," where prices for various assets soared without regard for underlying value. This environment created a false sense of security, masking the underlying vulnerabilities within the economy.

The legacy of the 2008 crisis continues to shape the economic landscape, as the Fed's policies have fostered a cycle of dependency and instability. As we move forward, the importance of understanding the implications of these actions on financial sovereignty cannot be overstated.

What Happened in 2020

The year 2020 marked a significant turning point in the global economy. The World Health Organization announced a pandemic that led to widespread lockdowns, business closures, and an unprecedented financial collapse. While many attributed the recession to the pandemic, the underlying issues were deeply rooted in the actions of the Federal Reserve.

As the economy began to falter, the government's response was swift and massive. Trillions of dollars were spent to prop up the economy, with the Federal Reserve accommodating these expenditures by printing money at an alarming rate. This led to a situation where the Fed essentially bought everything that wasn't nailed down, exacerbating existing inequalities and redistributing wealth in favor of the elite.

Most people linked the economic downturn directly to COVID-19 rather than recognizing the role of the Federal Reserve. The narrative pushed by the government painted a picture of a collapsing economy due to an external health crisis, diverting attention from the systemic issues that had been building for years.

This shift in focus allowed the Fed to continue its inflationary policies without scrutiny. The consequences of these actions are felt most acutely by those who are further down the economic ladder, as they struggle with rising prices and diminishing purchasing power.

The Big Picture

The monetary system facilitated a concentration of wealth that benefits corporations and the government at the expense of the average citizen. This dynamic creates a scenario where the government and the Federal Reserve work in tandem, leading to a system that perpetuates wealth inequality.

As the Fed injects money into the economy, the initial recipients are often large corporations and financial institutions. This creates a wealth transfer that leaves Main Street and younger generations with the short end of the stick. Understanding this systemic imbalance is crucial for grasping the larger implications of the Fed's policies on financial sovereignty.

The wealth redistribution facilitated by the Fed's policies has far-reaching consequences. As the money supply increases, those who receive the new money first can benefit from lower prices and increased purchasing power. In contrast, those who receive it later face higher prices and diminished value of their existing wealth.

This dynamic creates a cycle of dependency on government and central bank interventions, undermining the principles of a free market economy. The longer this situation persists, the more difficult it becomes for individuals and families to achieve true financial sovereignty.

The Fed's Ultimate Weapon

Inflation has become the Federal Reserve's ultimate weapon, systematically depreciating the currency and enriching a select few while impoverishing many. This institutionalized inflation is often seen as a necessary evil to stimulate economic growth, but the reality is that it comes at a significant cost to the average citizen.

As prices rise, the purchasing power of the dollar diminishes, making it increasingly challenging for families to make ends meet. The Fed's approach to managing the economy through inflation not only distorts market signals but also perpetuates a cycle of wealth inequality.
Inflation acts as a hidden tax, disproportionately affecting the middle class and those on fixed incomes. While the wealthy can often shield themselves from the effects of inflation, everyday Americans find their savings eroded and their standard of living threatened.

As the Fed continues to prioritize inflationary measures, the implications for financial sovereignty become increasingly dire. The challenge lies in recognizing the long-term consequences of these policies and advocating for a more equitable monetary system.

Fed Controlled Digital Currency

The future of money is increasingly leaning towards a Fed-controlled digital currency. This central bank digital currency (CBDC) would offer the Federal Reserve unprecedented control over the economy and individual financial transactions. While proponents argue it could streamline monetary policy, the potential risks far outweigh the benefits.

A digital currency would allow the Fed to monitor spending patterns and implement policies that could restrict how individuals use their money. This level of control raises significant concerns about privacy and freedom, as the government could potentially dictate what citizens can buy or sell.

The introduction of a CBDC could fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and their money. Instead of empowering individuals, it could lead to greater government oversight and control, undermining financial sovereignty.

As we consider the implications of a digital currency, it is essential to weigh the potential benefits against the risks of increased government intervention in personal finance. The transition to a CBDC could pave the way for a more authoritarian economic environment, where citizens have limited control over their financial futures.

The Fireman or the Arsonist

The Federal Reserve often presents itself as a fireman, stepping in to extinguish economic crises. However, a closer examination reveals that it may also be the arsonist that starts the fires. By injecting new money into the economy, the Fed creates inflationary pressures that ultimately lead to economic instability.

This dual role complicates the narrative surrounding the Fed's actions. While it claims to stabilize the economy, its policies often exacerbate the very issues it seeks to address. This contradiction raises critical questions about the necessity of a central bank in maintaining economic stability.

For centuries, economists have warned about the dangers of government control over money. The manipulation of the monetary system creates uncertainty and instability, undermining the principles of a free market economy. As the Fed continues to expand its influence, it becomes increasingly important to question its role in shaping our economic future.

Recognizing the potential for the Fed to act both as a protector and a destabilizer is crucial in understanding the broader implications of its policies on financial sovereignty.

Austrian Business Cycle Theory

The Austrian Business Cycle Theory provides valuable insights into the consequences of credit expansion and monetary manipulation. According to this theory, artificially low interest rates distort market signals, leading to misallocated resources and unsustainable economic growth.

When the Fed lowers interest rates, it encourages excessive borrowing and spending, creating an economic boom that is ultimately built on shaky foundations. As these unsustainable projects come to light, the economy must correct itself, leading to painful busts.

The boom-bust cycle illustrates the dangers of relying on central banks to manage the economy. During the boom phase, resources are misallocated, leading to over-investment in certain sectors. When the inevitable correction occurs, these sectors suffer disproportionately, resulting in widespread economic hardship.

Understanding this cycle is essential for recognizing the limitations of monetary policy and the risks associated with excessive government intervention in the economy. The Austrian perspective emphasizes the importance of sound money and limited government intervention as a means to achieve sustainable economic growth.

What to Do with the Fed

The question of what to do with the Federal Reserve is critical to the future of our economy. With a long history of mismanagement and inflationary policies, there are growing calls to reconsider the role of the Fed in shaping monetary policy.

One potential solution is to return to a system where money is no longer in the hands of government and is instead determined by market forces. This approach could foster a more stable economic environment and reduce the risks associated with central bank interventions.

Advocating for changes to the Federal Reserve's structure and policies requires a collective effort from citizens and policymakers alike. By pushing for greater transparency and accountability, we can work towards a monetary system that prioritizes financial sovereignty and equitable wealth distribution.

Ultimately, the goal should be to create an economic environment where individuals have control over their financial futures, free from the burdens of inflation and government intervention.

Sound Money and The Way Ahead

Sound money is a critical component of a healthy economy. By limiting the power of the Federal Reserve and promoting a monetary system based on tangible assets, we can restore trust in our financial institutions and enhance financial sovereignty.

Implementing sound money principles would allow individuals to engage in contracts based on currencies that they voluntarily agree upon, fostering a more stable economic environment. This approach not only empowers citizens but also promotes responsible fiscal policies that benefit society as a whole.

As we navigate the complexities of the modern economy, the importance of sound money cannot be overstated. It represents a fundamental shift towards a more equitable financial system, where the interests of the many are prioritized over the few.

By advocating for sound money and challenging the existing monetary framework, we can work towards a future that supports financial sovereignty and economic stability for all.