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.

Embrace the paradox and see through false appearances. Learn to discern deception and false hope while remaining hopeful of a better life and way of being.  The Way is in training, and the path of personal discipline leads to enduring wealth, as well as commonwealth by first securing the blessings of liberty in a free state for yourself and posterity.

The arrogance of rogue public officials see We The People as tax cattle to be fleeced. Unconstitutional bureaucracies have plans for imposing martial governance in territory they already occupy. 

What can We The People do in such a scenario?

Subscribe now

What do the foundational charter documents say about constitutional order under a supreme law that is, contrary to democracy, specifically limited to things of a public nature?

How can We The People assert local self-governance amid rampant abuse by these arrogant occupiers?

The solution comes down to individual daily disciplines.

First, discipline your mind:

https://www.everydaysamurai.life/Brainshots

Share

What narratives will the political caste employ to impose “martial governance” upon We The People? How do these justifications square with legitimate legal principles and constitutional order?

How will rogue public officers label “the good people” that rightfully resist official corruption and criminality? 

Can you imagine citizens being treated like belligerents under international laws of war with complete disregard for civil rights? 

Do you see signs of a police-state being formed now?

What remedies could free people resort to in the face of tyranny? 

What are you ready to do to reassert constitutional governance and secure the blessings of liberty?

Remember, We The People are “the government” and not just those holding public office. 

Subscribe now

We The People have the right and duty to alter or abolish any government that is destructive of the ends for which it was formed.  Martial governance under international laws of war is incompatible with the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.  The two cannot coexist. 

Therefore, those seeking to impose “martial governance” are doing so not as government officials exercising constitutional delegated authority, but as criminals and tyrants.

Yet there is a constitutional remedy for reasserting constitutional order in the face of tyranny if only We The People would exercise the necessary disciplines.

Powerful push-button meditation:

https://www.everydaysamurai.life/zen12

Liberty requires discipline, both individually and communally.  It’s not enough to speak of wanting an ideal, you have to do the work to achieve it.  Yet there are always excuses and distractions to be overcome, and self-delusion is one of the greatest obstacles to effective action.  Securing a Free State is a rather straightforward matter of following clearly spelled out constitutional provisions for money and security and justice functions. 

The problem is with follow through.  It requires an organized, armed, and disciplined population actively checking and arresting the corrupt ambitions of rogue public officials that abuse the political power entrusted to them.  All of these problems flow from widespread apathy to the civic responsibility of executing the law, repelling invasions, and suppressing insurrections. 

Self-government requires engagement, and personal discipline, just like a free market in arms, is the necessary pre-condition to enjoying the fruits of liberty.  Actively seeking discomfort in mind, body, and spirit is part of the training.  Being clear on a goal and noticing the gap from where you are to where you want to be can help motivate, so long as you don’t look away or seek distractions. 

Personal discipline is the necessary ingredient in your own martial training, success in every area of life, as well as maintaining constitutional order among a federation of republics.  

There is a way to right the ship of government.  The Way is in training.  It starts with your daily choices.

Powerful pushbutton meditation:

https://www.everydaysamurai.life/zen12

2. Limited government: The Constitution

3. Free markets beneficial to all, the general welfare

4. Personal freedom, the Bill of Rights

5. The centripetal force of a single national language, English, in which those fundamental laws, as well as America's statutes and judicial decisions, are written

…and perhaps most important of all…

6. Each individual's duty to the community to be ever ready to retain and protect good government and to throw off bad government if necessary through being called forth and serving in the militia.

But, no, the haves have promoted the subversion, even the open denigration of Americanism at every turn, particularly with respect to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the unfettered exercise of which is essential to the maintenance of well-regulated militia.

The one and only culture that vaunted inclusiveness of multiculturalism scrupulously excludes is Americanism.

Share

The political caste cannot deliver on the “freedom from want” and, therefore, must resort to the “freedom from fear” by constantly inventing new justifications for the citizens to render ever more emergency powers.  Centralization of power is just cover for resource grabs, central planning, and population control.  

It warns against the building of a police state and the erosion of civil liberties in the name of national security, emphasizing the need for individuals to resist political encroachment and the unjust exercises of governmental power.  The war on terrorism has become a war of terror, waged through elaborate ruses against We The People with tyrannical designs.  However, We The People are “the government” and are duty bound to execute the law, repel invasions, and suppress insurrections in order to secure a Free State where every enjoys private property, individual liberty, and the freedom of association and exchange.  We The People can arrest the criminal behavior of rogue official if, and only if, each individual embraces the warrior disciplines and contributes to the maintenance of constitutional order.  

The best nootropic supplements to empower your mind and body for a victorious life:

https://www.everydaysamurai.life/neuro

We delve into the intricate interplay of mindset, martial art, and the science of political-economy to address the problem of monopoly cartels that are undermining good governance and the livelihood of ordinary citizens.  Through the lens of samurai philosophy, particularly insights from Miyamoto Musashi's "Book of Five Rings," we'll explore how every challenge presents an opportunity for victory. 

From the erosion of individual liberties, debasement of the currency, and social degeneracy to international conflict, together we'll uncover the silver lining that is always available in every dark cloud in the form of actionable solutions rooted in personal freedom, popular self-government, and local militia, that has the power to dismantle the perverse incentives of the political caste (politicians, bureaucrats, technocrats, and oligarchs). 

Embrace the mindset of an empowered individual, build the community of enlightened warriors, and help secure a more prosperous world with sound money, free markets, and private property.

Powerful meditation in just 12 minutes:

Https://www.everydaysamurai.life/Zen12