One Law

Re-thinking governance. We only need one law - the Non-Aggression Principle - the foundation of libertarianism - to maximize justice, peace, and prosperity.

by

The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart | Foundation for Economic Education

The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart | Foundation for Economic Education

Between 1950 and 2009, American public schools experienced a 96 percent increase in student population. During that time, the number of administrators and other staff increased by over seven times the increase in students. This staffing surge still exists today, but the promised benefits are nowhere to be seen.

Source: The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart | Foundation for Economic Education

 

The source article is a great piece from Daniel J. Mitchell because it succinctly and effectively sums up what is wrong with public education; however, it ends there.

At some point, we need to realize not only that a problem exists, not only that it is severe, but that it cannot in anyway be corrected by or from within the very structure of human organization which allowed it to evolve and survive in a deficient state – in this case, that organizational structure is government – ever subject to the whims of political successors.

No disrespect to the Cato Institute; it produces some fantastic analyses on a broad range of topics. But like most other political think tanks, it fails when the author or another subject offers a non-solution such as:

“Juan concludes his column with a plea for diversity, innovation, and competition… …He’s right, but he should focus his ire on his leftist friends and colleagues. They’re the ones (including the NAACP!) standing in the proverbial schoolhouse door and blocking the right kind of education reform.”

The conclusion is correct in that education would improve from greater diversity, innovation and competition. But then, logic, sound economics and reality were abandoned.  The author then adds where Juan’s focus should be – on the left side of the political spectrum.

Given that public education has been under the direction of both ends of the political spectrum, and in reality usually the combination thereof, this clearly isn’t a solution.

The real problem is government itself – not the people, the structure. As a form of human organization, it cannot systematically and sustainably cleanse itself of virtually any ill whether it waste, inefficiency, or graft. Just look at the 40-year trend in the above graph in cost versus performance versus the number of employees.

It is not a right or left problem. It is a structural problem; one that cannot be resolved by politics – ever. Only the free market under one rule of law positively applied to all persons can provide diversity, innovation and competition in education. If you understand the fundamentals of business, and in particular entrepreneurialism; and then centralizing forces of government, you known that this not opinion – it is fact. More choice is always more power. Government cannot provide real choice.

If you really want broad-based educational improvement, then cut to the chase: get government out of education, and do it now.

Note:  The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Conceptual and title source:  Daniel J. Mitchell from his blog originally published on fee.org. The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart | Foundation for Economic Education
Media source:  www.fee.org

by

The Supreme Court’s New Attack on the Fourth Amendment | Mises Wire

The Supreme Court’s New Attack on the Fourth Amendment | Mises Wire

Source: The Supreme Court’s New Attack on the Fourth Amendment | Mises Wire

In the spirit of Murray N. Rothbard, Fegley’s article exposes the fundamental reasons why the proverbial concept of “checks and balances” between the three branches of American government fails to protect  its constituents …and I would offer, why at fundamental level government is unsustainable and doomed to fail:  because all men are self-interested, regardless of the type of organizational structure from which they work.

Yet this begs the question of organizational structure – which is better?

Government

Non-Profit

Limited liability company

Partnership

Corporation

Sole-Proprietorship

Some would say that it depends.

In truth, they are all “fictions of law” or “creatures of statute”, and thus arbitrary. Nothing is accomplished by these entities unless someone actually does something i.e. digs hole, types a letter, diagnoses cancer or protects your home, etc.

Only individuals think, decide and act – not entities.

All governmental employees provide goods and services too – but because they work for government, they are not held to the higher bar of consensual exchange imposed upon non-governmental employees where the decision “to buy” is left solely to the customer.

Instead, the entire foundation of government and the subsistence of its employees is based upon force. There is no choice whether you want their services; and hence, no basic justice – which is the cornerstone of a peaceful and prosperous culture.

As such, the creation of government (not the services of governance) necessarily creates two groups of people which are held to entirely different standards of care and where the governmental class exists upon the efforts the non-governmental class – like or not – it’s actually a form of serfdom or slavery, not to mention that this sanctioned theft creates an enduring and seemingly ever expanding safe harbor for waste, inefficiency, and corruption.

Yes, the Constitution was a fantastic idea for its time and relative to other systems it has served the country’s constituents well, but time has exposed its deep flaws – namely as Fegley quoted Rothbard, pieces of paper don’t enforce themselves.

Think about it: The Constitution was signed in 1778. Fast forward to today and we can clearly see the metastasis of the U.S. Government and current conflicts of interest such as the debacle du jour: the alleged preferential treatment of Hillary Clinton by the FBI.

Is this result surprising given the rise and fall of so many civilizations?

As we can see, the great system of “checks and balances” is forever flawed by an inherent conflict of interest.

Each branch of government tends to cover the others because they all need each other to maintain the edifice of government and the interest of those who benefit from the status quo.  No conspiracy here – just an expression of human nature.

The only “checks and balances” we really need is the maintenance of the power for each person to decide whether he or she needs any good or service – and for this to be enforced based upon one rule of law – the Non-Aggression Principle.

Note:  The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Conceptual and title source:  Tate Fegley https://mises.org/blog/supreme-court%E2%80%99s-new-attack-fourth-amendment.
Media source:  www.mises.org

by

The National Defense Authorization Act Explained in 3 Minutes

 

Great piece!

As Americans celebrate the 4th of July, let’s look more deeply at how the government has expanded its reach, in effect, equivalent to a dictatorship – the antithesis of America.

Sound far-fetched?

Watch the clip and you decide whether it’s consistent with a “Government of the people, by the people, for the people…”.

The National Defense Authorization Act is just one of many modern instances of extraordinary governmental overreach and abuse – a harbinger of greater despotism and tyranny.

If political history has a way of repeating itself – and it largely does because it is inextricably tied to the imperfections of human nature – then let’s quit living in denial and push back. Let’s use our discomfort with this issue and others as inspiration and energy for real change.

And what real change would that be?

Creating a socio-economic structure fundamentally more just; thus, one more capable for providing greater peace then prosperity. Holding literally everyone and every entity, locally and globally, accountable to a single code: the Non-Aggression Principle (“NAP”) where it would be applied as the rule of law.

Logically, morally and spiritually, in this author’s opinion, it is the only way forward to better solve any problem in the world. We need to trust ourselves – not our overseers. The NAP is the foundation of pure libertarianism a/k/a anarcho-libertarianism/capitalism which hold the keys to a better future for all.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Conceptual and title source:  Storm Clouds Gathering https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNcbsB1Pizg via http://www.recuro.org/
Media source:  Storm Clouds Gathering https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNcbsB1Pizg