Pro Rege Papers

This is a topic that I’ve been wanting to write on for a while, and never got around to it. But some prodding came from an anonymous person’s comments on my previous post. He questioned the wisdom of getting involved in the North Korea situation, and apparently holds to isolationist views. You can see his three whole comments on my previous post, along with my complete resonse. I’m only going to post one of his statements that really brought up the question, with my answer (with the latter being larger of course):

I sincerely believe it is not the United State’s job to solve world affairs.

Nor do I. But this state of affairs has been forced upon us by the conditions that we live in today. I firmly believe that the United States should not go around as a police state in the world. However, there are certain cases nowadays (like the nuclear threat from North Korea) where we have to come in and make a stand, whether it’s diplomatically or militarily. Here are a few reasons why:

We were forced into WWII by Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, and the threat of terrible Nazi domination of the world. After that, we were forced into the resulting Cold War because of the power vacuum in Europe and the USSR’s constant threat to blow everyone up, including us. Now that the USSR has fallen, we are left as the only superpower in the world, which leaves us with responsibilities and liabilities that we would not otherwise have if the above events did not happen.

You also have to consider the fact that in the world today we have nukes, long-range missiles and warships, massive armies that can be deployed quickly, and rogue nations with crazy leaders that can do serious damage to many nations, including us.

These two things, history and current technology, inhibit us from pursuing an isolationist policy in the world today.

our getting into other people’s affairs is a direct violation of the Monroe Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine was just that: the doctrine of a President that he followed that worked well in his day. I believe it is a good idea, but it is impractical in the world today, as I stated above. It is also just a certain foreign policy, not a law.

I think we should do something about North Korea before they become an even more serious threat, which is happening very fast. Not to mention that they already are a fairly serious threat.

I’d really appreciate feedback on these views.

Here is the Quote of the Month for September 2006:

The best government is that which governs least. No human depositories [of power] can, with safety, be trusted with the power of legislation upon the general interests of society so as to operate directly or indirectly upon the industry and property of the community.

From the first issue of The Democratic Review, 1837

As I explained in my post about the Great Depression, one of the major causes of the stock market crash, the bank closings, and the ensuing poverty was credit inflation. Rather, it was the credit contraction that Hoover ordered that started the cycle. But that came as a result of the huge credit expansion. Anyway, credit inflation was one of the major causes. This being the root source of the crash, you would think that government would take steps to restrict fractional reserve banking, the buying of stocks on margin, the inflationary practices of the Federal Reserve, etc. However the measures taken by the government following the crash were nothing like that. They were in entirely the wrong direction. Those measures sought to keep credit from contracting, and even sought to re-inflate the currency, as well as hinder private industry. In hindsight, the governmental response ended up prolonging the Depression.

Credit contraction helps prices and wages to readjust to the new conditions. It’s the first stage in an economic recovery. However, right after the crash at the end of 1929, the Federal Reserve raised rediscount rate on loans. Hoover also pushed through a banking loan corporation, which aided fractional reserve banks to reestablish their reserves. This, in effect tried to reinstate the cause of the stock market crash. These practices drove inflation back up, creating a temporary façade of recovery. But, the inevitable came again, and prices plunged.

More measures were taken by FDR, who took us off the gold standard and onto a government managed currency. Thus, the President could decide how much money was printed, and what price relation the dollar had to gold. FDR also established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Home Owners Loan Corporation, the Farm Credit Administration, and the Commodity Credit Corporation. All these agencies expanded credit further to slow down the contraction from running its course, which it eventually did in 1933.

The regulations imposed on private industry, as well as the free rein given to labor unions throughout Roosevelt’s administration served to keep the country in the state of economic doldrums.

The National Recovery Administration required industries to develop codes that the President would have to approve that would be binding on all companies in that industry. They also sought to reduce of all “unfair” competition by merging different businesses under the same rules. That was part of a collectivist agenda to destroy individuality and competition.

The National Labor Relations Board was set up; restricting the number of ways courts could issue injunctions against, or companies could act against, labor unions. It defined a series of crimes that companies could commit against their employees, such as prohibiting the organization of labor unions, preventing strikes, refusing to negotiate with strikers, etc.

Tax after tax was laid on companies and private citizens. All these things made life much harder for private industry, which prevented them from hiring more people or their stock from rising in value. As a result, the economic recession lasted well into the ‘40s. Yes, extensive government intervention in the economy doesn’t work.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was one of the most dictatorial Presidents in the history of the United States. He expanded the powers of the executive branch so much, (in particular the office of President) that it was doubtful for a while if the Constitution still ruled the country. His illegal actions in office dwarf those of George W. Bush, even though the latter is often accused today of expanding government powers extensively, strengthening the executive, infringing on the rights of the people, etc. In FDR’s time; however, few people spoke up against the unconstitutionality of his actions. This criticism would have been helpful especially in the First Hundred Days, when most of the New Deal legislation was passed. Yes, the country was in the middle of the Great Depression, but people who were aware of what was going on should have spoken up.

FDR said in his inaugural address that he magically “read the temper of the people”; so that he knew they wanted change in the direction of socialism. The people wanted some solution after the stock market crash, but not change that would alter the course of the country dramatically.

FDR used the power of his landslide victory over Hoover to convince Congress to pass his socialistic measures, known as the “New Deal”. Congress met in an emergency session called by Roosevelt from March 9 to June 16 of 1933 to consider (in reality, pass) legislation drafted by FDR. This in itself was unconstitutional. The President does not have the power to initiate legislation. The House of Representatives has the responsibility to initiate tax laws, and both houses of Congress may draft any other type of bill. If both houses pass the bill, then it goes to the President. The President then vetoes it or signs it.

The very opposite happened during the First Hundred Days. The President, or aides under his supervision, wrote the bill, and it was sent to Congress for passage or rejection. In most cases, Congress passed it. H.L. Mencken, a satirist, recognized the unconstitutionality of what went on, even though he was a socialist himself. He added this to his mock “A Constitution for the New Deal”:

The Legislature of the United States shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Every bill shall be prepared under the direction of the President and transmitted to the two Houses at his order…No member shall propose any amendment to a bill without permission in writing from the President… In case any member shall doubt the wisdom of a bill he may apply to the President for light upon it, and thereafter he shall be counted as voting aye. In all cases a majority of members shall be counted as voting aye.

Though that is a little exaggerated, it paints the picture fairly well. Congress passed the first act of the New Deal by 73 to7.

The legislation of the New Deal was full of presidential “discretionary” authority that was not granted by any stretch of the imagination in the Constitution. The National Industrial Recovery Act contained many such phrases:

Upon application to the President…After the President shall have approved any such code, the provisions of such code shall be standards…The President may…prescribe and approve a code…The President may suspend or revoke any such license…etc.

FDR made the Presidential branch much too powerful in his time. He did it in relation to foreign and domestic affairs, the economy and the lives of his countrymen, as well as governmental and social issues.

An integral part of Karl Marx’s theory of communism is that the supposedly poor workers (proletariat) are being oppressed by the supposedly rich capitalist employers. Collectivists say that the proletariat is in a very bad condition. They insist that they are much worse off than the capitalists. However, these are comparative terms that communists are using.

The question is: “What are they comparing present conditions with?” It is certainly not the past. The working population is better off and richer than ever before. Capitalism got the proletariat out of serfdom to feudal lords in the Middle Ages. As far as I can see that’s a change for the better, not worse.

So if they’re not comparing it with the past, they must be comparing it with the future. This is obviously the case. Utopians have given us a picture of a glorious, peaceful world that can be brought about by instituting socialistic programs. Novels like Looking Backward, by Edward Bellamy gave this impression, and urged us to move civilization forward by their ideas.

Now, I’ll admit, the present can look very gloomy compared with an imaginary paradise. However, that hardly means that the imaginary future will come about by the programs that socialists propose. It hardly proves their theory. Nor does it prove that things are horribly bad now.

Besides, those utopias have not come about. Looking Backward was supposed to be fulfilled in 2000. It’s 2006, and we still don’t have a paradise, even though many of Marx’s ideas have been put into law. There have even been some groups that have followed Marx’s instructions to the letter, but all attempts have failed.

Socialists need to get into reality, and look at where we are compared to where we have been, not what someone wishes we were.

The ­­first clause of article 1, section 3, of the Constitution states:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.”

This very important aspect of the office of the Senator has been revoked today. It was changed by the ­17^th amendment, ratified on April 8, 1913. This amendment has weakened the integrity of the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers originally designed the Constitution as a delicate system of checks and balances. They assigned the different responsibilities to different branches and subsections, elected by different means. The Senate was designed to be the realm of the states. The state legislatures would elect the Senators, and thereby have this check on federal government. All bills, treaties, and appointments would have to be ratified by the Senate in order for them to become valid. The states could then make sure that the feds didn’t encroach on their rights and privileges.

This is as opposed to the House of Representatives, which is elected by the people directly. This house of Congress originates all the tax laws and other things. The normal citizens of the U.S. would naturally be concerned about that, so they have power over that side of law making.

However, in the early 1900s, the Progressives were pushing for more of their programs. They were in favor of a democracy, as opposed to the originally designed republic. They wanted the people to control all aspects of government more directly. This was a façade, behind which they could institute greater governmental controls over people’s lives. In fact, on February 13 of the same year, the 16^th amendment was ratified by Progressives, giving government the power to levy an income tax.

However, this change to the Constitution has resulted in less representation of the states in federal government. They have lost their voice. The two houses of Congress are now basically the same, except for their duties. This decreased responsibility has resulted in various usurpations by Washington, leading to decreased freedoms.

We need to restore the Senate to its original position as the representative of the states in federal government. We need to repeal the 17^th amendment to take back the strength of the Constitution.

Socialism is being accepted in America. Slowly but surely it is coming about. It has slowed a little since the ‘80s, but it is gradually enveloping America.

In the United States, we prefer the gradualist (or evolutionary) socialism. This is opposed to the revolutionary socialism espoused by Karl Marx, also known as communism. Communism declares that there is a huge gap between the rich capitalists and the poor workers, and therefore the poor workers need to rise up against the capitalists and take over the economy, thereby equalizing wages for all and ushering in a worker’s paradise. They need to abolish government in one fell swoop and have the collective decide things (for some of the ideology behind socialism in general, read the beginning of my post on labor unions).

Gradual socialism on the other hand, while accepting the basic premises and views of revolutionary socialism, prefers to bring about the change in a different way. This form says that government should be used to gradually bring down capitalism by the use of laws, labor unions, court decisions, etc. The government should gradually get rid of private property, take over certain services and industries, and increase taxes so that eventually the middle class will be destroyed, the rich brought down, and everyone will be poor together.

Essentially, you have two different methods of accomplishing the same thing.

The Fabian Society in Britain is a prime example of this latter type of socialism. You can see the results in the modern-day UK. I saw an Englishman’s comment on a blog recently, talking about how you have to have a TV license from the government in England if you want to watch TV or video feeds on the Internet. Just imagine: All of us living in the good ‘ole USA are watching TV freely and without government harassment, while our fellow men in Britain are paying the government for the privilege to watch the BBC (which itself has a monopoly on TV and radio programming in the UK).

In the United States, utopians and muckrakers had much influence on convincing the American mind that there were horrible evils being perpetrated by the big companies on the people. Americans began little by little to accept the basic premises of socialism, while rejecting the results. They began to view government intervention as the only way to solve problems in society. While they hated and rejected anything that actually called itself socialism, they accepted programs that advanced the socialist agenda. That’s why you won’t find anyone today who calls himself or his program socialist. They know that they won’t be able to pass it, so they put it under the guise of “democracy” or “nationalism” or some other innocent-sounding word.

The gradualist socialism was carried out by the Populists, Progressive Republicans, and Democrats, consecutively. The Democratic Party today is the main driving force behind many socialist programs. Though now Republicans are being drawn in as well. We need to stop the gradual overtaking of our country by socialism.