We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – When fascism comes to America… When Fascism Comes To America, It Will Look Like Justin Trudeau’s Canada.
Trudeau’s dangerous not just because he’s abusing Canadians, but because he is providing the wish list for crackdowns by Democrats in the U.S.: “every single bank, credit union, investment broker and insurance provider in the country has been deputized to figure out if they have a blockader as a client, and to immediately freeze their accounts if so.”
– William Jacobson
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
This is an old article, but I think it is a educational thing to think about. But one thing struck me:
every single bank, credit union, investment broker and insurance provider in the country has been deputized to figure out if they have a blockader as a client, and to immediately freeze their accounts if so.
What struck me is how perfunctory this is. Here in the USA since 9/11 we have had a set of banking regulations with the disturbingly creepy name “know your customer”. But it isn’t about “knowing your customer” it is in fact about “telling the government about your customer.” The simple fact is that our banking system is one big surveillance state. Somehow it became the bank’s job to search for terrorists (such as with the OFAC rules) or to look for criminal organizations (such as with the anti-money laundering rules and statutes) and even, more recently, enforce something a little short of a Chinese style social credit scheme where people with views unpopular with the government couldn’t open a bank account.
It used to be that bank secrecy was a thing, where the bank assiduously guarded the privacy of their customers. How we went from “bank secrecy” to “know your customer” is surely the story of the collapse of the free society. My God, even Swiss banks genuflect to the all mighty IRS.
So, Americans (and I imagine Brits) before you tut-tut-tut at the loathsome Trudeau, we might remember that saying about throwing rocks in a glass house.
I had two accounts in a CA bank at the time, one very small and one slightly larger.
I wrote a check to a fundraiser for the truckers.
Both of my accounts were “made inaccessible” within a few days.
The larger account was released to me a few weeks later. The smaller account only had about $500 in it, and was not released. I never got it back, and it wasn’t worth the hassle they wanted to put me through to fight it.
No American bank ever did anything like that to me.
The blogger of “The Nomad Capitalist” has this take on central bank digital currencies and the privacy threats they pose. A lot of folk, such as Tony Blair and so on, seem quite happy with centralised IDs for everything, and CBDCs are a logical step. The China-style social credit system could be integrated with it. What could possibly go wrong?
Nice little international banking business you have there. It would be a shame if you couldn’t access the reserve currency.
Nice little international banking business you have there. It would be a shame if you couldn’t access the reserve currency.
Another riff on this issue is that Delaware is today probably more secretive as a jurisdiction in terms of cross-border transactions than Switzerland was until about 2013, when bank secrecy laws as applied to non-Swiss people were weakened. Bank secrecy still applies to Swiss citizens’ bank accounts, however. A banker who divulges an account detail without permission can face a stretch in jail.
On the whole “fascism comes to America” point, I think – and I know this will annoy some MAGA folk – there is a casualness about due process of law that worries people. I don’t like ICE folk arresting suspects on the street and not wearing uniforms and covering their faces. I don’t like using National Guards soldiers for law enforcement unless there’s a clear national emergency, limited by time, and Mr Trump, like a lot of recent presidents, Democrat as well as GOP, likes to declare that X or Y is an emergency. Trump uses EOs too often. That sets a worse precedent. Again, the “whatabout the other guy?” deflection is not good enough, not least because it plays to a ratchet effect of increasing presidential power at the expense of Congress. The latter point also means that the US is in danger of moving from a multi-branch system (executive, legislature, and judiciary) to a dual-branch one (exec and the courts). The question then is what, essentially, is Congress for?
Electronic tracking of what people spend money on has been the international agenda for a long time – as has control of what people spend this electronic “money” on – with the electronic “money” expiring after a certain amount of time if not used, and used on the “correct” goods and services.
In such British television series as “1990” (made in the 1970s) it was taken for granted that a totalitarian regime would do this. Where money is no longer a physical commodity (such as gold or sliver) that people value apart-from and before its use as money, then you have systematic corruption (the “Cantillon Effect” – named after Richard Cantillon who identified, 300 years ago, how Credit Money concentrates wealth by allowing a small group to buy up assets, such as land, before the price goes up) and, eventually, tyranny.
As for using the banking system (and other so called “capitalist” corporations) to push Collectivism (indeed socialism) – again not a modern invention, Henri Saint-Simon had this idea 200 years ago.
Still, all the above being said, we are now reaching the crises point – where the theory of tyranny becomes the reality of tyranny.
As for using “the environment” as an excuse for World (yes world) Tyranny – David Rockefeller gloated about that at the Rio Conference in 1992, and the “Club of Rome” developed the idea of using “the environment” as a justification (an excuse) for world tyranny – back in the 1960s.
That banking and other corporations (not just open government) was going to be part of this tyranny – was understood from the start.
It is ironic that the people accusing President Trump of tyranny, indeed of Fascism, are serving forces that are the drivers of tyranny – on the Corporate State Fascist model.
It is total “projection”.
Just as the forces who wish to exterminate the Jews of “genocide” want to commit genocide themselves – against the Jews, so the forces who accuse President Trump of “Fascism” are the very people who are pushing a Fascist agenda.
Obviously this is a lead into “Social Credits”. Will you get more of them for freezing due to a heat pump or for kicking a rabbi to death? That is just one of the questions…
Re Johnathan Pearce,
By now, “whatabout the other guy?” has grown from a mere deflection to an argument that deserves to be addressed. I haven’t studied everything out to complete conclusions, so maybe it’s an argument that can be refuted, but it takes more than brushing it off as a “deflection”.
Of course, it also takes more analysis than most sane people would bother to commit to an uncompensated blog comment, so I shouldn’t sneer at you for omitting it.
But I will anyway, because I’m a horrible person.
*sneer*
@bobby b
No American bank ever did anything like that to me.
Maybe not to you, but Paypal does this to its customers on the regular.
And had the 2024 election gone the other way such behavior could easily become widespread in the USA. The infrastructure is already there. Remember, before the trucker protest no Canadian bank ever did anything like that either.
@Johnathan Pearce
there is a casualness about due process of law that worries people.
This bothers me too, however, it is worth stating that the media greatly exaggerates this. Perhaps with some exceptions, people are getting due process of law. For example, the brouhaha over Alligator Alcatraz is all mostly a lie. The ICE service has the same right to detain people as any other police force, and the facility is not a luxury hotel but in fact a much better prison than most prisons in the USA. And the illegal immigrants have an absolute right to self deport if they wish: the US government will even pay for their ticket. After that they are processed by Administrative courts where they have legal representation, and then are deported. Sounds like due process to me, Trump’s hyperbolic “alligators will eat you” statements notwithstanding.
I’m not saying that mistakes haven’t been made, and Trump’s rhetoric should not be toned down, but the simple fact is that the Trump administration is giving people due process of law, despite all the nonsense you read in the papers.
I don’t like ICE folk arresting suspects on the street and not wearing uniforms and covering their faces.
I think they certainly need to be identifiable by the authorities on camera, but these people’s lives and their families are literally threatened every day. I think it is not unreasonable to allow them some measure of protecting their identity, as long as if they commit a crime they can be identified and prosecuted. I don’t like it either, but I do think these are extraordinary circumstances.
Though why do you object to ICE arresting people on the street? I imagine most arrests of all kind take place on the street (though, TBH I don’t know.)
Trump uses EOs too often. That sets a worse precedent.
Why? An executive order is an instruction from the head of the executive branch to the people who work for him. That is what it means to be the chief executive. I run a business. I give orders to the people who work for me. It is how organizations work. There is this strange idea that the civil service in the USA is a separate branch of government that tempers the political desires of the President, especially Donald Trump. But these people were not elected. They work for Trump and they should absolutely follow his orders. That is what being President means.
The latter point also means that the US is in danger of moving from a multi-branch system (executive, legislature, and judiciary) to a dual-branch one (exec and the courts). The question then is what, essentially, is Congress for?
I think that is true, and that is because congress is almost entirely non functional. The structure of congress is such that, in a two party system it is now literally impossible to pass substantive legislation. Congress is essentially non functional. The cause of this fundamentally is a combination of the intense bitter partisanship and the cloture rules in the Senate. While we have either of both of these the senate might as well stay home and watch Netflix, because they are incapable of doing anything. The present situation with the government shutdown is a perfect illustration of this.
And it is worth saying that it is not dual branch, it is three branch even when we exclude the senate. Because the government is largely run but a gigantic blob of unelected, unaccountable civil servants, something that Trump is fighting hard to fix, and something that even defeated the great Elon Musk. Would that that unconstitutional branch of government become as ineffective and sclerotic as the congress.
” . . . there is a casualness about due process of law that worries people.”
“Due process” has become a catchphrase thrown about by the fashionable without an understanding of what it means.
Due process means that (1) you get advance NOTICE when government is doing anything that might impinge on your rights, and (2) you are given an OPPORTUNITY to be heard regarding that issue. That’s it.
So if John Smith got caught at the border coming in illegally, and was released with a hearing date but failed to show up, he has received all of the process that he is due. He got notice of the hearing, and he had a chance to argue that he was here legally, but he chose to forgo that opp. He is deportable at that point without relitigating the question.
If John S goes to his hearing and is adjudicated as deportable but he then absconds, he has received all process that he is due, and he may then be deported as soon as he is taken into custody, even years later. He does not get a second bite at the apple. (The only state burden at that point is proving that the arrestee is indeed John Smith.)
“Due process” doesn’t mean you get to keep arguing every point until you win.
Interestingly, I wrote to our minister of finance, Crystia Freeland, telling her that I had donated through GoFundMe and again through Give Send go and that she should have me on her list. Nothing happened, so I concluded the program was somewhat spotty. Still despise the liberals And every member of Parliament during that period.
Fraser, Yes, I heard about PayPal doing that sort of seizure, and proclaiming the right to do it. I immediately cancelled my account with them and have not engaged in any PayPal transactions since. If you deal with someone who’s openly proclaimed their bad intentions, you need to skip right past “Fool me once, shame on you.”
This bothers me too, however, it is worth stating that the media greatly exaggerates this.
Well, I prefer to exaggerate it than not cover it at all. It shows there is still life in our civic culture and a passion for justice, even if it gets warped by political partisanship.
This isn’t a partisan point: the erosion of the Common Law in the UK under various governments, of all colours, has been a bad thing. More and more criminal offences don’t require prosecutors to prove intent and are what are called strict liability offences. For instance, such as around tax evasion in certain cases.
There are also moves to reduce the amount of cases that go before juries.
Back to North America, one trend that has been in train for a long time is the militarisation, in some ways, of the police.
And as regulars in the UK know, the right to own firearms no longer exists.
To be relevant Congress has to function – and to function the Senate has to get rid of rules that exist no where in the Constitution of the United States.
Speeches should have set time limit (time tabling) – and the budget needs to pass by a simple majority vote – not “60 votes” – which means that controlling government spending is IMPOSSIBLE – as 60 Senators will never agree to reducing government spending.
Everyone, and their cat, knows that the Democrats will ignore any made-up rules if they take control of the Senate (remember how Obamacare and the Green New Deal were passed) – so Republicans should get rid of the filibuster rule NOW – whilst they are still in the majority and can actually do things.
Congress is “bypassed” because it does not function, and it does not function because of Senate rules that are MADE UP – rules that exist no where in the Constitution of the United States.
Johnathan Pearce and others.
Ideally law enforcement should be in the hands of locally elected sheriffs (a system Mr Joseph Biden tried to UNDERMINE for 50 years – right from his start in the Senate) and legal decisions should be made by juries.
But there is a problem that most be faced – it is not just judges who are often corrupt (including in murder trials – see the sick antics of the Minnesota judge in the case of the “murder” of Mr Floyd – sadly this sort of judge is quite common), it is also JURIES in many urban areas in the United States.
The education system and the media (including the entertainment media) have produced large numbers of people who are happy to convict the innocent and let the guilty off – knowing they are doing it.
I will say that again – many urban juries now decide cases on ethnic (“is this person part of my group?”) and political (yes POLITICAL) grounds – they convict the innocent (find against them in civil trials and convict in criminal trials) and they let the guilty walk free – knowing they are doing this.
President John Adams was an experienced lawyer – in both civil and criminal law, and he made the point that both the Common Law and the Constitution of the United States rest on the foundation of most people being basically good – not perfect, but basically O.K. people.
But in some urban areas that is no longer case – most people are NOT basically O.K. – not at all.
And this is not confined to the United States – it is becoming true in the cities of the United Kingdom (Britain) as well. Juries here now sometimes let off the guilty (“cut the throats” of right wingers said the Labour councilor to an angry mob he was addressing – and a jury of his fellow leftists said that was just fine, if I said such a thing “cut the throats of the leftists” – such a jury would find me guilty in five seconds flat), and convict the innocent – knowing-what-they-are-doing.
The first example I remember….
….was a leftist jury letting off the CND people who “sprung” the traitor George Blake from prison – so he could go to Moscow and rejoin his KGB masters (giggling about about the British intelligence officers, and others, he had betrayed) – there was no doubt about the guilt of the CND activists (members of “the 100” a group set up by the socialist philosopher Bertrand Russell) they wrote a book BOASTING about their treason. This was years ago and I thought it was a freak jury – but such juries are now becoming more common.
What is to be done?
When a large part of the population, perhaps MOST people in some cities, are so twisted by leftist indoctrination that they have (in the old language) given themselves over to evil, what is to be done?
And what is to be done about juries (in America and Britain) who judge cases on the basis of whether the accused is, or is not, part of their ethnic or religious group?
That is becoming more common as well. And academia sneers that judging a case on the facts, trying to do objective justice, is “whiteness” which must be destroyed.
John Adams was correct – everything, in the end, depends on the moral character of the ordinary people.
I used to be worried about precedents being set. Now all the precedents have been set anyway, I don’t know what the answer is. In America, Trump could play being the better man, but the outcome most likely to happen is the democrats would smell weakness and still try to have him overthrown and jailed on whatever flimsy pretext they could cobble together.
I agree with Paul on Congress. Worthless institution. In theory it shouldn’t be, in practice it’s probably the most dysfunctional part of the American separation of powers. Hasn’t like public approval of Congress been in the low teens for several decades? When is the last time Congress actually cut government spending in any real way? When did Congress last halt dubious foreign interventionism? When did Congress last really restrain the FED, FBI, CIA, etc?
I should have said – locally elected sheriffs and deputies – both professional and volunteers.
Volunteers (if need be armed volunteers) are crucial to a just law enforcement – ordinary people must understand the law and be willing to help enforce it, as used to be the case in Britain – not just the United States. In Britain it was not just volunteer magistrates (Justices of the Peace – unpaid) and Special Constables (again volunteer and unpaid) – it was also just ordinary people on the streets, such as the armed passers by who helped the police in an incident in London 1911 – these days the police would arrest them for having firearms, they certainly would not ask them for help.
But, again, all these depends on the beliefs, the moral character, of ordinary people.
If the population have, to use the old language, given themselves over to evil – the system will not work.
Do the population believe in private property based liberty and justice? Rather than the sickening evil of something like the misnamed “A Theory of Justice” by the late John Rawls (Harvard). People who believe in “Social Justice” (which is what Professor Rawls was really writing about) can not also believe in the principles of the Common Law – they are not compatible.
The principles of the Common Law are not compatible with “the Social Gospel” or “Liberation Theology”.
And do the population believe in objective and universal truth – rather than loyalty to an ethnic or religious group?
If the answer is “no” (to either of these questions) – then society falls apart.
Martin – the Senate could get rid of the, demented, rules that make it dysfunctional – it could get rid of them right now, today. None of these crazy rules are in the Constitution of the United States – they are made-up.
But the Republican leadership of Congress (House as well as Senate) are not really interested in doing what needed o be done.
President Trump knows what happens to people who are nice, who “rise above things” as the “better man”.
The Democrats send such people to prison, to be abused and cut up with knives.
That is what “Social Justice” is really about – and it is not just Democrat prosecutors and judges who are filth (and I use the word “filth” deliberately – for that it what they are), it is Democrat JURIES as well.
Agree with this (and with JPs previous posts in this thread).
It’s possible, and indeed desirable, to point out the wrong-doings in both countries, and in both “types of” political party. One does negate the other, it’s not an either-or, and one does not lose their “anti-state” credentials by pointing out such wrong-doings just because it’s being done by a state party that they dislike less than the other one.
One idea that i have been playing with for some time is to make it easier to cut spending, regulations, and public administration than to increase it.
One way to do it: eliminating a gov.program (say, Obamacare) should require a simple majority in either House or Senate, while introducing a new program should still require a majority in both (with cloture in the Senate), plus the approval of POTUS.
Snorri Godhi – an interesting idea, but this would require a Constitutional Amendment – which is very difficult to achieve.
Whereas getting rid of the filibuster nonsense, the de facto “you have to have 60 votes in the Senate” to do anything, could be done right now – today.
Again – the Democrats will ignore “Senate rules” if they gain the majority – so for Republicans to operate by “Senate rules” now is absurd.
@Paul Marks
Snorri Godhi – an interesting idea, but this would require a Constitutional Amendment – which is very difficult to achieve.
FWIW, that isn’t true. What determines these things is simply the rules of the Senate. We already have a similar rule called the Byrd rule which allows three types of spending bill to be passed with simple majority (though this one does derive from legislation as well as senate rules), and over the past few years the cloture rule has been more and more limited by changes to the rules (for example, Supreme Court Justices used to need cloture proof super majorities to get approved, now it is a simple majority.) There are some things in the consitution that require a 2/3 majority, such as impeachment, over turning a veto, and some others. But regular order legislation is entirely governed by Senate rules (which, BTW, are set by the Senate via majority vote.)
So although I think it is legally possible without an amendment, I think it is politically impossible.
Again – the Democrats will ignore “Senate rules” if they gain the majority – so for Republicans to operate by “Senate rules” now is absurd.
I don’t think that is true. Democrats could have eliminated the cloture rules last time they were in charge under Biden but, despite considerable pressure to do so, they did not. Not, I think, out of respect for the traditions of the Senate, but out of a legitimate fear that if you unsheathe that sword it will quickly be turned on you. Which is why the Senate under Republicans have also not change the cloture rules. I have mixed feelings on this. In one respect I think they might be wise to do so, but on the other hand the cloture rule means it is hard for the government to get stuff done: and as a general rule I am in favor if it being hard for the government to get stuff done, because the vast majority of things the government do are bad. Was it Jefferson who said “”No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session.”
BTW, American politicians and Senators often brag that the US Senate is the greatest deliberative body in the world. That could not be less true. It is one of the things I really love about the House of Commons: it is a genuine deliberative body, and Prime Minister’s questions are one of the greatest triumphs of democratic accountability in the world. My God, could you imagine Joe Biden taking Prime Minister’s questions?
@Johnathan Pearce
Well, I prefer to exaggerate it than not cover it at all. It shows there is still life in our civic culture and a passion for justice, even if it gets warped by political partisanship.
I do too, but there is a legitimate concern that the courts be buried under pointless crap to the point that the administration of justice becomes impossible. It is always a balance between preserving the rights of the accused and the rights of the victims. Blackstone famously said “let ten guilty men go free lest one innocent be punished.” Perhaps so, but what about letting a hundred guilty go free, or a thousand, or ten thousand? At what point does the preservation of the rights of the accused become so ridiculous that the rights of the victims and the future victims of these unconvicted become a more pressing matter? We can, for example, entirely ensure that no innocent person is punished by the state by simply shutting down the criminal justice system entirely. Then many innocent people would be punished, but at least the state would seem to have clean hands. But inaction that produces harm is no less harmful than action that produces harm.
And here, in the United States, the pendulum has swung very much in favor of the rights of the accused — something for which I am very grateful. But for a sane society where nearly ten percent of the population are here illegally, we need to ensure illegal immigrants’ rights, but, nonetheless, swiftly bring them to justice. We, the people, do not seek punishment of the illegal immigrant, we merely seek that they stop profiting from their criminal behavior by no longer illegally residing in the United States. They can entirely skip any judicial proceedings by stopping their criminal behavior, getting on a plane and going home. The US Government will even be happy to pay their ticket.
And can I also say that for me, a person who has gone through the challenging process of becoming a legal immigrant, who has never, for one minute been “out of status”, I find it offensive when the word “immigrant” is conflated to mean “illegal immigrant”.
Fraser Orr – if the Republicans do not get rid of the 60 votes in the Senate rule, they will not be able to control government spending.
But perhaps they do not really want to control government spending – and are using the Democrats as an excuse for not doing anything.
As for the Democrats – when they are in the majority what they want to get passed, tends to get passed.
Illegal immigrants “rights”.
They have the “right” to be removed from the United States.
“But they are ten per cent, or more, of the population”.
That is not the fault of President Trump.
You either hold your country or you lose it.
And the amnesty of 1986, which President Reagan was tricked into signing (he was told there would, in return, be border security – that never happened) was a disgrace.
California is already gone – how many States are you prepared to lose?
I know Senate rules are set by the Senate by majority vote – that is why I said this crises is bogus and could be ended today – by getting rid of the 60 vote rule.
And what I said would require a Constitutional Amendment was what Snorri suggested – which was a lot more than getting rid of the 60 vote rule.
@Paul Marks
Fraser Orr – if the Republicans do not get rid of the 60 votes in the Senate rule, they will not be able to control government spending. But perhaps they do not really want to control government spending – and are using the Democrats as an excuse for not doing anything.
Sorry but I don’t think that is the reason at all. In the McConnell world it was I think mainly that arrogance of the Senate as “the world’s greatest deliberative body” that he loved, the general feeling that Senators are oh so superior. But I don’t think that is the case today. Today, as far as I can see, it is purely strategic. They don’t want to give the democrats that much power.
If they had all the power would they dramatically reduce spending as much as is needed? Certainly not, but I think things might improve a little, and, perhaps more importantly, they could pass a new set of immigration laws — something desperately needed. But if the precedent is set and the Dems get back in control, it would be an unmitigated disaster.
That is not the fault of President Trump.
I’m baffled by how you could read what I wrote and think I though it was Trump’s fault, or that I was not strongly in favor of removing all the illegal immigrants from the country. I don’t think it is Trump’s fault and I am in favor of fully enforcing the immigration laws.
@Paul Marks
And what I said would require a Constitutional Amendment was what Snorri suggested – which was a lot more than getting rid of the 60 vote rule.
I misread what Snorri said — I didn’t notice the either/or thing. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Senate has absolute control of their rules and they absolutely could pass a rule saying that any house bill eliminating a government department automatically passed the Senate. Of course they never would, but they could. And the number of people in America who would be in favor of this idea could fit in a Florida basement.
Well, there is a way.
If we could convince enough voters that our political philosophy is better, we could win 60 or more Senate seats.
I, for one, approve of the filibuster rule. It favors inaction in government. But I would enjoy seeing it enforced as a true filibuster requirement. If you wish to stop a vote, you must speak for days – none of this “well, we don’t have 60 votes, so we’ll put a hold on this.”
Yeah, 100% what BobbyB said.
As Paul Marks remarked, my brainstorming idea would require, in the real world, a constitutional amendment to be implemented.
It should be added that a constitutional amendment would be necessary, not only for my idea to be implemented, but also to avoid it being un-implemented within a few years.
Still, I enjoy brainstorming.
–Bobby:
‘Better’ is, in my opinion, too bland a claim (Romney-like).
I’d go with: less insane; by a wide margin.
Snorri – yes your idea would require a Constitutional Amendment, however I agree with you that thought experiments are interesting.
My favorite Constitutional thought experiment is – what if Roger Sherman had won, Mr Sherman is the only person to sign all the founding documents of the United States, but the Constitution itself is not quite what he wanted.
He wanted a single chamber with the States equally represented – and for this chamber, not a mass election, to choose the President – and be able to remove him. In short the United States to remain an alliance of States – but a rather tighter one than the old Continental Congress (no internal trade barriers and only gold and silver as money – more on this later, the other Founding Fathers agreed with him on money, but he was not satisfied with how tight the wording of the Constitution was on this matter).
Infamously Roger Sherman did not think a Federal Bill of Rights was needed – but then the Federal Bill of Rights did not, before the 14th Amendment apply to the States – which is why Slave States were allowed to such things as censor publications – as (before the 14th Amendment) the 1st Amendment only applied to he Federal Government.
But, on the positive side, Roger Sherman wanted much tighter wording making sure that only gold and silver were money in the United States – he feared that at some future time corrupt people might say “Article One, Section Ten only says that States may only have gold and silver as legal tender – it does not say that the Federal Government can not print money” (a return to the corrupt “not worth a Continental” paper money that the Constitution was supposed to prevent) and “yes Article One, Section Eight says that the Federal government may only “coin” money – but we are going to “interpret” that to mean print money as well – either printed by the government directly, or by some pet bank or pet banks”.
As the old Puritan Roger Sherman pointed out – all talk of “liberty” and “rights” is vain if there is endless government spending and the monetary and financial system is debauched by “money” that is just created by government and bankers.
And he was correct on this basic matter – although not on the Bill of Rights.
Fraser Orr and bobby b.
Government spending needs to be reduced NOW – not in some fantasy world where Republicans control 60 seats in the Senate – if you really do not understand “why” then look at the “Debt Clock”.
Both the 17 Trillion (now approaching 18 Trillion) Dollars of official debt – and the many Trillions of unfunded Entitlement liabilities.
Surely you must both already know this?
As for mass immigration – New York City seems likely to fall in the November election although the evil (and he is evil) person will not take office till January – and will be supported by a City Council that is already rotten to the core.
Why is this? It is not, in the main, rich trust-fund-kids – although they are very irritating, it is (in the main) the immigrant vote – the flood of people who hate (yes hate) the United States, but have been let into the United States.
It is considered “Fascist” to oppose this tidal wave of haters of everything America (indeed Western Civilization- for the mass immigration is no different in Britain, France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, and so on) stands for – even though the real “Fascism”, the real tyranny, will come from this tidal wave of haters, this mass immigration of destroyers.
After the election in New York City will people finally wake up to the horror that allowing vast numbers of people, who hate and despise the United States, into the United States, has caused? Or will they blame Curtis Sliwa for “splitting the vote” and blame “Trump” for the collapse of New York City – a collapse that will happen.
Someone could correct me if I’m wrong but I think the last time the Republicans had 60 senators was over 100 years ago when Warren Harding was in the White House, so relying on that many being elected today seems a tall order to say the least, unless new republican strong states were created with new senators (again seems a tall order to achieve).
Even if you achieved that, you’re relying on contemporary Republican senators, a species that seems to be pathologically prone towards betraying their own voters, to deliver.
Might work, wouldn’t gamble money on it.
Truth and what Hollywood, and the rest of leftist controlled culture, presents, are normally opposites.
“Gangs of New York”, by the “cultural Catholic”, i.e. someone, NOT really a Catholic at all, who believes in ever more government spending and regulations, Martin Scorsese – is a good example of this inversion of the truth.
In the film “Gangs of New York” – “Bill the Butcher” is presented as anti President Lincoln (as tearing down his posters and so on) and as a murderer. And the massive Civil War riot in New York is shown as noble anti racism by the Irish Catholic immigrants. And “Bill the Butcher” is killed by the hero of the film.
In reality “Bill the Butcher” died years before the Civil War – but was exactly the sort of nationalist “Nativist” who voted FOR Mr Lincoln – not against him. Mr Lincoln being a nationalist who supported tariffs and so on – President Lincoln was indeed the President Trump of his time (both the good and bad sides of President Trump).
Nor did “Bill the Butcher” murder anyone.
In reality Bill was a prize fighter (a bare knuckle fighter – although, YES, he led a fire fighting team, which indeed doubled as a street gang, and switched from running a butcher shop, hence-his-name, to running a saloon) who defeated an Irish “Catholic” immigrant in a prize fight.
The immigrant did not take his defeat well – and later got two cronies (Tammany Hall cronies) to go and shoot dead Bill. Think about that – it took two of them, and they had firearms.
“I am going to murder Bill, because I have been told to, but I am bit nervous – so I will take my mate with me, and we will both have pistols” – was that the shape of it?
Although Bill named his murderers (he did not die at once) – a corrupt jury let them off (very New York City). The immigrant who ordered the murder went on to become a millionaire – although he did not tend to work, I wonder how he managed that? Surely nothing to do with Tammany Hall corruption.
As for the big riot in New York City in the Civil War – people like the “hero” character Leonardo DiCaprio plays – in real life murdered every black person they could get their hands on – and burned down hospitals and orphanages.
The owner of the New York Times (back in the 1860s a decent newspaper) had to defend his offices against the rioters with a gatling gun – a machine gun (I wonder what the “Gun Control” New York Times of today thinks about that).
In short someone might be inclined to get a copy of “Gangs of New York” and shove it down Martin Scorsese’s throat.
“That would be a violation of the non aggression principle” – O.K. just say that he-attacked-you, that is standard Hollywood inversion of the truth.
For those who really do not know….
The Catholic Church, like Protestant churches, forbids stealing and murder (Ten Commandments) and to repent – saying “Our Fathers” and “Hail Marys” is NOT enough – you have to show you have repented of your crimes by handing yourself in for just punishment.
Priests who say that God absolves you of murder (or child rape) if you say a few words are NOT honestly presenting Catholic doctrine – they are lying, they are corrupt, they have betrayed the Catholic Church. No one can be absolved if they do not HONESTLY repent – and you show honest repentance, in part, by handing yourself in for just punishment.
An honest priest should say – “I will come to you in your cell – when you hand yourself in, then God will absolve you, before you die”. [By the way on Capital Punishment – look up doctrine for yourself, not the misstatements of doctrine by some recent figures].
That is why I put scare quotes around the word “Catholic” when describing people who order murders and never hand themselves in for just punishment.
To really repent you have to accept, indeed demand, just punishment – saying some magic words (and not meaning any of it) will NOT do.
Martin – yes, saying “let us wait till we get 60 Republican Senators” is nonsense.
Someone who comes out with that, or something like it, is extracting the urine.
The official Federal Government debt (not even counting the unfunded entitlements – and not counting State, local, Corporate and personal debt) is now over 38 Trillion Dollars.
The United States will now either control government spending – or, over a period of time, perish.
Roger Sherman was correct – unless money is sound and government spending is strictly controlled, everything else is vain.
@Paul Marks
Surely you must both already know this?
Of course we do, or at least I do, I can’t speak for him. But fantasy solutions about changing the way the congress works are utterly pointless. At least getting 60 senators has an outside chance of happening. The last election Republicans JUST missed three senate seats and the election before that, because it wasn’t the predicted red wave, they missed the chance of another three senators. Had they won all of those we’d be at 59 senators. So it is more likely than you think.
Nonetheless, even if we had 60 republican senators would we see a massive reduction in spending? Probably not. The President is not really much in favor of reducing spending, most senators aren’t either, and I think perhaps most importantly, the vast majority of the American people are not in favor of reducing spending significantly except in an abstract way (for example, they wouldn’t be in favor of cutting spending on welfare or the military.) So until you convince them you are SOL.
In a sense this is why Musk’s departure and DOGE’s failure was such a disaster. The day I largely gave up on the dream of DOGE solving this problem was the day I realized that they gave the DoD a 20% raise in their budget. Despite the fact that for the first time in 30 years we are not in active combat anywhere.
I think Trump’s approach is a bit different. Instead of reducing spending he seems to plan to increase revenue. His tariffs are effectively a new tax, though targeted to foreign companies doing business in America, and I am really curious about this sale of Gold cards and Platinum cards, which, if you consider the numbers he is talking, could raise a LOT of revenue.
But it is worth remembering that Trump is a debt guy. He got rich on debt, so I doubt he is too concerned about the national debt.
But do I think we are on a very, very bad road to ruin? Yes I do. Is there any practical way out of a cataclysmic denouement? Probably not.
Dems had 60 in 2008, so it’s not a pie-in-the-sky target.
But, more importantly, I would rather we not be enacting law with a bare 1-vote majority of Senators. I’m sort of glad that we end up shutting down the fedgov when no one is willing to cross the partisan line.
I do not think we get long-term national survival when our federal government is completely partisan-driven. We have to get back to the middle, or at least closer to it.
Currently, 50% of our voters believe that we can continue to borrow more and more without pain. Even if we could scratch a 51-49 vote out, this is unsustainable in a democratic system. Cancelling the filibuster will just bring us closer to more kinetic ways of settling our disputes.
@bobby b
Currently, 50% of our voters believe that we can continue to borrow more and more without pain.
BobbyB is, as ever, very insightful here. This is the real problem. Typical of politicians who want it to be all about them. These people have popularity and self importance as their oxygen.
But the truth is politics is, as the saying goes, downstream of culture. The truth is that politicians aren’t “leaders” at all, they are followers, followers who are willing to do whatever it takes to get invited to fancy parties, get feted by the rich and famous, earn massive corrupt dollars and ponce about with their fancy titles of “Senator so and so” and “The Honorable Such and Such” like they are the Dukes and Marquises of the English nobility. They are by their nature and by necessity, amoral and without principles.
The truth is the problem is nothing to do with politics. It is with the people. They people are the ones who want this. And until the minds of the people are changed we are lost. As a small aside, it is one of the tragedies of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. He was a person who was REALLY changing a lot of minds, and, perhaps most importantly, a lot of young minds.
But fiddling with the rules of the Senate is to entirely miss the problem, and to give these horrible politicians far more importance than they actually deserve.
* BTW, is “ponce about” an expression Americans use? I forget sometimes what is uniquely British terminology.
Far easier for Democrats to achieve than Republicans. Democrats almost reached 80 senators under FDR and often had over 65 often in the late 1950s and 1960s. Republicans couldn’t achieve this even when they had Presidential races landslides like Nixon/Reagan/Bush Snr.
For it to happen in the future it would likely need (1) Rank stupidity from democrats (quite possible), (2) demographics more favourable to Republicans (doubtful),(3) wise and honest leadership from Republicans in Congress (pigs can fly).
BTW, were I ever President, after I arriving at the White House on my flying pig, one of the first things I would do is stop this vile practice of keeping calling people by their titles after they left their job. President Bush and President Obama are not longer President. Secretary Clinton is, thankfully, no longer functioning in government, Speaker Gingrich stopped being speaker a very long time ago. Once you left your job you stop using your job title, period.
Not because I think it is the most important thing, but because I find it the perfect embodiment of all that is wrong with politics: the self importance, the superiority, the massive ego, the sense they they are patricians and we are plebeians. It is nauseating, and I couldn’t put up with it for a minute.
I remember noticing that in the letter Jefferson sent to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that the government would not favor the Danbury Congregationalists, the letter from which that famous “wall of separation between Church and State” comes from, the still President Jefferson signed it “Thomas Jefferson Esq.”
True; but that was when the Democrats were the natural party of government in the US.
Nowadays, the Dems rely more on the Deep State: public admin, activist judges, schools & universities, and the media.
Agreed.
And that inspired me to another idea:
It is not necessary for Republicans to get to 60 Senators, it is enough, and better, that the Democratic Party returns to a modicum of sanity.
It’s also much easier to attract massive support when your message can be “our lives would all be better if only those more fortunate than us would share more!”, and “we can just buy whatever we want, by borrowing more money!”
When your political philosophy is the more miserly “we need to live more sensibly”, and “we can’t keep borrowing money”, it’s harder.
Which is why we won’t hit 60+ senators unless and until we do a better job of proselytizing our beliefs.
I suspect chances of us hitting 60 are higher. 😉
Well I thought that was so self evident, hence why past democrat success is not a good guide to future Republican success or otherwise.
While Democrats are crazy, crooked and powerhungry, they do at least obtain stuff for their base, even if it is gibs. Republicans have often seemed much better at delivering for donors and lobbyists than their voters. I’m curious if the voters that mobilised largely because of Trump will actually stay Republican when he’s gone. I am sceptical.
@bobby b
It’s also much easier to attract massive support when your message can be “our lives would all be better if only those more fortunate than us would share more!”, and “we can just buy whatever we want, by borrowing more money!”
But what do you expect in a country where people buy their groceries in “four easy payments”, or where the notion of “saving up to buy a car” is as nonsensical as “red bicycles smell like your dreams.”
If you want to fix the problem you need to fix the attitudes of society. Compared to that getting 75 Senators sounds like a breeze.
Let me add my feedback to that of Martin and Fraser.
Yes, it would be much easier… but, at least from across the Pond, i don’t see the Democrats relying much on that message anymore. It looks to me like they rely more on
(a) wokeness/intersectionality; which means, appealing to the interests of a vanishingly small section of society, in the hope of attracting support from a much larger (and much more insane) faction of activists;
and
(b) the CAGW scare, which, while not as intrinsically insane as wokeness, does in practice rely just about as much on the support of a fanatic fringe.
You can’t win elections if your base is a fanatic fringe; not without massive election fraud. Which is why i think that the real enemy is the Deep State, rather than the Democratic Party.
@Snorri Godhi
Yes, it would be much easier… but, at least from across the Pond, i don’t see the Democrats relying much on that message anymore.
You underestimate them. At the moment they are in a big mess, a civil war really. But right now the big issue with regards to the government shutdown is subsidies for Obamacare health insurance, which is right in the middle of the area BobbyB is talking about.
Which is why i think that the real enemy is the Deep State, rather than the Democratic Party.
Yes, you are absolutely right about that.
Fraser Orr and others
The “fantasy” is that you, or anyone else, will get 60 Senators to vote to reduce, or even stop the increase of, government spending.
Mathematics does not care about such fantasies – with a debt already over 38 Trillion Dollars (even excluding unfunded Entitlement obligations) government spending must be controlled – and that can only be done by getting rid of the 60 votes in the Senate rule.
That could be done right now – today. If Republicans were not utterly gutless.
Get rid of the 60 votes in the Senate rule (a rule that is not in the Constitution of the United States – it is just made up) and do it now.
A budget should be what a majority of both House and Senate decide – the Presidential veto still exists and can only be overturned by a two thirds vote of both Houses of Congress.
The Democratic Party exists to expand government spending and regulations – that has been true for over 90 years (indeed probably since 1896 – rather than 1933, but even 1933 was more than 90 years ago) and it is not going to change. Expanding government is the function of the Democratic Party – it is what it is for. It “returning to sanity” is as likely as President Grover Cleveland (the last limited government Democrat President) coming back to life.
The question is – are the Republicans serious about controlling government spending or are they (as I suspect) just play acting?
If they are not play acting, the Republicans will get rid of the 60 votes in the Senate rule and pass a budget – a proper budget not a “Continuing Resolution” which continues the wild government spending.
A British example, I suspect, shows the truth.
It is a myth that Prime Minister Liz Truss proposed “unfunded tax cuts” – not only were her tax measures about putting tax rates back to where they had been a few years before (reversing tax INCREASES that had been said to be temporary and “emergency”) – but the lady DID propose government spending reductions.
Prime Minister Liz Truss did propose government spending reductions – only to find that leading members of her own party did NOT support controlling government spending.
That is what is really happening in the United States – leading Republicans do not really want to control government spending, and they are hiding behind the “60 votes in the Senate” rule (which they could get rid of at any time) to hide the fact that they do not really want to control government spending.
@Paul Marks
Get rid of the 60 votes in the Senate rule (a rule that is not in the Constitution of the United States – it is just made up) and do it now.
If there was no cloture rule those 30 million illegal immigrants would be citizens, trillions of dollars extra would be on the debt from forgiving student loans, America would have an entirely nationalized healthcare system (which FWIW, would mean you Brits would have an even worse healthcare system after America stopped subsidizing it) we’d have hate speech laws in some form or other, DC and Puerto Rico would be states providing four guaranteed Democrat senators, there would be universal mail in ballots with no verification at all (voter id would be illegal), and many other things that would mean that the Democrats would be in perpetual power.
The cloture rule means there is a brake on the government doing stuff. And I think that is a very good thing indeed.
Even today, if Republicans had full control of congress it would not solve the debt crisis. The Senate ALREADY has a special rule that allows passing spending and revenue bill with just 51 votes, and we got the big bloated beautiful bill, including a 20% increase on the budget of the Department of Defense (as it was then) in a time when the military is, for the first time in decades, not in active combat anywhere. Remember what Musk had to say about that Bill? He was furious, and rightly so.
There is a lot to like about President Trump but “cutting back on spending” is not really a MAGA principle. So, sorry, your solution would not produce the result you seek.
I’m leaning more to the liberum veto of old Poland.
To pass a law required unanimous consent.
We can’t get unanimous consent as to what day it is. Perfect.
Fraser Orr – the 60 vote rule has to go, it makes rational budgeting impossible.
bobby b – the liberum veto destroyed Poland, by making it impossible for Poland to defend itself – as foreign powers could bribe a few nobles to veto any organisation of resistance.
The occupation of Poland was brutal – and it went on for a very long time. You need to reconsider your position Sir – before you subject the United States to destruction.
There is an alternative to getting rid of the 60 vote in the Senate rule – and that alternative is to dispense with Congress altogether and have the President (with his advisers) decide on the budget.
This is a much more radical option (I believe too radical) – although it is not without precedent in some other countries, for example Paraguay before the Constitution of 1992 changed the situation.
But certainly the present situation, the 60 votes to break a Senate filibuster rule, can not remain – it makes rational budgeting an impossibility, and even the official debt is already over 38 Trillion Dollars.