Showing posts with label Free Market Violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Market Violence. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Capitalism Works, If You Don't Mind Genocide

Ideas have consequences. Capitalism is an idea around which people will organize their laws and customs to the end of some benefit to themselves.  And if you can control who gets to make such decisions, it is easier to make life good for yourself.  We all love a system that works for us.  And, we surmise, anyone for whom it does not work, well, there must be something wrong with them.

But we need not believe everything we think.

Here is the strangest thing:  Indiegogo has a charity fundraising for freezing Lakota Indians.  Very good, they are close to their goal.  But how did it come to pass that a people living upon vast energy resources are cold this winter, perniciously?  (And I wonder, has anyone checked in with the Nakota and Dakota?)

Capitalism protects usury, which is the means necessary and sufficient to aggregate power in ever fewer hands, to the end that whole groups can be excluded, if they are too many to manage or too uninteresting to allow to continue, or simply in the way. In any event, when power is concentrated into too few hands to be able to know, let alone care, about freezing Indians, then the problem is manifest.

And it is not a problem of redistribution, since no group in USA has more bureaucracies attending to their every need, than the Indians.  Bureaucracy is just the means the capitalists insulate themselves from their victims.  Capitalists say "We have bureaucracies, and we are thriving.  You have bureaucracies and you are dying?  What is wrong with you?"  Well, the difference is capitalists own the bureaucracies.  Both bureaucracies do as they are told.

There are other systems, we even had better systems, but we adapted capitalism, the hamiltonian project, and we got off course.  (We talk Jeffersonian, legislate hamiltonian.) Our laws were corrupted as traced by the fine Marxist lawyer in his work Transformation of American Law.  Now, Marxism is just as bad as capitalism, but at least marxists get their facts straight (and this book is generally considered by all lawyers to be the go-to book on USA legal history.)



Capitalism is failing in the West, because it is intrinsically wrong.  Like a match that flares up before going out, it looks pretty good to those who are benefitting, but not so good to those freezing Sioux.  They were willing to negotiate and cooperate, but we did not have to.  Usury is at the heart of capitalism (capital aggregated, only possible through usury).

And then we hate those we harm.  That is a good summary of capitalism.  We hate those we harm.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Saturday, September 14, 2013

The Level Playing Field Myth

We are told USA billionaires need subsidies to "level the playing field."  Therefore we fork over tax money to help that 1% to be in the market without fear of competition, or more to the point, without having to compete.

The argument is companies overseas get some sort of subsidy or regulatory advantage, which must be matched.  No doubt subsidies and regulatory advantage is manifest, but why would anyone think, say the Chinese government, get any regulation or subsidy right, that is to say, effective, efficacious for the intended goal.  The idea is delusional to begin with.

But let us allow the impossible, that the Chinese Government is capable of getting a policy right when it comes to distorting markets to Chinese advantage.  So what is the USA response?  We have many. To name a few:

1.  Statutory restrictions.

      a. tariff rate quota

      b. absolute quota

2. Subsidies

OK, so we now have these to help "level the playing field."

What makes us think these means in fact level the playing field, whatever that means?

What makes us think that for whom the field is thus leveled, this treatment is efficacious toward the goal.  Do we have any evidence field leveling works?

Have we tried not responding, assuming playing fields might be tilted,  to unleveled playing fields?

In fact we have a long and rich history of not leveling playing fields, in which USA traders have played the hand dealt, and crushed the advantaged foreigners, with no help from Uncle Sam, since once upon a time  leveling the playing field was ever contemplated.

Now, the conceit we can level the playing field occasions much allocation of resources, resources starved from opportunities where funding would yield better results.  So we have misallocation resulting in malinvestment when we try to "level the playing field."

Those who claim to need a playing field leveled would no doubt fail if not given some advantage.  That does not mean others in the field, unadvantaged, would not develop means to cope with disadvantage (if it was possible to ever formulate anyway). We in fact have seen those skilled at working in unlevel playing fields can do quite well.

And because we subsidize those who should simply go about of business, we have far more people in the 1% than we would otherwise.  It is such policies that give us the ever widening gap between rich and poor.

Leveling the playing field is a tactic that has no good effect in the market.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Saturday, October 13, 2012

Tony Complains From Napoli


On Oct 12, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Tony wrote:

If you can't afford to pay a living wage you can't afford to be in business.  Bottom line. Get a job driving a bus.


You do not have a right to a living wage, you have a responsibility to learn to command a living wage. Work for nothing as you help make an entrepreneurial actor successful, and move on up.  Work in the field you find yourself like an entrepreneur, giving as much as you can for as little compensation as you can, like an entrepreneur.   This is the path to success.

You do not have a right to health care, you have the responsibility to take care of yourself and work enough to cover proper health care.  Real health care costs nothing compared to the fake health care they sell for megadollars, and charge off to taxpayers.

You do not have a right to food, you have a responsibility to provide for yourself and your family.  Stop feeding your kids overpriced Velveeta when you can be clever enough to afford Raw Milk Cheddar.

You do not have a right to housing, you have a responsibility to house yourself.  Section 8 is the end of the line in human existence.

You do not have a right to education, you have a responsibility to get yourself educated.  The gates are still standing, but the walls around an excellent education have come down.  Stop banging on the gate and demanding someone else overpay for your education.  Step slightly to the side, around the gate, and get a first rate education at almost no cost.  (Except in Michigan, where it is a crime to offer or take free online courses.)

Yes, there are those who need help: the lame, the halt, the imbecile, but you and no one you know is lame, halt or imbecile.  We all have a responsibility to earn enough so we can support charities to help them too.  Work on your excrement cohesion factor, so the truly jammed up can be helped directly by you.  Stop pawning them off to the Tuskegee experimentation crowd.

Passing them off to the state which charges too much to provide extremely expensive and useless "help" to people in need is to simply escape responsibility.  If you were responsible, then you would not patronize the frankenfoods producers destroying the people and the planet for profits.  Oh?!  You never buy Velveeta?  But it is OK the state forces Velveeta down the gullet of poor people? It is the State that keeps the Frankenfoods and Frankenmedicine in business as the state fights your battles for you.  J'accuse!

Do not make me come to Naples to sort you out.  I'll do it.  You know I will.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Sunday, August 26, 2012

Anarchy, Norway & Death Sentence

Libertarianism is a platform philosophy from which people usually depart to either libertinism like the Randians or off to anarchy, like, well, anarchists.    Each anarchist is sui generis.  The common thread in Libertarianism is the non-aggression principal: do not initiate force or fraud.

As I explain freedom to people, often their ultimate objection is "In anarchy, who is the cop?"  To which I answer, "You are."  When everyone sets their own rules, there cannot be "a" cop, everyone else must be the "cop."

The bible speaks of a time when "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes."  Judges 17 v 6

This is not a complaint, just a statement of the milieu that our hero, Micah, is operating.

This is not to be confused with the passage in which Israel is instructed in relation to sacrifices that they must work together for a common goal: 8 “You shall not do at all what we are doing here today, every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes; 9 for you have not as yet come to the resting place and the inheritance which the Lord your God is giving you. 

A child "knows" lying is wrong, because it does damage, not because anyone says so.  People say so to remind us of the damage.  Force and fraud to compel others against their will is wrong.  We know that without law.  The cop against force and fraud in those times of anarchy was everyone else upon whom each depends.  Do wrong, and the pitch-perfect sanction is delivered by the community at large.

After the debacle in Egypt, God leads Israel out of captivity and gives the Israelites the Ten Commandments, a simple restatement of natural law.  Still no king.

But soon enough, Israel rejects God as their leader and demands a mere king.  The famous (to me anyway) exchange ends with


18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day. ”
19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”


The keen reader will note, that since God will not do evil, he does not give Israel a king.  He lets Samuel do it.

21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. 22 The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”

So who is the cop when force and fraud turn violent, such as when a disgruntled employee shoots a co-worker in the head at the empire state building?  Or in a movie theatre in Colorado?  Or at a Summer camp in Norway?

We all are.  In New York, a construction worker who witnessed the killing had to run and get a city policemen, who turned a killing into mayhem.  The video shows as the killer turns toward the police brandishing his weapon, officer A getting in the way of officer B, making for a harrowing situation for both officers.  Finally officer B moves away (confronting a gunman the first thing you do is spread out)  from officer A and gets off the fatal shot, while officer A fires wildly into a crowd of pedestrians.  Back to the training center for you, officer A.

This is not to criticize the police, I personally am never armed for one reason because I would probably shoot myself if not others in a gun battle.  My chances, and everyone else's, are far better if I am not armed.  I only mean to say, if armed, be trained.  Really well trained.  Because the video is pretty much what a gun battle looks like.

Having said that, there are enough people who are excellent "officer B" grade pistoleros who if allowed to be armed would keep the rest of us safe, no city police needed.  Studies show when private individuals intervene in gunplay it ends faster with fewer casualties than when the police end it.  Sounds reasonable.

The Empire State video also shows the murderer not firing in spite of plenty of time to do so while the two officers danced around each other.  It looks from the video like "suicide by cop."  Such focussed shooters stop when their mission is complete, such as Chapman who shot Lennon was disarmed by a doorman.

An anarchists objection to the State is it keeps evil people, who would be killed, safe from the society that would punish it.  Rapists and murders are kept alive in the criminal justice system, apparently only to keep the criminal justice system alive.  Why, just think of all the criminals out there if we had no cops, judges and jails.  Well, think of all the criminals there would NOT be if we had no cops, judges and jails.  If we were all the "cops."

Now this is scary, Hatfield and McCoy, Afghani and Italian blood feud makings, to be sure.  But that is the stuff of legend, and nothing compared to the injustice of the system we have now.

I am not advocating anything we do not do right now.  The Colorado shooter is being kept out of the general prison population for the simple reason he would be dead very quickly, the inmates have said so.  Cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer was dead within hours of being let into the general population.

Since anarchy is the only practical, rational system, I never advocate anything that is not already the case in the majority of circumstances.

So now I look with interest to Norway.  The fellow who murdered some 70 campers and gave a power salute at his sentencing, was given 21 years total, minimum 10 if he behaves himself in prison.  Let's see how long he lasts?  Will another murderer in year one of a 21 year sentence ice him?  If so, why do we need the state?


Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Friday, August 24, 2012

Mish On Robots

Mish has a two part series on robots taking over the workforce.  He is optimistic, as long as the state stays out of the way.  I agree.

What area could robotics benefit us more and allow our economy to recover and grow our way out of our problems than to unregulate transportation.  If all levels of Government got out of funding and regulating transportation, we'd see a renaissance in transportation, most likely with mag-lev.

When man travelled by horse, this new motorcar, train and bicycle, bicycle makers in USA and France began making airplanes, something no Government had any part of.  Eventually The state arrested development of this technology, but there you have it.

People would not be put out of work with robotics, we have instead of 10,000 man hours experimenting with lab cultures, printer technology has been adapted to 10,000 microexperiments done in an hour in a lab.  Faster cures for more diseases is the result, if medicine were unregulated.

Kropotkin railed against the division of labor, for fear people would be stuck for life making one thing, a horrifying prospect.  But Kropotkin never saw a robot.  The division of labor is precisely what we need, with say a specialist in bacteriophages.  This is more possible the more we have robots doing repetitive, programmable work.

I met a fellow who had an irrigation system that reduced water usage by 60%.  That would be a boon.  Except, use it or lose it.  Water is a very valuable right in a capitalist society.  If you cut water usage by 60%, then the rights to the water will revert back to the State.  In a free market unused water would be homesteaded by new farmers.  Econony'd grow.  Our problems always et back to the state.

Night soil is nasty business, but think of robots handling it and processing to to put on fields.  We'd reduce synthetic fertilizers and lessen oil use and all sorts of nasty industrial toxins.  State says no, because the state is owned by big biz.

Our water systems are poisoned by synthetic drugs that get peed into swimming pools and our lakes and streams.  Govt in charge, and EPA refuses to test for hormone levels, except in relation to dairy wastewater.  Far more women taking estrogen than cows.  Robots could monitor this stuff.

The modern luddites are the bankers and usurers who trap people so they can not give us innovation, given the power of robots...  and the IPR people who block innovation.  Unregulating banking and IPR would help.

We need much freedom becuase there is much to do, or undo. Here a doctor explains why when you think you are eating healthy cracked wheat whatever, it is closer to crack-wheat.

Note that I said "modern" wheat, because I would argue that what we are being sold today in the form of whole grain bread, raisin bagels, blueberry muffins, pizza, ciabatta, bruschetta, and so on is not the same grain our grandparents grew up on. It's not even close.

 Freedom will give us better food for all, better medicine for all, housing, clothes, everything.  Instead, the Government has bought five illegal bullets for every American.

An election will change nothing.  Time for sack-cloth and ashes.

Feel free to forward this to three friends.




Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Thursday, July 12, 2012

How To Succeed In Hong Kong

So an Italian starts a shoe company in Italy.  He becomes so well known in Italy and around the world, people in Hong Kong knock him off.  That is all he needs to hear.  What to do about it?  Hire a lawyer?  Complain to the authorities? No. Open a store selling the real thing in Hong Kong.

If you were socially conditioned in USA, you have no idea how to compete.  You were taught to convert all business problems to legal problems, so that the state workers (lawyers) can shake you down.

Never call a lawyer for business advice.  If someone threatens you with a lawsuit, say "You can always sue me.  Right now we have a business problem.  If you call a lawyer, you'll make it a legal problem.  Sit, talk the problem over with me.  If you do not like what I propose, then you can still always sue me."

I heard a lawyer once say "I know we reached a good deal when both parties walk away equally unhappy."  The difference in business is both people walk away with a smile.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Is It Possible To Have No Police?

Yes.  For nearly 100 years, a section within Hong Kong had no police presence whatsoever. Living in the section was voluntary.  Anyone could leave any time.  People did come and go, from Hong Kong to total Freedom.  It has its problems, but the critics assertions are hard to warrant.


The question as to who is the cop in an anarchist polity is simple: you are.  If you are aggrieved, you take it up with your adversary.  If still aggrieved, you take it up with the community.  The the commnity will decide if they care or not, and shun a guilty perpetrator to some desgree.  We have three entities that do this...

The law merchant, which is the original international trade law, a completely voluntary organization.

Gypsy law, the same thing.   

International letters of credit, a system of payment.

The diamond merchants have their own system (caution: .pdf)

And the oldest and largest non-state government in the world, the Catholic Church.

All of these organizations may summons you and you may appear or decline to do so.  If you do, and do not care for their sanctions, you may decline to be subject to the punishment.  If so, then to some degree everyone else in the system decides to what degree to cooperate with you.  the result is pitch perfect justice.

And none of these systems are state-based government.  And this is far from an exhaustive list.  In every instance it is completely voluntary.

OK... how to deal with the murderer and rapist?  I address that at length here...  Almost everyone would be better off if we eliminated police departments.




 Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Saturday, July 7, 2012

Concrete Means For Ending IP Regime


Sash inquired as to my apparent change in policy on IP, in that recently I suggested people gain patents, in order to fight the evil regime.   I need to clear that up. What happened is last Fall the patent laws were changed, and new ideas on eliminating the IP regime have come up. My recommendations have not changed, there are now more options.

Last fall the USA went from the system Thomas Jefferson designed, where the inventor gets the patent, to the european system Jefferson abhorred, and that is first to file system.  In an effort to make things better, the state made things worse.

But therein is an opportunity for a business, which I will get to shortly.

After the economic collapse we are experiencing slow motion right now finishes, we’ll be at what Rawls calls an “original position” in which we can reorganize into a more just society.  I can’t wait!

A very high priority will be eliminating any and all Intellectual Property “rights,” one of the most wasteful systems and the number one inhibitor of innovation in our economy.  Not only is it a massive waste of money, it blocks untold invention that would benefit mankind.

Our economic destruction is proceeding too slowly for us to wait to get rid of the IP regime, we must do so now. The means to do so is at hand, and makes for an excellent business opportunity, in particular a service.


Under copyright law, someone who independently creates an original work similar to another author's original work is not liable for copyright infringement, since the independent creation is not a reproduction of the other author's work. Thus, as a defense a copyright defendant can try to show he never had access to the other's work.

Patents, however, are different. As long as someone is an actual inventor of an invention (he did not learn about it from someone else), and the invention was not publicly known, he can obtain a patent for it. Someone who previously invented the same thing and is using the idea in secret can actually be liable for infringing the patent granted to the second inventor. Also, if a later person independently invents the same idea that was previously patented by another, this is also no defense. Prior use, or independent invention, is not a general defense. There is currently only a very limited "prior user" right (or "first inventor defense"), available to those who commercially used a "business method" before someone else patented it.

The purpose of law is to bring order to circumstances.  Rules govern skiing, chess, banking, the diamond business and so on, all without state intervention.  The problem is once the state intervenes, the rules engender chaos., as we see with the whimsical system above. Patent Attorney Stephan Kinsella, an honest lawyer who seeks to end the regime, advises a possible amelioration:

One could envision a more general purpose patent pooling arrangement: either devoted to a given sector of technology, or open to all forms of technology. For example, let’s imagine I form the Patent Defense League, a nonprofit corporation that allows any individual or company to join, so long as they abide by certain rules. These could include: (1) the company can never  sue a fellow member of the PDL for patent infringement; and (2) the company has a contractual obligation to temporarily assign the patent to any other PDL member who needs it for defensive reasons. In this way, the PDL would effectively create a huge arsenal of patents any member could use defensively. The PDL could also accept patents assigned by its members, or could acquire some third party patents using member dues.

Now there is the business opportunity, a service.  But the Esquire Kinsella foresees problems:

1  Presumably the PDL would charge membership fees. Perhaps the fees would be discount for every patent the member can contribute, so that those contributing more have to pay less in terms of money. (I’m envisioning $50k or so for smaller companies, $100k for larger ones.)

2. But what incentive do members have to keep filing and acquiring additional patents, instead of halting patent acquisition effort and expenses and “free riding” on the other patents in the pool? If all the members stopped filing for patents, eventually the patent pool would shrink and be of less value. So incentives would have to be built into the structure of the pool so that member companies still file for and acquire patent applications. Presumably the right to sue non-PDL members would provide some incentive to keep acquiring patents.

There is an effort to do this already, but it suffers from a fatal flaw, they are trying only to curb one problem, not destroy the patent regime, which is the task at hand.
.
So the opportunity stands, and let me suggest answers to Kinsella’s objections:

1.  What would the expenses be to warrant the $50K or $100K fees?  Skip the “buying of patents” and what is left? You need a database and a set of skilled patent parsers who can research  a predator’s weakness, and then work-up the lawsuit in a template manner.  Since this work can all be done overseas, the fees could be quite low.  And I would arrange it so if evil company X is threatening our company Y, the Patent Regime Destruction Org (PRDO) would prep the paperwork and start with a lawsuit, having found that PRDO member Z has standing to counterattack evil company X.  It’s rope a dope, make all companies fear any patent lawsuit for the exposure of an attack from who-knows-where.  Use the system against itself.

Whereas a patent attorney may need to charge fees of $50 or $100K, some kid working off his kitchen table may be happy to do so for  $12 an hour, with a crew in India working at $6 an hour.  Stranger things have happened.  The Nazi regime was fatally wounded by some guy working off his kitchen table in Portugal.   

2. As to Kinsella’s 2nd concern, I’ve been teaching for some 25 years and bashing IPR for about 20.  In almost every class I find someone with a patent.  None have ever made any money.  Most have their name on the patent, but the ownership is with the company for whom they were working.  Almost everyone is quite clear that any patent they were involved in would be of no financial benefit to themselves. But it sure is cool to have ones name on a patent, a sort of feather in ones cap, and certainly a gem on a resume.  Indeed, Kinsella holds patents.

People submit all sorts of creative works to all sorts of contests, and that seems to be largely why individuals seek patents, a sort of laureate on par with a blue ribbon at a poetry contest.  So i don't think patents would stop once people became members of the PRDO.

Indeed, PRDO ought to crowd out those “patent submission” scams and offer help for people to submit for patents if they will contribute the patent to PRDO.

So to answer Sash directly, I have not changed my mind, I’ve added to the arsenal. My advice stands, avoid IPR, as a tactic, let the designer own it.  But if you desire to help destroy an evil system, then patent your ideas and turn the patent over to PRDO (or whatever the name is of the company that gets started.)

Kinsella schooled me as to my own efforts regarding freeing my copyright works.  As to my own books, he says “actually, you don't copyright it. you automatically get a copyright in anything you write. no notice or registration is needed. "

I shared with Kinsella:

Mark Helprin says he is a writer and copyrights allow him to pass something on to his daughters (monopoly income residuals).  I market, print and sell my books.  I told my daughters if they want to make money off my books when I am dead they need to market, print and sell my books, like anyone else.  There is nothing wrong with working for a living.

And Kinsella answered my dread of my children’s avarice with this “You might consider making a donation to the upcoming Free Culture Trust, in your will http://questioncopyright.org/free_culture_thing 

I will research that suggestion and report on it later.

The main task is the elimination of patent, copyright and trademarks.  In addition to just playing the system, there are now some possibilities afoot to positively eliminate it.  So there may be some instances when pursuing a patent is beneficial if the intent is to gum up other patentholders in their effort to restrain innovation.


Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Saturday, June 23, 2012

All Hail Stephen N S Cheung! 張五常 所有冰雹



A chief crafter of the econo-legal school of Ronald Coase is one Stephen N S Cheung.  Both Coase and Stiglitz cited Cheung in their Nobel Prize acceptance speeches.

Cheung is another one of that crop of Hong Kong born adepts who rose through the ranks on merit, crowning his achievements with a phd from UCLA.  There is a federal warrant for his arrest in the USA, or anywhere in the world where he can be nabbed, for failure to appear.

But there is also one for Marc Rich, another fellow who worked against state policy and benefitted the American economy to no end.

Not only is Cheung a brilliant economist, he also made money in business, something not seen since Thales. He had two gigs that I know about, one an "antique" store and another was the serially launching of restaurants that he would then flip for a tidy profit.  The federal warrant is on a tax-evasion question, but he is notorious for the antique store, called Thesaurus, although as part of a settlement he was dropped from any suits.

Now, for one whose second language (perhaps fourth or fifth, I don't know) is English to name a store selling fake antiques "Thesaurus" is to demonstrate a wickedly funny command of the English language.

A year or two before the "fraud" was exposed, I had wandered into the store and was delighted to see very good copies of ancient art selling for $30,000, such as a Tang tricolor horse.  Since I tend to find the best sources in the world, I had the same thing in my house, but I paid about $75.00, retail.  I asked the clerk, a kind woman, how come the price was $30,000 when I can get them for $75.00.  She earnestly assured me they were antiques.  I believe she believed it.

One of my favorite lines to hear as a buyer is "one of a kind - how many do you want?"

I want to pause and note an interesting phenomena.  Grass is slang for marijuana.  Selling marijuana is illegal in USA.  Some people offer "grass for sale" meaning marijuana.  If the police catch someone selling marijuana, regardless of what they call it, the police will make an arrest.  It has happened that a person has offered grass for sale, and the police make an arrest, only to find it is in fact grass, that is, lawn trimmings.  The fellow offering "grass" was perpetrating a fraud on stoners.  It can be risky business, but the courts have ruled that selling grass, at any price, no matter the implications, is not illegal.  But note, the activity on the part of the wise guy selling "grass" as marijuana to stoners is clearly intentional fraud.   Cops and courts don't care.  Keep that in mind.

The antique thing is so confusing at times.  The Code of Federal Regulations requires new armoires built from old wood be identified as antiques for Customs declaration purposes.  And then, they are duty free, since they are antiques.  Well, no one would call such a thing an antique, but such a designation requires that the Chinese Antiquities Export Bureaus stamp documents and affix their wax seal on new furniture of old wood to be exported from China and imported into USA.  I have a Mongol armoire, of my design, so marked up, in my living room.  Whole lotta antique importing going on.

When I was importing rugs, the Chinese wove some new rugs thin and of old designs and washed them in tea, and called them "imitation antique" rugs.  Just so.  And I saw some gwailo retailers selling the same for $10,000 when $1500 was a fair price.  Don't blame the Chinese, they marked the rugs proper.

I was in Gump's admiring another Tang horse copy, and the clerk earnestly assured me it was an antique.  In this case, it was the fair price of $75.00, as is my experience at Gump's where everything is fairly priced.  So there was no financial "fraud" going on, just a clerk who was somewhat uninformed.  I merely pointed out that an antique going for $75.00 was unlikely, plus China was not allowing real antiques out of the country.  I left it at that, assuming he would seek clarification from a buyer eventually, and be fully schooled.

But back to Stephen N S Cheung.  As I understand it, the fellow is obliged to remain in China, as Marc Rich is in Switzerland, for fear the US Feds will nab him from some compliant country.  For what?  Some dispute over taxes?  At 76 years old, I can imagine he has better things to do with his time than fight the Feds.

But to me where he is most interesting is in his experiments in retail fraud.  I mention in a free market that excess wealth is very unlikely, what with competition and no support for usury.  It is possible to become a billionaire legitimately at the small biz level, as Ty Warner did selling BeanyBabies, but then one has the problem of keeping it.  Gandhi recommended the "one-generation industrialist," that is one who is so talented ought to give it all away, rather than burden his bewildered children.  (Our laws on charitable organizations permit the impression that "it is all given away" when in fact it is kept in the family: Rockefeller Foundation.)

The free market will redistribute excess individual wealth soon enough anyway.  Right now we have 5th & 4th party taxpayers mulcted to support a vast army of 3rd party "law enforcement" to involve themselves in disputes between 2nd and 1st parties, such as an aggrieved Microsoft millionaire who got taken for $30k while trying to acquire an antique at a retail store.  Why not let that 5th and 4th, who are now obliged to pay for the 3rd parties, decide for themselves if they care?  I suspect they would not.  By paying $30,000 for a $75 dollar horse figurine,  the excess wealth of the Microsoft centimillionaire is being distributed far and wide as he pursues imagined entitlements (I should own Chinese antiquities).  It seems to me that $30,000 is about the right price to learn that Chinese antiquities, indeed all antiquities are most valuable in situ, so they can be related to all of the other finds in situ.  Once removed, fantastic knowledge disappears.  Sure, buy a good copy, but incalculable harm is done when the real thing is carried of to grace the coffee table of some millionaire.

Let me argue Cheung was teaching the world about the harm done by the antiquities trade, as he was redistributing wealth. Talk about multitasking!  Now my opinion matters only as far as my pocketbook, but the opinions of all pocketbooks collectively would be condign punishment for Cheung, even if it came to be no one cared about the Microsoft centimillionaire's plight.  It would be about as controversial as someone selling lawn trimmings to stoners.  If upon revelation of his selling fake antiques, far and wide in Seattle people proclaimed "All hail Stephen N S Cheung!" so be it.

Under a free market there is also the very real possibility the Mr. Cheung would find himself so shunned by the rest of us he could only find relief through settlement with his aggrieved customers.  This is along the lines of the law of Moses, familiar today in Sharia law.

Sure is cheaper than the crazy system we have now.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Saturday, June 16, 2012

Free Market Punishments



On Jun 16, 2012, at 10:10 PM, A.M. A. wrote:

Now guide me to some thoughts in your system on the idea of "scarcity" in an economic, resource development, technological sense as expounded by Buckminster Fuller...scarcity going against the lilies of the field, etc....

***The free market emerged to sort out demand for what is scarce...  by prices the market signals where an opportunity might be (distilled water in a shortage) and everything goes to the highest bidder, who is not necessarily the richest.  The primary reason for the market is to deal with scarcity.***

Also today I posted that there can be no large companies in a true free market...only thriving small to medium sized enterprises.  Correct?

***No idea.  We do know that the communists wrecked the idea of the collective by making them huge at the point of a gun.  What is the rational limit to REI?  There is none, but comes a time when it is inefficient to manage, so other collectives do a better job, on the margin, at some point.  

There would be no corporations because they are for exploitation.    We do need cheap commodities, and those come from large enterprises, because they command buying power which lowers the price of their products.  Cheap and plentiful cell phones.

But keep in mind, with no IPR, we get to commodity faster than a biz can grow...***

And if some m***er is cutting his baby formula with poison he needs to be shunned today...not going through some free market rigamarole.

***Hang on, it is corporations who do that.  When was the last time a deli decided it was worth it to kill their customers?***

 I know half-time  sports event public executions of the latest crop of culprits is...alas... 

***I know you are kidding, but you stumbled on it.  Say someone is getting shunned.  They begin to starve.  In Sharia law, closer to what God advised for mankind, the victim sets the punishment, but no farther than eye for an eye.

So say some mugger has hurt someone, and that someone says  I've got $10,000 in medical bills and another 10k in lost opportunity.  

The mugger has no money, and is starving in being shunned.

So "Tony's All Star Correction & Entertainment Company" contracts the villain to be caned for his mugging.  The mugger contracts to take the caning, and you charge to watch, live and pay per view.  With TV rights, you get the $20k covered easy, and some profit.  Society is satisfied the mugger has paid a price and no longer shuns.

But notice even submitting to punishment is voluntary. Like Jesus.

Man mugs old lady.  Caning at 11.

John


Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Saturday, June 9, 2012

Anarchy & Religion


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That is the first amendment to the constitution.  The amendment was thought necessary because when the convention was convened, the basic law a mess.  When asked what form of government was established, Franklin replied “a republic, if you can keep it...”

Immediately Hamilton and others had begun to strangle baby freedom  in the crib, So in alarm the Bill of Rights passed in 1791 in defense of freedom.  I would argue it did no good.

But it is instructive that freedom of religion is the first of four freedoms addressed in the first amendment.

The problem with the european model that was to be corrected by the american model was after the struggle between divine right of kings and divine right of pope ended with the divine right of the state, if the state was Lutheran, you were lutheran.  If Catholic, you were catholic.  if you disagreed,  life would be dicey.

That was to end in USA.  But If there is no state in which to invest a common set of standards, then whencesoever does one derive a common standard?

The deists, many of whom had a romantic understanding of eastern religion, arrived at the idea that since all religions had a common ethical foundation, then freedom of religion would provide that very common set of standards. And for those who fail to appreciate ghost stories, rational thought also brings one to the same conclusion:  lying stealing killing and so on are wrong, and to be spurned.  We could have unity by embracing diversity.

The anarchists detest hierarchy...  to be sure, hierarchy is to be spurned, since submitting to false authority denies the rest of us the good of your freedom and the creativity inhibited by submission to false authority.   

The worst kind of false authority is master over slave.  WE can arrive at slavery as a good by rational means, and slavery is forbidden in revelation (thou shalt not steal, the truth shall set you free, and to be a follower of Jesus you must give away all things, and the rich lad undoubtedly had slaves.)

We have noted that slavery has been a feature of all cultures and societies since the dawn of man.  It took 1800 years before some people began to think of eliminating it, as an imperative in light or revelation.

Similarly, it may take another 1800 years before those same Christians begin to think of eliminating the state, as an imperative in light of revelation.

In the meantime, the laity must get busy.  We abhor false hierarchy, which is immediately discerned by whether or not the organization is voluntary.  Obligatory submission is slavery lite, and to be abhorred.

There is government in skiing, and government in international letters off credit, and in the law merchant, all emerging from practice and none in relation to the state.  

It is a simple matter of fact that in life the important matters are not under the purview of the state: love, food, taste and friends. And when anarchists get together to play baseball, someone emerges as a leader, the rules of the game are obeyed, and government occurs.   This happens at all place and all times, only to be interfered with by state action.  The key is voluntary association.  

Being rational beings, anarchists are very suspicious of the claims of the religious.

But we cannot expect people to refuse to respond to the religion to which they are called in deference to a lower order activity, such as the state.  Especially those who recognize their weakness and in their pain draw liberally from the opiate of the masses.  To deny anyone to self-medicate is to place oneself in authority and defy the voluntary principle.

The american adventure in achieving unity by embracing diversity yields the result of no state, yet a common ethical foundation.   

Anarchy assures people are free to act on their conscience.  Even the rational will agree the conscience is a pupil, not a tutor, and it is like a compass which must be calibrated before it can offer correct direction.  Religion may propose standards, but like the state never Impose. the largest religion in the world, Catholicism, is a purely voluntary organization, as is Islam, Buddhism Hindus and so on.  States are not voluntary, and back their demands with violence.

A popular controversy is “gay marriage”    Setting aside the fact it crowds out the space where thinking people would ask “Is this war in Afghanistan just?” the “gay marriage “ debate is over state definitions, and being obligated to behave according to “public policy”  that flows therefrom.  With freedom of religion, each religion would define marriage for its members, making the state pronouncements on “gay marriage’ as impertinent as Jewish pronouncements on “goy marriage.”

As with all human endeavor, the cop in society is all the rest of society.  We cannot, in good conscience allow our power and will aggregated by the state in order that it fight our battles for us.  That "getting the king to fight our battles for us" is the end sought in 1 Samuel 8.  That leaves us with the involuntary servitude and submission, something abhorred in religion and reason.

The “cop” in life is all other members of a community, and their sanctions can run from rebuke to excommunication.  That may seem ineffective in the context of religion, but a killer will find his life short in anarchy.  With the state, the killer is kept alive and a constant threat.

Emma Goldman said society gets the criminals it deserves.  Too true. especially when it votes them into office.


Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Free Market Justice


The market does not address every human concern, only the exchange of goods and services.  The economy encompasses more than the market, and there are some human dimensions that are neither economic nor market.   Building a house is a economic event, selling it is a market event.  If it burns down, it is an economic event, but not a market event.  And then far more important, is the feelings of the person whose house burned down, and that psychological dimension is neither market nor economic.

Love is neither market nor economic, but charity is an economic event, in which the market plays no role.  There are certain human needs the market has nothing to offer, such as companionship, or is enhanced by economic actors, and not market actors, such as hospitals, schools, bridges, etc.

An economic event which supports a free market, but is not a market-provisioned aspect to life, is justice.  If we can only have a free market in anarchy, how can we have justice in anarchy?    To get this right we must define anarchy correctly, and that is no + king, or no state in modern terms.  And to reiterate, to have no state does not mean no government.  Anarchists love government.  It's just the state we do not need.  With this in mind, let's look at a big justice problems, the larger issue of the larger criminal conspiracy, and combatting large scale criminality.

Probably the largest criminal enterprise (outside of banking) in USA is the illegal drug business.  Now any narc will tell you the business is fed by welfare payments, and drug activity is greatest at the time the funds are dispersed by the state (as are Walmart sales).  The money is then laundered and generates state and federal taxes and the illicit gains go to fund off-record activities of spooks, who use it largely for terrorism.   It is a symbiotic system, the progressives get their “programs” and the fascists get their terrorism.  Good state government is about working together.

 Further, the one drug that is most effective in separating a person from his personality is crack cocaine, a drug that someone had to purposefully develop.  Who did so and why, at whose direction can be known.  But to even ask the question is to be called a conspiracy theorist, which is one of many inquiry-killing epithets.

So let’s look at an unspeakably awful crime, in fact a conspiracy, and in which the facts are not in dispute. Not a conspiracy theory, but a conspiracy in fact.  One case is the Tuskegee experiments.

There is no dispute that from 1932 to 1972 the United States government ran medical experiments on Americans of African ancestry in which the United States Public health Service and the Center for Disease Control studied the effects of syphilis untreated.  They did this by duping citizens who trusted the government into believing they were being treated for syphilis. 

Never mind that the world already knew, by thousands of years of experience, what happens when syphilis is untreated.  The progress of untreated syphilis was well known.  Never mind that we already had a cure. The scientists and doctors went ahead, these victims were denied the help needed. Help others were ready, willing and able to offer. 

This went on into the 1970s. Beyond the civil rights movement.  Beyond the Great Society initiative. Beyond Dr. King’s assassination. Into the Watergate scandal. Never did conscience rise to the level of concern. This was just pure evil, visited on a trusting populace.

How evil?  When WWII broke out, 250 of the men tried to volunteer to fight for the country they loved.  When the army found out they had syphilis, which was news to the men,  it rejected them until they could take the cure.  The Public Health Service policy was these men would not get a cure.  Science was paramount.  

Many of the people acting in managing the program were Americans of African ancestry, who went on to high government positions.  It is always true that people are willing to sell their own down the river, Americans of African ancestry selling Americans of African ancestry, Irish selling Irish, Jews selling Jews.

Although most Americans were unaware of the program, thousands of Americans were aware, and did nothing.  Doctors, nurses, statisticians, researchers and so on were quite aware of what was going on.  Journal articles were written, and the information was spread worldwide.  Some people objected, but they were either ignored or found their careers stymied. The Japanese and Germans learned from USA about conducting medical experiments on people without their consent, and they embraced and extended the practice in the wars that occurred after the USA introduced the practice.

The Tuskegee experiments ended only in the state shakeup that followed the disgrace of Richard Nixon, in the 1970s.  Eventually, some checks were cut, survivors paid off, and end of story, move on, nothing to see here.  Bill Clinton apologized, what more do you want?  But no one went to jail, or for that matter, executed.

Although by any standard the practice was criminal, no one was ever convicted of a crime.  Therefore, the practice continued in other ways and other places. Medical experiments on uninformed patients continue to this day, no doubt.  It is still legal to do so. The practice of running medical experiments on USA citizens without their consent is still allowed by law.  When you visit a doctor in USA, you have no assurance whether or not he has selected you for a secret medical experiment. 

Along these lines at every doctor visit since they were young teens my daughters have been urged to accept Gardasil injections.  I’ve read the science and so have my daughters.  The injections make no scientific sense.  Never mind it was developed for another disease, never tested on young teens, and the developer paid by Merck has expressed serious reservations. Dr. Diane Harper, lead developer of Gardasil says, “Please push for full disclosure in consent forms so that parents and potential vaccinated persons can weigh the benefits and risks of the HPV vaccination from their own perspective.”  Women selling women down the river.

If the drug companies do this in the open, I wonder what they are doing secretly, under USA law?

As a practical matter, the Tuskegee experiments were so long and so large, prosecuting the criminal actions of all of the participants would probably take the resources of the entire federal criminal justice system for a very long time.

To whom can we turn?  Obviously not the state.  Not lawyers, they work for the government.  Not academia, they are govt controlled.  Not religion, they depend on the state for money and for their tax exempt status.  They agreed to stay away form politics.  Who, labor?  Bought and paid for by the state.  Medicine?  Never happen.  Who?  Absolutely no one.  We are on our own.

Just as the state criminal justice system keeps alive the murderer and rapist, so it does the scientist fiend, not only by protecting, but by supporting the fiends.  How can we possibly combat such institutional evil? There is apparently no internal mechanism to check state evil, and no external mechanism either.  What to do?

When South Africa liberated itself from apartheid, it had such a backlog of unspeakable crimes to deal with, it had no means to deal with the magnitude of the participation and the enormity of the crimes  There was a brief and shining moment of transition when there was anarchy in South Africa.  Taking a page from Jesus’ playbook, South Africa set up truth commissions: you will not be prosecuted for anything you admit to.  As to all of the past crimes, the answer was to be forgiveness, upon confession.

Of course, being a human endeavor, it was a controversial process, especially for those who wanted revenge.  Not everyone was granted the immunity, but the process largely worked, and its application more universally is indicated.

Although South Africa struggles, it is progressing.  Neighboring Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) had no such truth commissions, and it descends into chaos under the excess state interventions of Robert Mugabe and his crew.

Immunity from prosecution is a common practice in criminal investigations in USA, so this is nothing new, but it is used to get a bigger fish, or a false conviction, but not to get to the truth.

In USA we have instituted a series of truth commissions or sorts in the past, and on one controversy in particular, the Kennedy Assassination, there have been two major and several minor truth commissions, the Warren Commission and the 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations,  Both generated more questions than answers.  What is missing is the blanket immunity from prosecution that will give people a reason to talk.

What we could institute in USA is not “truth commissions” of a half dozen people looking over documents and then announcing “Kennedy was killed by a lone nut”, or “911 was the work of two dozen Saudis”, and at Tuskegee, “mistakes were made, time to move on...”  or “it’s for the children...” but a system in which independent trained forensic scientists and historians take sworn affidavits, subject testimony and evidence to forensic science,  and weave them together into a complete story of what happened.  A library is established in which all evidence is stored with analysis and reports, available to professional and amateur alike.  Even the Vatican “secret” library is open to its enemies. All of the evidence and analysis is woven together into an entire picture of who what where when and the perpetrators can answer the most important question,  why? Why a Tuskegee?  The why is the imponderable, what the rest of us do not know, cannot even surmise. If we get the actual perpetrators to answer why, then we know what the rest of us are dealing with. 

 Although in South Africa criminals went unpunished by the state, that is not to say they have gone unpunished.   Although immunity from prosecution is nice, to confess to murder, false imprisonment, kidnapping, theft, and so on does have a dampening effect on one’s future, and justly so.  But confession is good for the soul, and forgiveness is a healthy thing. And whether believer or not there is the nagging recollection “vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.”

With a truth commission the state, in getting to the truth, will not be able to prosecute anyone, but the people will know what happened and who did what.  In the degree the people shun the perpetrators is the degree the perpetrators will be punished.  In a free market capital punishment is exile.  In a free market economy a killing is adjudged by society, not by the state.

Twenty Five years ago a trio in Cowchilla, California kidnapped 26 kids in a school bus and buried the bus, demanding $5 million ransom.  The kids escaped. The kidnappers were caught and received life in prison, compliments of the taxpayers. Because of the state, the kidnappers knew their lives were not forfeit if they got caught. This is a comfort to those contemplating a crime. If we had no state, the kidnappers would spend their lives wondering when the father of one of the kidnapped kids would catch up with the kidnappers.  An enraged rancher can be a terrible nemesis to contemplate.  Especially if one has seen tools that ranchers call handy.  We can imagine the kidnappers lives being short.  Then a rancher who whacked a kidnapper would face adjudgment of the community, whatever that may be, but expect it to be pitch-perfect.

You object this sounds like Hatfield and McCoys, or Afghanistan.  That would be a false dilemma, ignoring the fact that most justice is meted out independent of the state.  State law enforcement calls free market justice “unsolved mysteries.”  The state merely claims credit for all the good that happens.

But alas, we have a problem in the case of USA.  Truth commissions work after one system fails and before the next is set.  It is only when there is no state, pre-resolution, that a truth commission can work.

A failed state, like nazi germany, is overpowered by invaders, who use the very failed politicians, absent a few suicides and executions, to rule the failed state.  The Qing used the Ming, the Mongols used the Boyars, the allies used nazis and Japanese imperial troops to rule their winnings.  After the fall of communism, KGB agent Putin became president of Russia.  This is just how it goes with states, and indeed, ordained by God it seems.  For all of his crimes, and the changes of regime in his times, King David stayed in power.  Israel suffered, and King David even got to choose from a menu of punishments how Israel would suffer for King David’s crimes.  It is ordained in 1 Samuel 8.

When one state conquers another, when one falls and the victors assume power, the last thing they want to lose is the old set of criminals.  This makes the South African transition all the more remarkable.  

In USA “the people” might set up truth commissions independent of the state, in an exercise in self-government, but we can anticipate the first people who confess to any crimes will be prosecuted by the state, since the state is not obliged to agree to any deal citizens may make among themselves.  Private citizens cannot make a promise to criminals  that the state will not prosecute the criminals if the criminals confess.  In fact one can anticipate that the powers that be would defend their prerogatives and harshly prosecute the first person who was to confess anything.  Take that, truth commission!

Look what the state does to mere whistleblowers, people who do the work prosecutors are not inclined to do.  Whistle blowers find themselves being punished by the state.  Daniel Ellsberg may be famous, but for every free Ellsberg there must be 100 army corporals who revealed state wrongdoing, rotting in solitary confinement, losing his mind, while he has not been charged with any crime.  It is now legal in USA to so treat whistleblowers. Take that, whistleblower.

It actually gets worse.  Note the US govt offered its own sort of truth commission, although in a corrupt way, with WWII human experiment perpetrators.  Those who among the defeated nations who conducted medical experiments on humans during the war were not prosecuted, as long as their shared with results with the United States authorities.  Such nazi and Japanese scientists went on to work for the US government.  They were rewarded for their crimes.  A state made powerful by war, becomes all the more corrupt.  The state actually protects malefactors from the consequences of their actions.

So we can see that we cannot control the state, but we can have justice IF the state fails.  Making the state fail is only possible through violence, and that is never a legitimate action.

So we see when the chaos of lawlessness of the state finally caves in, and we have the benefit of anarchy (an + archy = no king), we can finally approximate justice.  But we have this standoff: the state will not ever correct itself.

We cannot effect change through the political system, because the state has instituted widespread election fraud, to assure its self-preservation.  The situation may seem dire, but there is a way.  Lazlo Ladany points out in his lifelong study of communist China, the regime will change to retain power.  Himmler began ransoming Jews out of Germany in a bid to save the regime.

One nonviolent way to threaten the powers that be is through jury nullification.  Jury nullification is part of the fabric of our system to assure that the people, as represented by twelve citizens, has the final say in any dispute between an individual and the state.  Jury nullification could be applied in every instance in which the state tried to prosecute someone who had confessed at a truth commission..

People could create a website where people vow to nullify any prosecution of anyone who is in the truth commission system.  When there is a critical mass of potential jurors who vow to nullify any state conviction, then the state will have no power. When prosecutors can no longer get a conviction, the state will co-opt the system.   The state will begin to defend itself by turning on the malefactors who need prosecution.

Now people will say this is silly, there is no way this will work.  Probably true, but movements are made of impossible goals.  And life is a journey, not a destination.


Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Jury Nullification and You!

In another exceptionally indecent act, FBI agents lied to an old man in an attempt to trap him in violation of a federal law.  Subsequently, federal prosecutors attempted to have the old man imprisoned, in essence for life.  The crime?  Teaching the ancient law on jury nullification.
"No legal system could long survive if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable," they said.
Here is the problem.    We've always had jury nullification.  With jury nullification, the system has lasted a long time.  The prosecutors are either evil or stupid for saying this.  I think evil, since obviously the old man was not disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable, and jury nullification does not provide for anyone disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable; it provides for that ultimate judge in our USA constitutional system, an entire jury of citizens, to disregard with impunity any law which by its personal standard was judged morally untenable.  That is precisely the check on the state the architects of our constitution had in mind.

It is not jury nullification that is a threat to our system, but systematic abuse by state functionaries of the criminal justice system.

That people sworn to uphold the constitution would try subvert the constitution to imprison a man in essence for life for attempting to teach the constitution shows just how corrupt the FBI and federal prosecutors have become.  Add jury nullification to the list of ways that the USA is unique, and the state wants to eliminate:

Conscientious objection.

Posse Comitatus

Bounty hunting

habeas corpus

free markets

pro se court appearance

federal tax exemption

state tax exemption

freedom to contract

freedom of religion

homeschooling

private attorneys general

stand your ground laws

right to arm

freedom of press

freedom to travel

property rights

among others....

Each and every one of these is under assault by state minions.  In the degree any of these cause you to squirm a bit, is the degree to which you have been socially conditioned to hate your freedom.

Happily one federal judge knocked all those wicked boys on the state payroll back into line.  Atta girl, Kimba!  And here is one good ex-federal prosecutor talking about you running afoul of federal law, entitled Three Felonies a Day (what you commit just by being alive).



Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.


Sunday, April 22, 2012

Mish has a great article covering the free market in defense.  He takes apart the idea that any government is in a position to defend the state.  Indeed, the US Constitution presumes the state is not very good at protecting people & property, so it provides for private defense:  The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

A private company, to name one problem, has come up with a solution to the Somali pirates.

Mish website

We've been here before, so this is nothing new.  Private individuals could act as privateers or corsairs and be given letters of marque to attack pirates.  They get paid on what they take away from pirates, and what bounty they can earn from steamship lines and insurers. This company would lease these monsters to privateers who,  given letters of marque, would go and sort out the pirates.  Talk about all-volunteer navy.  (A letter of marque is necessary to keep say a French Navy ship attacking the American corsairs and hanging them for piracy as well.)

Now this is not like those welfare queens at Blackwater and Xe, who depend on government handouts to exist.  Corsairs are on their own and get paid based on what they take from the pirates they attack.

Defending freighters is a problem.  The ships are huge.  They have a crew of maybe 12 total.  The have weapons aboard, but none of the crew signed up to fight, and are not really trained to do so.  If crews commonly fought the pirates, the pirates would simply kill first and there would never be any survivors of a ship take-over.

Here a Chinese sailor decides to take matters into his own hands...  yes those are molotov cocktails.


Further, to kill a Somali national, even in self defense,  makes the ship subject to impound while the death is investigated.  The cargo rots.  The ships do post watches when they have to slow down in pirate regions, like the Malacca straights, an turn non-lethal fire hoses on boarding pirates to repel them.
google images

But in most instances the captain turns around and sees a pirate with and AK 47 standing on his bridge.  Ship taken.

google images

Pirates tend to work off a mother ship where their loot is stored, and send out a boarding party to take a ship.





There is really no reason we have to put our sailors in harms way, and at such incredible expense,  here approaching a suspected pirate mother ship.



Whereas we must pay taxes to support a navy overseas who then capture, process, and then sink the mother ship, privateers would kill the pirates, or take them for ransom, seize the ship and sell it (privateers take title when they take a ship from pirates) all on their own dime.  Our sailors are predictable, so they cannot win this fight.  Privateers  would adapt daily to changes, and cost us nothing.

Privateers can meet the challenge of pirates on the high seas....


This should be in the Seychelles, not in New Hampshire... Saddle up, boys...




Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.