ElijahStanfield.com
  • Politics

The Constitution Neither Grants Nor Guarantees our Rights

9/17/2024

0 Comments

 
Picture
This might be hard to read. Please don’t hate me.
Even the most patriotic among us were taught—and still believe in—a fairy-tale version of American history. It’s a narrative intentionally woven to create a sense of religious reverence and loyalty to the powerful national government we now live under.
But this feel-good version of history is denying us the America that the great patriots of the Revolution wanted for us. We’ve all been fooled!
The truth is that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 acted against the will of "We the People." Many of those in attendance did not have the interests of regular Americans in mind. These special interests sought to increase the size and scope of government so they could continue to live off the backs of taxpayers, just as they had under British rule. Under the Articles of Confederation they actually had to have real jobs.
How can you know I’m not lying? Because most of our favorite heroes of the Revolution—the patriot militiamen, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry, leaders of the Sons of Liberty, and even Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence—were disgusted by the proposed Constitution, and they aggressively argued against it.
We still have their words as proof!
These patriots correctly predicted that the national government would take more and more power away from their communities and enforce policies that were not in harmony with the values of various communities in different states. They predicted that agencies, bureaucracies, and banks would capture more power, overriding the will of the voters. They predicted corruption of the courts and Congress. They predicted out-of-control spending, debt, inflation, taxes, and the endless wars of empire building.
If they hated it so much, why was the Constitution finally ratified, and why did it work so well for so many years? Two reasons:
  1. The Bill of Rights: Ten amendments to the Constitution that were meant to chain the powers of the federal government to its enumerated powers, and also provide legal tools for the people of the various states to fight against that central government if it got out of hand. Examples include legal rights to assemble in secret, have secure communications and property, bear military-grade weapons, and organize lawful well-regulated militias. The right to override federal laws through jury nullification, and the rights to local government, which would be superior to federal enforcement, were also included. The Bill of Rights was/is more radical than most people realize.
  2. A Radical Spirit of Liberty in the People: Back then, politicians feared the people. Folks had already proven they were willing to overthrow any government—no matter how big—to secure their liberty. According to James Madison, this spirit was essential to fortify the Constitution with its Bill of Rights, a document he called merely a “parchment barrier.”
You see, this has always been the case: The Constitution is not the real guarantor of our rights. We are! That’s why it’s so important to educate ourselves, and study our raw and ugly history. How else can we learn wisdom from it and be aware of the traps that our criminal government and deep-state bureaucrats constantly set to take our freedom and increase their wealth and power.
This is why the Constitution worked in the past but won’t work in the near future.
There will be a time to stand, but not until that old spirit of liberty is restored in us!


0 Comments

School Choice: the Death of the Homeschool Revolution

9/23/2023

5 Comments

 
Picture
The Last and Greatest Complex

The homeschool movement has been growing rapidly over the last few years. But, especially in recent months, I've seen an encouraging new flood of parents making the courageous decision to bring their kids home from public school. A true revolution is upon us, and I can't think of a force more powerful for securing liberty for the future generation than this – parents reclaiming the responsibility to raise and educate their own children, grounding them in their own cherished values, and nurturing their children's unique spirits in the way that they can only know. That is the foundation of a free society. That gives me hope.

Ironically, though, in this moment of awakening, there is a sudden thrust, peculiarly without much resistance, for "school choice" legislation (school vouchers and Education Savings Accounts). There are many of my friends and associates, even within the freedom movement, who believe this initiative will act in support of this homeschool revolution. To be fair, my initial opinion was persuaded by the compelling arguments. A few, in particular:
  1. A universal basic education allowance for every child (though still tax-funded and socialistically distributed) would drastically improve the public education system by introducing an element of free-market competition in education – increasing quality.
  2. It would provide an unclaimed public service for private schooling and homeschooling taxpayers who are currently forced to pay taxes for an institution they revile and do not benefit from.
  3. Disempower the teacher's union lobby, which stands in the way of reforming an ancient and bloated school system that actually harms children.
Who wouldn't want to take these obvious and very achievable steps toward improving the educational opportunities of tens of millions of kids?

But then, my economically wired imagination thinks a little further into that future, and has me ask, to what end? Is the goal to improve the quality of public schooling, or is it to end the state's involvement in the education of our children, altogether – to create a true free market in education?

The iconic economist, Milton Friedman, sometimes credited as the founding father of the school choice movement, said this about what the endgame should be:

"Vouchers are not an end in themselves; they are a means to make a transition from a government to a market system. The deterioration of our school system and the stratification arising out of the new industrial revolution have made privatization of education far more urgent and important than it was 40 years ago."

"No one can predict in advance the direction that a truly free-market educational system would take. We know from the experience of every other industry how imaginative competitive free enterprise can be, what new products and services can be introduced, how driven it is to satisfy the customers – that is what we need in education."


Clearly, the founding father of school choice believed in the eventual separation of school and state. But will school vouchers and education savings accounts really do this? Honestly, I'm gobsmacked that the great Milton Friedman could have been so short-sighted to not see what the consequence of subsidized private schooling would be. School choice will absolutely not dissolve the public's appetite for tax money for education. It will, most certainly, anchor the state's influence so deeply and widely into the private economy (and in our homes) that it might never be removable.

The Austrian economist and amateur comedian, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, brilliantly explained that competition in the market increases the efficiency in the production of goods, while competition in government will only be more efficient in producing "bads".

If it's not so obvious how this relates to School Choice, let me explain: Even though the slogan for school choice is "fund students, not institutions," students and parents will never be the primary customer as long as the money is flowing from political hands. The state and its special interest masters (whoever they may be) will be the customer.

Imagine if you, as a parent, were granted $10,000 per child each year. How would that money distort your incentives, choices, and lifestyle? Also, imagine how you'd be influenced as a school or business owner that provided educational goods and services if there was a new "privatized" industry with hundreds of billions of federal dollars flowing through it?

Certainly, there would be a rush to establish businesses to serve consumers with all sorts of innovative educational products and services. The most talented teachers, regardless of their government-issued certificates and degrees, would be appropriately elevated in notoriety, influence, and wealth. Schools would be able to pander to niche markets according to students' specific goals and value systems. All of this sounds extremely enticing, yes? But we've seen how this plays out in other industries that have been captured by the allure of a public-private utopia, most notably the Military-Industrial Complex, the Pharmaceutical-Industrial Complex, and the Prison-Industrial Complex.

The foundation of these "private" industries is not, in fact, grounded in the fertile soil of free enterprise, but in the government looting of the public. "Public-Private Partnerships" (i.e., mercantilism, i.e., economic fascism) combine the rights and benefits of being a private institution (privacy and profit) with the government's violent power to loot through taxation and regulation. This condition gives birth to an invincible monster of bureaucracy whose primary incentive expeditiously mutates from the initial stated goals (defense, health, justice) to protecting and maintaining its own teat-suckling existence. The insatiable appetite for public loot – this addiction to the most powerful drug – conjoins all the various businesses and beneficiaries of that industry. Together, this industrial complex works to seduce lawmakers into opening the valve of funding even wider, and also into proposing laws and regulations to protect the monster as it goes forward without regard to human life, natural rights, or civic honor.

Make no mistake, School Choice initiatives lay the foundation for an Educational Industrial Complex– a force more vast and elaborate than a silly teachers union could ever achieve. School Choice will pervert the entire education economy (which will include the most cherished institution of all: The Home). Virtually everyone, then, will be incentivized to fight anyone who would ever suggest that the system be done away with.

The sparks of courage igniting in parents to bring their children home – to solidify relationships, build up their children, and become independent and empowered by the experience that home educating can bring – will be extinguished by School Choice. The dangling of so much public loot will tip the scale back forever. The vast majority of parents will thrust their children back into one of the new and improved tax-funded babysitters, so that they can both work multiple jobs to maintain their lifestyle. This is especially the case in our economically hard times that will continue and get worse. Even for families who choose to remain independent in spite of the government loot, they will feel a financial burden as prices of educational materials and services go up to match the unnatural flood of new money into that market.

It is an effective and brilliant trap. And once fully trapped, I believe we may discover that the homeschool revolution didn't simply die of a wrongful death, but was a victim of premeditated murder. Then the real "customers" of the new School Choice movement will appear.

These puppet masters will pull strings, and we will all dance.

Stay Tuned for Part 2: School Choice: the Murder of the Homeschool Revolution

5 Comments

Kids Don't Need School: Forward

9/11/2023

2 Comments

 
Picture
Last year I was honored by the request to write a forward to Johnathan and Adriana Prescott's book, Kids Don't Need School. I accepted, under the condition that I could read the book first, to make sure I agreed with it. I loved it, and  highly endorse it.
​Learning about the way schools are structured, why they are damaging to children and families, and also how to provide a great education for your children without all of that yuck will help so many parents who are desperately looking to make a change to save their children. I've seen so many of these anxiety-ridden parents who are on the verge of deciding to pull their children from their local public schools, and some who have already bravely done so, who are begging for help and guidance. Well, here it is.

In the meantime, below is the forward I wrote for it.


FORWARD


The choices a parent makes in the rearing and educating of their own children is so personal and meaningful, I consider them sacred. As opinionated as I am about how my wife and I have chosen to educate our children, I try to be careful not to express those opinions too boldly (if at all) in situations where other parents are explaining the decisions they’ve already made for their children.

Since you’re reading this book, I can assume you’re open to considering a radically different perspective on education.
Kids Don't Need School is a thorough yet easy-to-read case against compulsory state education and the philosophy and methodology that underpin it—a philosophy and methodology that most parents, even those who homeschool, cannot easily shake. 
Why is that?
I liken the emergent “let’s recreate the public school classroom but at home” phenomenon to breaking free from a psychological cult or movement. Much of our social, cultural, political, and economic activities and even our relationships revolve around the public school system. When you're in it, it all seems normal—even pleasant, to some. But you'll quickly see how much sway, hold and strength the hivemind social programming is when you try to question, deviate, or completely remove yourself from it, which Jonathan and Adriana Prescott so eloquently advise parents to do.
The sure sign of this education dogmatism is when your choices and beliefs that deviate from the norm are not seen as mere differences of opinion, but are misinterpreted as personal attacks and a threat to the system itself. They’re offended, even threatened, simply by you stepping out of their line. They may respond to you defensively—feeling the urge to explain or justify their own choices—criticize you, or accuse you of child neglect and downright abuse. This is in part because they have likely had uncomfortable conversations when their children wondered aloud why they couldn’t learn at home. As a result, these parents may have rationalized their decisions by painting homeschooled kids as odd, socially handicapped, economically limited, or even as “special ed.”
As a home educator, your very existence is a light that pierces the darkness of the government school institution. Whoever has eyes to see, let him see!
The reality is that we as a civilization are placing our most precious treasures—our children—into prison-like buildings to stand in lines, sit in rows, be monitored, lectured to, and judged. A reality where they will be force-fed propaganda and worldviews that are opposite of your own, will likely be exposed to pornography, and become victims of sexual assault and other manner of violence and abuse. And we willfully send them into that environment six to eight hours a day, virtually everyday, for the entirety of their childhood and beyond. This is communal insanity, and it hurts to admit it.
Youth is a short span of life where we have the most energy, the  highest physical capability, a super-boosted mental growth, very little responsibility, and the benefit of a full support team. Yet this is where 90 percent of us were locked away, in a soul-draining jail for kids. What might have we created, accomplished, or become if we were free to develop our own authentic genius? It's only after you break away, step back, and observe with natural eyes that you realize how unnecessary, irrational, and even backward it really is. It was for me.
My school experience went something like this: I sat at my desk almost completely ignoring the teachers for thirteen years. I imagined I was a rock star, a ninja, a superhero. I invented things, created characters, and created stories in my mind. At age six, I started to draw out these thoughts on every surface in front of me, and I never stopped—no matter how many times they punished me or lectured me. 
I calculate that I spent at least seven hours a day drawing, resulting in thirteen years of Ds and Fs and every school authority figure telling me that in the "real world," would surely suffer.
In the fourth grade, while everyone else in my class went to P.E., I was sent to the Special Education classroom for "reading help" (It was actually a humiliating psychological war tactic intended to coerce me into paying attention to the teachers and their lessons.).
Fast forward to today: I've been a professional media director, writer, and artist for fifteen years now and in many ways live a charmed life.
Only after many of those years was I finally able to remove from my heart and mind the shrapnel left from the lies told to me, my parents, and the general public about what children must know and become in order to be productive members of society.
I do not regret one single missed homework assignment or failed test. I don't regret faking my way through the reading assignments or copying with my friends' homework to avoid an F. Simply put, I don't regret a single moment I spent being the child I was meant to be. In fact, I'm amazed that I had the resilience to constantly withstand the intense pressure put on me by literally everyone in my life to conform to their educational achievement expectations. I feel sorrow that most children are not able to.
Curriculum. Requirements. Keeping up. Credit. Grades. Reporting. These are concepts of the public school mindset. Implementing this in your home education is the worst of both worlds. You get the limitations and trashy education that the public schools offer while also denying yourself the luxury of a tax-funded babysitter. 
There is another way, and that way is simply and clearly outlined here in this book. But I reiterate . . . the rearing of your children is your responsibility, and I cannot know better than you about what is right for your family. Whether you allow your child to attend public school or a private school, or you choose to educate them from home, I encourage you to change your way of thinking and not be swayed by the coercive tactics the system uses. Believe that kids don't need traditional, conveyor-belt style schooling to be educated or socialized. And you don't need to fear for their future without it.  Believe that with your support, encouragement, and guidance (and by using the vast resources available on the internet alongside the experiences available in the real world), you can build a trusting relationship with your child based on respect for each other. And that above all else is what will best enable your children to reach their own greatest potential.
This is why I heartily recommend Kids Don’t Need School. I agree with the message, I enjoyed it, and I know you will, too. It’s the essential read for homeschooling families and homeschoolers-to-be.

2 Comments

Let Us Now Try Liberty

7/16/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
My attitude toward all other persons is well illustrated by this story from a celebrated traveler: He arrived one day in the midst of a tribe of savages, where a child had just been born. A crowd of soothsayers, magicians, and quacks — armed with rings, hooks, and cords — surrounded it. One said: "This child will never smell the perfume of a peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils." Another said: "He will never be able to hear unless I draw his ear-lobes down to his shoulders." A third said: "He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes." Another said: "He will never stand upright unless I bend his legs." A fifth said: "He will never learn to think unless I flatten his skull."

"Stop," cried the traveler. "What God does is well done. Do not claim to know more than He. God has given organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty."

God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! A way with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!

And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.

-Frederick Bastiat, The Law

0 Comments

Trigger Warning - No Other Gods

6/16/2018

3 Comments

 
This image should offend any Christian, but suppose that it's a satirical representation of a cancerous teaching within the church. 

One interpretation of the Bible suggests that the political laws of man must always be followed (Rom 13, "Render unto Caesar", etc) But this interpretation disregards the first commandment "No other gods before Me".

Most "believers" are unwilling to interpret the Bible in the perspective that God's law must take priority over man's law, because this belief requires them to:
Picture
​1. Accept that all persons (citizens, police, soldiers, politicians, everyone) are individually accountable to God. There is no "I was just following orders/leaders." excuse.

2. Accept that the political state, its laws, and its authority figures are illegitimate and should not be honored beyond the Laws of God. Have you ever noticed that many of the biblical heroes find themselves in the king's prisons, lion's dens, etc.? Clearly they didn't read Romans 13.

3. Explore the question of What laws ARE legitimate?

Interestingly a major theme of the Bible is one of God's people refusing to follow the first commandment and choosing instead to worship their invented false authorities/gods.


The epic story continues... ​​
3 Comments

Public Art: Bad for the Public and for the Arts

3/16/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Let me start by saying I am a professional artist. I'm an illustrator, animator and film maker. My wife is a photographer and a skilled musician, my sons are talented actors and singers. In my extended family I have accomplished painters, designers, sculptors, writers, thinkers, poets and musicians. I love art, and for this reason I reject the idea that in order for an art community to thrive, it must be supported by city council members with bad taste and a raging appetite to shop with other people's money. 

Public Art is Bad Art
Many say that they LOVE public art, but I'm almost certain that most are lying because I don't see many people buying abstract squiggly forms, metal trees or giant genitals for their own front lawns. Since the quality of art is subjective, there are only two ways to tell if art is good. 1. An individual is willing to buy it or 2. You take the effort to make it for yourself. The qualification is that just one individual, somewhere in the world, actually wants to invest time or money into the creation or acquisition of the piece. The public square might be the only place where unwanted/bad art is found. I might go as far as to say that the existence of public funds for art IS the cause of bad art in the world!

I'll explain why this is...

Public Funds for Art Stifles the Artistic Process
When an artist is inspired, they create their best work. They are motivated to communicate their deepest feelings, passions and thoughts in words, song, image, form or story. They focus on presenting the highest quality work for their audience to carry their message. The art is important enough that the artist might sacrifice their personal money, time and energy to create it. If they do not have the resources to create the work, they petition for private commissions. If a patron has evidence that the artist is skilled enough, and is inspired by the work themselves, they might pay the artist to produce it. After the work is completed the artist decides if it is good or not.

Another kind of commissioned art is when a non-artist is inspired but needs a skilled artist to carry out the production. In this case the client decides if the work is good or bad. 

Public Funds for art distort this artistic process of genuine inspiration. With public art, where does the inspiration come from, and who decides what is good or bad? The answer is that public art does not come from inspiration.

If the inspiration comes from the artist, why did they not value the idea enough to pursue its creation by commission or by their own efforts? I can only assume that they didn't because the idea wasn't worth the effort...or worse, and more likely, they were never inspired to begin with - until the thought of public loot was added to the equation.

If the inspiration comes from the client, in this case "The Public", how can it be determined if the resulting work is good or bad when there are 100,000 opinions involved? (
How is it even possible to have public inspiration?).  The artist will most likely look externally to try to meet the diverse expectations of "the public". This is why the resulting public artwork tends to be trendy, pretentious and uninspiring. 

Public Funds for Art Distorts Value Judgments
Is the art worth producing or buying? This is a question that an artist or a patron must ask themselves. If the art is desired, then how much? Because value is subjective, a pile of dirt may be very valuable to a landscaper, but totally not valuable to a restaurant owner. The monetary value of art is a judgement that cannot be made without both the patron and the artist discovering a mutually acceptable price. If no one is willing to sacrifice to produce or acquire the art, it is literally worthless.

The problem with publicly commissioned art is that city council members are shopping with other people's money. They are not personally sacrificing or feeling the weight of the cost. Any offer they might give would be based on arbitrary conceptions. They cannot properly judge the value, leaving the artist with no way to negotiate fairly and receive push back from market forces. This is why the resulting public artwork tends to be overpriced. 


An important skill in good economic evaluation is to be able to "see that which is unseen". Example: We might love the public stages, galleries, and some might even pretend to like the sculptures, but we can only imagine what we have missed out on, if these public funds were allocated differently. I believe the funding of art, and even the funding of public venues for art, have distorted the market so much that artists and businesses that would be more innovative and less expensive in bring us higher quality art have been drowned out by a tax funded monopolistic force.

Help Good Art and Help the Public
What have these unattractive and overly priced public displays done for the public's perception of fine arts in general? I believe it has done harm. The kinds of art that are consumed and enjoyed the most are the arts that are not publicly funded (Film, Advertising, Music, Clothes, Graphic Design, Interior Design, Architecture, etc.). These are the things that the market loves to consume. Artists in these areas create an abundance of work, can make a good living and are even adored by fans.

By attempting to help the art culture with public funds, I believe city councils, and those that support public art, have actually damaged a strong, genuine culture of artists and art lovers that we will never know as long as the trend continues.

​







0 Comments

We Need More Regulations!

7/13/2015

1 Comment

 
Picture

Libertarians are often accused of promoting unregulated chaos. I admit there are some libertarians who don't fully understand how building, pharmaceutical, and food regulations might work without government intervention. All they know is "Regulation bad" according to the rhetoric they've been exposed to. But the truth is that we actually do suffer from a lack of regulation. The problem is that these regulations are written and enforced by government. I'll try to explain why this is a bad idea and what some of the unintended consequences are when government plays the role of regulator.

Conflict of Interest
When the government writes and enforces aggressive legislation and regulation, called positive law, it supposes itself to have the power and authority to play an active role in molding society by political force. But the reason for the creation of governments in the first place was for defensive purposes - negative / natural law. A government cannot participate in creating positive laws without breaking negative laws. 

"...the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent."

                                                                                                             -Frederick Bastiat

In this contradiction of purpose comes chaos and corruption. If it is accepted by the people that government should be involved in positive law making, everyone will look to advance their personal well-being through the political means. When government is the regulator, a door is open for people and corporations to seek to seize that power in order to dominate over their competitors and protect themselves from risks in the market. Is it a surprise that corporations spend millions to lobby lawmakers? 

Government Regulation Protects Businesses From Liability
Poorly constructed buildings, dangerous medication, and hormone filled foods are serious problems, but it should be recognized that all of these horrible things have been highly regulated by government for decades. They have been approved as "safe" by government regulation. You see regulation, when mandated by government, actually legalizes a certain amount poison in food. It legalizes drugs and immunizations that can kill you. The worst part is that because they have been approved as safe, the guilty parties are pretty much free of liability because as long as they have met the regulatory standards they are not at fault.

When a business is not directly accountable to its customers, they have no incentive to improve the quality of their products and services. Risk of getting sued is the greatest motivator for caution. Government regulations remove that risk and responsibility, resulting in businesses acting reckless and irresponsible.

Government Regulatory Services Are a Subsidy to Big Business
Why is it that we have tax funded building departments? Why are tax payers giving free safety inspections to dairy farmers? Why aren't pharmaceutical companies paying for their own third party test trials? Sure they might pay an occasional small fee, but these departments are not supported by these fees. The staff, building and vehicles are funded by people who may not ever use their services. 

A Solution For More, Stricter Regulations
There is no reason why these government service industries shouldn't be privatized and fully funded by their customers- just like any other business. If the burden of liability for the safety and quality of products was placed on property owners and those they contract with we would see an increase in regulation. Businesses would be extremely careful about the safety of their customers out of fear of legal action. Businesses that provide quality and safety inspections would be incentivized by the same fear as their property owning clients. They would be paid to check for safety issues and if they fail, they would be at fault.

Pharmaceutical companies would make cleaner vaccines. Milk and meat would be hormone and poison free and buildings would be built to a higher standard. Some may think this is naive thinking, but again government has already been regulating these things and the result has been that we have lower , not higher, standards of safety, enforced by law. 
1 Comment

The Church: The DMV of Marriage

10/21/2014

2 Comments

 
Owners of The Hitching Post, Donald and Evelyn Knapp,  say they believe marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman. They claim that a new city ordinance, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation when applied to housing, employment and public accommodation, violates these religious beliefs by forcing them to perform same-sex marriages at their place of business. (see article)

While I agree this ordinance is a violation of individual and property rights, The Knapps are mistaken. Marriage, in its modern form, is not a sacred or religious union, it is a public institution. Pastors, priests and bishops are not acting as officials of the church, but as officers of the state.

Donald chose to participate in priestcraft when he sought state authority to administer state marriage licenses and solemnize state marriages. When performing these acts he is a minister of the government and The Hitching Post is nothing more than the DMV of weddings - not only the Hitching Post, but also every church, or synagogue that performs weddings under the authority of the state. 

It hasn't always been this way, but the fact is, it was the religious folks who first suggested the idea that marriage be made a "public accommodation". It is they who demoted marriage to the level of a state granted privilege.

Over the last decade, the religious right have continued to fight aggressively to maintain the status quo -That the state is the ultimate authority on marriage. As long as they stand on this sandy foundation they are hypocrites to declare religious freedom, while they themselves use state force against others. It's only fitting that their rights are violated by the same tool they have used to violate the rights of others. 

If marriage is a personal relationship/agreement between concenting adults, then it is no business of the state to be involved with regulating any aspect of it. This freedom to associate allows all to decide what is right for them, without infringing on those who think , or live differently. Those who continue to claim that entering these personal relationships shall only be granted by authority of the state, must accept yeild those personal and religious freedoms to the force of public opinion. A losing battle for the Knapps.  
Picture
2 Comments

The Independent TV Show!

9/16/2014

4 Comments

 
Picture
It has finally become clear to the average voter that no matter how hard they try and no matter how mad they get, the American political system is not going to give them candidates that the majority can get behind. Both major parties are for empire, corporatism and for abolishing basic constitutional rights. For anything that is actually important, there's not a lick of difference between them and everybody knows it. The party electoral system is intentionally designed to maintain the established power structure and suffocate any opposing voices. For many years it has well been made known that outright cheating is standard practice when the establishment is significantly challenged. We saw it with Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, and any of the alternative party candidates that could be considered. Think of the billions of dollars and millions of hours that have spent on campaigns, protests, petitions, marches and elections that have brought little to no meaningful change. Through these conventional means the situation seems (and probably is) hopeless.

What if there was a way to bypass the dead-end party primary system, and put forward respected voices, under a banner of reason and unity, directly by the people. This solution is not hard to imagine as many of the biggest shows on TV are based around the “America votes” concept. Imagine an American Idol/Apprentice/Survivor type show called “The Independent”. The 2023 program season would begin with independent minded contestants, from a virety of political views, who have already earned the respect and popularity of America. Personalities like Mike Rowe, Chuck Norris, Oliver Stone, Sherif Richard Mac, Tom Woods, Naomi Wolf, Tom Morello, John Stossel, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Dr. Cornel West, Joe Rogan, and Rick Steves, in order to win America's vote. Of course, there will need to be a host, and who better than Penn Jillette?

Each week, these contestants (divided into left/right teams) would participate in group tasks in a variety of situations (Wall St, Soup Kitchen, Boot Camp, Farms, etc.).  These activities would give the audience a foundational understanding of real world issues and an opportunity to hear the different perspectives and proposed solutions of the contestants. The tasks would become more exotic as the season progresses; with some taking place in foreign nations. The audience is able to see the contestants in entertaining and dramatic ways, establishing an emotional connection that not even the most well funded political campaign could ever deliver.

America votes each week (via text, phone, or website) for their favorite contestant. The person with the lowest number of votes is eliminated. Since the American audience has a left/right demographic the last two contestants would be politically polarized independents. At the end of the season the winner and the runner up will have to agree on a platform (these platform discussions would be amazing episodes). These winners would then be placed on the ballot in all 50 states as “The Independent” ticket for President and VP. Through social networking and because of the interactive nature of the show, grassroots organizations will already be established in each state and would have fulfilled the legal requirements for ballot access. 

A common theme throughout the show would be that the two party system is broken, and offers no real choices. This would put the establishment parties on the defensive and force the mainstream candidates to engage in meaningful debate. Whether the Independent actually wins the general election is of less importance than the effect that would be made from 20+ weeks of intelligent, non-rhetorical ideas (whether they be progressive or libertarian) being pumped into the minds of the general population. It would force the voters to actually think about what they are listening to and form their own opinions. The show would drive the political dialogue like nothing ever has before. The time is perfect for "The Independent".


----------
Suggested Episode List
1. Independant HQ "The Deck is Stacked" - Guests: Ralph Nader/Ross Perot
2. Washington D.C. "The Belly of the Beast" - Guests: Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich
3. Wall St. "More Than Business" - Guests: Paul Krugman/Robert Murphy
4. Texas/Mexico "Bleeding at the Border" (immigration, drug war, trade) - Guests: Gary Johnson/Mexican Official
5. New Mexico/ "Militarized Police State" - Guests: Will Grigg/Radley Balko
6. Arizona/L.A. "Guns, Guns, Guns" - Guests: Ice-T/Gabby Giffords
7. L.A. "Business Exodus" (regulations, taxes) 
8. Nevada (Federal lands/Environment/Green energy)
9. Utah (NSA Spying) - Guests: Connor Boyack/Edward Snowden
10. Idaho/Washington (Cannabis legalization) - Guests: Rick Steves/Will Grigg
11. Idaho/Washington (Farms, Food, Monsanto)
12. Alaska/N.Dakota (Oil,Fracking and the Environment) Guests: Palin/Greenpeace
13. Hong Kong/S. Korea (international trade) 
14. Moscow (Diplomacy)
15. Israel/Palistine (Aid, sanctions, middle east, arab spring)
16. Final contestants Flashback
17. Winners announced - platform debate begins
18. Grassroots and Ballot Access
19. U.S. Tour
20. U.S. Tour
21. U.S. Tour
22. U.S. Tour
23. Finally (contestant reunion)
4 Comments

The Republic Should Pledge to Us

5/14/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
Picture
Picture

Picture
Picture
American school children saluting the U.S. Flag during the pledge of Allegiance (circa 1941).

Picture
The Oath of Office.
Picture
Recently in Texas, 15 year old Mason was suspended from school for refusing to stand for the pledge of allegiance. I certainly support his right to do so, but his reason for exercising this right, I fully endorse. He says, "I love my country, but not the government."

Over time American culture has blurred the lines between society and government. When many of us think of country, we think primarily of the political structure with its flags, capitals, monuments, politicians, constitutions, military, etc. But for Mason and myself, a country is the land, the people, industry and the traditions of individual liberty. The government is only an appendage of these, grown from our greatest societal deficiencies, a reflection of our failures. This is why Thomas Paine called government a "necessary evil".

From this perspective I will try to explain why I have chosen to not pledge my allegiance to the republic for which the flag stands. Many are offended by this and jump to the conclusions that I must hate America and the sacrifices that have been made to preserve the few freedoms I still enjoy for now. This is an unfair assumption, and I find that it is a highly inaccurate stereotype of people who do not pledge. So, let it be clear that I believe that a person that is willing to voluntarily give his or her life to protect the freedom and lives of the innocent deserves the highest honor and respect.

Most people of the world do not see the government of the United States and its flag as representatives of those sacrifices or of human liberty. They see them as mockeries of those sacrifices and freedoms. Most who do not stand for the pledge, are actually making a legitimate statement opposing the evils that this symbol represents. I also understand that most of the people who do say the pledge do it for the good that the flag represents to them. The difference between these two groups of people are in what the symbol represents to them. Both are expressing their belief in the ideas of freedom.

History of the Pledge
Not much is written in textbooks regarding the post-civil war era through the early 1900's. Study of this time period reveals an extreme contrast in political philosophies between the founding generation, one that cherished individual rights, and a progressive era that made U.S. nationalism their primary religion. From this time period came the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, a national socialist, who was hired to sell flags to the reconstructed public school system (patterned after the prussian school system). He wrote the pledge so the teachers would have a reason to request the purchase of these flags. His goal and the goal of this school system was to indoctrinate young minds to allegiance to the state so that they would be malleable soldiers and factory workers to bring about a socialist utopia. 

Edward Bellamy, Francis's cousin, wrote a novel called Looking Backward, a story which fantasized about this socialist utopia. The book takes place in the year 2000 and explains how this 'great' society was achieved over the last 100 years. This massively successful book sold tens of thousands of copies across the country and sparked an ideological revolution in support of this doctrine of nationalism, in the U.S. 

If you look at the photos to the left you will see the original flag salute, called the Bellamy salute. It is no coincidence that the same salute was adopted by Hitler and Mussolini when establishing their national socialist movements. The word Nazi comes from the german word Nationalsozialismus (national socialism). Even though the Pledge's salue was changed after WW2, for obvious reasons, The terrible philosophies of National Socialism and Economic Fascism have thrived here ever since.

The history of the pledge should be cause enough for one to reconsider saying it, but there is another reason of greater weight that finally convinced me to stop pledging. 

Who is the Master?
There are two pledges that are common in the U.S.A. Both seem similar in content but actually come from two opposing ideologies. 

The oldest of these, The Oath of Office, has been taken by representatives, soldiers, lawyers and state employees since the founders. This oath is made to the people, swearing that as an agent of government, they will defend and honor the limitations of their power via the constitution. In the case of this oath, it is supposed that the people are the masters and government their servant. This is the proper orientation. 

The Pledge of allegiance supposes the opposite. Here "We the People" swear an oath to the republic/government suggesting that the people are submissive to it as their master. This way of thinking has proven time and again to be a destructive and dangerous theology.

A free people only need pledge allegiance to themselves, their convictions and to their pursuits of happiness. In an environment where individual rights trump "the greater good", freedom and prosperity are most secure. 
0 Comments
<<Previous

    About the Author

    Elijah Stanfield is a professional video producer and illustrator--most notably for the children's book series, the Tuttle Twins. 

    A longtime student of Austrian economics, history, and the classical liberal philosophy, Elijah has dedicated much of his time and energy to promoting the ideas of free markets and individual liberty. 

    He currently resides in Tennessee with his wife, April and their children.


Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.