Private Defense and the Constitution

There's a lot of talk these days about substantially cutting the federal budget. Libertarians, Constitutionalists, State's Rights advocates, and Conservatives in general talk a lot about confining the federal government to its Constitutionally authorized functions - which would drastically reduce the federal budget. But when it comes to defense, many of them are reluctant to even touch the federal budget. 

But let's take a look at what the Constitution says about the defense budget. Article I. Section 8 gives Congress the authority "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." While no such limitation is required of the Navy - whose purpose is to defend the shores of the continent from invasion - the militia is to provide the bulk of land-based defense.
So in order for the defense budget to be in compliance with the Constitution, federal non-navy defense sponsorship must be reduced to zero. That would take a big chunk out of the deficit.

So what is the militia? Contrary to what you have likely been taught to believe, the militia is separate from the army. The term “militia” is simply a term to describe the armed populace. Among the few powers delegated to Washington by means of the Congress is the authority ”To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" and ”To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

When the militia needs to become involved in the defense of the United States as a whole, “The President shall be Commander in Chief … of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” The rest of the time, neither Congress nor the president has any say regarding the private defense force.

But what would a Constitutionally compliant defense look like in the modern age? Defense contractors would no longer be employed by the federal government, so the cost of artillery and military vehicles would be kept to reasonable levels by a competitive marketplace. The Bill of Rights guarantees that “arms” are readily available and in no way restricted. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Alarmists like to claim that ready availability of arms is dangerous. But strict liability for losses and damages for negligence and “collateral damage” would be maintained by a tort system that actually compensates victims and their estates. In addition to eliminating the tremendous costs associated with offensive military campaigns, such aggressors would need to pay all of the victims for damage to their person or property.

Article first appeared on Technorati: http://technorati.com/politics/article/private-defense-and-the-constitution/#ixzz1TguJcxeF

The Constitution versus the Dollar/Debt Crisis

The extent to which the federally licensed media and tax-funded school system has come to control the minds of the public is staggering. The term "government" has become synonymous with politics - even in libertarian circles. The majority of the American public of 300 million has come to trust the politicians so much that they do not even bother to read the Constitution to verify that the federal government is in compliance.

It clearly isn't. Not by a long shot.

For one, had the federal and state politicians been required to observe the gold standard - which is still enshrined in the U.S. Constitution - there would be no debt or dollar crisis. Among the few powers granted to Washington, Article I Section 8 gives Congress the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." It doesn't grant Washington the authority to print money, grant a monopoly to any bank or superbank, or to regulate banking or the economy in any form other than the value of its own coins and the standards of weights and measures. This implies that banking is to be free and competitive, and that coins may be produced freely by anyone who wishes to do so. Washington may endorse coins that are in keeping with its standards, but may not prohibit the use of those which are not. Further, according to Section 10, "No state shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ..."

The paleomedia has the public worked up into a frenzy about the Armageddon that will occur if Congress DOESN'T raise the debt limit. Stop and think about this. Is the public so gullible? In a word, "yes." But it's not that they are stupid, most of them aren't. The intellectual campaign has been well orchestrated and well funded. And the art of intellectual and financial monopolization has been developed over thousands of years. Not too long ago, the average person believed that Caesar was god. They were no less intelligent than us. But the politicians had the reigns on the flow of information. It was to be expected. Of course, the extent to which information is still bottlenecked is less than it was, but the monopolists make up for this in their ability to print paper money, and distribute it to whatever voices they wish.

When the dollar crashes - which it will - it will be nice for the public to have at its disposal some safe haven currencies into which it my weather the storm - particularly commodity-backed currencies. Were the politicians truly concerned about the welfare of their constituency, they would see to it that no ill would come to them. But we do not live in such a fairy tail land. To entrust the politicians with one's wealth is indeed suicidal. One must learn from history.

In the real world, to the extent of free competition, there is market discipline. To the extent of monopoly (which can only survive in an atmosphere of politics), there is inevitably corruption (to the extent of monopolization). In banking, as in any other industry, politics is not merely an evil, it is an unnecessary one.