MEGATRENDS: Cancel The Elections!    
 Cancel The Elections!4 comments
Cancel the Presidential Election!

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Nothing could be better for the country than cancelling the 2008 election. Leave the office of the presidency empty.

I can see only one possible justification for having a president of the United States: to preside over the dismantling of the federal government. If you think this is a radical idea, think again. This is, in part, what people have long voted for, even if they never actually get it. I can hardly remember a time when a president has been elected who didn't promise to get the government off our backs.

In one way, this agenda makes no sense, of course. You don't hire a CEO to drive a company into bankruptcy. You don't appoint a pastor to shrink a congregation. Why should we expect a president to dismantle the thing that gives him power and fame, and his allies huge wealth? Well, realistically, you can't. But it's the best hope we have within the framework of conventional politics.

The irony is that most presidents get elected on the prospect that they will curb power. It's true of George Bush, who promised domestic cuts and a humble foreign policy. Clinton was also elected on the promise of middle-class tax cuts. We can go back and back and see it was true for the first Bush, for Reagan, for Carter, for Nixon, and so on.

For that matter, FDR himself denounced government spending during this first campaign. "I accuse the present administration [Hoover's] of being the greatest spending administration in peace times in all our history," and added, "On my part, I ask you very simply to assign to me the task of reducing the annual operating expenses of your national government." He further denounced the government for "fostering regimentation without stint or limit."

It was even true with George Washington, who had made innumerable speeches on the evil of tyranny only to take power and use it to the benefit of the powerful. Even Jefferson succumbed with his mistaken Louisiana Purchase, though he later entertained the possibility of a salutary breakup of the United States.

And so on it goes. And it will happen again, despite all promises.

Folks, there is something wrong with this model of governance, not just current policy but the whole structure. We might even argue that the error goes back to the Constitution, a document that created new government powers unprecedented in Colonial history, and put the government in charge of restraining itself. It set up competitive divisions within government under the presumption that they would keep each other in check. Instead, they cooperated toward mutual expansion, especially after the federal power seizure called the Civil War.

Part of the problem dates to a core error within liberal theory: the belief that it was possible to create a government that was an extension of society, thanks to the relentless input of the people via democratic institutions. What this model did instead is enlist the public as part of their own destruction. And it created confusion about who precisely is to blame when things don't work out. Under democracy, aren't we the government? Aren’t we doing this to ourselves?

Let's draw on another aspect of old-time liberal theory as a means of finding a way out of this mess. There are two additional contributions that liberalism made. It taught that society is capable of self-management, and that government is not the reason for order in society. Summing up the old liberal position, Thomas Paine said:

A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society, and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has in man and all the parts of a civilized community upon each other create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything that is ascribed to government.

If we would be true to this line of thought, we should propose the unthinkable: cancel the election. This has never before been so urgent. Neither party will cut government in a way that is desperately needed. Instead, they offer a left- or right-tinged Americanized socialism or fascism. One promises domestic expansion and foreign reduction; the other promises foreign expansion and domestic reduction. The inevitable compromise: expand both domestically and internationally.

In addition, whatever the new president does will make our growing economic problems worse. The economic interventions they propose will add to our troubles, whether that means expanding inflation, taxes, controls, or debt. Another war is unthinkable, but probably inevitable. You can already detect it in the aggressive trajectory towards Iran. More business regulation can only dampen the fires of free enterprise, which are our saving grace today.

The best solution would be a government that would destroy itself. The second best solution would be a government that does nothing at all – then, at least, matters will not get worse. This is what canceling the election would do. It would introduce enough confusion and chaos to keep government from acting either domestically or internationally, which would be a wonderful thing.

There is also the matter of public will. We pretend as if the person who is elected enjoys the support of a majority. Nonsense. Most people who can vote do not vote, and who can blame them? Those who do vote are most likely voting against the other guy and not for a positive program. The person elected will enjoy a mandate of perhaps 5–10% of the population that actively supports the agenda. I say: make the new president their president but not our president.

It's true that what I'm proposing constitutes a purely negative agenda. So let's look to a positive goal. This country is too large to be governed from the center. It is long past time that it be broken into ever smaller pieces, even to the size of the world's smallest nations. In that way, the US government will cease to be a menace to its citizens and to the world. Prosperity will be assured in the same way it always has: through peace and free trade with all.

But what about the Constitution? Let Jefferson speak: "We have not yet so far perfected our constitutions as to venture to make them unchangeable…. But can they be made unchangeable?... I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things."

It is highly significant that Jefferson, when he wrote his own epitaph, wanted to be remembered for the Declaration of Independence, for the Virginia statute on religious freedom, and for founding the University of Virginia. That he was a two-term president is not listed.

March 6, 2008

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of, and author of Speaking of Liberty.




7 Mar 2008 @ 06:31 by vaxen : Brylcream...
a little dab will do ya. Brylcream you'll look so debonaire. ANd so it goes. Night comes and then the day and the swan rad red is gleaming at the dawning (Daegr) of a brand new day. But, then, who needs a new brand anyway? With so many fire brands running around like chickens with their heads cut off.

We'll see ourselves through the darkness of this evil night and know at once that we created it for a purpose.

Some say a well resoned thought crafted into contract long before this old world began it's journey here from the dwarf sagittarius galaxy to madly stomp all over the moon thus...lunacy is in fasion everywhere.

The end to all government is in sight. Oh jubilee!  

7 Mar 2008 @ 10:01 by vaxen : Yunus A Go?
Creating a World Without Poverty
Muhammad Yunus

January 18, 2008
Milken Institute

As if being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize weren’t enough, Muhammad Yunus has set his sights on a new goal: turning the entire current cannon of business thought on its head. As captured in his latest book, Creating a World Without Poverty, Yunus is determined to bring about a tremendous change in our current understanding of what it really means to turn a profit.

Speaking to a standing-room-only crowd at the Milken Institute, he outlined his past innovations in micro-credit – which have provided the poorest citizens of Bangladesh with previously unheard-of access to credit, breaking the cycle of poverty for thousands of families in rural and urban areas alike.

Building on the lessons and successes of Grameen Bank and Grameenphone (for more on this, see Muhammad Yunus and Mike Milken: A Conversation), Yunus is now turning his attention to the development of “social businesses” – a revolutionary concept that measures return on investment in social outcomes rather than financial gain. Such outcomes might include the number of children with improved health, the gallons of potable water delivered to regions with unsafe water supplies, or the kilowatts of energy powering a village that previously had no electricity.

According to Yunus, current economic and financial philosophy misses the entirety and the potential of human beings.

“Economics has discarded everything that makes humans interesting,” he said, noting that “Human beings are much bigger than money machines,” he said.

While the profit motive is part of the picture, the fundamental desire to do good has been overlooked by academics and practitioners alike. Yunus insists that this impulse has a place in economics—and he characterizes the missing piece of the puzzle as “non-loss, non-dividend companies.”

Funding a social business is not like donating to charity. Yunus believes that social business investors can and should expect to recover their initial outlay. The return on that investment, however, will not be a financial dividend, but a tangible social benefit. The business still has the imperative to be successful in order to repay its initial investors and to grow the operation, but its ultimate success will be measured by how well it achieves its stated social objective. As an additional benefit, the recouped initial investment can be recycled into new social businesses over and over.

Yunus pointed to a successful social business that is already up and running: a venture established by Grameen Bank and Dannone. The company produces an affordable yogurt enriched with nutrients that are desperately needed by impoverished children in Bangladesh. Grameen Bank and Dannone will be able to recover their investment in the enterprise, but both seek a rate of return measured in healthier children, not as a percentage of profits. While there is no direct profit from this endeavor, Yunus commented on the incredible public relations boost for Dannone since the project’s inception.

Additional markets ripe for the social business model include clean water, housing, vaccines and energy. Yunus noted that there is a tremendous energy shortage in rural Bangladesh; 70 percent of the population has no access to electricity. At the Milken Institute Forum, he challenged his audience to develop a solar panel that could be sell for $1.50, as opposed to the current price of $3.00. Unlike many other technologies, solar panels have not seen a price drop. “This technology is stuck,” observed Yunus.

Nevertheless, solar panels represent a tremendous opportunity for launching a social business. Yunus promises that if a company out there can figure out how to provide the product at the lower price, he will put solar panels in every home in Bangladesh. This would not only improve the lives of 70 percent of the Bangladeshi population—but do it with a clean, renewable energy source.

Yunus does not see social businesses as a concept that is limited to Bangladesh or the developing world. He believes it can work right here in the United States—and he noted that if he were to develop a new U.S. social business, he would concentrate on providing health insurance to the uninsured. The social business model might be the perfect solution, since the current profit model has not been able to provide the service.

"Profit maximizers will never get here, because you don't make money," Yunus said on the subject.

Biographical Information
On The Sixteen Individuals Cited By
The San Diego Citizens Grand Jury
As Deserving Further Investigation
For The Charge Of
'Conspiracy To Commit Mass Murder'


RUDOLPH GIULIANI: Mayor of New York City between 1994-12/31/2001, collaborating with JEROME HAUER as his Director of Emergency Management between 1996-2000; Assistant U. S. District Attorney in the Southern District of New York 1970-1975, collaborating with Jules Kroll, the founder of Kroll and Associates / Kroll, Incorporated; Associate Attorney General of the United States 1981-83; U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York 1983-89, collaborating with MICHAEL CHERKASKY and ELIOT SPITZER.  

7 Mar 2008 @ 19:53 by a-d : Thanks,Vax for the article
and also the Milken Institute link. There I found and article about the "Economic Burden of Chronic Disease". That is a subject I tried to take on while studying to RN. It never made sense to me the approach the Society / Doctors had to illnesses: Officially: "Everybody HAS to get ill -sooner or later"; that was one of the Bravados, the other one of course, being the never spoken out loud: "It is profitable to have sick people"... NONE of which never really made sense to me... but I never managed to really dragg anybody into any bigger dialogue about it. People refused to see / look at my point of argument!...: "Doctors, make it to your Life mission to help people -not only to keep their original health, but to regain it if the lost it. Don't even charge your patients for the treatments unless they make full recovery" . They thought of me as being absolutely nuts!

Years (like a few decades!) later I ran into an article about Chinese Doctors, who practices exactly this kind of policy: ONLY if/when a Patient was fully recovered did they need to pay the Doctor!

The Western Medicine, like all other aspects of the Western Thinking, was 180 degrees away from REAL Truth!... AWAY from ANY Life-supportive Energies to even think of this approach as a possibility of consideration!
Yet, there was a strong field within the FINNISH Health Care System; The Profylactic Medicine, but it was always restricted by Big Pharma and over all NON-acceptance by the World Society at the Finnish doctors cowered a bit; NOT daring to make a big fuzz out of the Issue -like I tried to do!...

I love this statement by the artcile Writer; Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. ".... This country is too large to be governed from the center. It is long past time that it be broken into ever smaller pieces, even to the size of the world's smallest nations. In that way, the US government will cease to be a menace to its citizens and to the world. Prosperity will be assured in the same way it always has: through peace and free trade with all...."

Yeaaahhh...Noooo kiddin'!
I also think David Korten really hits the head of the nail when he says: "... Rather, they measure the rate at which the rich are expropriating the living resources of the planet and converting them to products destined for a garbage dump after a brief useful life. The process generates profits for people who already have far more money than they need while displacing people from the resources they need for their modest livelihoods. In summary, the primary business of the global financial system and the corporations that serve it is to increase the wealth gap. It works well in the short-term for the privileged few, but it is disastrous for the society.

We see the effects in the current state of the world. The market value of global economic output has tripled since 1970. By conventional reckoning, this means we humans have tripled our wealth and well-being.

Yet indicators of living capital, the aggregate of human, social and natural capital, tell a very different story. The Living Planet Index, an indicator of the health of the world's freshwater, ocean, and land-based ecosystems, declined 30 percent since 1970. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 15 of 24 ecosystem services examined “are being degraded or used unsustainably, including fresh water, capture fisheries, air and water purification, and the regulation of regional and local climate, natural hazards, and pests.”

..... Meanwhile, the growing concentration of money means a few people are able to claim an ever-larger share of a shrinking pie of living capital to the exclusion of everyone else. According to a recent United Nations study, the richest 2 percent of the world's adults own 51 percent of all global assets. The poorest 50 percent own only 1 percent. This distribution of ownership is a measure of the global distribution of power—and the gap is growing at an accelerating rate.
The power imbalance allows the privileged minority to change the rules to accelerate their expropriation of the declining pool of real wealth, which increases the hardship and desperation of those excluded. We are on a path to an increasingly violent last-one-standing competition for the Earth's final tree, drop of drinkable water, and breath of air.

..... By our measures of financial capital, we humans are on a path to limitless prosperity. By the measures of living capital, we are on a suicidal path to increasing deprivation and ultimate self-extinction.

Putting Life First
If there is to be a human future, we must bring ourselves into balanced relationship with one another and the Earth. This requires turning existing economic priorities and models on their head and making the values of the Earth Community story the foundation of our economy. We must:

1. Turn from money to life as the defining value, from growing financial capital to growing living capital, and from short-term to long-term investing;

2. Shift the priority from advancing the private interests of the few to advancing the individual and community interests of all; and

3. Reallocate resources from supporting institutions of domination to meeting the needs of people, community, and nature.

....We have enormous potential to improve the lives of all by reallocating resources from military to health care and environmental regeneration, from automobiles to public transportation, from investing in suburban sprawl to investing in compact communities, from advertising to education, from financial speculation to productive investment in local entrepreneurship, and from providing extravagant luxuries for the very wealthy to providing basic essentials for everyone.

The champions of Empire dismiss any such reordering of priorities on the ground that it will bring economic disaster and unbearable hardship. They ignore the simple fact that those results are already the lot of roughly half our fellow humans. The proposed reordering can avoid the spread of hardship and begin to alleviate the existing suffering.

Economic reallocation and democratization are no longer simply moral issues. They are imperatives of human survival and must replace economic growth and the pursuit of financial gain as the defining purpose of economic life.

The human species has reached a defining moment of choice between moving ahead on a path to collective self-destruction or joining together in a cooperative effort to navigate a dramatic turn to a new human era.

The work of bringing forth a new economy devoted to serving the needs of our children, families, communities, and natural environments begins with building public awareness that there is an Earth Community prosperity story that offers a vision of hope and possibility for a positive future. Although a story so contrary to the prevailing Empire story is likely to be greeted with initial skepticism, the Earth Community prosperity story enjoys the ultimate advantage because it expresses the truth most of us recognize in our hearts: if our children, families, communities, and natural systems are healthy, we are prosperous. Whether conventional financial indicators like GDP or the Dow Jones stock index rise or fall is irrelevant...."

Read the whole article here: [ ]


8 Mar 2008 @ 04:01 by vaxen : Yes.
Unfortunately the 'elite' gained control of the educational system long ago and replaced it with one which dumbs down people and makes them slaves of their own ignorance. Controlling the minds of the people via first education then the money system which is a stacked deck. Debt based it is insanity.

With the ever present increase of technology in the hands of the oppressors there really is no hope unless the people world wide awaken to how they are being so miserably exploited by a few thieves, criminals and outright murderers.

And they argue about which thief will best fit the function of chief executive thief...

Thanks for the article but this stuff must be taken to the streets and the government disbanded first in our hearts then whatever it takes to cordon off that 10 square miles and territories. Let the pigs have the system that is rotting everything away...

I mean look at what they call 'oratory!' Enough is enough...

And, yes, so called medicine is in league with big pharma in a big way. Study the antics of Merck and how they switch medicines in hospitals and never even tell the Doctors which subscribe certain medicaments that they have been switched by the hospital. Patients are dying from the wrong medications unbeknownst to their doctors. Insanity reigns in politics, in medicine, in education. Materialism devoid of morality, devoid of spirit.

The natural outcome of 'Democracy!' May they ALL be damned! Ah, we love em all anyway...right?!;)  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

[< Back] [MEGATRENDS] [PermaLink]?