The People’s Republic is not the answer – – – To those who observe the economic growth and swiftness of political action by the one-party ruled People’s Republic of China versus the economic stagnation and glacial slowness of the bureaucracy of the two-party indirect democracy in America, the answer is not to copy the Chinese (and their mistakes). “Democracy” is a buzzword that has been misused in America, to hide the identities of predators on the prowl. Ditto, for “capitalism.” Consider how some believe that China’s Communist Party is more favorable to capitalism than is the U.S. government. Is this true? Or even more important, how is this possible? - - - - According to the Communist Manifesto, abolition of private property is the ultimate goal of communism. But “private property” means different things in different countries. - - - - Why is that important? Because the so-called capitalists aren’t really involved in capitalism. - - - - CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit. - - - WEBSTERS DICTIONARY PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels. - - - Blacks Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217 If you concatenate capitalism with private property, you can see the inconvenient truth. ❏ CAPITALISM is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are absolutely owned by INDIVIDUALS and operated for their individual profit.❏ If you think about it, American capitalism (absolute ownership) is an endowment to be secured by government. There is no government privilege involved in absolute ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and of the gain derived. Nor can capitalism be subject to an excise tax, since no government privilege is involved. This definition does NOT include usury, gambling (underwriting), speculation, extortion, limited liability artificial persons (government privileged), group ownership or other predatory practices usually attributed to capitalism. Coincidentally, such practices are subject to an excise tax, for they are revenue taxable privileges. Since the introduction of national socialism via Social Security, no one has absolutely owned a thing. The government can and will tax away anything and everything. This illustrates that no one owns private property - for any taking of private property must be compensated for (5th amendment, USCON). This “qualified ownership” by non-governmental entities is what the rest of the world considers as “private property.” Of course, such ownership is a government granted privilege, not an endowed right. ▸ From the Communist manifesto: In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. ▸ Amendment V, US Constitution 1789 : “... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” ... So the rise of Chinese “capitalists” who are enjoying privileges, subject to the authority of the Communist party, are not really enjoying the rights of capitalism (absolute ownership and natural liberty). And the fall of American “capitalism” is due, in part, to voluntary socialism (FICA) and voluntary submission to the ever more powerful State, via the democratic form of government and its partisan politicians. ... When Americans no longer exercise natural and personal liberty over themselves, their property or their vocations, they become subject to the bureaucrats and their rules. The remedy to that abuse is not de-regulation or a streamlining of politics. The remedy is to cease exercising privileges subject to the bureaucracy. Withdraw consent is the remedy. Deprived of willing subjects and their revenue, the servant government will inevitably contract, and be limited by the “consent of the governed.” Re-stating, the remedy to the regulatory abuse of the democratic form is not to embrace the one party form, nor is the abolition of private property a remedy to such abuse. The remedy is to withdraw consent, restore private property rights, natural liberties, and thus constrain the government to “securing rights” and nothing more.
Posted on: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:16:11 +0000