Joe Meglen

Joe Meglen 2 months, 3 weeks ago on Our view: Ethical approach to mass shootings

Steve,

I am please to learn that my comments are causing you to do some interesting reading.

The Microsoft monopoly is not a Natural Monopoly. When government grants intellectual property privileges, as it did for Microsoft, it grants a government sanctioned monopoly.

We agree that it is not practical for an individual to prove that he has been damaged beyond a reasonable doubt by a mass polluter. The remedy was for the citizens of a city to sue the polluter in the form of a class action suit. As stated in my earlier post, during the 1900’s the courts decided that industrialization was beneficial for the “greater good” (greater good being code language for collectivism) and therefore some amount of air pollution was deemed to be acceptable. This was followed by judges, courts and state legislators no longer permitting class action suits to be brought against mass air polluters.

The common villain here is lawless government picking the winners and losers. Invariably the winners are the government and those connected to it. The individual is the loser for as government grows beyond the constraints of the Constitution freedom is lost.

0

Joe Meglen 3 months ago on Our view: Ethical approach to mass shootings

Steve,

The Constitution doesn’t have “a larger role for government beyond those enumerated. The objective of The Articles of Confederation was to preserve the sovereignty of the people and the states leaving them to govern themselves. The Articles were a failure from the point of view of those that wanted a strong central government.
It still requires a majority to amend the compromise that is the Constitution. If politicians would honor their oath we would not suffer under the tens of thousands of unconstitutional laws, agencies and regulations that have stolen our liberty. It is critical to understand that outside of the enumerated powers the federal government has no legitimacy. You write that my (Joe’s): “…stated politics favor the wealthy and big business.” On the contrary, my politics favor individual liberty and the freedom of opportunity. Wikipedia’s description of monopolies suffers from the false history we were all exposed to in public schools in which Robber Barons, using all manner of shenanigans, would capture overwhelming market share. Their monopolies allowed the consumer to be plundered. Real history dispels this myth. Examples; under Rockefeller the price of oil fell from 30 cents to 5.9 cents per gallon, under Vanderbilt steamship fares dropped 90% and Carnegie dropped the price of steel rails from $160. to $17. per ton. It is the political entrepreneur that gains a monopoly granted by government that is the villain, Obamacare being an egregious example. It is the monopolies granted by government that are responsible for fleecing the people. Free markets have a way of eliminating Natural Monopolies. Pollution is a property rights issue, including air pollution by power plants. Up until the early 19th century a victim could take a polluter to court, get an injunction and sue for damages. Farmers who had their orchards blighted by nearby factories emitting smoke are an example. Courts began to subvert property rights by deciding that a certain amount of pollution is acceptable for “the greater good”. The “general welfare”, the collective, trumps the rights of the individual. To cement the crimes of the judges and courts, federal and state legislatures moved to prohibit victims of air pollution from engaging in “class action” suits against mass polluters. The world’s greatest polluter is the U.S. federal government. State governments are also enormous polluters. When we put government in charge of protecting the environment we are allowing the fox to guard the hen house. For a very long time the political and judicial classes have not conformed to the restraints of the Constitution that created the government. Most of what the federal government does is completely outside the Rule of Law and is therefore unlawful. Yes, I can point to a better governed country; the United States when we enjoyed a limited constitutional government secured by citizens that valued liberty and were well armed.

0

Joe Meglen 3 months ago on Our view: Ethical approach to mass shootings

Steve,

A clarification: It is the politicians that are corrupt. Incorruptible politicians are an endangered species.

Let’s include the monied interests of unions, the green movement and the government itself.

The world’s greatest polluter is the U.S. government. It shouldn’t be regulating pollution which is a violation of property rights. In a free society property rights violations are handled locally by courts. Penalties for violations should be so onerous that large corporations fear the consequences.

Monopolies are granted by government. Natural Monopolies that manifest in a free market are rare. Free market competition has a way of eliminating Natural Monopolies.

I am not anti-government; I am for a smaller constitutional government. My real preference would be a return to the government under The Articles of Confederation. The founder’s error in drafting the Constitution is that they assumed the majority of those who served would be honorable.

The people would not be”…more screwed…” under smaller constitutional government. On the contrary, people would regain their freedom with a return to the rule of law. The progressive (Marxist) income tax system would be eliminated. The fascist health insurance system would be abolished. The free market would deliver real affordable health care. The monopoly the government granted itself on education would be replaced by free market options delivering real education at less cost. The bloated corrupt Military Industrial Complex would be downsized to provide only for the defense of the U.S. not fight perpetual nation building unconstitutional wars to expand the American Empire. The unconstitutional “Patriot” Act would be abolished along with the tens of thousands of government agencies that have helped bankrupt and enslave our nation. Savings from downsizing the MIC would allow the Ponzi schemes of Social Security/Medicare to be funded for those that have paid into and depend on these frauds. These pyramid schemes would be phased out and replaced by private sector solutions. Without the burden of a metastasizing centralized government people will once again have the opportunity that only liberty and free markets can deliver. I could go on.

I didn’t state that democracy is a myth. We don’t have a democracy. We have a constitutional republic which works when government respects the rule of law. The myth is the bottom up representative government taught in public schools as it has devolved.

Guns are a viable defensive response to a despotic government that operates outside the constraints of the Constitution that created it. Knowing that the majority of Americans are armed is a major deterrent to more lawless government overreach.

We agree; local government is best. Local government understands local issues. It is more responsive. Powerfull local, weaker state and even weaker federal government control is the structure envisioned by the founders.

0

Joe Meglen 3 months ago on Our view: Ethical approach to mass shootings

Steve,

I will leave it to Mark to address every one of your points, which will no doubt be done in a reasoned manner.

My comments to a few or your points or positions:

The federal government has no authority to create a national gun registration. The founder’s clearly understood the danger of a powerful central government. They wanted it weak with strictly limited powers. The last thing they would allow is a central government that had the authority to disarm the citizens.

Resisting an oppressive federal government is not “attacking our country”. It is the duty of every citizen. The bloated criminal organization that is headquartered on the Potomac isn’t our country and doesn’t remotely resemble the idea of America, the principles upon which our country was founded.

The “Patriot” Act was written in the mid 1990’s during the Clinton Administration. The Statists of political parties, whether they are called liberal, conservative, democrat or Republican, waited for the appropriate crisis to rush this unconstitutional monstrosity through Congress effectively overturning most of what little was left of the Constitution.

My observation from some of your comments is that you are trapped in the liberal conservative paradigm. Disarming the People is not a liberal versus conservative issue. It is a big government versus freedom issue.

Most people believe in the myth taught in compulsory government schools that the federal government represents the people, it is us. Although not perfect, its actions are motivated by noble reasons. Nothing could be further from the truth. Large monied interests have always controlled governments and always will. Presidents are nothing more than front, or middle men. Like our politicians, they are bought and paid for. We have representative government only in the fact that the politicians represent their “clients” which are the large special interests that put, and keep them in power. This is why they don’t read the bills. The just follow orders. This type of government is called fascism, which is the government we have had since Lincoln’s unconstitutional war crushed the Confederacy, and therefore the state’s rights which kept the federal government in check.

As it now exists the federal government is wholly illegitimate. All three branches (all four if you include the bureaucracy which is a special interest unto itself) are hopelessly corrupt. Once one comes to recognize that the purpose of our government is to allow those that control it to plunder those that don’t, all the insanity that takes place in DC begins to make sense.

With the death of state’s rights in 1865, the last defense against the leviathan government is the people themselves. This is why the 2nd Amendment remains fundamental to the preservation of individual liberty; precisely what the founders fought a war for.

0

Joe Meglen 3 months ago on Our view: Ethical approach to mass shootings

Steve,

The point isn’t that the agencies spawned by the misnamed “Patriot” Act are buying fewer armaments than cited in Captain Hestilow’s letter. The “Patriot” Act is patently unconstitutional. The Constitution places strict limits on the federal government. The Patriot Act circumvents the Constitution making this law unlawful and therefore void. Unfortunately we are living in a post-constitutional era during which attacks on the Constitution, and therefore the people, are not only tolerated but endorsed by the majority of those that are supposed to represent We The People.

0

Joe Meglen 3 months ago on Our view: Ethical approach to mass shootings

Gun control advocates,

All gun control laws not memorialized in the Constitution are an attack on individual liberty, the principle upon which the United States were founded. Those inoculated in collectivism promote unconstitutional gun control laws and therefore willingly advocate for their own enslavement.

Those that retain independent thought after being processed through the compulsory State factory schools, reinforced by propaganda delivered by a compliant media, understand that we already have a gun control law; it is called the 2nd Amendment.

0

Joe Meglen 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Our view: Ethical approach to mass shootings

Matt and fellow gun control advocates,

Excluding war, the greatest mass murders in history by a thousand fold are governments killing their own citizens. People murdered by their own government number in the ten’s of millions, if not hundred’s of millions, far in excess of what a few dozen deranged individuals have accomplished using firearms.

The 2nd Amendment memorialized the fact that free people have an inherent Natural Right to defend themselves, their family, their property and friends from all threats, including the threat of a tyrannical government. This is the reason this Natural Right right shall not be infringed.

The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep government in check, for without it there would be no 1st, 3rd, 4th, et al. There would be no freedom. Depriving individuals the means of self defense guarantees more mass murders by government against its own citizens.

0

Joe Meglen 4 months, 2 weeks ago on Ken Collins: GOP puzzles resident

A bit off topic but I came to do business with a Count Claudio Thyssen (from Argentina) grandson of Count Fritz Thyssen in 1988. At that time I came to learn of Union Banking Corporation, a money laundering operation for the Nazi party, founded by Fritz Thyssen, Prescott Bush being president and his Yale buddy Averell Harriman vice president. Hover shut it down under the Trading With the Enemies Act, seizing the assets. At the conclusion of the war the assets were released to Prescott and Averell, apparently no questions asked. This was the seed money for the Bush oil business. This is public knowledge but a part of history not taught in government controlled public schools. The fascists did not loose WWII. German, Italian and Japanese fascists lost. American fascists won.

0