V-50 Session 8

Good evening ladies and gentlemen.  Welcome to the eighth session of the V-50 Lectures.  In Lecture #6, I demonstrated that there is a direct connection between Isaac Newton’s integration of the physical sciences in 1665-1666 and the development of what is called the Industrial Revolution.  John Locke, influenced by his friend Isaac Newton, states that the principal function of what is called government is to protect property.  Thomas Paine, in turn influenced by both Newton and Locke, it was Paine who launched what came to be called the American Revolution.  Like Kepler and Galileo before him, Paine makes a complete and total break with all past tradition.  He introduces a very simple concept, a new concept.   He said, “We don’t need a king”.

Now why is it difficult for us to appreciate the significance of this magnificent generalization of Thomas Paine’s two centuries later?  Why?  Well, two centuries later, our reaction is, well, of course we don’t need a king.  Who needs a king?  I mean, so what else is new?  It’s obvious we don’t need a king.  That’s obvious.

Alright, was it obvious two centuries ago that we didn’t need a king?  Was that obvious two centuries ago?  If it was obvious, then why was it necessary for Paine to first convince everyone that we don’t need a King George III, or any other king, Richard I, Louis IV, Louis XIV, Louis XXIV, Louis CXXIV or what have you?  Prior to this time, ladies and gentlemen, the question of do we need a king was never even a factor of consideration.  Because who would question the right of the king to rule the people?  Benjamin Franklin never questioned it.  Thomas Jefferson never questioned it.  George Washington never questioned it.  Of course we have to have a king.  Someone has to rule.  We simply object to the way the king is ruling.  Let’s patch things up with the king.

And so, Paine argues we don’t need this “royal brute of Britain” running our lives.  We don’t need any royal brutes running our lives, George III or otherwise.  As I indicated last week, Thomas Paine then spearheads the American Revolution with the publication of Common Sense and the drafting of a statement of principle upon which the Declaration of Independence was founded.  Did anyone in school mention to you that the Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Paine?  Any of your teachers mention this?  Anyone?  Mine didn’t.  I do not intend to prove in course V-50 that Thomas Paine is the author of the Declaration of Independence. However, Professor Galambos does offer the proof in course V-76E, called “Thomas Paine, the Declaration of Independence and Your Freedom”.  If you are interested in a further understanding of the significance of Thomas Paine and the American Revolution, we do have a very fine course that goes into that in great depth.

I’d like to, at this time, read to you the basic principles of the American Revolution that are outlined in the Declaration of Independence.  You’ve heard these words many, many times.  This will not be new to you, the words.  The question you should ask, however, is the content and intellectual understanding of the words, is that new to you?  Paine, in the Declaration of Independence, says – incidentally, just to give you a little more on the subject of Paine as the author, the probability that Thomas Paine is the author of the Declaration of Independence is somewhere in the general magnitude of 95% certain that it was Thomas Paine, allowing another 5% probability for perhaps a few other people.  However, it is 100% certain that it was not written by Thomas Jefferson.  Reading a few statements from Paine’s Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.  That among these are life [which Galambos calls primordial property], liberty [which Galambos says you possess when you have total control of your primordial, primary, and secondary property], and the pursuit of happiness”.

The First Postulate says all volitional beings live to pursue happiness.  Thomas Paine is the intellectual antecedent of Galambos’ First Postulate.  Albert Einstein, the antecedent of his Second Postulate.  To continue:

“That to secure these rights [Secure means what?  Protect, fasten down] – to secure these rights [What rights?  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from [What source?] the consent of the governed.”

You’re the governed.  To what extent you are governed, you must consent to it.  Paine goes on:

“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [Well, how can you become destructive of these ends?  Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  There’s only one way.  Do you know what that is?  Attack the individual’s property.  Enslave the individual through the theft of his property.  It’s the only way it can be done. ] Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter [which means, of course, change] or abolish it [which means get rid of it.  In other words, essentially this says when any form of government attacks the property of the individual, it is the right of the people to either alter it or get rid of it] and institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.  Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.    And accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed”.

“Then to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed”.  In other words, if tyranny has been the custom, then we might as well go along with it because, well, after all, that’s the way we’ve always done it, isn’t it?  These are strong, uncompromising statements of principle by Thomas Paine.  And those are the basic principles upon which this nation was built, ladies and gentlemen.  Recognize what I have just read is a complete and total departure from all past tradition.

Now there is another myth that has been taught and accepted and that is that the American Revolution had an antecedent, a precursor, called the Magna Carta.  How many of you were told this in school, that this is one of the early documents of freedom, and so forth, prior to our own establishment of our government?

Well now, if anyone actually takes the time to read the Magna Carta, or the Great Charter of 1215, you will quickly discover that it has absolutely nothing to do with providing liberty to the English people or to anyone else.  The Magna Carta grew out of, what I called in Lecture 7 on false alternatives, the state’s rights false alternative.  However, in this case, the dispute was not between the federal government and the local states or the sub-local states over who is going to steal the people’s property.  The dispute was between the king and the lesser kinglets called, in this case, barons, over who was going to steal the people’s property.  In other words, there was simply a dispute between the head thug and the lesser thuglets over who was going to control someone else’s property.

Was this the version, however, you got in school?  Anyone?  Not exactly.  In any event, all that happened was some twenty-five English barons ganged up on poor King John.  And finally, King John signed the Great Charter at Runnymeade in 1215, turning over some of his coercive power and controls to the barons.  In fact, the British state, in order to help us celebrate the 200th anniversary of the American Revolution recently, you may recall, they shipped over one of the four remaining ecstamped copies of the original Magna Carta and they put it on display here in

America.  Did any of you see it?  Well, you missed it.  It was very nice of our British cousins to do this.  However, the Magna Carta has got nothing to do with the American Revolution or liberty or freedom.  If anyone questions it, simply read it.

How many of you were aware, from your study of American history, that the signers who were living in the year 1788, the signers of the Declaration of Independence, most of them were violently opposed to the adoption of a strong federal state and the ratification of the Constitution of the United States in 1788?  Was this explained to you in school?  Most people assume that the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the signers of the Constitution were the same people.  That’s not true.  How can you test this out, in fact, without even being an historian?  How would you test this out?  It would be very simple.  All you do is compare the signatures of the Constitution of the United States and Declaration of Independence and find out how many signatures in common.  You won’t find very many in common.

How many of you learned in school that, essentially, the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence are ideologically incompatible?  They are ideological opposites as I will demonstrate this evening.  Was this explained in school?  No one?  Just out of curiosity, how many of you have gone to school?  Never mind, I don’t want to know.

Before I launch into a brief discussion of the Constitution of the United States, if you get nothing else of value from this discussion, I hope you will acquire at least a deeper understanding of the value of semantic precision.  And secondly, if you understand this brief discussion, I claim you will acquire a deeper understanding of the Constitution of the United States then you could by acquiring, let’s say, a doctor of law degree in constitutional law, if there is such a thing, presumably there probably is, obtaining this from any university in the United States.

Alright, if I can deliver on that, if I can give you a deeper understanding of the Constitution of the United States by just a few statements on the subject than you could by getting a doctor of law degree, that’s called intellectual leverage.  You realize the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.  In other words, less and less and less explains more and more and more.  Fewer and fewer things explain more and more and more.  That’s where you get the leverage and that’s where education can begin.

Please note I’m not here to attack the Constitution of the United States or to attack those who authored the Constitution.  I’m going to, however, continue to apply the very same test for rightness that I introduced ins Session 2.  When I test for rightness, I’m only concerned with two questions concerning the Constitution.  One, is the Constitution rational?  Two, is the Constitution moral?  Now if it’s both moral and rational, then it must be what?  Right.

On the other hand, if it’s either irrational or immoral, then it must be what?  Wrong.  And if it’s both irrational and immoral, simultaneously, then I would say it must be wrong squared.  That’s the highest achievement of wrongness is that which is both irrational and immoral.

Also note, regardless of which conclusion I reach, one, the Constitution is right, two, the Constitution is wrong, three, the Constitution is wrong squared, if I’ve added to your knowledge of what is right, or if I’ve added to your knowledge of what is wrong, in either case you win.  Do you see that point?  Even if you possess a clear understanding of what is wrong, and why it’s wrong, you’ve added to your knowledge.  And before that, you can only know what’s wrong when you first know what’s right.  As I have already pointed out, most of the four billion people do not know what is right and they do not know what is wrong on any subject because they do not understand the standard.

When you add to your standard of what is either right or wrong, you might say that is a moment to rejoice because you’ve added to the most important domain of your wealth, the acquisition of right knowledge.  Well now, the major shortcoming of the Constitution of the United States is it is political.  And you’ll find that every political action involves one of two things, either force or fraud, the two forms of coercion.  Remember that coercion is any attempted and intentional interference with property.  So we have these two forms of coercion: force and fraud.  The Constitution establishes a central authority and this central authority happens to be a monopoly of coercion.  The relationship between the state and the individual is not a mutually voluntary relationship.  The Constitution does not establish a moral relationship between the individual and the state.

And so, twelve years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, the Constitution of the United States was ratified, as you know, in 1788.  I might point out, for twelve years, we got along without the Constitution of the United States.  The word political refers to the concept of a monopolistic activity of coercion.  As far as V-50 is concerned, any mechanism that establishes a monopoly of coercion is called political.  The Constitution of the United States is a political document.  It even contains some principles which are right, but, in spite of these right principles, we have added to the problems of society and not subtracted from them.  In other words, the Constitution, containing some right principles, and certainly with the good intentions of those who drafted it, has actually hastened the decay of the United States republic rather than preventing it.  This may be a surprising statement to many of you.  It’s even a statement that’s not always well received.

The concept of a constitution of itself is not being rejected here.  What is rejected is the concept of a coercive, political constitution.  That’s a redundancy because, if it’s political, it’s coercive, but I put the word in there for emphasis.  You see, a very simple thing you can easily test out, and I’ve discussed this earlier, and that is, when you have a voluntary relationship, that means you can secede.  When you have an involuntary relationship, you cannot secede.  You may recall that the South attempted to secede from the Union.  What happened?  How was the South prevented from seceding?  Gunpoint.  Is that right?  If you cannot secede, you are not free.  The same concept applies when you try to leave a prison without the permission of the warden.  You will be retained at gunpoint.  If you try to escape, you can be shot and killed legally.  Is this true?

Alright, let’s look at some of the other shortcomings.  A second major shortcoming of the Constitution, outside of its basic structure of being a politically coercive mechanism, deals with the problem of semantics.  The Constitution did not contain a glossary of terms.  We have that same problem all over again.  How can you have a useful document in any field when you don’t know what you’re talking about?  Do you realize, ladies and gentlemen, just how many terms that there are in the Constitution that no one in the world can define, including all of the lawyers, all of the judges, even the Supreme Court justices, especially the Supreme Court justices I would say.  And just to give you a few examples, and this is by no means a complete list, I will begin by reading to you the preamble to the Constitution of the United States.  You’ve all heard this, if not memorized this.  And the purpose of a preamble is a short, terse, succinct statement about the objective of the body of knowledge or that which follows.  A brief statement saying here is what it’s all about.  That’s called a preamble.  And it goes as follows.  Listen carefully:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”.

Alright, just out of curiosity, how many of you, in your kidhood days in school, committed the preamble to memory?  You memorized the preamble of the Constitution?  Let me see ..we’ll take a quick survey here.  Alright, that would appear to be maybe at least 90% of you and perhaps the other 10% are tired this evening.  It would be hard to imagine how you could get through school without memorizing the Preamble, or at least being requested to memorize it.  Maybe you just didn’t get around to memorizing it, some of you.

Alright, would any of you like to come up to the lectern now and explain to the class the intellectual thought content of the preamble to the Constitution of the United States?  Does anyone think he can do this?  Explain the intellectual thought content of the Preamble?  No takers?  Well, that’s interesting.  And yet, most all of you have memorized this.  That’s interesting.

Well, I’ll give you a little clue about something.  I think I’ve already alluded to this previously, but the only time it is really necessary to memorize something is when you don’t understand it.  If you understand it, the principles, you don’t have to commit it to memory, whether you’re dealing with, for example, an equation in physics.  If you understand the principle, then you can derive the equation.  You do not have to memorize it.  Memorization is a substitute for comprehension.

Let me ask you this.  What does most of what is called school, from Kindergarten to PhD consist of?  Exactly – memorization, which means, freely translated, school is a substitute for comprehension.  Was this explained to you in school however?  I’m sure some of you must think I’m really hard on the schools, don’t you?  How many think I’m hard on the schools?  How many think I’m unfair with the schools?  Just one person?  Now be honest. Well, I have a whole lecture on education.  That’s 14.  So if you think I’ve been hard on the schools, be patient.  And just for the record, so there’s no hurt feelings, some of my best friends have gone to school. I think I mentioned this previously.  I even went there a few years myself – 17, 18.

Alright, the preamble to the Constitution of the United States says, in effect, the purpose of the Constitution is to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, that is those who come after.  Now it is us.

Now everyone is for all of these things but what do they mean?  If you interpret them one way, they are all moral and rational.  And if you interpret them another way, they’re all immoral and irrational.  First of all, who is against perfect unions?  For that matter, who is against perfection in anything?  But what’s perfect and what’s a union?  And is it a coercive union or a voluntary union?  Does that make a difference?  Is it a contract or an act of coercion?  Does that make a difference?  I would say the following terms in the Preamble are totally unclear as to their meaning: perfect, union, justice, the mechanism of establishing justice, insure, tranquility, the mechanism of insuring tranquility, defense, common defense, general welfare, the mechanism of promoting the general welfare, blessings of liberty, the mechanism of securing the blessings of liberty.  Constitution is not defined.  I would say, other than these, the remainder of the words are pretty clear.

Now on the subject of the Preamble, it starts out with “We the people”.  Alright, I have this question for you.  Who is “We the people”?  We the people is not defined.  Don’t you think it ought to be?  That’s pretty important, isn’t it?  Otherwise you don’t know who’s talking.  Well, you may recall from your study of American history that the delegates of the Constitutional Convention, the delegates of the Constitutional Convention exceeded their nominal authority.  The delegates of the convention had been authorized by the folks back home to do what?  To revise the old Articles of Confederation.  But, instead, what did they do?  They completely scrapped the Articles of Confederation.

And I might further point out that this action was taken behind closed, locked doors.  Were the people back home consulted?  Were they asked, “Do you authorize us to scrap the Articles of Confederation”?  No, they were not.  Besides that, do you know what percentage of the people were franchised that could even vote on one of these delegates, to elect a delegate?  Somewhere in the general magnitude of about 5% of the population.  Only one out of twenty could even vote.  Were the women living at the time consulted?  No. Were the women “We the people”?  No.  Were those under 21 consulted?  Were they “We the people” at the time?  No.  Were those who did not own land, which was the majority of people, if you did not own land, in general, you were not franchised.  Were they consulted?  No.  Were those who came after, posterity, in other words, were you consulted?  Were you asked, “Do you wish this mechanism to take away your property without your permission”?  Any of you?  Was your father asked?  Was your father’s father?  Was your father’s father’s father’s father?  Are any of you directly related to one of the signers of the Constitution?  Assuming you were, could this relative authorize the utilization of your property in some way that you have not chosen?  Can he do that morally?  Does the fact that he is or is not a relative have anything to do with it?  It’s irrelevant.

Who then is “We the people”?  That’s easy – the framers of the Constitution.  Now if they wish to bind themselves to an agreement respecting their respective property, can they morally do this?  Certainly.  But what if only of them dissents?  Can morally be bound by the others?  Never.  Can I, living two centuries after their time, be morally bound by their actions?  Can you make a contract for another man without his consent?  If it’s without his consent, ladies and gentlemen, it is not a contract.  A contract is simply a mutually voluntary agreement between two or more individuals entered into for the purpose of mutual profit.  Profit is what? Any moral increase in happiness.  Voluntary means you must agree.  You must agree to all of the terms with zero reservation.  Well, the Constitutional Convention involved a secret agreement over how we are going to control the lives of other people through the control of their property.   In other words, a committee of conventioneers set forth a body of rules to be followed by both present and future rulers of other people’s property.  Was this explained to you in school? You may not agree with it.

Let me give you a little more intellectual leverage on the subject.  I will quote from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.  As I read the Constitution of the United States, ladies and gentlemen, a few brief passages here and there, you should be listening with new ears, new ears that have been sharpened with principles and semantic precision.  Alright, here is Article 1, Section 8.  I’ll just read part of it:

“The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.”  I’ll stop right there.  Alright, a tax is a tax.  However a duty is merely a what?  A tax.  On the other hand, an impost is only a what?  A tax.  I see you’re getting the message.  To be sure, an excise is only a tax.  Freely translated, a committee of rulers, the Congress, shall have the power to tax, tax, tax, tax, etcetera.   Have they kept their word?  As I’ve said from the very beginning, well, I haven’t used the word taxes in connection with theft, but, by this time I presume you recognize that all taxes are theft.  That should be clear by Lecture #8. If it’s not clear to you, it would indicate you may be having difficulty with the concepts we’re presenting.

Alright, if you refuse to pay a secondary property tax, what happens?  Then the state will impose a primary property tax by restricting your primary actions to those within prison walls, if not sooner than later.  If you attempt to escape from this primary property tax by climbing over the wall, then there will be a primordial property tax imposed.  In other words, you will be shot.  If anyone questions this as the ultimate sequence of events, please see me at the end of the session, or at the break, and I’ll further clarify how you can personally test this out.  I will show you how you can get shot and killed legally.

Remember again, stealing is simply the taking of property from an individual without his permission.  We discussed the trilogy in connection with stealing earlier:

  1. Stealing is always right.
  2. Stealing is always wrong.
  3. Stealing is sometimes right, sometimes wrong.

I will demonstrate that stealing is always wrong for two reasons.  At this point, as I said, it should be clear that it is always immoral.  The only remaining question, is it rational?  And I will also demonstrate that stealing is always irrational.  Hence, it’s always wrong squared. No exception.

Now, I would like to also demonstrate that, I think we may have the equation on rightness here, that is the absolute standard of rightness for the third science of volition: that is absolutely right which is both rational and moral.  That’s what I mean by right applied to volition and that’s always what I mean by right and nothing else.  That’s semantic precision.  It always means one thing.

Now it may appear to you, some of you at least, that we are here to fight taxes.  That’s wrong.  I’m not here to attack tax collectors or any other criminals.  Incidentally, I’d like to point out, to state that a tax collector is a criminal, that is not name calling.  A criminal is one who perpetrates a crime.  A crime is a successful act of coercion.  Coercion is any attempted and intentional interference with property.  All tax collectors are criminals.  But all criminals are not necessarily tax collectors.  There’s essentially two kinds of criminals: those criminals who are tax collectors and those criminals who are not tax collectors.

Alright, the Bill of Rights, I’d like to discuss briefly.  If we had more time, I’d spend a little more time on other parts of this but we have to get through this as quickly as possible.  The Bill of Rights is a significant attempt to reduce the coercive power of the state.  And its importance stems from the fact that it does not attempt in any way to grant rights to the individual.  What’s wrong with granting rights to the individual? What’s wrong with granting freedom to the individual?  Well, if you can grant freedom, the implication is what?  You can withdraw the grant.  The way it comes out, you want to keep your freedom?  Alright, shape up.

Let me read to you from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  The Bill of Rights is the most important and significant part of the Constitution.  I’ll read the First Amendment.  And this involves restrictions on the coercive powers of Congress.  That’s essentially what the Bill of Rights involves.  And this, as you know, was a tack on, add on later.  The part they tacked on was the best part of this.  The First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law [Unfortunately, they go on.  Now think about it.  What if there had only been one amendment and it said, “Congress shall make no law”?  Imagine what a magnificent concept that would have been.  In other words, Congress shall make no political laws because all political laws are coercive.  In other words, Congress shall not coerce.  Unfortunately, they go on].  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [which they do.  We do not have freedom of religion in this country] or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [which Congress does] or of bridging the freedom of speech [which they do] or of the press [which they also do] or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”.;

Alright, that’s the First Amendment.  The Constitution does not say that we grant you freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly.  These freedoms are recognized at this time as natural to man except, as I pointed out, they’re not natural to man.  These freedoms do not exist naturally in nature but they didn’t understand that at this time.  The part they have correctly developed here is the limitation is not upon the individual, but it is upon the state.  The Bill of Rights restricts and limits the coercive power of the state.  The only problem is they are inadequate. They don’t go far enough.

In contrast, the Soviet Constitution grants rights and various freedoms to the citizens.  I’d like to read to you from the Soviet Constitution.  I think you will find this interesting.  Article 124 and Article 125.  This is the Constitution for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  Both the United States and Russia have this in common.  We’re both constitutional republics.  Alright, here’s their Constitution.  We have many other things in common in addition to that.  Article 124:

“In order to insure citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the USSR is separated from the state and the school from the church.  Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens”.

Article 125:

“In conformity with the interests of working people and in order to strengthen the social system, the citizens of the USSR are guaranteed by law:

  1. Freedom of speech.
  2. Freedom of the press.
  3. Freedom of assembly including the holding of mass meetings.
  4. Freedom of street processions and demonstrations.”

Oh that’s interesting.  It says right here in the Soviet Constitution that in Russia you have freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press.  That’s good to know.  But do they have these?  How many of you think there’s some question in your mind as to whether they actually have these so-called freedoms in Russia?  Anyone?  It’s highly questionable.  As a matter of fact, it’s a certainty they do not have these.  How can you be so certain?  Well, the last part of Article 125 explains why they don’t have them.  See if you can figure it out from what it says:

“These civil rights are insured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations, printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communication facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights”.

Well, that’s nice.  In other words, what’s the problem here?  All of you see what it is?  The state will provide a printing press to who?  Well, anyone who wants to print “the right thing”.  And what’s that?  You see, you have freedom of press in Russia.  You have the freedom to be in total agreement with the state censor.  Or you have freedom to agree with the state policy, whatever it is at the time.

And so, the fact of the matter is the state controls all of the property: the printing presses and the streets and the buildings and the ink and the paper and all of it.  And when the state controls all of the property, the state controls all of the people.  And we have been explaining this since the beginning of Session 1.  And that’s why the words are meaningless.  The words on any piece of paper are meaningless unless they involve principle and a means to implement the principle.  And so, essentially what they’re saying is we grant you these freedoms but the problem is you can withdraw the grant.  And that’s the part that the Soviet Constitution has wrong and our Constitution has right.

In spite of the fact that the Bill of Rights limits the coercive power of the state, they are inadequate.  Let me read the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.  And no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized”.

Hear any possible problems there in that wording?  Anything there bother any of you?  Are you hearing this with new ears?  Very interesting, the Fourth Amendment.  And please note I am reading now the best part of the Constitution – the Bill of Rights.  The Fourth Amendment says what?  The Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment are destroyed by compromise of principle.  Ignoring the fact that certain words are not defined, like probable cause for example, is there anyone who believes that his property is protected by the Fourth Amendment?

For example, what are unreasonable searches and seizures of someone else’s property without his permission?  For that matter, what is a reasonable search and seizure of somebody else’s property without his permission?  The Amendment says your property can be plundered by the state but that the plunder must take place according to a certain plan of action.  In other words, the plunder must in every case be legal. Essentially what you are given here is the rules of rulership.

Before your property can be seized without your permission, the proper forms must be filled out, signed by the proper authorities. This means that the officer of the state, the officers of the state, they can’t just burst into your house, seize the property there, search the premises, throw you in jail.  They can’t do this.  What they must do is give you a reason for doing this, state the reason publicly and then burst into your house, search the premises, seize your property and throw you in jail, in that order.  It does not say you will not be plundered but that the plunder must take place according to a master plan called legal procedure.  In other words, you have a plunder plan.  Was this Fourth Amendment explained to you in school?  It wasn’t?

The Fifth Amendment may be the best part of the Constitution as far as protecting property and principle is concerned but even it is filled with compromises to principle.  I think this should also illustrate the catastrophe that befalls when you compromise principle.  The Fifth Amendment says:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the militia when in actual service at a time of war or public danger nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”.

That’s probably the best part of the Constitution, I just read.  Do you spot any problems there?  Anything that bothers you a little bit?  What does this mean?  This says, among other things, that after you have perhaps been, perhaps, kidnapped to fight in a war, not of your own choosing, or you volunteered to risk your life to fight in this war for the folks back home, you are excluded from the protection of the Fifth Amendment.  In other words, if you’re a member of the armed services, you are a second-class citizen.

Are any of you in this room World War II veterans?  Three, four, five, half a dozen.  In World War II, we were clearly under attack from the Japanese, the Germans and other political state mechanisms.  And during this period of World War II, I was in my kidhood days and too young to be out in a foxhole or fighting to defend the nation from external aggression.  At that time, some of you may have been in those foxholes in this room.  There’s over half a dozen of you in this room or more who said you were World War II veterans.  And while I was too young to be doing any defending, you were out there risking your life, perhaps, for mine.  I didn’t know you at the time and there was no possibility of even knowing that our lives would ever, our paths would ever cross even.  They have now.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is an insult to someone who is risking his life either as a volunteer or even as a draftee.  There were draftees who risked their lives in World War II.  That’s an insult.  Essentially what it says is you are a second-class or a third-class citizen.  And anyone who is out there risking his life for the protection of the people back home, at the very least, he ought to have as much protection but certainly not less.  So you’re excluded from this protection.  That’s a totally wrong concept.  I’ll come to the subject of national defense later in this course.  It will be Lecture 11.  A right concept of national defense and a wrong concept.  The reason I mentioned World War II at this point I will be explained, and later wars we’ve been involved in, I will come to in a later discussion.

Then it says:

“Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”.  What does that mean, “without just compensation”?  That’s called, of course, eminent domain.  It means your property can be taken on a unilateral basis without your consent and that you will be compensated in whatever amount the one who has plundered your property determines to be just.  In other words, if you do not consider the amount of the compensation to be just, then all you can do is appeal to another agency of the very same state that plundered your property in the first place.

Now there’s a term here that is a real whopper when it comes to ambiguity.  And that’s the term called due process of law.  There is absolutely no agreement whatsoever in the legal profession as to the meaning of this term, due process of law.  Now since it is through a concept called due process of law that property can be taken, confiscated, without an individual’s permission, if any term should be clearly and precisely defined as to what that means and what is the latitude and extent of this concept, if anything should be clearly delineated, that ought to be it.  Does that make sense?  So you ought to clearly understand on what basis can you take away somebody’s property without his permission. Does that sound reasonable?  And if anything should not be fuzzy, it should be this.  What does it mean?

I will share with you one of my law books from university days.  And this is called “Principles of Business Law” by Essel R. Dillavou, Professor of Business Law, University of Illinois and Charles G. Howard, Professor of Law at University of Oregon. Fifth Edition.  It was a textbook we had when I was in college.  To the credit of these law professors, they do have a glossary of terms and they do have a definition of due process of law.  And so we are now going to find out what it is.  Somebody told me they still use Dillavou and Howard textbook.  One gentleman is nodding they do.  This is Fifth Edition.  There have probably been many editions since then. Alright.  Due process of law, listen carefully so you can understand what it means:

“Due process of law.  The words have a broad meaning”.  That’s incredible.  The words have a broad meaning.  Well, what does that mean?  From the very beginning, what are they telling you?  There’s absolutely no way to know what this means.  What is characteristic of all of the definitions I’ve given you in this course?  Have I given you any definition that had a broad meaning?  No.  Every definition I gave you had an exceptionally narrow meaning.  And it’s only when you have a narrow meaning you can understand what it means.  And I believe every definition I have given you is no longer than one sentence.  Some sentences longer than others but limited to a sentence.

Alright, due process of law. The words have a broad meaning.  The Constitutions of the United States and the states create and guarantee to every person the right to life, liberty and property”.  Is that a contradiction of what I just got through saying?  These professors don’t even understand the supreme law of the land.  That is the part they got right.  It didn’t guarantee these concepts.  If you could guarantee or grant it, you could withdraw the grant of the guarantee.

They continue:

“These rights cannot be denied by government except by the exercise of a fair and impartial legal procedure that is proper and appropriate”.  Well now we are really getting somewhere.  How many of you clearly understand what due process of law means now?

They go on:

“Legislation that confiscates one’s property without just compensation is the absence of due process of law. Under due process, a person accused of a crime is entitled to a trial by jury”.

Now this is their so-called definition of due process of law.  It is a whole paragraph.  And what about that “a person accused of a crime is entitled to a trial by jury”?  What does that mean?  Well, if you’re accused of a crime, you are entitled to be tried by a jury of people, all of whom are totally incompetent.  For reasons which I will explain later, all members of all juries are incompetent.  In other words, they don’t know what they’re doing.  If they knew what they were doing, they wouldn’t be on the jury.  I know that’s not popular and I realize that probably the majority of you in this room have been on a jury, looked forward to serving on a jury perhaps, were proud of what you did there.  I’m aware of this.  I’ll come to that in a lecture on justice.  That will be Lecture 12.  If you understand this theory, you will never want to sit on a jury.

You say, but wait a minute.  Isn’t it our patriotic duty, our civic responsibility to sit on a jury?  That’s what we’re told.  Also you were told what?  It’s B’s civic responsibility to appoint A in secret, behind C’s back, to take away C’s property without C’s permission.  We were told that, too, weren’t we?  All of you told this?  Hmm.  Except it wasn’t explained that clearly.  It’s that when you vote on a bond issue, you are plundering not only from people who are living, you are plundering from posterity, those who aren’t even born yet.  You’re saying I appoint you A to steal from those who aren’t even born yet.  Did you know that?  Was that explained to you?  And to do it in secret.  As far as I’m concerned, that compounds the error, to do it in secret.  Is that not characteristic of criminal behavior or of the criminal?  He likes to commit crimes in secret?  Is that why the criminal in cowboy movies, the criminal wears a bandana over his face so he won’t be recognized?  The Ku Klux Klansman wears a hood so he won’t be recognized?

I’ve done all these things myself.  I got an A in the courses that said it was the right thing to do, all of these things.  I have done this, if it will make you feel any more comfortable.  Why did I do it?  I didn’t know any better.  It was what they said was the right thing to do.  And I was never given any standards in school to evaluate the intellectual thought content of what the professors were presenting.  Were you?  I wasn’t.  I went through seventeen years of school without having any knowledge to evaluate what I was getting and  test it for absolute rightness. The concept of due process of law then, as I said, is the legal means of the confiscation of property without the permission of the owner.  In spite of all of these things I have said about the Constitution, that still does not alter the fact that it was the intention of the founding fathers of this country, the intention was to, nevertheless, protect property in spite of all I’ve said. Well, how could you say that?

Well, the problem that they ran into, ladies and gentlemen, they had the protection of property as the goal.  Unfortunately, the means that they chose to protect the property was a political mechanism which made it impossible for them to accomplish the noble objective of property protection.  In other words, at the time they did not have any knowledge of a total concept of property. Therefore, they were not in a position to construct the superior mechanism that could ultimately render all property fully secure: primordial, primary, and secondary.  And so, I don’t bring any of this up to derogate the founding fathers.  We have this tremendous advantage.  We have a two-hundred-year hindsight history to look back and evaluate what went wrong.

And I certainly would like to give credit to the first half dozen presidents of this country.   The first six presidents of the United States, ladies and gentlemen, these were men of exceptional character, the highest quality.  I’m talking about men such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams.  These were men of exceptional quality.  These were men of such supreme quality that, if they were to run for office today, they couldn’t get elected dog catcher.  No man of principle could get elected to any major office today.  I know that’s not a popular statement either because that would include perhaps some of your favorite politicians who are either running or have been elected.  You see, a man of principle never compromises.  That’s what that means.  Well, what office do you think you could get elected to today if you never compromised on a principle?  Not even dog catcher.

As a matter of fact, to give you a statement from one of these early presidents of the United States, James Madison, who, incidentally, is known as the father of the Constitution, James Madison.  Let me read to you James Madison commenting on an act to provide a subsidy to indigent cod fishermen.  I’ll just point out before I read this.  Here we are, the nation is just getting off the ground.  This is one of the early presidents, James Madison.  And they are introducing what kind of legislation?  Marx I, national socialism, the welfare state.  In other words, somebody wants to provide a subsidy to poor cod fishermen.  And here is Madison’s answer.  Listen carefully:

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely for the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take care of religion into their hands.  They may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish and pay them out of the public treasury.  They may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union.  They may assume the provision of the poor.  For the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, [in other words, if we give this handout to these cod fishermen] [then Madison concludes] it would subvert the very foundations and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America”.

That is a statement of a man of principle.  We don’t have people of this quality in the White House these days.  As a matter of fact, it has been a long time since we’ve had…a long, long, long time since we’ve had a person of quality in the White House.  There have been occasional ones since the first half dozen.  If one is a strict Constitutionalist, of which I’m not, for reasons which will be clear before this lecture’s over, but if one was a strict Constitutionalist, the last president of the United States under the Constitution, I would say, of any resemblance to what I would call quality and character and a man of principle, was Calvin Coolidge.  Since then, it has been a total disaster.  Sometimes I list the three worst presidents of the United States.  Did I do that here in Orange County?  I just gave one?  Which one did I give?  Teddy Roosevelt?  Would any of you like to know who the other two are?  The other two?  Okay.  Maybe we ought to take a vote on it.  How many would like to know …

Okay, I would say the three worse, by that I mean the most destructive and coercive presidents in American history, are, I’ve already mentioned Teddy Roosevelt.  The other two would be Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and others.  I think I went beyond two, didn’t I?  Anyhow.  Or beyond three.  Oh, I don’t want to get into this but…I think I did mention this, that in general, of the two political parties, Democrats and Republicans, I think I’ve already mentioned, the Republicans have introduced the most destructive legislation.  Have I mentioned that here?  The Republicans introduced – I already told you the Republicans brought about in 1913 the progressive income tax, the Federal Reserve system, the strengthening of anti-trust legislation.  That was all in 1913, principally through Theodore Roosevelt.

Another total disaster was Woodrow Wilson.  And as I say, on and on.  In this century, the only one I would give any credit to for being a person of quality would be the one I mentioned, Calvin Coolidge. Incidentally, don’t think that Calvin Coolidge is any near the quality of the first six.  There’s no comparison.  I’m just saying, at least on a relative basis, in this century.  In general, as I say, the Republicans have introduced the most destructive, coercive legislation but they haven’t done much with it.  It’s the Democrats that have really put to work the coercive legislation of the Republicans.  I mean the Democrats, they really did something with the income tax.  They have really done something with the Federal Reserve system.

The Constitution nevertheless set up a powerful mechanism of coercion.  This mechanism of coercion is monopolistic.  You cannot withdraw.  You cannot succeed from the system if it’s not to your liking.  The Constitution specifies the method of financing the coercive state through taxation.  This is outright theft.  To be sure, there are people who talk about things like just taxes.  Well, what is a just tax?  That implies you can justify theft.  Other people talk about voluntary taxes.  That is clearly an internal contradiction.  If taxes were voluntary, they would be uncollectable.  No one would pay.  How can you be certain?  If the individual really wants to pay, then why do you have to threaten him with a gun if he doesn’t?  Alright?

If all day long your little kid has been screaming for an ice cream cone, and finally at the end of the Sunday drive you finally get to 31 flavors, and he gets the ice cream cone in his hot little hand, please note dear mother and father, you don’t have to cram it down his little throat.  You only have to cram it down his throat when he doesn’t want it.  Alright, generalize that.  If the people really want all these things, why do they have to be crammed down their throats?  If they really want them, they will voluntarily choose them.  As simple as that.  What could be simpler?  And you can generalize from an ice cream cone or you name the product.

The concept of the income tax, in one sense, is popular.  Nevertheless, if it were voluntary, nobody would pay.  You see, the very same people who say, “Well, this is sure a tremendous amount of money to be socked for” will also say, “But, of course, I mean we have to have some form of revenue you realize to pay for the government.  I mean somebody’s got to do it.  Now I think I’m paying too much.   And I think everybody ought to pay his fair share.  But I’m just paying too much”.

And for this reason, maybe he cuts a few corners, does a little fudging.  But this does not mean that he disapproves of the tax.  What it means is he thinks he’s paying too much.  Now, if it were possible for an individual himself to avoid, let’s say, all income taxes, he would say that’s fine.

But he would still insist that you pay.   Wouldn’t he?  I mean, somebody’s got to pay.  And I might further point out this does not mean that the average fellow is a natural born plunderer.  Most people don’t wish to steal from other people.  Most people would never think of picking up a gun, going over to their next door neighbor, robbing their neighbor of their sterling silver or their fine china, because that’s stealing.  You can’t do that.  But, of course, taxes are not stealing, he thinks.  Taxes are needed for the general welfare.  I mean somebody’s got to build the roads.  Somebody’s got to provide for the national defense.  Somebody’s got to educate my children.  Of course, everybody ought to pay their fair share.  I’ll pay my fair share.  But, again, what he thinks is his fair share is always something less than what the IRS assigns him to be his fair share.  And yet, if taxes were suddenly made voluntary, you know what would happen?  A great many people would stop payment immediately, like myself and several people I happen to know.

But how many of you think there might conceivably be, at least in the beginning, a few who might pay voluntarily?  Sure.  How many of you actually know someone who looks upon it as his civic responsibility to pay taxes and is actually proud to pay them?  Yeah.  There are such people running loose.   Well, what would happen?  What about the few who would pay voluntarily?  Let’s say, first of all, you don’t have this tremendous swindle called a withholding tax. That’s one of the most effective swindles of all time, you know.  What if the average worker, let’s say, at the end of the month, at the end of the week, let’s say, in one room he has paid everything in cash.  And then all the tax collectors are waiting in the next rooms: the state tax collector, the federal.  And then they pay it back.  Do you think that would get their attention a little more?  The average fellow today, all he looks at is what?  His take home pay.  He is almost insensitive, largely, to the amount of taxes that he pays.  And, of course, the businessman is forced at gunpoint to be the tax collector.  That comes out of his expense of doing business.  That’s another tax on him.

Anyhow, what would happen?  Let’s say that one fellow, alright, all he has to pay at the end of the year is $10,000, which he can pay or not pay.  If he doesn’t pay the $10,000, nothing will happen. There will be no stigma.  No one will say you’re unpatriotic.  Nothing will happen to him adverse at all.  He either writes the check for 10 Grand or he doesn’t.   Well, it’s the end of the year.  He’s getting ready to write the check.  His wife Harriet comes in and says, “John, you know the fur coat we talked about?  Well, it’s only $3,000”.

“I guess.  Yeah, why not?  We’ll just subtract $3,000 from the $10,000”.

“Well, you know that Mercedes Benz I was looking at the other day.  Well, 3 for you, $5,000 as the down payment for the Mercedes Benz.  For the down payment on the down payment for the Mercedes Benz.  At least we can get started in that direction”.

So maybe he sends in $2,000.  Very quickly, he’s going to be disenchanted with this.  You know why?  He’s going to look at me, “Snelson, I see you didn’t pay anything, huh?  What about the rest of you people?  Why should I have to pick up the load for everybody?  You’re dragging your feet.  To hell with you.  I’m not paying anything ever again unless you guys chip in”.

Will that quickly be his attitude?  Sure.  Why should I have to take the whole load?  Of course, if there’s only a few paying, than the amount that they have to pay, their assignment, would be larger anyhow.

Well, the American Revolution, ladies and gentlemen, was a giant step forward.  But the revolution was not the Constitution.  See, the revolution was a principle started by Paine and we have entirely different concepts here.  Today the American Revolution exists essentially as a principle.  The present structure of the American republic is diametrically opposed to the Declaration of Independence.  Did I not ask you in last week’s lecture, I said, “What politician today could get elected to any major office if he ran on a platform opposing the Manifesto of the Communist Party”?  And as I said, you couldn’t name one who could get elected on that platform.  And yet, at the time these were put forth by Marx, virtually none of these were part of our system.  They’ve been introduced by Republicans and Democrats essentially.

Alright, let me ask you this question.  What politician can you identify who could elected to any major office today if his platform was the Declaration of Independence, which says the function of government is to protect property.  And when any form of government attacks property, then either alter it or get rid of it.  Alright, you name one politician that could get elected to any major office on that platform?  Again, you couldn’t get elected dog catcher, could you?  That’s the principle.  That only happens to be the principle upon which this nation was built.  Again, illustrating how far we’ve come since the beginning.  We’re going down the rathole by the numbers.  Those of you who have been in the military, that’s a military expression: by the numbers.

Now this does not mean that the Declaration of Independence has been discredited by those who run the state.  As a matter of fact, if it were, our job would be much easier.  You see, the bureaucrats who control the state, one reason they’re able to get away with their destructive policies is that they actually are claiming to be ideologically related to the founders of this country.  For example, the usage of the word liberal by the bureaucrats to describe their coercive anti-liberal programs is a good example of what I’m talking about.  These people have totally reversed the concept of the Declaration of Independence.  They claim to be liberals.  They’re actually riding upon the reputation earned by the founders of this country who are, and properly should be called, liberals.  These bureaucrats, they don’t attack the Jeffersons or the Madisons or the Franklins or even Thomas Paine, in general.  Rather, they adopt these people as their own ideological antecedents.  And they’re all Marx I fascists.  Again, if you think that’s strong, read the Manifesto of the Communist Party.  You read it.  And it reads like the platforms of the Democrat and Republican Parties.

This is historically and morally wrong since there is no connection whatsoever, philosophically or ideologically, between the founders of this republic and those people who fancy themselves today to be great liberals, political liberals.  The whole term, political liberal, is an internal contradiction.  What does liberal mean?  I will read to you something published by Professor Galambos in 1963, Thrust for Freedom, Number 1A.  We will have this entire series available to you later in the course.  And Thrust for Freedom, 1A, reads as follows:

“Why does an individual who practices and promotes capitalism call himself liberal?  Because the word liberal originally came into popular use to describe the ideological content of the American Revolution, CCI, constitutionalism, capitalism, individualism.  Liberal means liber, free.  Plus al, hence pertaining to freedom.  Liberal produces a favorable image in the minds of most people.  Whoever wears the hat of liberalism has the scales tipped in his favor.  Today the anti-liberal socialists wear this hat.  Is it any wonder they’re popular and winning?  The founders of this republic established a capitalistic nation.  They’re rightfully called liberals.  By calling ourselves liberals, we reestablish our ideological kinship with these great men and do not let disadvantage accrue to the socialists.  Recovery of this word for freedom is a worthy goal and a major weapon against socialist ideas.  If you value your freedom and survival, and realize your dependence upon CCI, then join us in calling yourself a liberal.  Regain the rightful ownership of the word.  Regain your lost reputation and intellectual ancestry.  The word belongs to you and not to the socialists.  True liberalism is capitalism.  Capitalism is the key to survival”.

So writes Professor Galambos in 1963.  And the concept, of course, is as true today as it was then.  I may discuss later why it is that socialists like to refer to themselves as liberals.  We may come to that later but the very quick answer is the word liberal has always been popular, at least in recent times, since the termination of monarchy in the western world through the hands of Thomas Paine.

And I’d like to point out that the philosophy I’m disclosing in V-50 is called liberalism.  Not to be confused with another term called libertarianism.  How many have heard of the term libertarianism?  Alright.  I’m not interested in attacking the libertarian position. But I would like to put all of you on notice that we are not libertarians.  And V-50 is not libertarianism.  There are many libertarian positions.  A popular one is called limited government.  What the libertarians call limited government, we call limited state.  And this position would essentially advocate a laissez-faire economy that has no state controls over the production and distribution of goods and services.  The only state monopolistic controls should be in three areas:

Essentially one, national defense.

Two, police protection.

Three, a court system.

And sometimes a money system.  Usually also a coercive money system.

And the means of financing these three to four functions of the state would be the traditional means, taxation.  Secondly, the state functions would be enforced with a gun.  In other words, there would be a coercive monopoly.  Now the idea of limited state, generally called limited government, is to limit the coercive power of the state to control the individual through the control of his property.  Well, how do you accomplish this goal?  How do you do this?  Once you concede that the system will be based upon stealing, once you concede it will be based upon enforcement, how do you limit the stealing and how do you limit the enforcement?  How do you contain the thieves?  How do you contain the enforcers?  How do you do this?  Do you limit the stealing by placing a ceiling on the national debt?  You cannot steal anything beyond the ceiling.  It’s illegal to steal anything beyond this fixed amount.  Thou shalt not steal beyond this.

Well, as you all know, we have such a national debt ceiling today.  And just how does Congress handle this problem when it looks like they’re going to steal more than the national debt ceiling?  I’m sure all of you know.  It presents no great difficulty at all.  Congress simply passes a new law raising the ceiling on the amount that can be legally stolen in the given fiscal year.

Of course, we have a lot of people who are always talking about, “Well, we’ve got to balance the budget.  Would you like a free translation of balancing the budget?  Balanced budget simply means this.  We have not spent, or squandered, one more penny than we have stolen.  And we have a balanced budget.  Ladies and gentlemen, back in 1787, the founders of our political state set up a limited state.  Question.  How successful has this state mechanism been in limiting the coercive power of the state to plunder?  Let me ask you something.  Who do you think has the most coercive control over the people?  George III or Jimmy I?  What do you think?  Is it even close?

You can go back and read what was going on at this time.  You know what the colonists were upset about?  We had a little tax, that’s right, on tea.  A little tax on legal documents.  Of course, there is no such thing as a little tax.  I’ll come to that in a moment.  But they were miniscule, virtually nothing compared to today’s standard coercive taxes.  And they’re all upset about this.  In the city of Los Angeles, they spend more tax money to collect the garbage than we used to run the whole federal government.

The liberal position, in concluding this first half of the session, the liberal position does not allow for exceptions.  The liberal position does not allow for any compromise of principle.  The liberal position does not accept any excuses for stealing, murder or any form of force or fraud.  The liberal believes in and practices the total sanctity of property: primary, primordial, secondary.  Therefore, the liberal position is the only one that’s scientific because it’s the only one that does not allow for exceptions.

In the second half of this lecture, I will present to you one of the biggest solutions of all time.  As a matter of fact, I’ll give you a brief look at it.  There will be a concept that is so powerful that, through the implementation of this, the result will be the entire mechanism called the state will be rendered totally and completely obsolete.  Did you get a chance to….did I go too fast?  I’m always getting complaints that I’m way ahead of you and you’re going too slowly.  Do you want another look at that?  Alright.  What you just saw on the screen is called the Ideological Program.  I will discuss this in the second half of this lecture.  Before we take a break, I have a few important announcements.  Please remain seated until we give the announcements.

 

Continuing now with the second part of Lecture #8.  I’m going to be dealing with the remedy to the entire problem of coercion in principle.  I’m going to outline certain principles that must be developed in order to establish a remedy.  This course called V-50 is a part of what is called the Liberal Revolution.  And this Liberal Revolution is not just something that was a part of the dead past.  The Liberal Revolution began in the unknown past.  It came of age, finally, in the 18th century and it established a mechanism to dethrone the tribal chief.  The first phase of the Liberal Revolution includes both the Industrial and the American Revolutions.  And the first phase of this Liberal Revolution eliminated the tribal chief.  The second phase will be to eliminate the witch doctor.  Not to replace him with another witch doctor or witch doctors or another mechanism for witch doctoring.  A program of the second phase is to eliminate the concept of coercion once and for all by eliminating the major form of coercion today called fraud.  What we must accomplish is to demonstrate that neither brand of coercion produces man’s natural end, namely, his own happiness.

Well, the mechanism of the second phase of the Liberal Revolution is to demonstrate the superiority, in every instance, of voluntary exchanges of property in the market as opposed to coercive exchanges.  When man is not hampered with external coercion, he naturally begins to create, to accumulate, generate more property.  And since many individuals are simultaneously generating property, occasionally there will develop what is called a dispute and this will occur with respect to who owns what under what circumstances and conditions.

For example, two men claim they have a property right in the same piece of property.  A dispute develops.  There is a disagreement over who owns what.  This is what causes the conflict.  And if you include primary property as a part of property, as I pointed out earlier, every possible dispute involves a disagreement over the ownership of property.

Well, for this reason, people have turned to a mechanism to resolve their disputes, to protect their property.  This mechanism has been called government.  We call it the state.  And the state always involves, of course, a political mechanism.  Political is simply any state mechanism to attain a particular goal using coercion as the means.  The state, of course, will seek a coercive monopoly position, monopolistic position.  In fact, all political mechanisms tend to become monopolistic in the end.  They tend to eliminate any rival mechanism.

Why do you suppose the Department of Justice, so-called at least, would seek to attack the Mafia in this country?  What’s the difference in principle between, let’s say, someone meets you…let’s say a Mafia thug attacks you in a dark alley and says, “Your money or your life”.  What’s the difference between that and how the IRS approaches you?  Is there a difference?  What does the IRS say?  Your money or your life.  Except they don’t spell it out that clearly.

Why would the state attack the Mafia?  Well, because the Mafia is a rival state.  If they gain too much coercive power, then they threaten the coercive monopoly of the state.  And so, the state becomes the resolver of disputes.  It always takes a very large hunk of property involved to pay for the so-called service, whether or not it has the cooperation or consent of the disputants.  And then ultimately, the state seizes the property of everyone, not just the property of the disputants.  People are not asked, is this the mechanism you wish to resolve the dispute?  Are you satisfied with the terms of the resolution?  And so, the people have to turn over an ever-increasing amount of their property in order that the state protects what is left over.

Well, if we’re going to build freedom, we must seek and find a non-political, non-coercive mechanism to resolve disputes.  Now at first glance you might be tempted to say, well, this is impossible.  Alright, what is impossible?  We discussed that.  That is impossible which in order to be accomplished requires the repealing of a law of nature.  Well, this is not impossible.  Difficult?  Yes. Impossible?  No.

The mechanism for accomplishing this is heavily dependent upon a proper definition of coercion which is: coercion is any attempt at an intentional interference with property.  Now there are people who do talk about such things as defensive coercion.  What does that mean?  If it’s defense, it’s not coercion.  Coercion, here, involves an aggressive attack upon the property of another.  And yet, when you take an action to defend your property from an attacker, you are not acting coercively.  For example, let’s say someone is attacking you with the intention of killing you.  And in the ensuing struggle, you attempt to defend your life from your would-be assailant.  In the process of attempting to kill you, your would-be assailant dies.  You have not committed an act of aggression or an act of coercion.  You have not even committed defensive coercion.  You have simply defended your primordial property.

And when your would-be murderer dies in the process of attempting to murder you, essentially all that has happened is he has committed suicide.  You have a moral and rational right to defend your property.  Any organization that you hired to help you in the defense of your property, when that organization acts in your defense, it is not acting coercively or aggressively either.  Any mechanism you hire to assist you in the defense of your property, in the protection of your property, that mechanism is performing what is called a government function.  And so, coercion is only involved when you attack the property of another and you cannot attack your own property, only the property of another.

And so, states attack property.  Governments defend and protect property.  A government, then, is nothing more than a contractually hired defender of property.  You see, the major problem in history has been how can you prevent a government from becoming a state?  What is the mechanism that will prevent such an undesirable event from taking place?  Well, this problem has not been solved historically.  The reason?  The mechanism to solve the problem has always been the same – political.  And the political mechanism cannot defend, it cannot protect property.  It can do one thing – attack property.  Incidentally, when a state is attacking property, it’s doing what it’s supposed to do.  If it were not attacking property, it would not be a state.

What is the function of a guillotine?  To cut off heads.  It’s not, for example, a bologna slicer.  As a matter of fact, it would not be too safe to slice your bologna with a guillotine.  Alright.  When a guillotine is cutting off heads, it’s doing what it’s supposed to do, what it was designed to do.  When a state attacks property, it is doing what it was designed to do.  Do you know of any state that does not attack property?  The concept of the state is centered around the political leader.  In contrast, the concept of government is centered around principles.  You see every state employs coercion, either of the tribal chief or witch doctor variety or both.   And within this mechanism, great attention, of course, is always given to the political leader.  And so, the concept of the state is people-centered.

The concept of government is not based upon the political but rather it’s based upon principles of which the principal principle, that is a defect in the language, those are two different words, principal principle, the principal principle is the total sanctity of private property, the full, total protection of all forms of property.  Now the only kind of leadership that will exist in a free society will be ideological leadership.  The governments will not be based upon personality worship, cult worship, the fanatic devotion to a leader.  And victory or defeat for freedom depends upon the recognition of the principle of the inviolability, the sancrosanctus of property.  As a matter of fact, this has always been the single criterion upon which freedom must be established.

Well, there has never been total freedom, as I have discussed.  We’ve never had this condition existing anywhere in history.  One reason is it was never understood that freedom can only have one origin, the total protection of all forms of property.  The goal was never articulated as I pointed out previously and therefore there was never a proper means to achieve the goal in the first place.  If you go back, for example, to the structure of the republic under the Constitution, for one thing, there’s nothing in the Constitution that can protect primary property.  Mechanisms you’ve heard of like patent law, for example, a patent is a form of guaranteed plunder.  One of the most effective ways you can get your primary property plundered is to get a patent.  I won’t take the time to discuss this now but that’s a classic example of the law of bureaucracy, the exact opposite of what is intended.

Copyright is little better as a concept for protection of primary property.  All of these are inadequate.  Well, today’s society, then is undurable.  It’s rapidly collapsing because the sanctity of property not only has not been accomplished, but it cannot be accomplished under any circumstances within the framework of the present political mechanism, especially in view of the fact that primary property is not protected and secondary property has only been partly protected in our history.

You know, if a bank robber holds up a bank, he may or may not get away with it.  But if the state holds up a bank, if the IRS holds up a bank, they always get away with it.  In the instance of a crime, the state claims a monopolistic priority to resolve the property dispute.  But if the state perpetrates a crime, then they always decide in the favor of guess who?  Themselves.  You see, there is very little chance for justice to occur when the one who commits the crime is also the prosecutor, the judge, and the executioner.  In order, then, to accomplish a remedy to this problem of coercion, it’s necessary to understand first the nature of property.  And in this connection, I would like to make the following statement, a giant concept, a major concept, a simple concept and therefore difficult to comprehend.  This will represent a complete and total break with all past tradition.   I will give you a sentence.  That’s all it is.  But a giant concept.  This sentence:  There is no such thing as a small interference with property.

An interference with property implies that the owner of the property has lost control of some or all of his property without his permission.  At this point, the principle of the sanctity of property has been shattered.  It matters not that only a little or a small amount of property has been plundered.  What is the difference in principle between stealing a million dollars versus stealing a penny?  There is no difference in principle, only in amount.  If it’s right to steal a penny, then it’s just as right to steal a million dollars.  If stealing a penny or a dime or a quarter is right, then at what amount beyond that does it become wrong?  There is no such thing as a petty crime, a little larceny.  Grand larceny implies that there is something smaller than that.  All larceny is at least great, too great.  It’s important to recognize that a small interference with property leads to a larger one which, in turn, leads to a still larger one and a still larger one until you have a condition of universal plunder called tyranny.  If you want freedom, than you must not allow any crimes, no matter how small the amount of crime or no matter how small the amount of property being plundered.

You know, in V-50, we’ve established a very tough requirement for freedom.  This is a very tough rule, ladies and gentlemen, freedom.  This requirement is so tough, it’s never existed.  It’s so tough that the reaction of most people upon first hearing it, “Why, that’s impossible”.  Difficult, yes.  Impossible, no.  It would have been much easier for Galambos to have defined freedom as the societal condition that will exist when every individual has 98% control over his property and someone else has control over the other 2% without permission.  Or why not freedom exists when everyone has 82% or 82.3?  Again, what’s the problem?  If freedom is not the goal, as I said earlier, than what’s the goal?  Slavery.  In science, we don’t allow for exceptions.  A principle works all the time or it’s not a principle.  And so, if we’re going to build freedom, we must not allow the entrance of bureaucracy into any area of our society.

You may recall I discussed what would happen if we have a laissez-faire economy with the exception of just one product, the tomato growing business.  Well, if the people who grow tomatoes are controlled, they will quickly realize it’s a good idea to get out of the tomato growing business.  And since the bureaucrat will always fail in his attempt to improve any situation, he must either recognize his failure or repeal the control or attempt to cover up his failure by extending the control.  And since bureaucrats, in general, do not like to admit blunder, they’re also well-known empire builders, the chances are good the control will be extended.  And when the second attempt to improve the situation fails and then the third fails and there is another cover-up and another cover-up.  You know, one would almost get the impression that Richard Nixon was the only one involved in a cover-up.  That’s all the state does.  The whole thing is one endless cover-up, cover up our blunders.

And what Nixon did, incidentally, is no worse than anyone else has done.  The only thing that happened to him, he offended more people and made a larger number of enemies than most.  And so, they finally decided they’re going to nail him.  What Nixon did, you know, in politics, that’s SOP.  That is standard operational procedure.  Are you aware of this?  One thing that does surprise me is how a politician as astute as Nixon could make such a blunder and get caught at it.  That’s what surprises me and that really amazes me.  As sharp as Nixon is as a politician, that he would get himself in that position.  For one thing, all he would have had to have done is burn the damn tapes and he would have at least completed his term as president.  Anyhow, we won’t get into that.

I’d like to point out two sources of liberty that we had in the early days.  One was the fact that with this Constitution, essentially what you had was a new way to coerce.  What a cumbersome way to coerce.  First of all, you’ve got to have this committee. I mean, essentially we have the whole state is run by committees.  You got the Congress.  But in order to get some coercive bill up before the House of Representatives, it’s got to go through some committee and the whole thing can die in committee or it can be presented to one Congressman and he never even brings it up before the committee and it dies right there.  And then maybe it finally gets to the floor of the House and it’s voted down.  But even if it passes the House, then you got to go over to the Senate with it and they might shoot the thing down and shot down there.  But even if the Senate passes it, then it comes before the president to sign.  He might veto it and it’s squelched there.  But even if the president signs it, it might come before the Supreme Court.  They might throw the whole thing out as being unconstitutional.  Even then, there might be some public referendum or whatever it is to get it shot down again.  What a cumbersome way to coerce.  I mean that’s inefficient.

Now if you want an efficient mechanism, when Louis XIV was running France, that is an efficient mechanism of coercion.  His statement to the world was, “The state, that’s me” which means, freely translated, “Whatever I, Louis Capet, King of France, says is law, is law.  Any questions?  Alright”.

And why don’t you challenge the king of France?  Exactly.  They cut off heads before the Reign of Terror.  That was not invented in the Reign of Terror, during this time in France.  And that at least is honest.  You know where you stand with Louis XIV.  Whatever he says is law.  And you know where the coercion is coming from.

Well, here this was a cumbersome way to coerce and essentially what would happen, they would pass a law and then suddenly somebody with a little imagination and initiative would escape right through a loophole.  And suddenly the politicians would realize, hey, we got a loophole here.  So what we need here is what?  There ought to be a lot stronger law where you get this loophole closed.  And they closed that loophole up and somebody squirts out over here through another loophole.  Hey, hey, what’s going on here?  We’re going to take care of that.  We’re going to close that loophole up.  What we need here is stronger legislation where they close that loophole up.   And no sooner what happens, somebody squirts out through another loophole.  And what is a loophole?  That’s a little daylight where people are looking for liberty which means no coercive control over their property.  In fact this whole system was called…I’m not sure whether this was called by von Mises, or someone at least, the whole system was called Loopholes Capitalism.

As a matter of fact, you can look at the various fifty states and you will find that the oldest states, in general, are the most coercive because they’ve had a longer period of time to close up loopholes.  For example, New York City, is one of the most coercive states in the union whereas, a state, for example, like Arizona, which I think only came in about 1912 or so, somewhere around there, it hasn’t had as long a period to close up loopholes.  California has been around a long time as a state.  It’s had a long time, well over a century, to close up loopholes. And so, it was a new way to coerce.  However, by this time, they had learned the system fairly well and there aren’t many loopholes left.  Of course, when there’s no loopholes left, you have tyranny.  You have total tyranny.

Another factor, von Mises points this out, in the early days when somebody decided there were too many bureaucrats around, too many people running his life, too many people telling him what to do with his property and what to do with what hasn’t been stolen yet, finally the fellow would say, “I’ve had it up to here”, at least that’s a contemporary expression, but whatever the equivalent was to “I’ve had it up to here” was  at the time, and so he says, “To heck with this.  I’m getting out of here”.

So he took his family, all of his property, the dogs and everything, plunked it on to a covered wagon and then he moved a hundred miles out onto the frontier.  At a hundred miles out on the frontier, there weren’t too many people telling him what to do, how to run his life.  He didn’t feel so coerced and with his natural incentive to produce, he produced and so forth.  He did well.  In the meantime, however, other people are moving out on the frontier.  More property is being generated.  And with property always comes what?  People who want to control the property, bureaucrats, etcetera.  And so finally, the guy says, “It’s getting too crowded.  I’ve had it up to here again.  I’m getting out of here”.

So he plunks his property on to his covered wagon.  He moves another hundred miles or two hundred miles out on the frontier.  And maybe his nearest neighbor is fifty miles away and there’s not too many people to bother him.  And let’s face it.  If, you know, there’s just an occasional settler here and there and your nearest neighbor might be twenty-five miles away, or whatever it is, it’s hardly worth any competent bureaucrat’s time to come out there when there’s only a handful of people.  Of course, there’s no prestige in this.  I mean where does the bureaucratic prestige come from?  The top prestige positions are those positions where they coerce the greatest number of people, isn’t it?  Sure.  And the more people they coerce, the greater their prestige.  Is that observable?

For example, you get down to a guy.  Let’s say he’s a councilman, maybe, for just some little town.  I mean let’s say, the city of Orange, we’re giving this lecture in the city of Orange, and I’m sure they must have a city council.  Do they have a city council here in Orange?  Any of you live in Orange?  None of you?  You don’t live in Orange or you don’t want to admit it.  Do they have a city council here?  Does anybody know?  They do, alright.  And they pass laws that affect immediately the people in Orange.  But there aren’t very many people who live in Orange.  And so, these local councilmen cannot coerce very many people.

So there isn’t much prestige in the position compared to, let’s say, a congressman which takes on a larger district and more people to coerce.  Still more prestige, a United States senator where you can coerce everybody in the whole state.  Still more prestige, the president of the United States where you can coerce people in the whole nation.  Of course, a United States senator can coerce people in the whole nation, too, by just getting laws passed that affect everybody.  But the point is there was an escape valve.  And the guy, finally, when he’s had it, he says, “I’m moving west”.  And he goes 100…”If necessary, I’ll go 300 miles west this time”.  And maybe he dies before too many people come out there to bother him.  But eventually you have to put an end to this.  And the end comes finally when?  It’s called the Pacific Ocean and you run out of frontier.  Of course, by this time, already California was well settled.  And so, you’re running out of frontier before you get to the Pacific Ocean actually.

And so, these are reasons why there was a good measure of liberty in the early days.  I mean you can go to Australia, out on the Outback or the back of the beyond or whatever they call it.  There’s practically nobody in the middle of Australia, you know.  And you go out and if your nearest neighbor is 300 miles away, even in Australia which has a worst case of socialism and Marx 1 fascism than we do, in spite of that, even in Australia, if your nearest neighbor is only 300  miles away, there probably aren’t going to be very many Australian bureaucrats bothering you.  Am I right?  Maybe some, but few because it isn’t worth their time to go out there and harass you. There aren’t that many people to harass.

I’m now going to discuss the strategy that will result in the achievement of freedom and the maintenance of freedom.  The name of this program and strategy is called the Ideological Program.   Ideology is the science of ideas.  The word comes from the Greek root ideo which means idea, logo which means word or discourse.  It is the discourse of ideas that is involved in ideology.  And the Ideological Program will be the competitor of the political program.  In every instance, of course, the political mechanism, the political program, employs coercion to accomplish the goals of the state.

In the political state, the will of the politician is imposed upon everyone else.  This will not be the case with the Ideological Program.  With respect to this Ideological Program, the battle for freedom is in the realm of ideas, not the realm of coercion.  The Ideological Program does involved coercion in any form whatsoever.  This does not mean a little coercion.  It means none at all.

Now one might say, well, you know, that’s a pretty weak weapon to employ against the prevailing coercion of the almighty state.  First of all, the state is not almighty but we have been swindled into thinking so through a mechanism called fraud.  This is not a weak weapon.  It’s the mightiest weapon you can employ because the means are compatible with the end.  What if your goal is to get from the earth to the moon and the means is a horse drawn carriage?  How much improvement of this horse drawn carriage technology will be necessary to transport you from the earth to the moon?  What if we, for example, continue to diminish the friction between the axle and the hub on the wheel?  Will that help us get to the moon if the vehicle is a carriage?  What if we improve the breeding and the horses get faster and faster?  We can improve the aerodynamics of the carriage design so there is less air resistance.  Will any of this help you get to the moon?  Forget it.  Why?  What is the probability, with such improvement, you’ll ever reach escape velocity?  The probability approaches zero.  You’ll never get there because what?  The means is incompatible with the end sought.  Is this observable?  The only way you’ll ever get a horse drawn carriage to the moon is if you pack it on some vehicle, perhaps a rocket powered vehicle, that has at least the capability of getting there.  Buy why bother? Of what utility would be a horse drawn carriage on the moon?  You’d immediately have other problems.  You can use it as a source of work, you know, feeding the horses, breathing capability for the horse.  There would be serious problems.  You would have the world’s most expensive transportation and the most inefficient.

I’m going to now introduce you to the significance and importance of a man who is a major input into the development of the strategy that will be implemented to build freedom, Galambos’ strategy in particular, called the Ideological Program?  How many of you, without any influence from Galambos, have heard of the Italian philosopher, Giordano Bruno?  How many have heard of Bruno?  Maybe close to a dozen or so.   Good.

Bruno lived four centuries ago.  If you lived at this time, say between 1500 and 1650, and you happened to hold a view on the subject of physics that was at variance with the prevailing seat of authority, they interfered with your freedom of action, your freedom of expression.  For example, just to give you an idea of what the thinking was at the time, as a matter of fact, for thousands and thousands of years, the authorities had been saying, telling the people, that man is the purpose of the entire creation.  The universe exists for one reason, to give man something to do.  This has been taught for thousands of years.  Alright, if it’s true, that man is the only reason for the entire universe and the entire creation, where should we put man relative to the remainder of the universe?  Why, obviously, at the center.  Man will be at the center.  At the time, those who held the coercive seats of authority were making statements such as this:  “The earth is fixed.  It does not move.  The earth is the center of the universe.  All heavenly bodies revolve around the earth”.  Etcetera, etcetera.

Well, this man Bruno took a very unpopular position.  He says not only is man not the purpose of creation, not only is man not the center of the universe, but the universe does not even have a center.  The universe is infinite.  There are an infinite number of stars, an infinite number of worlds.  Furthermore, Bruno states, “You see that, what we call the sun?  I’ll tell you something.  That sun is just another star.  See all those pinpoints of light up there?  Our sun is just like one of those.  The only difference is our sun is brighter to us, appears brighter to us than the other stars appear simply because that star, our sun, is closer to us than any of the other stars and therefore it appears to be brighter”.  And he said the stars move through the universe with rapid velocity.  In fact, he wrote a book. Now the book itself is heresy; just the title is heresy.  The title of his book was “On the Infinite Universe and Worlds” by Giordano Bruno.

Well, how was this received?  At Bruno’s trial, they said, I’ll just give you a few things that they said to him, at his trial: “We hereby sentence and declare thee, Giordano Bruno, to be a pertinacious heretic.  We command that thou must be delivered to the governor of Rome here present, that thou mayest by punished with the punishment deserved.  Furthermore we condemn and we prohibit all thy books and writings as heretical and erroneous, containing many errors and heresies.  And we ordain that all of them, which have come, or may in the future come into the hands of the Inquisition, shall be publicly destroyed and burned in the square of St. Peter, before the steps, that they shall be placed upon the Index of Forbidden Books.  And as we have  commanded, so shall it be done.  Thus we pronounce the undermentioned Cardinal General Inquisitors”.  And then they give their names.  The sentence was rendered on February 8, 1600.  This trial took place, incidentally, after Bruno had been in a dungeon, in solitary confinement, in the dark, without anything to read, without anything to write upon, for some seven years.

At the conclusion of the trial, Bruno turns to his accusers and he says, “Perchance, you who pronounce my sentence are in greater fear than I who receive it”.  Here’s an interesting question for you.  If Bruno is a prisoner, why should those who have enslaved him fear Bruno?  And they did.  Well, one reason is they do not have the confidence in the rightness of their own views.  And what if Bruno turns out to be right?  To be intellectually honest, you must have rational self-esteem.

And so, on February 17, 1600, one of the most brilliant philosophers and intellectual giants of all time, was dragged into the Compile di Fiore in Rome, that’s the Field of Flowers, the flower market, Compile di Fiore.  He was tied to a stake and burned alive for offering the view that the earth was not the center of the universe.

Physics at this time is so controversial, if anyone offers an opinion that the center of the universe is someplace other than the earth, that’s called heresy.  Burning alive is the punishment for this type of defection.  Now would you say that these facts are generally known today, that the sun is just another star and it’s brighter because we’re closer to it and so forth?  And that the stars move through the universe?  Would you say that these facts are generally owned today, at least in the western world?  The most you could say about a person who does not know these things is what?  He’s ignorant.

But here is a major point.  Today, the ignorant person does not kill you.  What, then, do you do with a person today who insists that the earth is the center of the universe?  Do these people suffer the same fate at Bruno?  Are they burned alive?  Do they suffer a lesser fate?  Are they thrown into prison?  What happens to someone today who insists that the earth is a fixed, immoveable center of the universe?  What is your attitude towards such a person?  He’s laughed at, exactly.  He’s considered a harmless crackpot.  And he’s not even looked upon as dangerous.  Am I right?  This guy’s cracked.

This is a major point ladies and gentlemen.  Don’t lose it because it’s simple.  The change in thinking from the time in history when everyone believed that the earth was the center of the universe until today, when almost no one believes it, the change in thinking did not require the implementation of any form of coercion whatsoever.  The change did not require the seizure of power by those who did not believe that the earth was the center of the universe from those who did  It did not require the followers of Bruno to become the new dictators.  And it’s upon this point and understanding of this point that the future achievement of freedom will depend.  Because the behavior of Bruno’s predecessors, Bruno himself, his successors, represent the first successful operation of a technique called the Ideological Program.

I’d like to point out, ladies and gentlemen, that Bruno has been totally victorious.  Bruno has achieved an ideological victory.  For example, who do you think has the greatest followers today?  Do the greatest number of people today follow the views of a Bruno, who say that the sun is just another star, that the stars move and that they’re not fixed?  Do you think that view is followed or the view that the earth is a fixed, immoveable center of the universe?  Which do you think?  You know the answer, don’t you?  As a matter of fact, ladies and gentlemen, the victory of Bruno is so complete that if you go to Rome today and ask the average Roman, do you believe that the earth is a fixed, immoveable center of the universe, they will say, “No.  I don’t believe that”.  The views of Bruno are so total in their acceptance, his ideological victory is so great that Bruno, today, is victorious even in Rome.  His views prevail and he has not coerced one Roman.  His followers did not coerce one Roman.

I will demonstrate in this course how it’s possible to begin the construction of a free and rational society.  It will be profitable to do this.  And not coerce anyone.  Coercion will defeat the achievement.  And so, this man Bruno is a giant humanitarian.  He made a remarkable contribution to the progress of mankind.  He’s the first person on record to break away from a heliocentric hypothesis stating that the sun was the center of the universe.  This was a major cosmological step forward.  With Bruno leading the way, the men of science began to reorient their thinking away from an earth-centered, even a sun-centered universe.

Copernicus put the center from the earth out to the sun.  Well, today we know that’s only 93 million miles away.  That’s not very far.  And Bruno was a Copernican, but he said, “That’s good to get it out to the sun but that’s not good enough because the universe does not have a center”.

For the purpose of demonstrating the nature of the Ideological Program, I’d like to discuss certain things that it is not.  I’ll come back to Bruno in a moment.  You’ve heard of a program developed by Mahatma Gandhi called passive resistance.  Now Gandhi was successful in India in the sense that today British rule no longer prevails in India.  However, the passive resistance program in India involved certain attacks upon property and therefore, it’s wrong.  For example, if the British wanted to send a train that they had built from one Indian town to another, the followers of Gandhi, fighting for what they believed would bring about freedom, namely independence from British rule, Gandhi would instruct his followers, “You lie down on the railroad tracks and you’ll prevent the British trains from going through”.

Alright, let’s analyze Gandhi’s strategy.  Was it right or wrong?  The Indians, in implementing his program of passive resistance, were attacking the property of the railroad.  The Indians did not own, they did not build the railroad.  Would there have been any railroad in India if it had been left solely up to the Indians?  What do you think?  No.  The Indians did not have the primary capital, the knowledge of how to build  a railroad.  They did not have the financial capital to build a railroad essentially.  And at least, for certain, they did not have the primary capital to build it.  There was no Industrial Revolution in India.  There never has been, even to this day, an Industrial Revolution in India.

I’m sorry if you find this statement offensive, but the entire Eastern world, with few exceptions, is inundated with wall-to-wall ignoramusism.  There are a few exceptions: Japan, which I will come to later.  And that’s why the Orient is inundated in poverty.  There’s two kinds of poverty.  It starts up here, intellectual poverty and that results in economic poverty.  Wherever you have famine, you have wall-to-wall ignoramusism.  You cannot have famine without blockheadism as a way of life.  I’ll justify all of this later.  Don’t construe that to be an attack upon Orientals because it’s not.  As a matter of fact, at one time, the Orient was ahead of the Occident.  The Eastern world, at one time, was farther than the Western world. What happened?  I won’t discuss that now.  This was not always true.

The Indians, under Gandhi, did not own the railroad.  They were relying upon two things.  One….Incidentally, I only know of one cosmological innovation that has ever come out of the entire Eastern world.  These are the major giant innovations.  It’s upon cosmological innovations, or discoveries of the laws of nature, that everything depends.  All technology comes from the earlier cosmology.  The only exception I know, if you’re a scholar on the Orient, if you want to supply to me some other addition to this one, I’d be happy to hear about it.  At least if there’s another one, I don’t know about it.  However, the one that does come from the Orient is one of the giant innovations of all time.  I’ve already mentioned it in this course.  Do you remember what it was?  The discovery of the zero by a Hindu is one of the giant concepts of all time.  Without that concept, you cannot get to the moon.  There will be no tape recorder without the concept of positional notation in mathematics.

And, of course, we add insult to injury to this Hindu, first of all, we call it the Arabic numeral system. Before that, we insulted the fellow by having forgotten who he is and then we add insult to injury by calling him an Arab when he was a Hindu.  Other than that cosmological concept, I don’t know of anything coming cosmologically from the Oriental world.

And so, Gandhi is relying on two things.  One, the coercive interference with property.  They had no right to be in the railroad.  And, two, they are relying upon the moral integrity of the British.  They believe that the British value human life, a form of property, of course, that they would not continue moving the railroad trains as long as all these followers of Gandhi were out there on the railroad tracks.  Please note the Indians were using a British moral code as a weapon against the British and the Indians were confident that they would not be run down by these trains.  And they were only able to accomplish their objective by taking advantage of a British code of morality.

And I can assure you, ladies and gentlemen, what if instead of the British state in control of India at this time, what if it had been, let’s say, the Nazi state in control of India?  They would have tried this trick of lying in the railroad tracks how many times?  One time.  Exactly.  They never would have done it again and all of you know why.  Because for a very simple reason.  The Gestapo thug who would have been in charge of the train, the first time he saw all of these Indians lying out on the tracks, he would have given the signal to the engineer: full ahead.  Now, perhaps, the engineer would have balked at this.

“We can’t run down all these people”.  That’s possible.  He might have balked.

And then the Gestapo thug would have given the order one more time.  I said, “Full ahead”.  I realize that’s for ships.  Whatever the version is for trains.  Maybe it applies there, too.  I don’t know.

What if the engineer would have hesitated again?  Then the Gestapo thug would have pulled out his German luger, pointed it at the head of the engineer and ordered one more time, “Full ahead”.  Again, if the engineer hesitated, he would have given one more order, “Full ahead”.  If he still hesitates, then he would have pulled the trigger, shooting the engineer in the head.  And then he would have kicked him out of the train and he would have personally pulled the throttle himself.  Do any of you think I’m exaggerating?  No. Have the Gestapo thugs clearly demonstrated they’re capable of this and much more?  Exactly.  They tried to exterminate an entire people, the Jewish people.  If they would have had their way, they would have murdered every Jew on the planet.

Well, they never would have done this again, obviously.  The point is that although, to some extent, the Gandhi passive resistance program was based on some concept of morality, they didn’t understand the concept of property.  They didn’t understand who owns what.  To be sure, on the one hand, it’s perfectly alright not to want to cooperate with the people who are plundering you, not to want to enthusiastically hand over your property.  On the other hand, it’s quite another thing when you attack someone else’s property.

I’m not here to condone British colonialism.  However, I might point out that the colonial movement did have this advantage.  It brought something to these backward areas that they didn’t have.  Two things.  The two essential components to progress.  Do you know what they are?  Primary capital, knowledge.  Secondary capital, the means to implement the knowledge in the form of tangible products called tools, etcetera. That’s what they didn’t have.  And without this, there can be no progress.  This fact is ignored by people in general.  I said I’m not condoning the colonial movement but I’m saying, that in general, I would say the colonial movement was more constructive than it was destructive.

What do you think would be the wealth, let’s say, of Africa today if there was zero colonialism in Africa and zero influence from Western culture?  They’d be about where they were.  I realize Africa is a big place and there is a history of advanced culture in North Africa going back to Greece and Rome, and the Mediterranean part of North Africa, the Carthaginian culture, etcetera, the Egyptian culture.  I will come to some this later, but….

Mahatma Gandhi was influenced by, his entire life’s work was influenced by one man.  Any of you taking this course for the first time know who this was?  Who was Gandhi’s major intellectual antecedent?  Yes?

Henry David Thoreau.

That’s correct. Henry David Thoreau.  And when Gandhi was in England, he was a student.  He went to one of those fancy schools, Oxford or one of those fancy British schools.  And when he was a student there, he read Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience.  Unfortunately for the world, Gandhi flunked Thoreau.  Thoreau was much sounder on the concept of property than Gandhi ever was.  As a matter of fact, Thoreau was a person – I won’t have time to even discuss Thoreau anymore in this course, but I just want to mention in passing that Henry David Thoreau was a person of exceptional quality and had some intelligent things to say.

I introduced a discussion of Gandhi’s passive resistance simply to point out, for example, this is not what the Ideological Program is all about.  And this is not the means of building freedom.  The Program, for example, does not involve such techniques, although this will not necessarily be well received, but I like to point out that this is, although moral concept, is wrong.  It’s one that has been with us a long time.  It’s the concept called “Turn the other cheek”.  This is a clearly moral concept but it’s wrong.  Why?  It’s irrational ladies and gentlemen.  It is observationally corroborable, this concept is irrational.

For example, what if you unfortunate enough to be, let’s say, a Jew living in Nazi Germany.  And let’s say some Gestapo thug smashes you on the left side of your face and you immediately turn the right side.  I will give you one guess as to what you can anticipate.  Exactly.  You will immediately have the other side of your face smashed in.  Am I right?  In fact, the Gestapo thug will look upon that as a provocation, as a form even of your unacceptance of getting slugged on the other side of your face.  Turn the other cheek does not work with thugs, with criminals. That’s a fact ladies and gentlemen.  It will not work.

I will concede this.  Turn the other cheek will work with someone who is basically moral.  A man, let’s say, is basically moral and, for whatever reason, he just gets really mad at somebody and he just hauls off and slugs him on one side of his cheek.  And then that fellow turns the other cheek.  The person who is basically moral, at this point, his frustration probably vented in the first punch to begin with, now may feel ashamed of himself, apologetic, I’m sorry, I feel terrible about this, I just lost my cool, etcetera.  Might this happen with a person who is basically moral?  Certainly.

The problem with this, and I would say ‘turn the other cheek’ could be a useful concept if the whole world involved moral people, but that’s a little bit unrealistic, isn’t it?  And so, and as a matter of fact, try turning the other cheek on the IRS and see how far that gets you.  Just write them a note, “You criminals have attacked me.  So I’m now going to turn the other cheek.  How do you feel now”?  Good luck.

It’s important to emphasize, from the very beginning, that the accomplishment of the Ideological Program does not require, then, the employment of any coercion, that means any political action.  And to illustrate, again, the Ideological Program applied to the physical sciences, when the promulgators of the physical sciences, when they were persecuted, men such as Bruno, Galileo, Lader, the importance of their achievements were recognized by only a few men, but ultimately what happened?  Today people recognize that the teachings of Bruno are right.  And I should ask you maybe this question.  Is there anyone in this room who believes that the earth is the fixed, immovable center of the universe?  Do any of you believe this?  Do you know anyone who believes this?  Any of you?  I see zero hands to both questions.  I don’t know such a person.  At least if he believes it, he’s never admitted it to me.  And if we confine the discussion to the Western world, you will find – and that’s where the western world has been influenced by the American Revolution and by the Newtonian Revolution and the Industrial Revolution – you will find very few people indeed who will admit that they believe the earth is the center of the universe.

Alright, assuming you do find a person, I ask you this question, who does believe it, what happens to him?  I mentioned earlier, the person does not received the same fate as Bruno.  He’s not burned alive. He’s not even incarcerated.  The worst is he’s laughed at.

What if somebody’s going to give a lecture to announce he’s going to give a lecture on the UCLA campus in Royce Hall?  He’s going to prove that the earth is the fixed, immovable center of the universe.  Do you expect he will fill Royce Hall?  No.  Not even at UCLA.  Ditto SC.  If you went to UCLA, I’m not picking on UCLA.  I spent quite a few years there myself.  The reason UCLA gets a little more of this is I spent more time there than other places.  I managed to mention SC, two fairly well known schools in southern California.  If I’m lecturing in Palo Alto or that area, I mention more Berkley or the University of California at Berkley and Stanford and so forth.

Well, it’s very important but that’s the fact that you can’t fill Royce Hall when the quackery is in the field of the physical sciences.  That’s important.  That means the ideological victory for physics and for Bruno is complete.  But what about people who are outright swindlers and quacks in the field of volition?  Can they fill Royce Hall?  I get off the top of my head quickly, name 25-50 people that could have Royce Hall overflowing, every one of which the speaker is an outright swindler and quack.  And the students and the faculty will be lapping it up.  And that’s because there has not yet been an ideological victory in the third science, a complete volition, which means, because there isn’t, any quack can get a hearing.  That’s proven every day.

The ideological victory in physics, then, did not require the people, as I said, who are being persecuted to overthrow by means of a political mechanism their persecutors.  The people who were being persecuted did not suddenly become the new political dictators.  Bruno’s followers did not become the new dictators.  This is not how it was done.  And I might remind you that the change in thinking from the time that almost everyone in the Western world believed the earth was the center of the universe until today, when almost no one believes it, this didn’t occur thousands of years ago.  It’s only been 377 years since the execution of Bruno in 1600, but it hasn’t taken that long for the ideas of Bruno to be victorious.

The ideas of Bruno have been accepted for two centuries.  As I say, they’re even accepted in Rome, even in the Campo de’ Fiori.  As a matter of fact, the next time you’re in Rome, you should visit the Campo de’ Fiori.  There’s a statue of Bruno erected on the place where he was burned alive.  Be careful when you’re in the Campo de’ Fiori.   It’s also the center of crime in Rome.  That’s where the principal criminals hang out and the local crime thugs hang out there.  Hang on to your wallet.  Well, that’s every place when you’re traveling in Italy, especially the further south you get.  I’m not exaggerating.  Have any of you been to Italy?  How many corroborate I’m not exaggerating on this?  Hang on to your purse and your wallets.  Anyhow.

Alright, let’s look at this Ideological Program.  With the limited time we have remaining, we have to start somewhere.  So I’ll give you a look at how it operates.  There are four steps to it.  They are: innovation, education, advertising, and maintenance.  This program begins with innovation.  Four steps, IEAM, standing for innovation, education, advertising, and maintenance.  What we have to do is complete the ideological revolution for the third science, volition.

We begin with innovation.  Why?  That’s where everything begins.  Before you can have a simple table, somebody has to think of the concept of a table.  Tables do not exist in nature.  There is no such thing as a table tree.  The major innovations are cosmological innovations dealing with laws of nature.  And then you have the technological innovations.

The next step in this program involves what is called education.  What if the innovator keeps all the ideas to himself and he never discloses?  What if Newton never discloses the universal law of gravitation?  Well, there’s two possibilities.  One, we will never have access to the universal law of gravitation.  Or sometime later, someone will independently innovate it.  If he doesn’t disclose, it might take a long time for someone else to independently innovate it.

Alright, Newton innovated this three centuries ago, essentially, 1665-1666.  What if he never disclosed it?  What if the universal law of gravitation and the laws of motion were not developed for another century or two centuries?  Where would we be today?  Well, you wouldn’t see any tape recorders or the other technology that we have because we’d be 200 years behind where we are now.

Alright, so the innovator’s got to tell somebody else.  The telling of somebody else involves this.  Education involves the transmission of rational knowledge to a rational receiver.  The successful transmission of rational knowledge to a rational receiver.  This may occur within or outside of a school.  In fact, this can happen even in a school, but it’s rarer than you think.

It also helps if the transmitter is rational.  If he’s irrational, how can he even understand what is rational in order to transmit it?  And if the student is irrational, forget it forever, until he is rational.  If the student is rational, you can even have irrational things being transmitted.  If the student can figure out why they’re irrational, he can even be educated, even when there are wrong things being transmitted.  It’s a little easier if what’s being transmitted, however, is right and the teacher knows what he or she is doing.

Then, in order to get the product, and this program is to put new products into the market, one of those products is a new product called freedom.  In order to get the product fully implemented and put into the market on a broad basis, you can’t stop with education because there’s only a few curious people to begin with who have rationality capability.  So only a handful will ever be educated.  And so you got to get it across to the masses.  A product, in order to have mass acceptance and mass application and mass, for example, consumption, the masses should have a favorable image of the product.

And so, the third step is called image transmission or what we call advertising.  And this involves what?  Simply transmitting a favorable image of the product to the masses.  As a matter of fact, not only to the masses, but both classes – those who went to school and those who didn’t.  We reach both classes through advertising, those who did and those who didn’t.

And then, finally, we have to have a means of maintaining the product.  That involves maintenance, the maintenance of a product called freedom, the maintenance of another product called an automobile, the maintenance of products called tape recorders.  Maintenance involves also the sales of products, the selling of products.  Because, you see, if you keep producing tape recorders, but no one buys them, you can’t keep this up very long, can you?  And so, part of maintaining the product is the successful selling of the product.  And before that, comes advertising.  It’s a good idea to have a favorable image of the product and that will induce sales.

And it doesn’t matter what the product is.  I’ll come back to this in later sessions in much greater detail but I would like you to understand now that the victory for freedom will not mean the coercive defeat of those people who now oppose freedom because, if it did, we would become the new coercers and we would be no better than the people who are coercing us now.  You do not build freedom by becoming the new dictators.

It is true.  We are at war, but the war we’re fighting is not a military war, but rather, an ideological war.  We are fighting a war of ideas.  If we lose the ideological war, we will almost certainly find ourselves fighting a military war.  And so, we must win the war of ideas.  And it’s not people we are fighting.  It is wrong ideas.  Of course, one of the wrong ideas is that you can help a man by stealing his property.  All of the various forms of coercion, in turn, that have ever existed in the past, or that exist today, or that can be predicted to exist in the future, they all center around the non-sanctity of property.  The only thing that distinguishes one form of property attack from another is how is the property attacked?  What is the justification offered for the attack?  And who is the victim?

For example, what’s the difference between a Juan Batista and a Fidel Castro?  What’s the difference?  There’s a different set of people lined up against the wall waiting to be shot and there’s a different set of people pulling the trigger.  But the social structure has not been altered to the slightest degree.  And so, you cannot achieve freedom militarily.  It can only be achieved ideologically.  You cannot achieve freedom politically.  Even if your favorite candidate wins, if your objective is freedom, then you lose.  Because no matter who he is, if his job is president, his job is what?  To control your property. To plunder your property.

I would say, however, I will say this about the current president, Jimmy.  In spite of everything I’ve said, I honestly believe he’s doing a good job.  Seriously.  I’ll go on record as saying President Carter is doing an outstanding job.  But what is his job?  To run your life without your permission, to control your property without your permission.  Is he doing a good job of that?  Yes.  And please note, he’s doing what he’s supposed to be doing.  If he stops doing that, he would be impeached, ladies and gentlemen.

What if the president is elected and then he says, “Well, the first thing I’m going to do is nothing.  I’m not going to appoint any cabinet officials.  I’m not going to sign any bills.  I’m not going to appoint anybody to do anything.  I won’t do anything coercive.  I won’t make one executive order.  I will go down as the do nothing president.  I will do zero as president”.  Just how long do you think he could stay in office if he stopped coercing?  Do you get my point?  The only way he can stay in office is if starts coercing.  Am I right?  Certainly.

Alright,, since it is impossible to achieve freedom on the military field or in the political arena, we take the battle to a field upon which we can win, the field of ideas.  And one of the questions we have to answer is what constitutes victory for freedom?  Victory is not achieved when we take the reins of power into our hands and start coercing others.  Victory will come about when all property is secure from attack, when everybody has liberty and there is not one slave.  You see, if instead of practicing coercion ourselves, we instead prevent others from practicing coercion, we have won the victory for freedom.  This will not mean the collectivists, or would be coercers, will not exist in a free society.  I cannot conceive of a time, at least in the foreseeable future, when there will not be people who would like to wield coercion over others, but we do not have to lock these people up.  We do not have to line them up in front of the firing squad.  All we have to do is make it impossible for these people to have a mechanism to coerce.

Now, to be sure, they might be somewhat frustrated at not having anyone to coerce, but that’s tough.  In the future, it is quite possible for a man like an Adolf Hitler to be born.  It’s not possible to prevent a Hitler from being born.  How would you do that?  How would you know this Hitler Schicklgruber kid has just left the womb and you’re looking at him.  How do you know he’s going to turn out to be such a disaster?  I’m sure Mrs. Schicklgruber could not have known this.  That was his name, you know?  Am I right?  Schicklgruber, something like that.

How would you know?  There’s no way to know this, is there?  And I will admit, that if there ever had been a time for an abortion, this might have been it.  I might predict, even those people who are opposed to the concept of abortion, in the case of Hitler, they might have even made an exception.

But what we can do, ladies and gentlemen is this, is to see that a man like Hitler hangs wallpaper but not people.  As long as he’s hanging wallpaper, he’s not bothering anyone.  But when he becomes the political dictator of a nationalist socialist Germany and he launches a major attack upon just about everyone’s property in the Western world, and even in the East, we got a serious headache.  As long as he cannot wield coercion, he cannot harm anyone.  And that is what is meant by a victory for freedom.  Not that Hitler doesn’t get born or that Hitler is locked up or that Hitler is burned alive.  That’s not the solution.  The solution is, when a man like Hitler is totally impotent when it comes to coercion.

And so, ladies and gentlemen, the Ideological Program does this.  It will obsolete all political programs.  It will reduce the entire concept of political action to the scrap heap.  The Ideological Program will not only bring about the product, freedom, this product, into the market as a reality, but it will maintain this product, freedom, indefinitely.  How this operates, how this is implemented will be discussed in lectures ahead.  I will give, in fact, an entire lecture, #14, on the second step of the Ideological Program.  That is education.  I will give another lecture, 15, on advertising, how you reach the masses.  Next week, starting with Lecture 9, 10, 11, and 12, we will discuss the four step maintenance.  In other words, how do you maintain freedom?  What are the alternatives to coercion?

I will begin next week Lecture 9.  I bid you good evening.


© Sustainable Civilization Institute 2010