The important news in New Orleans was not that it descended, but that it ascended into anarchy. What do I mean by this? Anarchy indeed broke out in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, but, by definition, it was the voluntary association of individuals and groups who mobilized to offer assistance to the victims of the storm that were acting in an anarchic fashion. The term anarchism has been perverted over time, it does not mean chaos; anarchy is simply the absence of government, anarchy is not the absence of decorum or organization. Anarchism is an ad hoc system of self-government whereby free individuals organize themselves in ways that best promote the fulfillment of their ideals and the satisfaction of their needs.

The government proved to be incompetent in the disaster relief for the victims of hurricane Katrina. There were too many competing agendas by the local and federal agencies, along with the various states, causing a form of paralysis. This competition was less between the agencies, as it was the agencies in opposition to the needs and will of the victims. The hurricane, along with the failure of the dams, provided an opportunity for the government to do some social engineering, along with planning and zoning modifications, with an eye towards changing the face of greater New Orleans. This apparent agenda particularly affected the poor and disenfranchised, with the African American community the principal population affected.

Stepping in to fill the void, sometimes in opposition to the bureaucratic agenda, were many individuals and groups that felt a personal and social obligation to lend assistance to those in distress. While the government was failing in a big government way, successes by private individuals and groups abounded. Individual citizens, church groups, and a new band of grassroots relief organizations stepped in to take up the slack. Dispensing with bureaucracy and government aid, most of them relied instead on small donations of money and supplies, along with a whole army of committed volunteers in the communities they serve.

For the most part these entities who mobilized to help after the Katrina disaster would not consider themselves “anarchist.” An accurate definition of the word, which speaks about the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society, puts them in this camp. While others would surely intellectually accept that moniker, some would proudly proclaim their commitment to anarchism.

Common Ground and other organizations such as Emergency Communities, the People’s Hurricane Relief Fund, and Four Directions joined small church groups in the region to provide services where government and large aid organizations failed to meet the need. In this effort they would often ignored the authorities’ thoughtless pronouncements, finding ways to bring supplies through closed checkpoints, setting up in areas not approved by the government, breaking the rules when it made sense. Joining in the effort to provide for the needs of the hurricane victims was a caravan of medics from the “Bay Area Radical Health Collective” as well as other activists that arrived in New Orleans to do their part, such as the Food Not Bombs groups that mobilized from all over the country to feed those displaced by Hurricane Katrina

A gaggle of celebrities also stepped up to donate one million dollars each to help the Katrina effort, including The Rolling Stones, actor George Clooney, singer Celine Dion, actor Nicolas Cage, comedian Jerry Lewis, and Beyonce’s man rapper Jay-Z. Shaquille O’Neal, of Miami Heat, with his wife Shaunie, coordinated an effort to ship tractor-trailers full of relief supplies to Katrina’s victims. Angelina Jolie upset at what she saw was not happening in New Orleans wrote to Congress and the White House asking for more disaster relief. John Travolta, flew to Baton Rouge with his wife Kelly Preston, carrying food supplies and vaccines. Singer Macy Gray visited a camp in Houston, Texas and handed out clothing and toiletries. Oprah Winfrey abandoned her summer vacation to visit those affected by Hurricane Katrina.

There was also a legion of ordinary citizens like Gary Maclaughlin who bought a used school bus and filled it with diapers and other supplies and drove it to New Orleans, then picked up a number of evacuees from the airport and drove them to a rescue shelter in Louisiana. There was David Perez, chairman of Surge Global Energy, who decided to spend a quarter million dollars to charter a plane and purchase a planeload of relief supplies. Later, he evacuated 82 hurricane victims and flew them to San Diego where arrangements were being made to help them. Then a Fort Lauderdale attorney Herb Cohen assembled a team of four medical professionals from Orlando. The group traveled to Houston on a jet paid for by the Aero Toy Store to provide medical assistance to evacuees.

A legion of groups also spontaneously assembled in New Orleans’s to give aid, like the coworkers at Smith & Associates in Tampa, Florida, who collected $20,000 worth of supplies for Katrina’s victims. They filled two trucks with diapers, baby food and formula. A group of people from the small town of Union, South Carolina, drove to Atlanta to pick up five families left homeless by the hurricane, giving them a place to live, along with groceries and utilities for at least two months. Employees of the Columbus, Georgia, Courtyard by Marriott pooled their room vouchers, which they earned as bonuses, to give an evacuated family a hotel room for about to weeks; other employees took up collections to buy shoes for the children of evacuees.

Church congregations helping hurricane victims are to numerous to mention, but here are a few. Two of the churches in Ashley County, Arkansas (Promise Land Missionary Baptist Church and Calvary Baptist Church) offered to house a total of 75 people. St. Patrick’s church in nearby Phoenix City, Alabama, served hurricane evacuees a Thanksgiving-style dinner for Labor Day. Several truckloads of tents, sleeping bags, bottles of drinking water, and five-gallon gas containers for Katrina’s victims were sent to the Gulf Coast from the Latter Day Saints.

And, not to be left out was the nation’s children, from preschoolers to teens, who found enterprising ways to raise funds for Katrina’s victims. Six-year-old Angelo Ward and his four siblings set up a lemonade stand in front of an supermarket and collected $735 in one weekend. Ten-year-old Melissa McLean of Hollywood, Florida, raised more than $700 in two days selling lemonade at a street corner in her neighborhood. Six-year-old Thomas Caruso of Paramus, New Jersey, watched the news as a Katrina victim holding her baby cried for help. He decided to give the $200 he had saved for a new Nintendo game to the hurricane victims. Ten pre-teens from Howard, Wisconsin, sold curbside Kool-Aid, freeze pops, and cookies and raised $60 for the Red Cross.

Given the spontaneity and success of this grassroots mobilization, I would say that anarchy is the natural state of society. It is clear by now that government creates its own agenda over time and this agenda is often in conflict with society needs. At those times it is our obligation as members of society to step in and take back the reigns of sovereignty. I predict that Katrina marks the beginning of a revolution of conscience that will continue to escalate as society deals with the failures of government.

With the present disaster in Haiti, I need to revisit the media’s love affair with the term anarchy as a means of titillation. The best they could come up with was some sporadic violence and looting which they were quick to call anarchy. As for sporadic violence, I live in a city with a cop on just about every other corner and we experience sporadic violence regularly. As for the so called looting, it was generally in the nature of salvaging abandoned property of owners who were either missing or dead, very little of the looting was of a criminal nature and this even with the prisons destroyed in the quake allowing three thousand inmates to escape. The true anarchy in Haiti was in the grace and stoicism exhibited by the people, who, finding no immediate aid from the international community, used hammers and bare hands to rescue the trapped and to administer aid to the injured. The Haitian people shared what little they had and bolstered each others spirits with song and dance; they coped with the situation the best they could in a country that was economically devastated before this natural disaster.

In simple terms capitalism is about the bottom line of making a profit and the practice of accumulating capital; it makes no difference if it makes a profit building prisons or schools.  Capital is hailed as a great savior, but capital has no conscience; capitalism capitalizes on our fears, doubts, desires and superstitions.
Capital will chase capital and will continue to increase wealth as the economy stagnates, pooling in ever larger reservoirs. These vast pools provide the power to promote capital’s own vested interests in symbiosis with government; whether it is in real estate, military production, medicine, oil, transportation or high tech, you name it.  Capitalism is a practice not a system and acts like a cancer on the Free Enterprise System.   Capitalism, particularly the cartel Capitalism that presently exists, seeks to mitigate, or even eliminate the values that motivate entrepreneurs; these values do not contribute to the bottom line.

Unlike Capitalisms, the Free Enterprise System is primarily concerned with filling needs; profit is only one of the rewards sought after towards this end.  Profits are often forsaken for to fulfill other values.  Among the numerous values that motivate people to engage in a Free Enterprise System are the freedom to work for ones self, or as a means of financial support which employs the whole family, also as a means of self expression, as well as to simply serve the community.  In these enterprises profits are often sacrificed to meet these diverse ends.  At its core the Free Enterprise System is about expressing oneself, it’s about self actualizing, being fulfilled while fulfilling the needs of others.

To some extent you cannot separate capital from the free enterprise system as they are in a way joined at the hip.  Clearly the Free Enterprise System employs capital and capital depends on entrepreneurs and innovators to generate more capital; this is the reason it is so easy to conflate them.  When there is symbiosis between the two, capital flows naturally through the system nourishing the community as blood nourishes the organs in the body.  When amassing capital becomes the focus then mechanisms are created which like cancer diverts the lifeblood of the community into the hands of a few, leaving our communities shriveled and lifeless.

This reality was brought home to me on a recent visit to Viet Nam while performing as part of a dance company.  Though Viet Nam is considered a communist country, they have developed an energetic Free Enterprise tradition that has evolved organically out of filling needs.  In the cities and in most of the villages you will find very few streets strictly dedicated to residential use with commerce segregated in malls; instead the lower floor of most buildings are dedicated to small businesses serving the local neighborhood or community.  The environment is pulsating with energy, everybody is engaged in the business of providing the goods and services that nourishes and sustains the life of the community.  You can’t help but feel connected as an integral part of the community and society.  When I returned to the states I suddenly felt alienated; I walked down streets devoid of people or streets where people refused to share eye contact and then I got into my car to drive to the mall to buy my necessities.

The Free Enterprise System at its healthiest is the bulwark of a vibrant democracy; it provides the structure of freedom where the actions of a free people can flourish.  Capitalism on the other hand is more at home in a fascist system, as the government is there to protect and defend it from the people.  When capital concentrates in the hands of the few, it misappropriates the invisible hand of the Free Enterprise System, converting it into the slight of hand of politics and government and democracy suffers.  Capital requires control with a certain perverse allegiance and vigilance to its bidding; it is the worship of the cash cow. Those who control capital control The Capital; money interest skews the political process. It is no longer a democracy of one-person one vote; the almighty dollar is the measure of our vote. We no longer have a government of, by and for the people, it has been allowed to languish and by default capital has become king!  Instead of citizens participating in a democracy enhanced by the Free Enterprise System, we have been reduced to consumers and laborers in a capital driven scheme that dominates and subjugates the market.  Until we democratize capital and reinvigorate the Free Enterprise System, we the citizens will continue to be at the mercy of capital’s interest.

Copyright © 2009

If you asked me, I would say that too many people are fixated on sex and nudity, any obscene connotations in the photo are going on in their own minds; in my opinion there is nothing implicitly or explicitly sexual in the photo. 

When the photo first hit the news, there were incredible statements about how it was exploitative of the innocent, that it was “suggestive”, “child pornography” and that the magazine was “selling sex”.  One over the top comment was made by an editor for Entertainment Weekly who remarked  “…if Miley Cyrus is going to go around naked but for fabric draped over her, she’s just begging us to imagine what her firm, young breasts look like, her smooth, tan skin, her tight, virgin…well, you get the idea. And I think that’s shameful.” 

WHAT?  WHAT??  

What is this guy talking about?  There is nothing inherent in the Miley photo that is shameful, what is shameful is the values ascribed to it by those who desire to view it in a strictly prurient manner. These people need to understand that obscenity is generated in their own minds.  The word obscene comes from the Greeks who did not like to show murder explicitly in their dramas, they chose to do it off-scene, obscene and left it to the imagination of the audience.  I wasn’t invited to imagine those thoughts by the editor and others like him; when I view this photo I see it clearly as a work of art.  I am not titillated by it, indeed when I view it I feel a sense of melancholy; to me it’s an enigmatic vision like that of the Mona Lisa.

So, I down loaded an image of the Mona Lisa and compared it to the Miley Cyrus photo; I was amazed at its similarity.  Annie’s photo possesses many of the artistic qualities of Leonardo da Vinci’s painting.  Take a moment and look closely at the relationship between the two.  Compare the mouth, the eyes, and the crossed hands, even the highlights on the skin. Then look at the folds of the clothing, the variegated background, as well as the overall near monochromatic color of the respective pictures.  I would say that Annie’s photo of Miley could be considered a 21st Century Mona Lisa.

In their attempt to erase “obscenity” from the face of the earth, many people observe the world through minds that have become perverted and perceive obscenity everywhere. The same type of puritanical thinking expressed about the Miley photo has characterized many other pieces of art as obscene, including such treasures as the Venus de Milo, Botticelli’s Birth of Venus and Michelangelo’s David, in fact when several clerics viewed Michelangelo’s work in the Sistine Chapel for the first time, they accused him of obscenity and consequently covered his nudes. 

Recently, officials in Bartholomew County Indiana notified a business that sells copies of classical art that certain statues must be moved out of view because they would be considered obscene under state law. The statutes include copies of Michelangelo’s David and the Venus de Milo.  Also, a parent in Shelton Connecticut asked the school to change his daughter’s bus route so she could avoid seeing a 15-foot high replica of Michelangelo’s ”David” at an office park; the bus route was moved.

Those who have obscene thoughts in their heads when viewing Liebowitz’s photo of Miley, or any other piece of art for that matter, need to take responsibility for their own obscene thoughts, they need to own them and not ascribe them to the population at large.  I would suggest they begin a study of art from a rational unpolluted mindset and develop new ways of viewing the world around them.  A world were art is allowed to flourish is a richer and more caring world.
 
Just for fun I’ve swapped the faces of Miley and Mona.  What do you think?  Whatever it is, own it!
 

Copyright © 2009

If you asked me, I would say the answer is more sinister than any offered by the experts, it looks to me like collusion.  It would appear to me that those series of gas price hikes happened with the blessing of “King George” during the Bush administration; perhaps it was one of the topics discussed at the meeting; being that it was secret meeting anything can be imagined.

Before anyone gets disturbed over my assertion of collusion, let’s look at the benefits behind the alleged deed.  As a national objective, the goal of changing our energy demands to renewable sources has maintained a high level of support.  Vital to the objective of achieving energy transformation is reaching price parity between alternative energy and fossil fuels.  We can wait for the price of alternative energy to come down sometime in the future as more technologies are proven viable, but it’s in a very unreliable time horizon.  Alas, due to the pace of global warming we may not be able to afford the time to rely on the market.  So, it does make sense to artificially raise the price of fossil fuels to achieve energy price parity, it is the most expedient method.  Higher prices can mitigate the demand for the polluting, non- renewable energy and speed up the transformation to solar, wind and other more benign sources. 

At issue in support of the proposal for higher fuel prices, is the mechanism for its implementation.  The current choices seem to be to tax fuel, or to turn a blind eye while the oil companies continue to unilaterally and surreptitiously raise prices.  Raising taxes in the effort to achieve energy transformation is shaky, as the government has proven to be a poor manager of our common wealth, often diverting revenue into unintended uses.  On the other hand simply tolerating oil companies making a profit windfall would be inequitable and dangerous.  The vast capital generated as oil companies freely manipulate prices will consolidate the power of the energy companies, allowing them to control the energy market, including alternative energy.  It is my allegation that this is the industries scheme. 

So what is the mechanism by which the thing gets done? Can anyone point to a website or publication that answers the enigma of how to get there from here?  I’ve not seen any viable proposals in Copenhagen, only obfuscation by the developed countries and posturing and demands by the developing nations toward setting limits on per capita carbon emissions. Let’s say an agreement is reached to cut emissions by 2050, many scientist say this is still not fast enough, execution calls out for a mechanism to achieve the goal and quickly. 

So what do we do?  I’m suggesting a third way, through collaboration.  I propose that citizens partner with the energy companies to support the transition.  How will this “partnering” work?  In exchange for granting the energy companies the right to raise prices, the consumers of energy will receive points toward owning stock in the energy companies.  Every time the consumer buys product, energy points will accumulate.  When sufficient points accumulate to purchase stock it will automatically be placed in the consumers account at the current stock price, this non-bidding approach to stock distribution will provide the corporation some certainty in the expansion of their stock.  If this method for energy transformation if applied rationally, it has the potential to bring all parties into a synergistic interrelationship, which could stimulate innovation toward alternative energy conversion.  

It seems unlikely that change will occur by massive protest and there is a fat chance that our “elected officials” will have the balls to legislate a solution to such a formidable task.  Look, prices are going up in any case, by taxes or by collusion, let’s make it work in a way that is transparent and benefits those making the sacrifice alongside the energy companies. The stock is not an incentive to buy more petroleum products, it is compensation for the right to increase prices in order to expedite the transition to alternative energy; any value coming from the stock will be in the later years as the transition to alternatives is in full force.

I believe the oil companies have seen the writing on the wall and are in the process of amassing the capital to continue to dominate the energy market. To believe the oil companies are going to simply run the course of fossil fuels and then fossilize themselves is rather naïve.  Fossil fuels are a limited resource and its days are numbered; any cogent business manager must have an eye on future trends to survive.

We can blithely let the oil companies continue with their nefarious machinations, or we can stand up to the behemoths and demand a say. This is a deal with the devil that I think must be made in order to mitigate what appears to be inevitable.  I’m not saying the energy company CEO’s will accept this notion with open arms, but if widespread pressure over the issue of higher fuel prices ensue, collaboration through a Consumer Stock Ownership Plan (CSOP) will be seen as the most acceptable option.  I believe in grass roots efforts and this blog is a petition to the ordinary citizen to stand up and be counted.  If you don’t like my proposal, formulate one of your own!

Failing a more appealing resolution to the energy conversion dilemma, a carbon tax must be considered with the revenue generated dedicated exclusively to alternative energy investment or to be paid out to all citizens.  In any case, price parity is required for lateral adjustment toward alternative energy conversion; it is the catalyst of energy exchange.  Yet, it seems to be the least discussed and most pressing concern. 

Copyright © 2009 – 2010

Well, if you asked me, I would say that if you feel the need to defend your wealth, you’re already too rich Mr. Trump.  Trump’s question raised a challenge; his sarcastic attitude spurred me on to find a satisfactory answer.  To focus simply on the dollar amount, as Trump did, is inadequate to qualify an answer to this question.  We must look for a more fundamental principle to flesh out a universal answer to this enigma. 

To discover a principal that satisfies this question, I focused on folks whose wealth is publicly evident and I asked if each were too rich.  I’ve already proffered the notion, that if a person is concerned about the dollar amount of their wealth their values are mislaid and they’re already to rich; if this type of wealth is the measure of their self worth their personal worth is inflated (in other words, they’re too big for their britches).  I’ve heard numerous financially wealthy people retort, when asked about the notion of distribution of wealth, “Why should I be compelled to give away any of my money?  I’ve earned it by myself and I should be able to keep it all.”  This claim would be fine if they earned it in a vacuum without the participation of anyone else, but we don’t operate in a vacuum, we operate in a society.  In society, especially one that has developed an overarching state, with layers of bureaucracy and regulations, citizens give up a measure of their personal sovereignty to create the state and provide the environment were wealth is accumulated (not just produced).  Without this broad sacrifice of sovereignty, it would be impossible for anyone to legitimately accumulate vast wealth.  In addition, a largess of ideas, methods and tools have accumulated over the ages that have contributed to the common wealth of society, also an advantage not individually earned. 

On the other side of the coin, you have people like Oprah, Magic Johnson, the Newman’s, Jimmy Carter, the Gates and Warren Buffett, along with countless other people who give freely of their time and money.  People of this ilk can never be two rich, they will always give according to how blessed they feel about their wealth.  Giving by the hand of the wealthy is not some bleeding heart liberal nonsense; it should be considered an obligation by those who have benefited from societies largess.  It should also be regarded as a responsible business strategy.  I’m sure Oprah, as a businessperson and philanthropist, can attest that the more she gives the greater her popularity and ratings are improved.  Stinginess and amassing wealth is a zero sum game; it shifts the wealth to the wealthy, leaves the poor poorer.  To share wealth abundantly is synergistic, releasing an actualizing power that is infectious and motivates others to contribute their efforts, wealth is actually amplified.

This principal of benevolence applies to corporations as well; they are our “Super Citizens”.  It’s particularly vital for corporations to develop a culture of giving, as their very existence has been made possible by a grant of society through a charter from the state.  Due to their expanding symbiosis with government, along with their ability to exist in perpetuity, corporations now have more powers and freedoms than the average citizen.  Originally corporations were chartered to perform specific public functions for a limited time and then expire, if their purposes were not fulfilled their charters could be revoked.  Then in 1886 the courts ruled these legal fictions to be “Natural Persons” giving them the protection of the 14th amendment, which daclares that: ‘no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property’.  Given the privileged position corporations hold in our society, they earn the moniker “Super Citizen”.  These corporate “Super Citizens” most be held to a higher standard than the average corporeal citizen, as well as to meet the standard, if they wish to continue to be tolerated or to gain the peoples support.  One way for corporations to give back to society is to formulate a method for democratizing capital through a type of consumer stock exchange, whereby the customer earns stock over time for their purchases, encouraging loyalty.

Giving doesn’t need to be a strictly charitable effort to be effective.  There are financial opportunities that have charitable attributes, which can bestow similar benefits as charity while earning a pecuniary benefit.  One idea is to provide low cost financing to micro businesses, or to become part of an investment group and invest in innovative local small businesses that fall outside the credit system.  Join together with others in your church, mosque or synagogue to refinance individual members of the congregation’s credit card debt, with a personal loan in aggregation with others in order to spread the risk.  Be creative, express your wealth; look around, find a need and fill it!

Copyright © 2009

To function, government requires a burgeoning superstructure of agencies and officials.  These officials, on all levels of government, are entrusted with a great deal of discretion to carry out their duties.  Bureaucratic discretion has evolved over time as a consequence of the growing complexity of the duties government is being asked to perform.  Prior to 1935 the courts held to a non-delegation theory when it came to government agencies creating policy.  This theory was based on Article I of the Constitution which provides “all legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States;” therefore, allowing agencies the power to create policy was seen as a delegation of the power to legislate.  After the new deal, the courts relaxed their restrictions on legislators, allowing them to delegate powers to make national policy to non-elected bodies such as administrative agencies.  This has opened the floodgates to an escalation of discretion, which has percolated down to the states and local jurisdictions. Government officials, federal, state and local, have in essence become ad hoc legislators as they wield they discretion.

This discretion is expanding exponentially and many government officials are increasingly seeing this discretion as representing a prerogative or a right.  The government’s discretion continues to expand as legislators persist in passing loosely or vaguely stated laws designed with complicated language, leaving government agencies the power to fill in the details; fundamentally giving the administrative agencies the opportunity define their own level of discretion.  This discretion has become so broad that in many cases the government can virtually operate by fiat; they can treat two people in similar circumstances in complete opposite ways.  Even if we could make laws that are clear and unambiguous, we cannot make individuals who exercise them without bias.  The way one interprets law is always affected by one’s self determined moral and political beliefs.  Besides their broad discretion, these bureaucratic rulers-of-the-laws enjoy a remnant of sovereign immunity that protects “public” officials from legal tort action when operating within their area of discretion; this immunity is maintained “whether or not the discretion involved be abused.”

Under these conditions public officials are inclined to use their discretion to resolve competing political claims often at the expense of applying the best solution to the problem.  A political system which gives power and immunity to a handful of the people is corruptible and I believe already corrupted.  Public officials are not hesitant to exercise broad discretionary power, because the reviewing courts tend to routinely defer to agencies expertise. This highlights the problem faced by the individual public official who may be pulled politically in more than one direction, personal loyalties often sway government officials, influencing and sometimes dictating their decisions.  

I learned the lesson of unbridled discretion firsthand when fresh out of college I joined my brothers to form a partnership in a renovation company.  We soon found ourselves under assault by forces not under our control.  These forces included a whole cast of unscrupulous and uncaring characters both in and out of government, as well as a flood and arson that was intertwined with government intrigue. It began when we applied for a septic system solution on the second property we purchased; it quickly became clear to us that the county government had a hidden agenda on the property.  Over time and at a great cost to us we finally discovered what was at its base.  In essence the county government’s agenda was about making an end run around the grandfather rights on this property, by utilizing Health and Safety Codes to force the destruction of some of the improvements on the property, in order to have it more closely conform to the zoning codes recently enacted.  The government officials had no qualms in abusing their discretion, by applying disparate codes to the property and even to double up codes when it suited their purpose.  They also ordered us to maintain a septic system on the property in a way that would ensure its failure.  Finally, when their tactics failed to produce the desired affect, they just made up the data they needed to dictate the final results.  On the heels of these over the top actions by the government, we commenced an investigation.  When we followed the evidence, it led back to an attorney, latter he became a judge, who foiled the county government’s initial attempt to enforce their agenda on the property. It soon became clear that we were caught up in a long standing bureaucratic vendetta on the property we would refer to as the “original sin”. 

In the end we were forced to sue various state and local agencies in federal court, showing their discretion was so broad they could operate by fiat.  It was a landmark case that proved dangerous to all government bureaucracies.  Its success in the courts would have provided a new tool for government accountability.  It soon proved to be the government’s goal to beat us at any cost, including buying out our engineers and attorneys by offering them significant government positions on boards, or lucrative contracts.  Finally, I was forced to take over the case as a novice; I gave them a run for their money doing an admiral job all the way to the ninth circuit court of appeals.  In the end, the Court used its discretion to dismiss the case by fiat, with no reference to any starry decisive; in time our resources were depleted ending our attempt to see justice. 

A more startling example of the abuse of discretion by a government official occurred on the national stage years after the defeat of our case.  This was when Katherine Harris, the Secretary of State in Florida, called the end to the vote count; the result of this decision ultimately handed George W. Bush the keys to the White House.  It is my contention that the secretary of state abused her discretion by calling off the vote.  The Secretary of State claimed the discretion entrusted to her made it her “prerogative” to end the vote counting, by this she meant it was her right to make any decision she wished.  It was the Secretary of States duty to ensure that the voting process was fair and impartial.  Therefore, the duty of the Secretary of State required Katherine Harris to use her discretion to extend the deadline and to make a reasonable attempt to get a fair count.  As a Bush appointee and operative, it would be difficult to argue Katherine Harris was not motivated by a political agenda when she called off the vote; I contend that her conduct was an abuse of discretion and a transgression against democracy and the American people. 

The growth of discretion, together with its abuse, is the greatest threat to our personal freedom and welfare. The American Revolution was conducted to put an end to the monarchs arbitrary edicts and fiats, and create a “government of laws”, but we have arrived at a situation were an entrenched bureaucracy and the two party system now have the power to dictate the political agenda and by extension the public agenda.  The claim that “we are governed by the rule of law” is habitually repeated, and masks the fact that laws are administered by individuals that come to the table with their own agendas.  With their broad operation of discretion, government officials are increasingly able to use their positions of power to determine the winners and the losers.   In short, the laws are continually being skewed in actual application towards meeting the agenda of those entrusted to administer it, rather than to the will of the people.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”
— Thomas Jefferson
Copyright © 2010

The “rule of law” fraud begins with our legislators who deliberately insert ambiguity in legislation while it’s under debate, as a means of providing political cover. Next, public officials throughout the various government agencies apply their own political spin on these ambiguous laws as they are administered. Inevitably the government’s agenda comes up against the rights of the citizen and the courts are called upon to adjudicate the dispute; in this process the courts create case law that stands as precedent. This precedent inevitably comes in conflict with precedents made by judges in other political jurisdictions, with cases ending up in the Supreme Court were these nine judges apply their own political twist; often ending up with the vote of a single person determining the rights of entire populations.

If there were truly a rule of law, the decisions in the Supreme Court would be unanimous. But they aren’t unanimous, as judges are appointed who are identified as right, left or centrist and who bring their own philosophies to the bench. It’s not as if you can take the facts of a case and enter them into a rule of law machine, which shoots out an answer on the other end. Instead we have legal decisions that are often arbitrary and that fit the agenda of the government at the time; the application of law by government is more about expedience than justice or fairness.

It is clear from my own struggle with the government over my civil rights, that the government will even weave disparate codes together to achieve their agendas under the color of law. If this does not provide the necessary leverage, they will use the power of their discretion to simply rule by fiat. Among other tools I discovered government employs to defeat the rights of individuals when their rights come in conflict with the government’s agenda are obfuscation, equivocation and delay. The courts enjoy the greatest amount of power and latitude in their decision making process; the law is intentionally written with complicated language, with a myriad of conflicting codes, which allows the court to virtually operate by fiat.

My journey through the courts provides a cautionary tale with empirical evidence of the egregious methods used by the courts in employing the law to meet its agenda. I begin my saga in the courts with my family’s lawsuit against the government, which raised the issue of the abuse of discretion by government that allowed public officials to perform their duties by fiat. Our lawsuit was a landmark case that had the potential to radically affect the breadth of government discretion; it was a threat to government, so every effort was made to ensure that it would not see the light of day. After years of surviving the government’s attorney’s effort to defeat me with legal maneuvers, the court single handedly defeated our case by a further abuse of discretion, dismissing our case without any reference to starry decisive or to the facts in the case. The judge simply declared that our case was not a federal case. When I appealed the case to the Ninth circuit Court of Appeals, the judges completely ignored the first and most important question raised by the appeal and danced around the other questions in a rather meaningless manner. After years of effort, the government finally exhausted us financially and emotionally, our resources were depleted and we were unable to pursue the issue to the Supreme Court. In essence the government won the fight by default, preserving their broad discretion and their de facto right to continue to operate by fiat.

My next experience with the abuse of the legal system by the courts occurred while I was engaged in our federal civil rights case. One of my brothers did a stupid thing in resisting a police officer when he was pulled over while driving without a current license. As a result of this foolishness he ended up before a judge who was preparing to sentence him to jail, during the sentencing the judge learned my brother was about to close escrow on the sale of his house. The judge’s brother happened to be an attorney who was in the middle of negotiating a settlement arrangement with our family partnership on an account that went into default. Armed with the information divulged to him about the pending sale, the attorney abandoned the settlement negotiations and proceeded with a default judgment, placing a lien on the funds from the sale of the house. This was potentially devastating to our civil rights struggle, as I was scheduled receive some of those funds to help me further the suit, it could spell the death knell of our pursuit of justice.

Well, it turns out the attorney for the title company holding the funds was a friend of the attorney that filed the lien. We had to threaten a suit against the escrow company in order to force him to hold the funds until we were able file the motion and receive the decision; he granted us a very short window of time clearly designed for failure. I was now forced to learn how to write and file a motion to overturn a default judgment in less than thirty days, in order to have the funds released to me. When I went to the court to file the motion, I was told by the clerk that the judge was not in cession on the date that I needed in order to stay within the deadline. I reluctantly agreed to the later date and walked to my car with an uneasy feeling about what just occurred; the clerk had turned to another clerk in the office who acknowledged her assertion about the judge being on vacation. My intuition told me that something was amiss, so when I arrived home I asked my partner to call the court and pretend to be a secretary for another attorney who wanted to file a motion on the day in question; low and behold the date was available. I marched right back the courthouse and insisted the clerk file my papers on the correct day. I pled my case and I prevailed on the motion and the court issued an order to release the funds. The attorney for the title company was stunned and immediately got on the phone with the other attorney who confirmed the courts decision and was forced to release the funds. It was the only bright spots in our odyssey with the courts; of course the judge also ordered me to pay the other attorney $500.

Later, due to the heavy financial burden we faced while pursuing our suit against the government, one of the properties mentioned in the suit was foreclosed upon by a financing company that made us a loan based on the appraised value of the property. But, in foreclosure, they not only took the property, they also refused to release the remaining funds in their possession. The evidence was clear that the money belonged to us and on that basis we were able to enlist the services of an attorney. This attorney did a standup job of handling our case, but the judge who was assigned to the case was a family law judge, not a real estate judge, who was transferred to this division specifically to hear our case; in the end the judge simply declared (by fiat) that he could not make a judgment and dismissed the case, essentially handing the defendant a de facto victory. It also meant that the government had achieved the objective of depriving us of the means to keep our suit going; with this action the government was able to administer the final death blow. In the end the government was able to defeat us with deception, along with a further abuse of their discretion.

Over time, after the lawsuit, it was becoming clear to me that the state government had me in their sites for further abuse. The harassment began when I was applying for a contractor’s license. Shortly after making my application, I received a call from an investigator with the Contractors State License Board who informed me the board was not going to accept the documentation of my experience which is required for the license. I was told the Board rejected my invoices for the work I performed, because the invoices were produced on a computer and therefore could have been fabricated by me. I reminded the woman that this was the age of the computer and that I did in fact generate them, but in the course of doing business. I recommended the investigator call the clients on the invoices and do a fact check before dismissing them out of hand. In response to my suggestion, she threatened to unceremoniously deny my application; in the end, I used some legal maneuvering to force the board to grant me my license.

Much later, a series of proceedings related to a traffic ticket convinced me that I must indeed be on some type of state government hit list. I had received a ticket for passing on the right, when I used the shoulder of the road to pass a half dozen vehicles stopped in rush hour traffic, in order to make an exit off the freeway. I was certain at the time that this was legal, but I was also certain that debating the police was fruitless. I paid the fine and filed a challenge to the ticket. When I arrived at the court it was full of people there to fight their tickets; I waited to be called and watched as the whole courtroom was cleared before the court called my case. As I got up to approach the bench, I overheard the judge whisper to the clerk something to the affect, “what was it I was supposed to remember about Robert Taylor?” I was unable to hear the reply, but it was immediately clear to me this judge was going to rule against me. In my defense, I pointed out to the judge that the code prohibited passing on the right except under certain situations providing it was done safely; I testified that my actions fit the exceptions and that I had passed the other vehicles in a safe manner. The judge ignored my testimony, declaring that it was simply illegal to pass on the right and that this was one of her pet peeves.

The judge’s statement that it was her “pet peeve” showed bias and gave me the right to appeal the ruling. When I arrived at the courtroom for the hearing, I was again seated with many others contesting their tickets. But, this time the bailiff came into the courtroom and asked if Robert Taylor was in the courtroom, I raised my hand and was told my case was transferred to courtroom D1. I walked down the hall to the designated courtroom only to find it empty. A minute or too later the clerk and judge arrived; yet again the judge ignored my testimony and upheld the previous judges ruling. In both cases the presiding judge was unwilling to discuss the exceptions in the code, which I testified applied in my case. By assuring the courtroom was empty in each case, the court could operate in a way that is similar to a kangaroo court and rule by fiat. I have no doubt that this type of rule by legal representatives occurs regularly in the courts, the frequency in my case shows that it is not just a fluke.

Copyright © 2010

Capitalism is contrived to reward productive capital, while it usurps the fruits of human capital with economic force.  The vast majority of the population is enslaved by capital’s demands; we are indentured servants by choice and design.  For the most part we are vested in capitalism through debt and personal asset accumulation, as a result we posses very little power in economic decision making.  Servicing our personal debt erodes our economic capital; our options and potential for change are restricted.

With the recent failure of the capital market, we have been handed a great opportunity to re-imagine and re-invent our economic system in a way that will serve all society and not just transfer money to the wealthy. Given the facts about the concentration of capital, it is clear the bailout of Wall Street was the bailing out of the wealthy at the expense of the working poor and middleclass.  It is not society’s duty to serve the economy of the wealthy; the economy should be structured to serve society.  We have the lucky opportunity to reinvent an economic system to one that is based on innovation and collaboration, which can provide for both our physical and metaphysical needs, while leading toward individual fulfillment.  

We need a grassroots effort to divert resources away from those who are close to power and already have established collateral and move it towards a free-enterprise system that empowers all individuals and families through direct and effective ownership of the means of production.  I call upon the nouveau riche to take an initiative in this effort by taking on a leadership role.  Perhaps what I’m talking about should be called nouveau capitalism, with productive capital broadly owned so as to have the effect of vesting ownership and profit potential in society at large.  We can begin by envisioning local solutions to local problems; solutions managed by local communities empowering the thousand points of light and rewarding individual initiatives to solve problems and produce results.

We must take our human capital and put it to work in our communities to operate as a wealth generator to satisfy our needs.   Our human capital includes our healthy and physical capacity to produce, coupled with our acquired knowledge, skills, experience, along with the ability to be mobile.  With the downturn in the economy there are a great number of us that have underutilized human capital, which can be engaged productively, we therefore possess in abundance all of the essential elements of economic growth, time, energy, needs and skills.  Let’s be real, many of the jobs lost in the present downturn will never come back, any recovery must come from the growth of new enterprises.  Human capital provides the engine that propels the economy; this engine can be retooled to run efficiently on alternative economic energy in the same way our cars must be retooled to run on alternative energy.  It is in our self interest to band together, cooperate, collaborate and engage in what might be considered altruistic activities to attain economic rewards. 

Our communities need to be creative in finding alternative solutions toward nurturing healthier homegrown economies to provide for bottom up growth.  There are numerous potential strategies that can be applied such as local complementary currencies, community land trusts, local barter-clubs, time banking, people-to-people lending and micro-lending to name just a few.  Through associations of small local banks, credit unions and businesses we can provide a network to facilitate emerging economic activity. The use of local currencies enables communities to more fully employ its available productive resources; particularly the residual unemployed labor from the present recession, this economic activity will have a catalytic effect on the rest of the regions economy.  Further, the local currency is more likely to circulate more rapidly than national currencies having a greater multiplier effect on the local economy, as their usage encourages the trade of available goods and services that are produced locally.

As I pointed out in my free-enterprise blog, cartel capitalism, as practiced here in the US, is a form of cancer on society.  Like cancer which creates blood vessels to feed the tumor starving the organ of its blood supply, cartel capitalism infects our communities drawing capital away and starving the community of its ability to mobilize its resources.  Local complimentary currency can provide an antidote to this cancer, as it stays in the community and circulates to encourage economic activity.  There is also an array of other proven and experimental strategies that can be employed to reinvigorate the local economy and to help build productive capital for expanding local opportunities.  Here is a grocery list of some of the strategies and democratic capital structures. 

Worker Co-Operatives                                                                                                                                Consumer / Retail Co-Operatives

Housing Co-Operatives

Agricultural Co-Operatives

Health Care Co-Operatives

Employee-Owned Business

Development Trusts

Community Foundations

Social Firms

Intermediate Labor Market Projects

Credit Unions

Community Loan Funds

Friendly Societies

Mutual Insurers

Building Societies

Charitable Trading Arms

Let Schemes – Local Exchange Trading Systems

Community Currency

Community Sponsored Agricultural

Consumer Stock Ownership Plans (CSOP); stock ownership plans for utility users and regular customers of enterprises.

Community Investment Corporation (CIC) sharing profits from local land planning and development including structural developments such as highways, railways, bridges, utility companies, harbors, tunnels, etc

Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), which has a proven track record in the United States with 1,500 corporations 100% employee-owned.

Another innovative proposal that would afford an immediate financing influence towards reinventing our economy is presented by Norman Kurland and known as The Capital Homestead Act.  The Capital Homestead Act is a comprehensive method for providing pure credit for productive asset procurement, giving every citizen the ability to “acquire, control and enjoy the fruits of productive corporate assets.”

Take some time to explore these economic options by researching them on the internet, become familiar with what’s out there and share it with those close to you.  As you feel comfortable with understanding the value extended by one or more of these initiatives in your life and community, begin implementing them. 

I suggest that each one of us identify the circles of affinity that inform and nurture our lives and look to these alliances as a nexus for implementing change.  Many will find their church offers a community of people were a communion of like minded cohorts can provide the sinew in service to reconstructing the community at large; after all the word religion is related to the word ligament, which means to bind.   Other’s will turn to the virtual community of social networking, as an extension of their local community, to strategize and share what works and does not work in an immediate and vital link to an expanding consciousness leading to an economic revolution.   Information is the new currency; in the digital world, community or complimentary currencies can be a valuable form of information.

Copyright © 2010

Throughout our lives we are told who we are and what we should think; this pattern is mirrored and amplified in the media.  We are told nearly every day that the American people believe this or that, or men and woman conform to a certain stereotype.  After listening to all of this I have to wonder if I’m a man or an American!

If you asked me I would say that we should stop listening to this static haranguing and start thinking for ourselves.  We need to re-imagine a society that reflects our desire for fraternity in a way that supports our individual fulfillment and stop pigeonholing everyone.  We must step back and take an enhanced view of ourselves, step out of the mindset that has been inculcated into our being and which continues to mold us.  The image of who we are has been dominated for the most part by the church and the state; along with the states’ surrogate the corporations.  The news, popular media and corporate advertising, in symbiosis with church, the state and politicians with their all pervasive propaganda, influence or exploit our anxieties and fears, then offer us superficial solutions that they control. 

Like most people I was indoctrinated with a vision of a social/political/economic system, coupled with a religious concept that painted America as Utopian.  I was saturated with the myth about “truth, justice and the American way”, but my experience of reality did not jive with the vision I was asked to embrace, the utopian vision as defined by my church and state proved to be dystopian.

As a nine year old boy, a soul wrenching incident occurred to me that shook the foundation of my belief system.  My father turned up dead while in the custody of the police in a suburb of Chicago.  The police told our family one story; the local newspaper printed a conflicting story and worst of all our pastor lied to us children violating a commandment, a big deal for a nine year old.  None of the stories conformed to each other and all were at odds with the facts; the evidence pointed to the murder of my father at the hands of the police.  The incident was covered up and with threats to my family the truth never came out.  At the age of nine I found myself alone and adrift, grabbling with pressing existential questions on the meaning of life and truth. This experience put me on a life long quest for truth or at least something in which I could have faith.  Not just something to believe in, not “blind faith”, but something that stood up to reason.  

Latter, in my young adult years, while pursuing the “American Dream”, my belief in the “system” was totally obliterated.  My brothers and I were engaged a perfectly ordinary real estate partnership, but it turned out the county government had a hidden agenda on one of our properties.  In the process of pursuing their agenda the government officials engaged in activities that if done by the ordinary citizen would be criminal. In its attempt to take property held in our partnership, the state and local government violated our constitutional rights.  A protracted lawsuit against the government followed that lasted a half a decade.  After the county government essentially bought out our attorneys, I was forced to take over the lawsuit; I pursued the case all the way to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.   At that point I had to end the battle as our finances had been strained to the point of bankruptcy.  I was nearly made homeless, I lost virtually everything! 

As a result of these transgressions, I’ve completely lost that cozy feeling that once wrapped me in a blanket of security and comfort earlier in my youth; no longer is there a warm fuzzy feeling inside me when I see symbols of the state or church.  My visceral reaction is disdain; I am compelled to distrust it and to shun it, to the extent society has embraced the myth my trepidation is further confirmed.  The assault on my liberty and happiness was pervasive and specious; it included the cooperation of numerous bureaucrats and citizens.  The rage inside me from this egregious assault was so great as to bring me close to the line that separates anger at the few to condemnation of the whole; for the first time in my life I understood terrorist.  I felt rage and despair, but in my favor, I always had hope. But how deep is this reservoir of hope?  Could the well run dry?  I found I could create hope by the positive actions I took in finding ways to expand my options. To this end I’ve sought creative means to express my rage and despair.

This led me to (among other things) writing this series of blogs.  This is the first in a series of blogs where I will be addressing issues as I see them, concerning church and state, along with aspects of government and society, while moving toward issues that inform the evolution and progression of society.  This blog series is entitled “If you asked me”, it is a mixture of diatribe, polemic deliberation, dialectical musing, pedantic haranguing, along with a touch of cynical and sanctimonious ranting and raving.  The intent of these writing blogs is to express what Frank Lloyd Wright called, “Honest arrogance over civil hypocrisy”.  I envision the series to expand into what I describe as an Existential Gonzo Auto-Blography.

Copyright © 2010

In order to bring the U.S. out of its economic malaise, there must be a stimūl-us not a stimūl-them program.  To prime the economic pump, money needs to be put into the economy close to the bottom, not just at the top; unlike liquids, money flows up not down.  Money injected at the top fosters consolidation and constraint; money injected near the bottom fosters innovation and fuels growth.  This means money must get into the hands of risk takers as quickly as possible and not wait for the credit system to grow balls. 

It is estimated that the projected eight hundred and fifty billion dollar stimulus package will produce three million jobs; this is approximately $250,000 dollars per job.  I recommend that a portion of the “stimulus package” be devoted to investment in invention, innovation, and entrepreneurship.  Take fifty billion of that money and put it into the hands of the risk takers who create the products and methods at the cutting edge of production and job creation.  Unlike shovel-ready projects now being funded, these businesses and jobs are not short lived enterprises.

With this plan, an injection near the bottom will support the efforts of up to a half million entrepreneurs on the front line of job creation.  It will infuse cash into the banking system from the bottom, which can provide leverage for struggling young businesses and start-ups to obtain credit.  The bulk of the funds will be spent directly on payroll, business services, materials and equipment acquisition; it will have an immediate effect on economic activity.  Straight away, employment will be provided by many of these ventures, while also contributing to the preservation of the workforce through purchases at other vendors that supply materials and services; in some cases this spending will even expand the vendor’s job footprint.  Also, this bottom up stimulus spending will create a multiplier affect, as the money circulates within the economy on its way to the top, thus amplifying job creation.

A stimulus program of this type can also provide an opportunity for the American people to have a direct participation in the distribution of the funds and feel a direct link to the economic stimulus, thus boosting confidence that the economy is moving.  Through the use of the Internet, a hybrid free market approach can be adapted which can bring the American public into the selection process.  A site could be constructed were the public will evaluate and rate the inventions, innovations and small business proposals to determine their viability; these proposals can be distributed geographically so the whole nation can share in the potential prosperity.  In this way, with the American people involved in the selection of the frontrunners, a sense of participation in the recovery process will be nurtured; it will also provide a connection to the products and businesses generated, further insuring their success.

The candidates for these funds will be required to have a patent, or provide a business plan for a new venture, or expansion for an existing business.  As in all risky enterprises there will be some losers and some winners, the diversification inherent in the selection process will provide some balance.  In exchange for the stimulus grant, the entity receiving the funds will be asked to contribute ten percent of their profits annually to a not-for-profit organization of their choice, after the first fifty thousand dollars is earned as yearly income. 

This reciprocating approach to distributing the funds will further stimulate the economy; while at the same time take some of the pressure off government to provide for societies needs.  This is a win, win, win, win proposition; the banks win by getting credit flowing, the government wins by shifting demand for services to the public sector, the people win by the influx of jobs in the economy, and society wins by adapting a partnership with government and industry that will more efficiently provide for its charitable needs. 

Though on the surface this proposal may seem to some as a big government giveaway, it can be justified as an investment in the economy with a return in the form of restored taxes from income, along with the flow of revenue to not-for-profits offsetting some of the cost to federal and local efforts to provide solutions to social problems, such as homelessness, feeding the poor, domestic violence programs, etc.   Though the initial capital will be advanced by the government, at its core this is a hybrid Keynesian/supply side free market driven solution.  We must face the reality that the credit system cannot and will not provide credit to businesses in this unstable economy, no matter how worthy the business plan.   This proposal will not only kick start job creation, it will kick start the credit system with the billions of new dollars deposited by the grantees.   

The TARP funds were set aside to repair (rescue) the credit system by purchasing illiquid, difficult-to-value assets with the aim of getting credit to flow, it is only logical that these funds be given to Main Street under conditions that mirror Wall Streets, with the understanding that they may never get repaid.  This bail out of Main Street is correlative to the Wall Street bailout and should be seen as an adjunct to TARP.