Skip to main content

The One-World Crime Syndicate

Either you're part of it, or you're the enemy.

Somalia has been without a government since the mid-1990s. Rather than remaining embroiled in eternal, pervasive conflict as the Hobbesians predict, Somalia has steadily clawed its way out of abject destitution. Water, cell phones, internet cafes and other public infrastructure are produced in a political environment that is as close an approximation to a free market as exists anywhere on Earth.

The CIA has been funding resistance within Somalia to disrupt the independent evolution of Somali law and security outside the umbrella of the UN. This is how the one-world crime syndicate* works. If there is any place where people can go to be free of the syndicate, free of the theft of taxation and the indignity of capricious and illegitimate regulation by the crime lords, they must stamp out it.

Suddenly, two-bit Somali pirates are a threat to every living being on the planet. Now, we need the US and Indian navies and the United Nations to come in to establish "law and order" because the Somalis - without a taxing government - obviously have none and this is why their pirates are raiding ships. A quick glance at Wikipedia shows that there were 329 piracy-related incidents reported to the International Maritime Bureau in 2004. Hot-spots of piracy around the globe include "Indonesia, Nigeria, Somalia, and the ports of Chittagong in Bangladesh and Santos in Brazil" according to Wiki. But Somali piracy is suddenly a big, big threat to everybody and needs to be front-page news across the world.

The linked CS Monitor article describes Somalia as "a lawless state run by Islamist extremists that provides safe harbor to gangs of pirates." This is untrue to say the least. While Somalia has no central government, they do have law and to say that Somalia is "run" by anybody - let alone Islamist extremists - is absurd. Somalia is stateless exactly because nobody runs Somalia. And anyone who resists or attempts to escape the global tax-inflate cartel is labeled a "terrorist" or "pirate" by the government-media complex, so I am skeptical of the claim that Somalia "provides safe harbor to gangs of pirates."

Friends, these big reports of Somali piracy are completely unrelated to their newsworthiness. This has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with the fact that Somalia doesn't have a government that is part of the global tax-inflate cartel. We tried and failed in 1993 to impose one. Now we're trying to make a case that Somalia really, really, really needs a government to stop these pirates, otherwise Somali piracy is going to end the world as we know it. (It seems to me that "go 'round!" would go a long way towards solving the problem...)

If there is any place on earth where people can go to conduct peaceful, productive business free of taxation and anti-competitive regulation, this is a threat to The Syndicate. The OECD and other such organizations have no other goal than to try hold the global taxation/inflation cartel together and to at least ostracize**, if not eradicate, anyone who does not play ball with the cartel. They even have a name for their greatest fear, tax competition - they call it "the race to the bottom." Somalis have vigorously resisted attempts to re-impose taxation upon them. I don't know what's going to happen this time, but the One-World Crime Syndicate is going to have to invent a pretty big excuse to justify the level of force that will be required to bring the indomitable spirit of Somalis to heel.

*Also known as "the global tax-inflate cartel"

**Via the 'tax haven' designation or painting them with the even more grim 'terrorist finance haven' moniker if they actually respect banking privacy and fail to cough up any records the tax bureaucrats happen to demand

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Constitution has gone to the dogs

Actually, it should have gone to the dogs, but didn't. I'm talking about  Leona Helmsley's estate , of course. The contract clause of the Constitution says, "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..." This means that private contracts cannot be changed by legislative edict. This clause is incredibly important because the willingness of private individuals to engage in profitable enterprise - which is the foundation of social welfare - crucially depends on their belief that they can realize a profit. In turn, their belief that they can realize a profit depends on their belief that they can hold parties to a contract liable to the terms in the contract. For example, lenders must have confidence that they can repossess the collateral for a loan if the loan is defaulted on. Otherwise, they will not take the risk of giving the loan in the first place. When lenders are too scared to lend, everyone is worse off. In the case of Leona Hel...
So, I spent all weekend watching JFK assassination videos and doing armchair JFK assassination research. Here are my notes: 1) Most of the debate seems to rage around trying to get evidence or proof that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy. This is silly because it grants - from the outset - the bizarre assumption made by the official theories that political figures are as likely to die at the hands of "mad attention-seekers" as they are to be assassinated by their enemies who actually stand to benefit. How many people are insane enough to think that the electric chair is a fair trade for "being remembered" by history, even if in infamy? And of those people how many are resourceful enough to pierce the security perimeter of the President of the United States? Kennedy was threatened by Richard Pavlick in 1960 after Nixon lost the election and, by all accounts, Pavlick was a lone nut. But all we know of his "assassination attempts" are his own tall tale...

What Law Is

Law What is law? Frederic Bastiat, in his treatise The Law, defines law as the collective use of force. As much as I love Bastiat’s treatise, I think his definition is not sufficiently analytical. It is certainly the case that the law plays a role in the collective use of force but the law is something more basic than this. We can begin by looking at law as it is today. The website for the Oregon courts has an excellent summary [1] of modern law and courts. I will quote it at length: Throughout history, people have had disputes and have needed some means to settle their disputes. As civil societies develop, they need an orderly system of conflict resolution. One system that developed in "western" cultures is the "law court" or court of law. In England, those early law courts developed a "body of law" called the common law, which defined both the rights of the people and the government and the duties people owe each other and their government. T...