Newsflash! You've Never Had Any Rights: Three Good Reasons Why The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are Not Worth the Paper They Were Written On
(c)onebornfree.com2005
Libertarians and limited government proponents etc. generally share one similar belief, or assumption - that is, broadly stated : that the government should only do the things they believe it should - based on a particular idea of what the constitution and bill of rights actually "means", and was "originally supposed to mean".
And in actuality, even many outside of the limited government movement , such as modern "liberals" or "conservatives" , often seem to have fairly fixed ideas about what " it" all means.
I see two big problems with this idea [i.e. that it meant one thing, and one thing only]. The first is philosophical, the second, historically factual.
Trouble Comes in Three's
And then, no doubt because bad news and trouble traditionally comes in three's, there is a third problem which I shall briefly call attention to at the end of my article.
Problem [1]: Subjective Value [ "Human Action"] Theory
Human action theory [which many libertarians claim to believe], tells us that each of us is a unique individual, with our own tastes, values, preferences and life experiences- and, as we grow and experience new things in life, our values change - they are not set in stone. http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap2sec4.asp
These individually subjective value interpretations are just as true of the interpretation of words we read as of actual "real life" events; meaning that any collection of words on a piece of paper, including laws and constitutions, is going to be subjectively interpreted per individual - inevitably meaning that what Jefferson may have thought the constitution "meant" was entirely different from what Madison thought it meant , and that what Hamilton Washington or Adams et al thought it "meant" was also bound to be different.
And further, that what they thought it actually meant at any one point in time was bound to change over time according to their own newer prejudices and life experiences.
As the arguments of the founders are a matter of historical record, this point is of course widely known, even in "the mainstream", although the inevitable conclusions I have drawn here via human action theory are just as widely ignored.
Then and Now
To me, the principles of applied human action theory must inevitably also apply to federal or state judges either then or now, or to any member of the government, living or dead. [ A great book on this, covering the individual economic prejudices of the founders, was written by the somewhat left-wing economic historian Charles Beard- e.g. see his "Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0029024803/lewrockwell/002-1812875-5295257
A Real World "Bottom Line"
The bottom line here is : even if it were possible for the constitution and Bill of Rights to be written to mean one thing and one thing only, as libertarians and others argue via "original intent" arguments e.g.: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north150.html
or,http://harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm
the plain fact of the matter is that in the real world, they are _still_ going to be subjectively interpreted by individuals both inside or outside of the government and judiciary, who have their own, constantly changing and evolving value systems, experiences, biases, agendas etc. ,
This is inevitable, according to the very philosophy that supposedly underpins much of libertarian thought [i.e. subjective valuation and "Human Action theory"]
Problem [2] The Historical Record
Problem 2 is historically and factually a little more obscure to most libertarians I know, and starts with the anti-federalist arguments.
The anti-federalists, as you know, successfully argued that the constitution should _not_ be passed , simply _because_ it was a ridiculously open-ended document which would bring tyranny [e.g. see http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451625250/002-1812875-5295257?v=glance ].
Intentionally Open -Ended
The bald truth, as Brutus and the other anti-federalists pointed out, is that the constitution was intentionally, a totally open ended document. [ Also see the Pennsylvania Minority's writings, as with Brutus, included in Ralph Ketchum's "Anti-Federalist Papers" : http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451625250/002-1812875-5295257?v=glance
and : "The Secret Proceedings and Debates of The Convention To Form the US Constitution" by Yates, a convention delegate: http://lists.washlaw.edu/pipermail/marketing/Week-of-Mon-20040209/000643.html
Madison's Promise- the "Bait and Switch"
As you might know, the anti-federalist arguments at that time led to Madison's promised concession of the addition of a Bill of Rights, to further supposedly "define" constitutional limits, IF and WHEN the constitution was ratified [i.e. a political "bait and switch"].
Of course, this brilliant political move by Madison , second only to naming his side "Federalists" - when in fact the anti-federalists were the true "federalist"[!], pulled any remaining rug out from under the feet of the so-called "anti-federalists", and the constitution effectively became law when New Hampshire, the 9th colony, ratified on June 21st. 1788 , although it is not "officially" in effect until March 4th 1789.
What You Are Probably Not Aware Of - The Judiciary Act of 1789............
What few are aware of is the historical fact that the day before the new congress signed the Bill of Rights, to be returned for review and approval or rejection by individual states before becoming law, it passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was not subject to review by any of those same states.
To learn exactly how the Judiciary Act of 1789 guarantees the destruction of the rights you think you might have [or had!] under the 10 ammendments of the Bill of Rights , please ask here in the comments section and I will get back to you ASAP!
....
ARTICLE EDIT/UPDATE 01/24/11: click here to learn about the Judiciary Act of 1789
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
You vs The World-19 False Assumptions
YOUR 19 FALSE ASSUMPTIONS?
Here are, for your edification, abuse, and ridicule, are 19 poorly thought out false assumptions that will hopefully prevent you from living a better life. Enjoy!
YOU AND SOCIETY
False Assumption : that you should be someone other than yourself.
False Assumption : that others will do things the way you would, or be like you.
False Assumption : that your emotions should/can/ will conform to an intellectually preconceived standard, as should others emotions.
False assumption : that you can control others.
False assumption : that others should respect you
YOU AND MORALITY
False Assumption : that you must obey a moral code created by someone/anyone else.
False Assumption : that you must put the happiness of others ahead of your own.
False Assumption : that anyone can speak on behalf of another.
YOU AND YOUR POLITICS AND FREEDOM
False Assumption : that other people can prevent you from being free.
False Assumption : that your [political] rights will make you free.
False Assumption : that you must create better conditions in society before you can be free, and that therefore, there are compelling social issues that require your participation.
YOU AND YOUR DECISION MAKING
False Assumption : that you can make important decisions when you’re feeling strong emotions.
False Assumption : that time, effort, and money spent in the past must be considered when making a decision in the present.
False Assumption : that the cost of getting out of a bad situation is too high to ever consider.
False Assumption : [when making an important decision], that your information is 100% certain.
YOU AND GOVERNMENTS
False Assumption : that governments perform socially useful functions that deserve your support.
False Assumption : that you have a duty to obey laws.
False Assumption : that the government can be counted upon to carry out a social reform you favor.
False Assumption : that the government is so powerful that it can prevent you from doing what you want with your life.
Here are, for your edification, abuse, and ridicule, are 19 poorly thought out false assumptions that will hopefully prevent you from living a better life. Enjoy!
YOU AND SOCIETY
False Assumption : that you should be someone other than yourself.
False Assumption : that others will do things the way you would, or be like you.
False Assumption : that your emotions should/can/ will conform to an intellectually preconceived standard, as should others emotions.
False assumption : that you can control others.
False assumption : that others should respect you
YOU AND MORALITY
False Assumption : that you must obey a moral code created by someone/anyone else.
False Assumption : that you must put the happiness of others ahead of your own.
False Assumption : that anyone can speak on behalf of another.
YOU AND YOUR POLITICS AND FREEDOM
False Assumption : that other people can prevent you from being free.
False Assumption : that your [political] rights will make you free.
False Assumption : that you must create better conditions in society before you can be free, and that therefore, there are compelling social issues that require your participation.
YOU AND YOUR DECISION MAKING
False Assumption : that you can make important decisions when you’re feeling strong emotions.
False Assumption : that time, effort, and money spent in the past must be considered when making a decision in the present.
False Assumption : that the cost of getting out of a bad situation is too high to ever consider.
False Assumption : [when making an important decision], that your information is 100% certain.
YOU AND GOVERNMENTS
False Assumption : that governments perform socially useful functions that deserve your support.
False Assumption : that you have a duty to obey laws.
False Assumption : that the government can be counted upon to carry out a social reform you favor.
False Assumption : that the government is so powerful that it can prevent you from doing what you want with your life.
Monday, May 29, 2006
War Is the State: Myths about Memorial Day, Governments and War.
Myths about Memorial Day, Governments and War.
War is the State
Another Memorial day, and the country is divided into at least 3 camps and possibly more:
1] the pro war establishment [those who want government and wars, and believe them justified and therefor celebrate wildly ]
2] the anti-war establishment [ those who believe in governments but are usually against war, or are suprised/enraged/horrified when they occur],
3] the "don't know don't care lets just have a party" crowd.
My comments here address only those in catagory [2].
War Is the State
An early to mid 20th century US historian , Randolph Bourne, famously quipped "war is the health of the State".
Myself, I believe it is more accurate to say:"War _Is_ the State".
To believe in the institution of governments and at the same time expect them not to start wars is futile- after all, war is the primary business of all governments everywhere.
War [regardless of whether a particular war is considered "just" or "unjust"]is one of the many inevitable , [although perhaps unforseen by some] consequences of having a government in the first place.
You want government , you will get wars.Get used to it
Quit wasting your time complaining about wars started/perpetuated by your government and the people in group [1] , i.e. the flag-waving "patritioc" types who madly celebrate, quit voting for candidates who promise to end a war [if they do, they'll start another], quit demonstrating against wars etc, etc; instead concentrate ALL OF YOUR TIME AND ENERGY on minimising your own risk to your governments primary business; that is engaging in wars against [a] its own citizens,[b] engaging in wars against the government and citizens of other countries.
Look for ways of avoiding the ensuing wild celebrations of the state, its wars and its minions on days such as today, and for ways which might work even better in the future.
Most importantly,forget about trying to change the rest of the world, or even a majority, into peace lovers via outreach and demonstrations, letters to the editor etc.- instead, "button your lips",get out of the way, and learn to concentrate on finding ways to associate as far as possible in your own life only with those who already hold similar views to yourself, and for ways to avoid the effects of governments and their wars, and of funding them, via legal, or possibly illegal methods, depending on your personal morality and where you choose to draw your own lines,as in reality the terms "legal" and "illegal" are always subjectively interpreted, and also subject to change at any time.
And never forget- war _is_ the state.
War is the State
Another Memorial day, and the country is divided into at least 3 camps and possibly more:
1] the pro war establishment [those who want government and wars, and believe them justified and therefor celebrate wildly ]
2] the anti-war establishment [ those who believe in governments but are usually against war, or are suprised/enraged/horrified when they occur],
3] the "don't know don't care lets just have a party" crowd.
My comments here address only those in catagory [2].
War Is the State
An early to mid 20th century US historian , Randolph Bourne, famously quipped "war is the health of the State".
Myself, I believe it is more accurate to say:"War _Is_ the State".
To believe in the institution of governments and at the same time expect them not to start wars is futile- after all, war is the primary business of all governments everywhere.
War [regardless of whether a particular war is considered "just" or "unjust"]is one of the many inevitable , [although perhaps unforseen by some] consequences of having a government in the first place.
You want government , you will get wars.Get used to it
Quit wasting your time complaining about wars started/perpetuated by your government and the people in group [1] , i.e. the flag-waving "patritioc" types who madly celebrate, quit voting for candidates who promise to end a war [if they do, they'll start another], quit demonstrating against wars etc, etc; instead concentrate ALL OF YOUR TIME AND ENERGY on minimising your own risk to your governments primary business; that is engaging in wars against [a] its own citizens,[b] engaging in wars against the government and citizens of other countries.
Look for ways of avoiding the ensuing wild celebrations of the state, its wars and its minions on days such as today, and for ways which might work even better in the future.
Most importantly,forget about trying to change the rest of the world, or even a majority, into peace lovers via outreach and demonstrations, letters to the editor etc.- instead, "button your lips",get out of the way, and learn to concentrate on finding ways to associate as far as possible in your own life only with those who already hold similar views to yourself, and for ways to avoid the effects of governments and their wars, and of funding them, via legal, or possibly illegal methods, depending on your personal morality and where you choose to draw your own lines,as in reality the terms "legal" and "illegal" are always subjectively interpreted, and also subject to change at any time.
And never forget- war _is_ the state.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
13 Common Myths About Governments- part 2
Part [2] 13 Common Myths About Governments
[13 Common Myths About Governments That I Run Into In Everyday Life and Which I Believe Will Inhibit Your Own Personal Freedom and Growth Potential. ]
Myth [1]: The government can stop you from being free and from living a free life.
{For many, this is perhaps the most damaging belief that they can hold. It is also the one that , as personal freedom consultant, I run into the most often}.
Reality: the only thing that stops you living your life in the way you want is you and your assumptions and beliefs, particularly those concerning governments and their power over your life and the lives of others. Outside the obvious situation of a person already physically life - imprisoned by the government, the prison you are actually in right now, if you believe the myth {that the government can stop you from being free}, is one entirely of your own making.
Nothing, including the government, or even your mother in law or your ex, can stop you living the life you want to live.
The Government’s Interest
Of course, you also need to understand that it is not in the government’s interest for you to discover this reality, and so it must “invest” large amounts of its revenues {partly taken from you, of course} in attempting to convince you otherwise, through its schools, books and media outlets etc.
More Hollywood Inspiration
I know it is only a movie, based on an entirely fictional book by Stephen King, but the movie “The Shawshank Redemption” starring Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman, is a classic, and very inspiring movie about overcoming both “the system”, and the idea that governments can stop you from living a free life – while simultaneously showing that its no picnic to do so either.
Myth [2]: government is a beneficial, benevolent entity.
Reality: when all is said and done, the only single defining characteristic that all government actions { laws, proclamations, ordinances, "advisories" etc.} and all governments share, besides the unintended consequences of their actions, is the threat of the use of violence {ultimate force} against those who try to resist its laws, proclamations, ordinances, "advisories" etc.
The true, core nature of every single action of all governments, all the way down to the most innocent sounding local proclamation or ordinance, is violent coercion for disobedience, whether we like to admit that or not.
Government is merely a "socially approved" institution solely dependent on robbery and violent threats and coercion to achieve any and all of its objectives, or, as Harry Browne famously said “ the government is just the Mafia with flags outside its offices”, or words to that effect.
The Inherent Corruption of All Government Funding -“If Pigs Could Fly”
Hand in hand with this is the assumption that any government, or any part of it, or any person in it, can be uncorrupted or incorruptible.
All governments are funded by “legal” theft- so it is extremely unrealistic to expect anything other than 100% corruption, 100% of the time, from an institution founded and funded almost exclusively on the “principle” and practice of “legal” extortion in order to maintain its own existence.
I am continually amazed by people who acknowledge the truth of how government revenues are acquired, yet still persist in the fantasy of expecting any good deeds from governments- or a similar fantasy that any bad acts they are aware of can be corrected just by electing the “right people”. The lack of consistency of thought in this area truly boggles my mind. {“If pigs could fly”, and all that jazz}:
Myth [3]: The government can create wealth.
Reality: The only thing government can do is take money by force from one group and give it to another group. This is not creating wealth but merely moving money around via force, benefiting some at the expense of others.
Myth [4]: You can become freer by voting for _any_ political party.
Reality: voting for your freedom is a complete waste of your time - regardless of whom the candidate might be. Disregarding myth [3] for right now, the only person who can free you to your own standards is you – because you, and you alone, hold those exact standards.
I suspect that one of the main reasons that people delude themselves into expecting social change via voting is that it is attractive { although self-delusional } to think that the easier alternative { i.e. voting by pulling a lever}, as opposed to actually making the effort to change your own life, can actually work.
The temptation to try to affect social change through politics is great, and therefore difficult to overcome, but I feel that it is vital for you to overcome this almost reflexive instinct in order to achieve greater freedom.
Internet “Dating”
The same principles { ease, laziness} appear to me to be involved in the fantasy of "internet dating”, another waste of your time that makes a lot of money by catering to people who live in a fantasy world where every thing happens magically “by computer”, “at the push of a button”, such as at: http://www.match.com
{ Go to the above link to “meet” a lot of other people who also live in a fantasy world where every thing happens magically “by computer”, “at the push of a button” } .
Myth [5]: you can free others if your party gets elected.
There are no major differences between any political parties, despite appearances to the contrary. For the record I’m including Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives “Libertarians”, Greens “independents”, fascists, socialists and communists of all stripes.
All share far more similarities than their superficial differences can possibly hide. All are [inevitably] pro- state, even so -called parties for "limited government", or "constitutional government". { If it interests you, I’m an ex “hard-core” constitutionally limited government anarcho- libertarian myself – but then I woke up.}
Voting to force everyone to "be free" to _your _ standards is a complete waste of your time, as is giving money to those who would claim to do so, because government cannot and does not work as a means of social change. Meaningful social changes must happen despite governments, as and when people see, on a personal level, such changes as benefiting themselves, regardless of the supposed benefits to the rest of society.
The only reason I can see to vote is because you might be able to skew things your way - e.g. make more money by restricting competition, imports or whatever, benefit from increased subsidies etc. , but even then, the chance that your one vote will actually make a difference to the outcome is statistically, highly unlikely.
Myth [6]: That you can vote for others to shrink government to your own preferences, or only get involved in the areas your political party approves of.
Reality: the only person who can shrink government is you - via your own direct attempts to avoid paying it anything, and by general avoidance of using its "services" to any degree that you can. Expecting to be able to force others to do what you think is right via your elected agent of change is futile.
Myth [7]: Government Programs Achieve Their Publicly Stated Objectives:
Reality: government programs cause the exact opposite of their announced intention{eg a government "war on poverty", illegal immigration, abortion, smoking or a "war on drugs”, or you name it, automatically increases poverty and / or drug use, smoking, immigration etc., or at best, makes absolutely no difference.}
This is unavoidable, simply because of the reality of the true nature of governments [2], i.e. that all government action is based on the principle of violent coercion, and so people sooner or later just find ways to avoid that coercion in their own lives, whereas outside of government, the market’s “programs” work because of voluntary, cooperative actions between buyer and seller, each acting in his / her own self - interest, so the threat of violence is unnecessary, and inevitably counterproductive.
Take Your Pick
And if you need further convincing, just take a close look at the reality of ANY government program.
Myth [8]: the government “justice system” "works", or can “work”.
Reality: As an extension of myth [7] above, the “justice system”, as the quintessential and therefore supposedly ultimately necessary government program { i.e. the usual justification given for governments existence in the first place }, is essentially no different from any other failed government program; it cannot work { and just as inevitably, large amounts of revenues must be spent to promote the exact opposite idea}.
As all government programs must fail, the justice system works no better than any of its other more recent social programs. This goes for the FBI and all other federal, state and local agencies, the police, the sheriffs’ depts. the court system, the judiciary etc. etc.
Expecting "justice" from this system either for yourself or others is a big mistake. It is always safer to assume the exact opposite will occur, and then every now and then { once every 20 years? }, to be pleasantly surprised.
This leaves aside the whole question of whether or not it is “moral” for one group of humans to serve judgment on other individuals- no matter how egregious that persons "crimes" are deemed to be, by any group of so-called "justice seekers", and regardless, corrupt persons {government} judging others as criminals is an obvious hypocrisy, at least to me.
A rule I follow is: NEVER expect “justice” from the government and its “justice system”! {Expect injustice- you will not be disappointed.}
Myth [9]: the government defense system "works", or can be made to "work".
Another supposedly quintessential and necessary government program,
The reality is somewhat different: see [2], [7] and [8]. It cannot work, it does not work, The army, the navy, the air force, the Pentagon, it’s all a scam. Enough said.
Myth [10]: The government keeps you free and guarantees your rights.
Reality: The government has no interest in keeping you free. Its interest is only in making you believe that you are free and protected by it so that it can justify both its existence, and the removal of more money from yours and everyone else’s pockets - despite the fact that it can, and often does, take that money regardless of any such justification. However, too much of this [blatant extortion] results in social unrest and revolution, and then government revenues will drop to zero. {Not good }.
Myth [11]: The US constitution and Bill of Rights will protect your freedom.
Reality: The US constitution and Bill of Rights { or any other written law in any society, and no differently from any book or movie you read or see } is inevitably, a subjectively interpreted document, and can never mean anything concrete that is agreed on by all.
It will therefore be interpreted at the convenience of the person reading it, even more so if that person is in power and in need of appearing to favor the groups that represent and pay for him / her.
What in your opinion, the government should do to protect yours and others “freedom” is inevitably going to be different from what others think it should, or can do.
Myth [12] : Governments can be limited to certain functions.
Just as damaging as the above myth [11], and usually appearing hand in hand with it, is the assumption { i.e. myth} that a government, once formed, actually can be limited to certain functions.
Reality: This is always no more than a “selling point” offered by those vying for power in order to gain that power over others - a deception, a fantasy a lie. {No! Say it isn’t so!}
If you want my advice { few do]} don’t waste your precious time on this earth complaining about any government’s “unconstitutional” actions, { its all “constitutional”!}, or in trying to return it to supposed constitutional limits. As I said at [11]]: the constitution and bill of rights “will {therefore} be interpreted at the convenience of the person reading it, even more so if that person is in power and in need of appearing to favor the groups that represent and pay for him / her.”
Myth [13]: The US constitution was originally written to limit the scope of federal government interference in your life.
Reality: If you believe that , just take a good look around ! The evidence would appear to be overwhelmingly to the contrary.
As I point out in [11], the government and the supreme court ultimately determine what “it” all "means", and thus “it” always "means" what they say “it” means, even if what they now say it means is the complete opposite of what they said before.
“What it is, is what it is”
Even more importantly, beyond the whole subjective value issue raised at [11] and [12], that is exactly the way it was intended, as far as I can see, { see the illuminating writings of "Brutus" the anti-federalist, included in "The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Debates" by Ralph Ketcham,
plus: "The Secret Proceedings and Debates of The Convention To Form the US Constitution" by Robert Yates, a convention delegate:
Reality: The way it was set up was intentional, meaning that where we are now { on the verge of fascism} is exactly where we are supposed to be, according to the original grand design. As the famous singing philosopher, James Brown once yelled {screamed?}: “What it is, is what it is.”
More Historical Evidence: What You Probably Don’t Know - The Judiciary Act of 1789
Just in case you still have any doubts about my outrageous assertion, consider that the Judiciary Act of September 24th 1789, was signed into law by our supposedly freedom loving founders in Congress, the day before they passed the Bill of Rights {September 25th 1789}, and that obviously, at that stage of the game, the contents of both bills were undoubtedly very familiar to all present in Congress, and, that section 25 of the Judiciary Act specifically authorizes the Supreme court to interpret _all_ state law, { if nothing else, directly negating the provisions of the 9th and 10th amendments before they ever even get a chance to be ratified by the states}.
It pays to remember that the Judiciary Act became law almost immediately, yet the persons who signed the Bill of Rights the very next day knew that its 10 provisions had, like the constitution itself, to be returned to the states for individual ratification before it {the Bill of Rights} would ever become law, and that in fact it took more than two years for the Bill of Rights to become law, and also that when it did finally become law, the provisions of the Judiciary Act had already been in effect for most of those two years prior to the states approval of the Bill of Rights. Genius! Talk about an “end run”!
The Constitution and Bill of Rights is, as far as I’m concerned, another shameless political scam, or as Albert J. Nock has commented, a "coup d'etat", { see chapter 1, section 2 of above link} designed to fool the masses and to quietly usurp and replace the common law systems of the various states with a civil law system, whereby all power ultimately resides at the federal {supreme court} level- completely undermining any supposed common law judicial independence of any member state, {again, as noted by the anti-federalists "Brutus", and the “Pennsylvania Minority” even before the constitution itself was ratified.}
Forget Your “Rights” , Get Some Sleep
So forget your “lost rights”, you cannot lose what you never had - the Bill of Rights was an after -the -fact political "bone" thrown to the gullible after their fate has already been sealed within the main body of both the constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Don't lose any sleep over imagined "constitutional violations!"- remember, in the end it's all "constitutional!"
Until the next time, “beam me up Scotty!” -
Financial Safety Services, and Onebornfree Personal Freedom Services.
www.onebornfree.com
[13 Common Myths About Governments That I Run Into In Everyday Life and Which I Believe Will Inhibit Your Own Personal Freedom and Growth Potential. ]
Myth [1]: The government can stop you from being free and from living a free life.
{For many, this is perhaps the most damaging belief that they can hold. It is also the one that , as personal freedom consultant, I run into the most often}.
Reality: the only thing that stops you living your life in the way you want is you and your assumptions and beliefs, particularly those concerning governments and their power over your life and the lives of others. Outside the obvious situation of a person already physically life - imprisoned by the government, the prison you are actually in right now, if you believe the myth {that the government can stop you from being free}, is one entirely of your own making.
Nothing, including the government, or even your mother in law or your ex, can stop you living the life you want to live.
The Government’s Interest
Of course, you also need to understand that it is not in the government’s interest for you to discover this reality, and so it must “invest” large amounts of its revenues {partly taken from you, of course} in attempting to convince you otherwise, through its schools, books and media outlets etc.
More Hollywood Inspiration
I know it is only a movie, based on an entirely fictional book by Stephen King, but the movie “The Shawshank Redemption” starring Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman, is a classic, and very inspiring movie about overcoming both “the system”, and the idea that governments can stop you from living a free life – while simultaneously showing that its no picnic to do so either.
Myth [2]: government is a beneficial, benevolent entity.
Reality: when all is said and done, the only single defining characteristic that all government actions { laws, proclamations, ordinances, "advisories" etc.} and all governments share, besides the unintended consequences of their actions, is the threat of the use of violence {ultimate force} against those who try to resist its laws, proclamations, ordinances, "advisories" etc.
The true, core nature of every single action of all governments, all the way down to the most innocent sounding local proclamation or ordinance, is violent coercion for disobedience, whether we like to admit that or not.
Government is merely a "socially approved" institution solely dependent on robbery and violent threats and coercion to achieve any and all of its objectives, or, as Harry Browne famously said “ the government is just the Mafia with flags outside its offices”, or words to that effect.
The Inherent Corruption of All Government Funding -“If Pigs Could Fly”
Hand in hand with this is the assumption that any government, or any part of it, or any person in it, can be uncorrupted or incorruptible.
All governments are funded by “legal” theft- so it is extremely unrealistic to expect anything other than 100% corruption, 100% of the time, from an institution founded and funded almost exclusively on the “principle” and practice of “legal” extortion in order to maintain its own existence.
I am continually amazed by people who acknowledge the truth of how government revenues are acquired, yet still persist in the fantasy of expecting any good deeds from governments- or a similar fantasy that any bad acts they are aware of can be corrected just by electing the “right people”. The lack of consistency of thought in this area truly boggles my mind. {“If pigs could fly”, and all that jazz}:
Myth [3]: The government can create wealth.
Reality: The only thing government can do is take money by force from one group and give it to another group. This is not creating wealth but merely moving money around via force, benefiting some at the expense of others.
Myth [4]: You can become freer by voting for _any_ political party.
Reality: voting for your freedom is a complete waste of your time - regardless of whom the candidate might be. Disregarding myth [3] for right now, the only person who can free you to your own standards is you – because you, and you alone, hold those exact standards.
I suspect that one of the main reasons that people delude themselves into expecting social change via voting is that it is attractive { although self-delusional } to think that the easier alternative { i.e. voting by pulling a lever}, as opposed to actually making the effort to change your own life, can actually work.
The temptation to try to affect social change through politics is great, and therefore difficult to overcome, but I feel that it is vital for you to overcome this almost reflexive instinct in order to achieve greater freedom.
Internet “Dating”
The same principles { ease, laziness} appear to me to be involved in the fantasy of "internet dating”, another waste of your time that makes a lot of money by catering to people who live in a fantasy world where every thing happens magically “by computer”, “at the push of a button”, such as at: http://www.match.com
{ Go to the above link to “meet” a lot of other people who also live in a fantasy world where every thing happens magically “by computer”, “at the push of a button” } .
Myth [5]: you can free others if your party gets elected.
There are no major differences between any political parties, despite appearances to the contrary. For the record I’m including Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives “Libertarians”, Greens “independents”, fascists, socialists and communists of all stripes.
All share far more similarities than their superficial differences can possibly hide. All are [inevitably] pro- state, even so -called parties for "limited government", or "constitutional government". { If it interests you, I’m an ex “hard-core” constitutionally limited government anarcho- libertarian myself – but then I woke up.}
Voting to force everyone to "be free" to _your _ standards is a complete waste of your time, as is giving money to those who would claim to do so, because government cannot and does not work as a means of social change. Meaningful social changes must happen despite governments, as and when people see, on a personal level, such changes as benefiting themselves, regardless of the supposed benefits to the rest of society.
The only reason I can see to vote is because you might be able to skew things your way - e.g. make more money by restricting competition, imports or whatever, benefit from increased subsidies etc. , but even then, the chance that your one vote will actually make a difference to the outcome is statistically, highly unlikely.
Myth [6]: That you can vote for others to shrink government to your own preferences, or only get involved in the areas your political party approves of.
Reality: the only person who can shrink government is you - via your own direct attempts to avoid paying it anything, and by general avoidance of using its "services" to any degree that you can. Expecting to be able to force others to do what you think is right via your elected agent of change is futile.
Myth [7]: Government Programs Achieve Their Publicly Stated Objectives:
Reality: government programs cause the exact opposite of their announced intention{eg a government "war on poverty", illegal immigration, abortion, smoking or a "war on drugs”, or you name it, automatically increases poverty and / or drug use, smoking, immigration etc., or at best, makes absolutely no difference.}
This is unavoidable, simply because of the reality of the true nature of governments [2], i.e. that all government action is based on the principle of violent coercion, and so people sooner or later just find ways to avoid that coercion in their own lives, whereas outside of government, the market’s “programs” work because of voluntary, cooperative actions between buyer and seller, each acting in his / her own self - interest, so the threat of violence is unnecessary, and inevitably counterproductive.
Take Your Pick
And if you need further convincing, just take a close look at the reality of ANY government program.
Myth [8]: the government “justice system” "works", or can “work”.
Reality: As an extension of myth [7] above, the “justice system”, as the quintessential and therefore supposedly ultimately necessary government program { i.e. the usual justification given for governments existence in the first place }, is essentially no different from any other failed government program; it cannot work { and just as inevitably, large amounts of revenues must be spent to promote the exact opposite idea}.
As all government programs must fail, the justice system works no better than any of its other more recent social programs. This goes for the FBI and all other federal, state and local agencies, the police, the sheriffs’ depts. the court system, the judiciary etc. etc.
Expecting "justice" from this system either for yourself or others is a big mistake. It is always safer to assume the exact opposite will occur, and then every now and then { once every 20 years? }, to be pleasantly surprised.
This leaves aside the whole question of whether or not it is “moral” for one group of humans to serve judgment on other individuals- no matter how egregious that persons "crimes" are deemed to be, by any group of so-called "justice seekers", and regardless, corrupt persons {government} judging others as criminals is an obvious hypocrisy, at least to me.
A rule I follow is: NEVER expect “justice” from the government and its “justice system”! {Expect injustice- you will not be disappointed.}
Myth [9]: the government defense system "works", or can be made to "work".
Another supposedly quintessential and necessary government program,
The reality is somewhat different: see [2], [7] and [8]. It cannot work, it does not work, The army, the navy, the air force, the Pentagon, it’s all a scam. Enough said.
Myth [10]: The government keeps you free and guarantees your rights.
Reality: The government has no interest in keeping you free. Its interest is only in making you believe that you are free and protected by it so that it can justify both its existence, and the removal of more money from yours and everyone else’s pockets - despite the fact that it can, and often does, take that money regardless of any such justification. However, too much of this [blatant extortion] results in social unrest and revolution, and then government revenues will drop to zero. {Not good }.
Myth [11]: The US constitution and Bill of Rights will protect your freedom.
Reality: The US constitution and Bill of Rights { or any other written law in any society, and no differently from any book or movie you read or see } is inevitably, a subjectively interpreted document, and can never mean anything concrete that is agreed on by all.
It will therefore be interpreted at the convenience of the person reading it, even more so if that person is in power and in need of appearing to favor the groups that represent and pay for him / her.
What in your opinion, the government should do to protect yours and others “freedom” is inevitably going to be different from what others think it should, or can do.
Myth [12] : Governments can be limited to certain functions.
Just as damaging as the above myth [11], and usually appearing hand in hand with it, is the assumption { i.e. myth} that a government, once formed, actually can be limited to certain functions.
Reality: This is always no more than a “selling point” offered by those vying for power in order to gain that power over others - a deception, a fantasy a lie. {No! Say it isn’t so!}
If you want my advice { few do]} don’t waste your precious time on this earth complaining about any government’s “unconstitutional” actions, { its all “constitutional”!}, or in trying to return it to supposed constitutional limits. As I said at [11]]: the constitution and bill of rights “will {therefore} be interpreted at the convenience of the person reading it, even more so if that person is in power and in need of appearing to favor the groups that represent and pay for him / her.”
Myth [13]: The US constitution was originally written to limit the scope of federal government interference in your life.
Reality: If you believe that , just take a good look around ! The evidence would appear to be overwhelmingly to the contrary.
As I point out in [11], the government and the supreme court ultimately determine what “it” all "means", and thus “it” always "means" what they say “it” means, even if what they now say it means is the complete opposite of what they said before.
“What it is, is what it is”
Even more importantly, beyond the whole subjective value issue raised at [11] and [12], that is exactly the way it was intended, as far as I can see, { see the illuminating writings of "Brutus" the anti-federalist, included in "The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Debates" by Ralph Ketcham,
plus: "The Secret Proceedings and Debates of The Convention To Form the US Constitution" by Robert Yates, a convention delegate:
Reality: The way it was set up was intentional, meaning that where we are now { on the verge of fascism} is exactly where we are supposed to be, according to the original grand design. As the famous singing philosopher, James Brown once yelled {screamed?}: “What it is, is what it is.”
More Historical Evidence: What You Probably Don’t Know - The Judiciary Act of 1789
Just in case you still have any doubts about my outrageous assertion, consider that the Judiciary Act of September 24th 1789, was signed into law by our supposedly freedom loving founders in Congress, the day before they passed the Bill of Rights {September 25th 1789}, and that obviously, at that stage of the game, the contents of both bills were undoubtedly very familiar to all present in Congress, and, that section 25 of the Judiciary Act specifically authorizes the Supreme court to interpret _all_ state law, { if nothing else, directly negating the provisions of the 9th and 10th amendments before they ever even get a chance to be ratified by the states}.
It pays to remember that the Judiciary Act became law almost immediately, yet the persons who signed the Bill of Rights the very next day knew that its 10 provisions had, like the constitution itself, to be returned to the states for individual ratification before it {the Bill of Rights} would ever become law, and that in fact it took more than two years for the Bill of Rights to become law, and also that when it did finally become law, the provisions of the Judiciary Act had already been in effect for most of those two years prior to the states approval of the Bill of Rights. Genius! Talk about an “end run”!
The Constitution and Bill of Rights is, as far as I’m concerned, another shameless political scam, or as Albert J. Nock has commented, a "coup d'etat", { see chapter 1, section 2 of above link} designed to fool the masses and to quietly usurp and replace the common law systems of the various states with a civil law system, whereby all power ultimately resides at the federal {supreme court} level- completely undermining any supposed common law judicial independence of any member state, {again, as noted by the anti-federalists "Brutus", and the “Pennsylvania Minority” even before the constitution itself was ratified.}
Forget Your “Rights” , Get Some Sleep
So forget your “lost rights”, you cannot lose what you never had - the Bill of Rights was an after -the -fact political "bone" thrown to the gullible after their fate has already been sealed within the main body of both the constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Don't lose any sleep over imagined "constitutional violations!"- remember, in the end it's all "constitutional!"
Until the next time, “beam me up Scotty!” -
Financial Safety Services, and Onebornfree Personal Freedom Services.
www.onebornfree.com
13 Commonly Held Beliefs [Myths] About Governments- part 1
[part 1] 13 Commonly Held Beliefs [Myths] About Governments
Or, Beam Me Up , Scotty” or, “I’m From Another Planet and I’m Here To Help You”
Have you ever got involved in a conversation with another person, only to find that they share virtually none of the same beliefs and assumptions about the world that you customarily operate under?
For me, this happens a lot, {as you can no doubt imagine}. In fact, I've become so used to this “from another planet” feeling these days, that more often than not when introducing myself to others, I preface any remarks I am going to make – assuming I have been unable to limit conversation to “how’s the weather?” or “nice shoes”, with the announcement that I am indeed from" a galaxy far, far away" {a quote originally from the movie "Star Wars", but used to great effect by Linda Fiorentino's character Bridget, aka Wendy Kroy, in John Dahl's classic ‘90's noir movie " The Last Seduction"- which also happens to be my favorite movie of all time}.
“Beam Me Up Scotty”
Yet another “take” on that “from another planet” feeling is expressed succinctly via the popular bumper-sticker: “ Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life down here!” a quote alluding to the popular ‘60’s and early ‘70’s TV series “Star Trek” – although I’m unsure as to whether any of the main characters on that show ever actually uttered that exact phrase, now immortalized in popular culture. No matter, it makes the point.
With those two phrases in mind, this blog entry is devoted to a brief look at 13 common beliefs I don’t hold, and which cause me to experience - on essentially a minute by minute basis, that all too familiar, “yes indeedy, I'm from another planet " feeling.
I originally had intended to cover at least four major areas here, but I soon realized that I have way too much material, so what I propose to do here is to cover two related areas { freedom and government myths}, subtly blended by yours truly into one vast, shapeless mass {as these issues overlap considerably}, and to leave other myths { investments, economics} perhaps for another day.
My Evil Plan:
Just to be clear, the reason I've decided to list these , what I consider to be myths, is to provoke thought, discussion, argument, ridicule, accusations, threatening letters, etc. etc; and not to try to help anyone to live freer lives, as might first appear to be the case.
{It's what I do best, after all: provoke argument, ridicule, accusations, cancellations etc.}
Yelling and Shouting for Fun and Profit
Consequently, as part of my evil plan, much of what I list here is done in the manner of bald assertions, with only brief explanations, if any. This is after all, the popular style these days in both the press and on US TV – i.e. bald assertions backed up with righteous indignation / arrogance, {“hey, he must be right, he’s shouting louder than the other guy”!}.
I figure if it works for the O’Reilly’s, Limbaugh’s, Michael Savages and all of the other morons of the world, let alone for those in political power, then it can work for me too!
N.B. Nothing here should be construed as a political manifesto, or as being "pro-anarchism", “anti- government” etc.
I am neither for, nor against anything governments do or don’t do, { they are going to do “it” or not do "it", anyway}, nor "pro" or "anti" anarchism ["anarchy" defined as a complete absence of government ]. I'm merely interested in telling the truth as I see it, and then possibly, teaching others to accept and adapt to these agreed truths as discovered - for suitably large fees, of course.
Nothing here should be construed as being a call for either social {i.e. political} or personal change of any description – nor should it be construed as being opposed to any such changes- I don’t care what happens or which way the wind blows, as always, and just like you in your own way, I will merely try to adapt to or avoid whatever “comes down the pike” next, as best I know how.
Because of posting difficulties, the 13 beliefs themselves will be posted as part [2] in the next blog, to follow immediately...
Or, Beam Me Up , Scotty” or, “I’m From Another Planet and I’m Here To Help You”
Have you ever got involved in a conversation with another person, only to find that they share virtually none of the same beliefs and assumptions about the world that you customarily operate under?
For me, this happens a lot, {as you can no doubt imagine}. In fact, I've become so used to this “from another planet” feeling these days, that more often than not when introducing myself to others, I preface any remarks I am going to make – assuming I have been unable to limit conversation to “how’s the weather?” or “nice shoes”, with the announcement that I am indeed from" a galaxy far, far away" {a quote originally from the movie "Star Wars", but used to great effect by Linda Fiorentino's character Bridget, aka Wendy Kroy, in John Dahl's classic ‘90's noir movie " The Last Seduction"- which also happens to be my favorite movie of all time}.
“Beam Me Up Scotty”
Yet another “take” on that “from another planet” feeling is expressed succinctly via the popular bumper-sticker: “ Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life down here!” a quote alluding to the popular ‘60’s and early ‘70’s TV series “Star Trek” – although I’m unsure as to whether any of the main characters on that show ever actually uttered that exact phrase, now immortalized in popular culture. No matter, it makes the point.
With those two phrases in mind, this blog entry is devoted to a brief look at 13 common beliefs I don’t hold, and which cause me to experience - on essentially a minute by minute basis, that all too familiar, “yes indeedy, I'm from another planet " feeling.
I originally had intended to cover at least four major areas here, but I soon realized that I have way too much material, so what I propose to do here is to cover two related areas { freedom and government myths}, subtly blended by yours truly into one vast, shapeless mass {as these issues overlap considerably}, and to leave other myths { investments, economics} perhaps for another day.
My Evil Plan:
Just to be clear, the reason I've decided to list these , what I consider to be myths, is to provoke thought, discussion, argument, ridicule, accusations, threatening letters, etc. etc; and not to try to help anyone to live freer lives, as might first appear to be the case.
{It's what I do best, after all: provoke argument, ridicule, accusations, cancellations etc.}
Yelling and Shouting for Fun and Profit
Consequently, as part of my evil plan, much of what I list here is done in the manner of bald assertions, with only brief explanations, if any. This is after all, the popular style these days in both the press and on US TV – i.e. bald assertions backed up with righteous indignation / arrogance, {“hey, he must be right, he’s shouting louder than the other guy”!}.
I figure if it works for the O’Reilly’s, Limbaugh’s, Michael Savages and all of the other morons of the world, let alone for those in political power, then it can work for me too!
N.B. Nothing here should be construed as a political manifesto, or as being "pro-anarchism", “anti- government” etc.
I am neither for, nor against anything governments do or don’t do, { they are going to do “it” or not do "it", anyway}, nor "pro" or "anti" anarchism ["anarchy" defined as a complete absence of government ]. I'm merely interested in telling the truth as I see it, and then possibly, teaching others to accept and adapt to these agreed truths as discovered - for suitably large fees, of course.
Nothing here should be construed as being a call for either social {i.e. political} or personal change of any description – nor should it be construed as being opposed to any such changes- I don’t care what happens or which way the wind blows, as always, and just like you in your own way, I will merely try to adapt to or avoid whatever “comes down the pike” next, as best I know how.
Because of posting difficulties, the 13 beliefs themselves will be posted as part [2] in the next blog, to follow immediately...
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Attention I.D Changers and Illegal Immigrants!
Attention I.D Changers and Illegal Immigrants!
May I draw your attention to an interesting article in the March 15 '06 edition of USA Today concerning US drivers licenses.
The original print version contained a handy little diagram/map showing the 10 states where it is still NOT required to show proof of US citizenship in order to get a drivers license.
According to the article, these 10 states are currently : Washington, Oregon, Utah, New Mexico, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Maine, Michigan, and Maryland.
The article goes into how these 10 states must comply, by May 2008 with the Real ID Act.
Below is the entire article [online version without map].
P.S. If you are an ID changer or illegal immigrant and you think the world is going to end because of this new law, then I have some encouraging news /comments to make. Please contact me via my website: http://www.onebornfree.com or just leave a question /comment here.
Getting a driver's license to get harder
By Charisse Jones, USA TODAY
The cost of obtaining a driver's license could double, and renewing a license by mail would end by 2008, according to state officials responsible for enforcing a federal law aimed at thwarting terrorists and discouraging illegal immigration.
The Real ID Act, approved by Congress in May and scheduled to take effect in May 2008, requires people seeking a license to prove that they are in the USA legally.
State officials from California to Maine fear that they don't have the technology, staff or money to meet the new law's requirements.
"Many are reacting negatively to it," Matt Sundeen of the National Conference of State Legislatures says of state lawmakers. "Real ID ... will have significant fiscal implications for the states."
The USA has about 240 million licensed drivers, and roughly 12 million have state-issued identification cards, says Jarret Egan, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security.
Real ID sets federal rules for obtaining and renewing licenses and state identification cards. Residents of states that don't comply with the law will not be able to use their licenses for official federal purposes such as boarding a plane or entering a federal courthouse.
"It's disappointing to hear from some (states) that it's inconvenient or too difficult to implement," says Jeff Lungren, spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee, whose chairman, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., sponsored the law.
"The 9/11 hijackers used multiple driver's licenses and birth certificates ... to live openly in the United States while they planned their deadly attacks. Real ID is an effort to prevent that from ever occurring again. We gave (states) three years. This is a priority, and it needs to be treated as such," he says.
After Sept. 11, many states began giving greater scrutiny to applicants for licenses and identification cards.
Only 10 states don't require proof that an applicant is legally in the USA in order to drive, Sundeen says. States typically require new drivers to produce proof of age and one or two other forms of ID, usually including a photo.
Under Real ID, applicants would have to show proof of a Social Security number or why they don't have one, plus documents bearing their name, address and birth date.
The law's requirements for verifying such documents and features to make counterfeiting licenses more difficult will force states to make changes.
"Even though some states believe that they already comply with the Real ID act, in actuality none of them do," says Jonathan Frenkel, a director in the law enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security.
State officials are asking, for example, how they will verify records of people whose birthplaces no longer exist, like East Germany; how states, required to share information through a database, can prevent identity theft; and how much the new rules will cost.
"What do you do with people on the Gulf Coast, where so many records were lost?" asks Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, who says 85% of his state's vital records are scattered among libraries, museums and town offices.
"We have no argument with the intent of Real ID. Our concern is what (it) is going to force us to do. ... Is it really going to do what it's intended to do, improving national security and preventing identity theft?"
Congress has appropriated $40 million to the states to comply with the act.
Kentucky and New Hampshire have received $3 million each for pilot projects. State officials have estimated that annual costs could reach tens of millions of dollars.
Among states' concerns:
• The workforce at California motor vehicle offices would increase by 500 employees, or roughly 10%, says State Sen. Michael Machado, a Democrat representing the Central Valley. The $26 fee to renew a license could more than double, and the state's 23 million drivers who renew by mail or the Internet no longer will be able to do so, he says.
• In Maine, where driver's license fees have been used to fix bridges and build roads, "we'd go from being a revenue generator to a drain on our state highway fund," Dunlap says.
• New Jersey began upgrading procedures in 2003, including verifying Social Security numbers with the Social Security Administration.
"In a lot of respects, we're well placed," says David Weinstein, spokesman for the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission. "But like most of the other states, we're concerned we're not going to get direction in enough time to meet the (effective) date."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-14-drivers-licenses_x.htm
May I draw your attention to an interesting article in the March 15 '06 edition of USA Today concerning US drivers licenses.
The original print version contained a handy little diagram/map showing the 10 states where it is still NOT required to show proof of US citizenship in order to get a drivers license.
According to the article, these 10 states are currently : Washington, Oregon, Utah, New Mexico, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Maine, Michigan, and Maryland.
The article goes into how these 10 states must comply, by May 2008 with the Real ID Act.
Below is the entire article [online version without map].
P.S. If you are an ID changer or illegal immigrant and you think the world is going to end because of this new law, then I have some encouraging news /comments to make. Please contact me via my website: http://www.onebornfree.com or just leave a question /comment here.
Getting a driver's license to get harder
By Charisse Jones, USA TODAY
The cost of obtaining a driver's license could double, and renewing a license by mail would end by 2008, according to state officials responsible for enforcing a federal law aimed at thwarting terrorists and discouraging illegal immigration.
The Real ID Act, approved by Congress in May and scheduled to take effect in May 2008, requires people seeking a license to prove that they are in the USA legally.
State officials from California to Maine fear that they don't have the technology, staff or money to meet the new law's requirements.
"Many are reacting negatively to it," Matt Sundeen of the National Conference of State Legislatures says of state lawmakers. "Real ID ... will have significant fiscal implications for the states."
The USA has about 240 million licensed drivers, and roughly 12 million have state-issued identification cards, says Jarret Egan, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security.
Real ID sets federal rules for obtaining and renewing licenses and state identification cards. Residents of states that don't comply with the law will not be able to use their licenses for official federal purposes such as boarding a plane or entering a federal courthouse.
"It's disappointing to hear from some (states) that it's inconvenient or too difficult to implement," says Jeff Lungren, spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee, whose chairman, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., sponsored the law.
"The 9/11 hijackers used multiple driver's licenses and birth certificates ... to live openly in the United States while they planned their deadly attacks. Real ID is an effort to prevent that from ever occurring again. We gave (states) three years. This is a priority, and it needs to be treated as such," he says.
After Sept. 11, many states began giving greater scrutiny to applicants for licenses and identification cards.
Only 10 states don't require proof that an applicant is legally in the USA in order to drive, Sundeen says. States typically require new drivers to produce proof of age and one or two other forms of ID, usually including a photo.
Under Real ID, applicants would have to show proof of a Social Security number or why they don't have one, plus documents bearing their name, address and birth date.
The law's requirements for verifying such documents and features to make counterfeiting licenses more difficult will force states to make changes.
"Even though some states believe that they already comply with the Real ID act, in actuality none of them do," says Jonathan Frenkel, a director in the law enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security.
State officials are asking, for example, how they will verify records of people whose birthplaces no longer exist, like East Germany; how states, required to share information through a database, can prevent identity theft; and how much the new rules will cost.
"What do you do with people on the Gulf Coast, where so many records were lost?" asks Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, who says 85% of his state's vital records are scattered among libraries, museums and town offices.
"We have no argument with the intent of Real ID. Our concern is what (it) is going to force us to do. ... Is it really going to do what it's intended to do, improving national security and preventing identity theft?"
Congress has appropriated $40 million to the states to comply with the act.
Kentucky and New Hampshire have received $3 million each for pilot projects. State officials have estimated that annual costs could reach tens of millions of dollars.
Among states' concerns:
• The workforce at California motor vehicle offices would increase by 500 employees, or roughly 10%, says State Sen. Michael Machado, a Democrat representing the Central Valley. The $26 fee to renew a license could more than double, and the state's 23 million drivers who renew by mail or the Internet no longer will be able to do so, he says.
• In Maine, where driver's license fees have been used to fix bridges and build roads, "we'd go from being a revenue generator to a drain on our state highway fund," Dunlap says.
• New Jersey began upgrading procedures in 2003, including verifying Social Security numbers with the Social Security Administration.
"In a lot of respects, we're well placed," says David Weinstein, spokesman for the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission. "But like most of the other states, we're concerned we're not going to get direction in enough time to meet the (effective) date."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-14-drivers-licenses_x.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)