From: John Perna <JPerna@sc.rr.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 11:08 PM
Subject: [bangla-vision] The Global Plan for Local Fascism - The Rise of the Fascist View of Private Property
To: backyardindependence@yahoogroups.com
Communism. Fascism is a step in the direction of Communism.
The International Code Council describes itself as:
"a membership association dedicated to building safety and fire prevention, develops the codes used to construct residential and commercial buildings, including homes and schools."
The International Code Council further states that:
"Most U.S. cities, counties and states that adopt codes choose the International Codes developed by the International Code Council."
The term "adopt codes" is a euphemism for the creation of laws. According to our constitution, laws are supposed to voted upon, and passed, by elected legislators, and then only enforced if these laws are constitutional.
The International Code Council describes its origin as follows:
"The International Code Council (ICC) was established in 1994 as a nonprofit organization dedicated to developing a single set of comprehensive and coordinated national model construction codes. The founders of the ICC are Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. (BOCA), International Conference of Building Officials..."
Even though the International Code Council describes itself as an American private organization, it uses the term "International" in its name.
If you think that some American businessman wrote all of this read up on Agenda 21 treaty at the United Nations website:
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21toc.htm
and then do your own research.
Inside the United Nations (Paperback) by Steve Bonta
http://americanistbookstore.com/books/inside-the-united-nations/
<http://americanistbookstore.com/books/inside-the-united-nations/>
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1881919080?ie=UTF8&seller=A1AVPSERX4QF0E&sn=jperna12
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1881919080?ie=UTF8&seller=A1AVPSERX4QF0E&sn=jperna12>
The International Code Council describes itself as a private organization, yet it provides detailed instructions as to how municipalities can "adopt" these "codes", and give them the FORCE OF LAW.
With this FORCE OF LAW municipalities will cite The International Property Maintenance Code as the authority to order property owners do follow a myriad of mandates that will boggle the minds of average citizens. No part of the property is ignored. This even includes yard work, parking of vehicles, and painting.
This coat of paint on the face of tyranny does nothing to alter the essence of fascism. The struggle against totalitarianism is now including the new playing field of MUNICIPAL governments. And as do most totalitarians, the fascists always say they want to take power "for our own good."
Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941) - American judge wrote:
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001E57SA0?ie=UTF8&seller=A1AVPSERX4QF0E&sn=jperna12
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001E57SA0?ie=UTF8&seller=A1AVPSERX4QF0E&sn=jperna12>
John T. Flynn, wrote (In As We Go Marching):
"The most terrifying aspect of the whole fascist episode is the dark fact that most of its poisons are generated not by evil men or evil peoples, but by quite ordinary men in search of an answer to the baffling problems that beset every society. Nothing could have been further from the minds of most of them than the final brutish and obscene result. The gangster comes upon the stage only when the scene has been made ready for him by his blundering precursors."
Mussolini defined fascism: in The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism:
"Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number.... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."
Columbia University Professor Robert O. Paxton has written that:
"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline (emphasis added), humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
Of course this is an open door for corruption. The coercion placed upon one person is often the creation of income for some other insider cohort of the bureaucrats, or even for the bureaucrats themselves. The government that "robs Peter to pay Paul" will always have the support of Paul.
The Path to Dictatorship 1918-1933: Ten Essays By German Scholars (Paperback) by editor Jon Conway
The most important thing to understand about Fascism is that it progresses through stages. It begins with government "regulating" business. Then it progresses into government actually managing the business. When government manages an entire industry there are no longer any competing enterprises, but there is just one government monopoly. No longer is there any regulation of that monopoly, because the "regulator" is actually the senior partner in the enterprise. Great care is taken to create the appearance that everything is for the benefit of the people. In reality the people are exploited by insiders both in and out of government. In the final analysis it all comes down to money and power for the few.
William L. Shirer wrote, in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:
"Amidst this labyrinthine organization and all the multitude of offices and agencies of the Ministry of Economics and the Four-Year Plan and the niagara of thousands of special decrees and laws even the most astute businessman was often lost, and special lawyers had to be employed to enable a firm to function. The graft involved in finding one's way to key officials who could make decisions on which orders depended or in circumventing the endless rules and regulations of the government and the trade associations became in the late Thirties astronomical."
(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany
By William L. Shirer (Simon and Schuster) 1990 :262)
As in all forms of tyranny the "endless rules and regulations of the government" creates a mechanism for a subtle form of terrorism that can be used against those who might try to defend their rights. Government now has the ability to impose the selective enforcement of law against any subject who might resist oppression. Any protest of the destruction of liberty will be met with a myriad of new citations for other contrived "violations". The tactic will usually terrorize the victim, or simply wear him down, until he just decides to go along.
Usually the victim will be told that these citations do not need to be put before a real judge and a jury of peers, as our constitution requires. Instead, the victim will be required to "exhaust his administrative remedies" before seeing anything that appears similar to the justice system that is defined in our constitution. This process is more accurately called being exhausted BY administrative remedies. This is the time consuming frustration of being tried by a so called "administrative judge" who is an employee of the accuser. The accuser's agent generally rules that the accuser was right.
A murderer would be tried before a real judge and a jury of peers. A property owner, who is accused of not cutting his lawn often enough has no such rights.
If the property owner fails to do as he is told quickly enough, then the government will appear on his property with bulldozers and a wrecking crew and simply demolish and level his property. The property owner will receive a bill for the cost of destroying his property. If he fails to pay that bill, then the land that is left after his destroying property will be sold at public auction to satisfy this lien.
The Declaration of Independence includes the following:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Private property rights are an essential part of the pursuit of happiness.
A progression occurs in the deterioration from liberty into totalitarianism. There are a number of measurable parameters that can be readily used as a measure, and to define, the loss of freedom. The central measurement is the tabulation of what the people actually control. Of course that which the people control is diminished every time that any function is given over to government. Whatever the government is allowed to control becomes an increase in the power of government and a loss of liberty to the people.
Every time that the government increases its power we are told that there is some benefit for the people in that increase in the power of government. The increase in the power of government is camouflaged by the assertion that the people are receiving more "services" from government. When government provides a service we should never forget the fact that the government has the ability to use force against it customers, and against its competitors.
Often the first step in this progression is that we move from services being provided by several competing private entities, to services being provided by a government regulated monopoly. Often the next step is that we move to services being provided by a monopoly that is operated by the government itself.
When services are provided by several competing private entities the customer has the ability to choose between those competing private entities. The customer might be influenced by price, or by the quality of the service, or by any other factor that is important to that customer.
When services are provided by a government regulated monopoly the customer has no ability to choose between competing entities, but the assertion will be made that the customer will be protected from the abuse of the monopoly by virtue of the regulation from the government. Of course this assertion is based on the theory that the government has no goals of its own in the regulation of the monopoly, and that the government has no bias of any sort.
When services are provided by a government monopoly the customer has no ability to choose between competing entities. More importantly, there is no longer any way to make the assertion that the customer will be protected from the abuse of the monopoly by the regulation from the government. Of course there will be a claim that the government will regulate itself. At best, this scenario is the fox protecting the hen house.
Of course the jump from services that are provided by several competing private entities, to services that are provided by a government monopoly can be made without going through the stage of services that are provided by a government regulated monopoly.
We re-iterate that when government provides a service we should never forget the fact that the government has the ability to use force against it customers, and against its competitors. Let us consider a few typical examples:
The Town of Benito Junction decides to go into the business of collecting the trash. Soon there is a law that requires everyone to use the service that is being provided by the Town of Benito Junction. Next the charge for that service is added to the property owner's tax bill. Now if the property owner fails to pay this charge it becomes a lien on the property. If the property owner does not satisfy this lien then the property will be sold at public auction. The consumer should compare this scenario to the worst problem that he could have ever had with Joe's Garbage Service.
Adolph Village is providing water and sewer. Soon there will be a law that requires everyone to use the water and sewer service that is being provided by Adolph Village. Next there will be a law that requires everyone to get a "permit" from Adolph Village before they are allowed to install a well or a septic tank. Then it becomes difficult or impossible to obtain a "permit" from Adolph Village to install a well or a septic tank.
Meanwhile Adolph Village employees will be going outside of Adolph Village, and offering to let property owner's connect to their sewer lines, and to build new sewer lines outside of Adolph Village. In order to connect to the sewer lines provided by Adolph Village, property owners must sign a contract with Adolph Village. In addition to giving over the easements to construct the sewer line across their property, there are a few other provisions in this contract. The property owners also agree that, if their property ever becomes contiguous to the boundaries of Adolph Village, then their property will be annexed into Adolph Village with no need for a vote on annexation. The property owners might think that the possibility of their property becoming contiguous to the boundaries of Adolph Village is remote. What they do not understand is that one part of the sewer line is already inside of Adolph Village. Combine this fact with the reality that ever property owner on the sewer line has signed the same contract. Now annexation proceeds, like dominos falling, all the way to the end of the sewer line.
The charge for water and sewer, at any given time in the future, will be whatever Adolph Village says it is. How much did your well and septic tank cost?
Now that your property has been annexed into Adolph Village you have had a visit from the "code enforcement inspectors". The "code enforcement inspectors" notify you of several violations, which must be corrected within a specified period of time. You will need to cut down several trees, trim your hedges, rake up all parts of the yard, and re-paint your house. You will also be required to dispose of the Mercedes Benz that you have parked in the back yard. But you are in luck. Co-incidentally, the "code enforcement inspector's" father is in the auto salvage business. The code enforcement inspector's father will give you $50.00 for that Mercedes Benz, and he will tow it away before the deadline. Will you thank him for his help?
You also have a rental house that gets water and sewer from Adolph Village. The first time that this rental house becomes vacant you are told that there is a $45.00 "processing fee" to change the name on the water account from the renter's name to your own name. There will be another $45.00 "processing fee" to change the name on the water account from your own name to the next renter's name. This $45.00 "processing fee" will occur every time that the name on the water account changes. To get water or sewer service you must sign a contract. Remember that you are required by law to get water or sewer service, and you are prohibited from installing a well or a septic tank. Then, in effect, you are required by law to sign this contract. No one seems to remember that a contract that is signed under duress is invalid. In order to sign this contract you must furnish your social security number. You must agree to pay the default bills of your renters, and you must agree that if the property ever becomes contiguous to the boundaries of Adolph Village, then their property will be annexed into Adolph Village with no need for a vote on annexation.
Some municipalities are even asserting that a property owner must obtain a "business license" to rent property. Black's Law Dictionary defines "license" as: "The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or otherwise not allowable." In short, a license is permission to do something that would be illegal without that license. In a free country, is it illegal to own property, or to rent, buy, or sell property? Of course these municipalities will even assert the right to charge a fee to the property owner for violating his property rights.
A free citizen does not require permission from the government to enjoy the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Property rights are a part of the pursuit of happiness. Here is one of the essential differences between freedom and tyranny. In fact, the licensing of "rights" is a hallmark of the onset of tyranny.
When they tell you that you are required to replace the siding one your house, they will also tell you that you are not allowed to do it yourself. You must hire a licensed contractor to do it. The "licensed contractor" paid the city for his license. The "licensed contractor" will also pay the city for a "building permit". The "licensed contractor" will include these costs in his bill to you.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a
dangerous servant and a fearful master." -
-- George Washington
If you want to know who is the servant, and who is the master, just determine this: Who is asking for permission, and who is granting (or denying) permission? Does government accept the fact that they operate with the consent of the governed, or does government tell the governed that they need a permit to peacefully interact with their fellow citizens?
The free citizen does not need permission from government to enjoy the peaceable use of his property. The government needs permission, from the people, for every use of force that they seek. Permission, from the people is only possible where people would have the right to use force on their on behalf.
The proper function of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. Government is an agency of force. The use of force is only morally justifiable if it is in self defense, or in the defense of someone else, who has authorized us to act in their behalf. Government is the agency which we have collectively authorized to act on behalf of the entire population. A law is a statement of a responsibility which is required by government through the use or the threat of the use of force. Everything that government does involves the use of force. Government uses force to compel the compliance with each of it laws, by providing penalties for violation of laws. Laws may require a specific action from the citizen or they may prohibit a specific action of a citizen. At the very least, in all cases, the actions of government are funded by tax revenues that are taken from citizens through the use, or threat of the use of force. This means that a moral government may only do those things, for which the use of force, would be morally justifiable.
When government uses force beyond the specific consent of the governed, or beyond the only moral justification for the use of force, then government is in violation of ITS PERMIT.
In any discussion of expanding the function of government beyond its legitimate function of protecting life liberty and property there is a common sense question that should be asked: Is government doing such a good job of protecting life liberty and property that it seems wise to divide their efforts into other areas? Is there no more crime in your area? If the government cannot perform its primary function, why would we think it wise to give them other duties?
The ends do not justify the means. As soon as you begin to plead the benefits of allowing government to cross this line, there is no where else to close the gate. If we take the first step onto the slippery slope, then we slide all the way to the chasm.
One of the grievances against the king that was stated in The Declaration of Independence was the following:
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."
It does not seem prudent to let this happen again.
ASK YOUR GOVERNOR, YOUR STATE LEGISLATURE,
AND YOUR STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
TO PUT A STOP TO THIS.
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment