MEMBER LOGIN  l  FREE REGISTRATION
The Daily Bell Newswire

Exclusive Interview

Sunday, June 05, 2011

Jacob Hornberger on Libertarian Law, Religion and the Growing US Police State

With Anthony Wile
91

Jacob G. Hornberger

The Daily Bell is pleased to publish an exclusive interview with Jacob G. Hornberger (left).

Introduction: Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) in Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, publisher of Ideas on Liberty. In 1989, Mr. Hornberger founded The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is a regular writer for The Foundation's publication, Freedom Daily.

Daily Bell: You have a military background. Tell us about it and how it affected your perception of libertarianism – of which you are certainly a prime exponent.

Jacob Hornberger: My four years at Virginia Military Institute (VMI) and, to a lesser extent, my 8 years in the Army Reserves, taught me that I never want to live in an environment in which military officials take care of me, watch every move I make, regulate my every act, and tightly control my behavior. It was a great lesson in learning to despise socialist systems and to love free societies. On the other hand, VMI taught me the importance of personal integrity, provided me with an excellent education and convinced me that a free society depends on citizen soldiers, not a professional standing army, to defend the nation from invasion.

Daily Bell: You are a lawyer as well. As a person with a military background and a law degree, it is something a miracle that you ended up being as iconoclastic as you are. How did this happen? Is it a personality trait?

Jacob Hornberger: I was born a libertarian but I didn't realize it until a few years after I had started practicing law. My practice of law gave me a deep appreciation for the vital importance of the Constitution and of civil liberties in a society – and the threat that zealous and even well-meaning government officials pose to our liberties. If it weren't for criminal-defense lawyers zealously guarding the rights of their clients, there would be a lot more people in jail or executed. That's why totalitarian regimes hate lawyers.

Daily Bell: You were a trial attorney, and trained as so. So let's ask some legal questions if you don't mind. What do you think of American justice and the court system?

Jacob Hornberger: The system of criminal justice established by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and which stretches back into centuries of resistance to British tyranny by the English people certainly has its faults, but given the protections of habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights, America's criminal-justice system has always been the finest in the world – that is, until federal officials used the pretense of the war on terrorism to circumvent the protections and guarantees in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Daily Bell: We have arrived, at long last, as the conclusion that tribal justice is the best. The system that seems to have worked in the world for tens of thousands of years was one that combined family feuds (unto the seventh generation) with honor feuds (duels with deadly weapons) and negotiated settlements with or without "wise men." In other words, the system was familial, tribal and laissez faire and depended on the threat of force to discourage illegal acts. It had no state involvement except when the tribal/clan leader was approached for settlement purposes. It was not even a Common Law system, as it predates British common law. It predates Roman law as well and we call it "tribal law" as a catch-all, or "private justice." Do you have some thoughts? Is this practical in any way? Is it even worth discussing within the context of the current judicial juggernaut?

Jacob Hornberger: I believe that justice depends on a judicial system in which people can fairly present their case before an independent tribunal, preferably with juries composed of regular citizens, and where the state has a monopoly of force to enforce the judicial judgments. It doesn't guarantee perfect justice but no system can. At least it ensures that people will have the opportunity to be heard, especially with lawyers to present their case, and that winners will have the ability to enforce their judgments without gun battles in the streets.

Daily Bell: Is the American system of justice now Admiralty justice? Is it true lawyers are instructed not to cite precedent before 1930 and that courts will not recognize previous precedent?

Jacob Hornberger: Under the Constitution, U.S. federal district courts have jurisdiction over admiralty or maritime cases, but I assume you mean by the term "admiralty justice" the claim that some tax protestors make that American courts are admiralty courts and, therefore, have no jurisdiction over such tax protestors. I agree with the conclusion reached by the courts that such a claim is meritless and frivolous. No, it is not true that lawyers are instructed not to cite precedent before 1930 or it is not true that courts will not recognize previous precedent. Lawyers are free to cite any precedent that is pertinent to their case.

Daily Bell: What do you think of the ICC? We think there is no such thing as a crime against humanity. One might as well commit a crime against a paper bag. Your thoughts?

Jacob Hornberger: I have mixed feelings about this. I understand the desire to have an international criminal court to bring to justice officials who engage in criminal conduct but whose government won't do anything about it (e.g., the U.S. officials who waged their undeclared war of aggression against Iraq or kidnapped, tortured, renditioned, or executed people without due process). On the other hand though, I don't see how such a court acquires jurisdiction over the world and I agree that a "crime against humanity" is too nebulous. Also, the procedures of the ICC aren't ideal either, including no regard for trial by jury.

Daily Bell: Is an illegal system of justice being erected around the world?

Jacob Hornberger: The judicial system that the Pentagon has established to compete against U.S. federal district courts in terrorism cases is illegal under our form of government, but there is little chance that the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional, in large part because the Court knows that the president and the Pentagon wouldn't comply anyway. This is a very bad thing and has brought disgrace and shame to our country. Our criminal justice system — the one the Framers established in the Constitution — with the guarantees provided in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, and habeas corpus in the Constitution — is the best criminal justice system in the world, including for the crime of terrorism.

Daily Bell: Is there any value in copyright? Is intellectual property valuable or, not being scarce, should it be available to anyone without charge?

Jacob Hornberger: I believe in copyrights and I believe they should be protected and not available to anyone without charge unless the owner says so. I understand that there are many brilliant libertarians who hold otherwise.

Daily Bell: Let's switch gears. Tell us about your relationship with Richard M. Ebeling and how you came to found the Future of Freedom Foundation, whose mission is to present an uncompromising moral, philosophical, and economic case for the libertarian philosophy.

Jacob Hornberger: I met Richard when I was practicing law in Dallas, Texas, and he was teaching economics at the University of Dallas. We became good friends, and I hired him to give me a personal chapter-by-chapter tutorial in Ludwig von Mises's magnum opus Human Action. In 1987, I gave up the practice of law to accept the position of program director at The Future of Freedom Foundation, and Richard later moved to Hillsdale College where he became the Ludwig von Mises Professor of Economics. Two years later — 1989 — I left FEE to establish FFF and Richard served as vice president of academic affairs for FFF in addition to his duties at Hillsdale, providing invaluable counsel and contributing a regular monthly article from January 1990 continuously until 2003, when he became president of FEE.

Daily Bell: Tell us about some of the accomplishments of the Future of Freedom Foundation.

Jacob Hornberger: FFF is the recipient of Ron Paul's Liberty in Media Award for Outstanding Freedom Website. In 2007 and 2008 we had two of the finest conferences on foreign policy and civil liberties in the history of the libertarian movement, the lectures of which are posted online at our website (www.fff.org). Every month since January 1990, we have published our monthly journal of essays, Freedom Daily, all of which are posted on our website. For the past several years, we have published our daily FFF Email Update, one of the best libertarian commentary pages on the Internet. We also have a monthly Economic Liberty Lecture Series in conjunction with the George Mason University Econ Society, a student group interested in libertarianism and Austrian economics. Prior to that, we had a great lecture series on libertarianism and Austrian economics for several years entitled The Vienna Coffee Club.

Daily Bell: You'd served three terms on the platform committee of the national Libertarian Party by 2000. In 1996, the Libertarian Party awarded you the Thomas Paine award for outstanding communication of libertarian principles. Are you going to try to run as a Libertarian candidate for president again?

Jacob Hornberger: My three terms on the LP platform committee were very enjoyable and rewarding. I was particularly struck by the ideological purity of the platform, which is why I agreed to serve on the committee. I always considered the platform to be the anchor by which the LP protected itself from LP candidates who were tempted to compromise libertarian principles in the hopes of garnering votes. It one of the biggest honors of my life when the LP awarded me its Thomas Paine award. I have no plans to run as an LP candidate for president again. I think political activity is a great vehicle for spreading libertarianism but I love the educational-foundation arena much more.

Daily Bell: You've written a number of books. Please describe the following BRIEFLY so our viewers can purchase them as they wish.

The Dangers of Socialized Medicine (co-written with Richard M. Ebeling) (1994) ISBN ISBN 0964044706.

Jacob Hornberger: This book shows how government intervention into the healthcare arena, with Medicare and Medicaid, occupational licensure, and regulation, are the root cause of America's healthcare woes. It calls for a complete separation of healthcare and the state, entailing a complete repeal, not reform, of these programs and interventions.

The Failure of America's Foreign Wars (co-written with Richard M. Ebeling) (1996) ISBN 0964044765.

Jacob Hornberger: This book explains how America's foreign wars have been a disaster and calls for the total dismantling of America's foreign military empire, which would entail closing all the foreign bases and bringing all the troops home and discharging them.

Liberty, Security, and the War on Terrorism C) (2003) ISBN 1890687049.

Jacob Hornberger: This book shows how U.S. foreign policy is the root cause of the anger and hatred toward the United States that has led to a constant threat of terrorism, which government officials then use to infringe upon our fundamental rights and freedoms. It calls for an end to foreign intervention and a repeal of all measures that infringe on liberty and privacy.

Daily Bell: Back to politics. Why doesn't the Libertarian party do better in national elections?

Jacob Hornberger: One reason is the horrible ballot-access restrictions placed by the Democrats and Republicans, including ridiculous petitioning requirements. Libertarians have to spend so much money on that that they then lack the money to run campaigns.

Another reason is campaign-donation limits. If people were free to give unlimited amounts of money to candidates, Libertarian candidates could call on a few wealthy libertarian donors to fund their campaigns. And another reason is the propensity of people to vote only for major party candidates.

Finally, the Republicans and Democrats abandoned their principles long ago in exchange for votes, which is why they preach such things as "free enterprise and limited government" and "loving the poor, needy, and disadvantaged" while supporting such socialist, imperialist, and interventionist programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, the drug war, the war on immigrants, torture, wars of aggression, and denial of due process. Statists like to mock the LP for its lack of electoral success, but the fact is that the LP has always placed a higher value on libertarian principles than getting votes, which has made its job in the electoral process more difficult. After all, while things seem to be changing now, American voters have historically oriented toward statism, despite its manifest immorality and destructiveness.

Daily Bell: Was Ron Paul right to position himself as a libertarian republican? It's probably killing the Libertarian party, yes?

Jacob Hornberger: I think he was right because as a practical matter, I don't think voters would have elected him to Congress as an LP candidate, and he has been a tremendously positive force for libertarianism in Congress. No, I don't think he's killing the Libertarian Party. On the contrary, I think he's bringing libertarianism and the Libertarian Party to the attention of ever-increasing numbers of people. One of the most admirable things about Ron Paul is how he has consistently embraced libertarians and the Libertarian Party throughout his congressional terms and during his campaign for president.

Daily Bell: What do you think of Ron Paul? Rand Paul?

Jacob Hornberger: Ron Paul is one of my real-life heroes, and he has been one of the libertarian movement's most effective advocates ever. Rand Paul is not as libertarian as his father, especially when it comes to foreign policy and the war on terrorism, but he is certainly heads and shoulders above standard Republicans when it comes libertarian philosophy, economic principles, and civil liberties. Moreover, Rand Paul's positions on monetary policy and his attacks on the Patriot Act have been extremely admirable.

Daily Bell: Have you become a gradualist about government change or do you remain a radical "Libertarian Outlaw."

Jacob Hornberger: I ardently oppose gradualism and I remain a radical "Libertarian Outlaw." If there were button that could be pushed that would immediately repeal every since welfare-state program, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and every since warfare-warfare-state program, including the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd push it. When a thief is caught embezzling funds, do we gradually reduce his dependency on the money or do we terminate it immediately? Moral principles are immutable. They're either followed or not.

Daily Bell: You're a born-again Christian and a libertarian. We're always amused by those who believe that a libertarian society would be godless or at least non-religious when the reverse is true. The freer the society, the more spiritual or at least religious it usually is because people need some sort of moral or behavioral structure. We can see this in pre-revolutionary America. How do you see it?

Jacob Hornberger: As a Christian and as a libertarian, I believe people should be free to live their lives any way they want, so long as their conduct is peaceful. That might mean living life in an irresponsible, immoral, and even self-destructive manner.

I agree with you and I do believe that a free society tends to nurture the values that most of us hold dear, such as morality, compassion, and responsibility. But by the same token, it is impossible to predict the outcome of a free society, which scares a lot of people. One of my beefs with conservatives is when they intimate that such values are a prerequisite to having a free society and that people can't be trusted with freedom until they are responsible, moral, and compassionate. As a libertarian, I say nonsense to that. Freedom entails the right to be irresponsible, uncaring, and immoral, so long as your conduct is peaceful (i.e., no murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc.)

Daily Bell: Isn't it true the more government there is, the more corrupt and lawless society becomes?

Jacob Hornberger: Yes, but only when the government is doing things that it shouldn't be doing, such as regulating economic activity or criminalizing the possession or distribution of drugs. When government is limited to doing the things it should be doing – such as going after murderers, rapists, and thieves – more government might be better and society will less corrupt and lawless.

Daily Bell: Should drugs be legalized? Is the war on drugs a failure?

Jacob Hornberger: Yes, absolutely, immediately. With the possible exception of public (i.e., government) schooling, it would be difficult to find a better example of a failed, immoral, and destructive government program. Not only has the drug war not achieved its purported end, it has actually made society much worse off in terms of violence, death, and destruction.

Daily Bell: We think the Internet like the Gutenberg Press before it is collapsing the Anglo-American empire. Reaction?

Jacob Hornberger: The Internet is certainly helping us libertarians educate people to the reality of their government has become – a socialist, imperialist, interventionist monstrosity that is taking our country down the road to moral debauchery, government dependency, and financial bankruptcy. Time will tell though whether a critical mass of Americans decide to restore a free-market, limited-government republic to our land.

Daily Bell: We think the Internet like the Gutenberg Press before it is creating a new Renaissance and new Reformation – Internet Reformation, if you will? Response?

Jacob Hornberger: It certainly is providing people with the means to circumvent the long-established mainstream media outlets, which is a great thing.

Daily Bell: Many believe that a New World Order is being created by an elite group of banking families residing in the City of London. Conspiracy theory?

Jacob Hornberger: It's a conspiracy theory that I don't personally find persuasive. But whether one believes that such a conspiracy exists or not, our goal should be the same – to end all the socialist, imperialist, and interventionist programs and establish a total separation of economy and state, money and state, healthcare and state, and education and state, dismantle our nation's overseas military empire, its standing army, and its military industrial complex, and restore civil liberties to our land.

Daily Bell: Is the US Dollar on the way out?

Jacob Hornberger: It might well be on the way out since the government keeps spending and borrowing and the Federal Reserve keeps inflating and debasing to enable the government to continue spending and borrowing.

Daily Bell: We will see a gold backed currency in your lifetime?

Jacob Hornberger: Possibly, but I would prefer a free-market in money – what Friedrich Hayek, the libertarian Nobel Prize winning economist, called "the denationalization of money." Government has no more business in currency and money than it does in health care, education, or charity. Separate money and the state by repealing legal tender laws, abolish the fed, and free the market so that people can use any type of money they want.

Daily Bell: Interesting point. Can you give us your take on free-banking, clearinghouses and private fractional reserve banking? We're all for money competition generally.

Jacob Hornberger: Yes, I favor free banking, along with the likely possibility of fractional reserve banking, and private clearinghouses. The argument that fractional reserve banking in a free market is fraud, which some libertarians make, is, in my opinion, ill-founded because fraud involves an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact (or omission of a material fact) with the intent to deceive. If the bank represents up front that it is engaged in fractional-reserve banking and the customer agrees, then there cannot be fraud. The customer voluntarily takes the risk of a bank run and the bank's going under. Those customers who don't want to take such a risk can find banks that don't engage in fractional reserve banking and serve simply as warehouses for people's money.

Daily Bell: Let the market decide ... Maybe because the market has been so powerfully regulated it's having difficulty operating. Are we in the midst of a rolling, global depression?

Jacob Hornberger: It sure seems like it to me. In fact, we might actually be in a perfect storm of failure and destruction of statism all over the world, including our nation's own socialism, imperialism, and interventionism.

Daily Bell: Is the war on terror a phony war?

Jacob Hornberger: It's more a fraudulent war. The U.S. government goes abroad and provokes people with things like sanctions, foreign interventions, invasions, support of dictatorships, and foreign aid. Then when the victims retaliate, as they did on 9/11, the government cries, "Oh, it had nothing to do with what we did to provoke them. It's all because they hate us for our freedom and values." And then feds use the terrorist threat to do more of the same, including invasions and occupations, thereby producing a perpetual need for government "protection," which comes in the form of ever-growing infringements on our privacy and freedom, such as the fondling at the airports, the Patriot Act, the spying on Americans, the secret searches of financial information, and so forth.

Daily Bell: Is al-Qaeda a made up enemy?

Jacob Hornberger: No. Its roots go back to the extremist Muslims that the U.S. government was supporting when they were trying to oust the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. After the Soviets were evicted, al-Qaeda committed itself to ousting the U.S. Empire from the Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Middle East.

Daily Bell: Is there ever a justification for "wars of overseas aggression?"

Jacob Hornberger: No.

Daily Bell: Does the US seek overseas conflict to further domestic repression?

Jacob Hornberger: Perhaps but regardless of whether they intend it or not, that is the logical outcome of its overseas interventions. James Madison pointed out that the officials of the Roman Empire were famous for inciting foreign crises whenever the Roman citizenry became restless over the Empire's ever-growing taxes, debt, and regulations.

Daily Bell: Is the US becoming a police state?

Jacob Hornberger: The U.S. has become a police state. Federal officials now have many of the powers wielded by the Middle East dictatorships that the U.S. government supports. These include the power to label people as suspected terrorists, arrest and detain them indefinitely without trial, ignore verdicts of acquittal in federal court terrorism cases, torture people, execute people after kangaroo tribunals, kidnap people and rendition them to friendly dictatorships for torture. Also, we've got the Patriot Act, the CIA, the ATF, and the NSA. Then when you combine the powers being wielded in the war on terrorism with the powers wielded by increasingly militarized cops in the war on drugs, that's what a police state looks like. Doesn't the United States jail more people per capita than communist China and every other country? I think we're Number 1 in this regard.

Daily Bell: Is Obama a better president than George W. Bush?

Jacob Hornberger: They are both the same. Obama is Bush's third term. He is an absolute disaster. Not only does he embrace socialist economic policies and big spending and big borrowing, he's been as big a disaster on civil liberties and foreign policy as Bush.

Daily Bell: Is the EU on the way out? How about the euro?

Jacob Hornberger: I don't know. For sure the welfare states of Europe are collapsing before our eyes, especially given the enormous spending and borrowing burdens placed on their citizenry. Where it will lead is anyone's guess, but I have a feeling it's not going to be pretty.

Daily Bell: Is every law a price fix?

Jacob Hornberger: I'm not sure what you mean by that. Laws against murder, rape, stealing, and other violent crimes place a price on violation, but I consider such laws perfectly valid. Economic crimes, such as minimum-wage laws or price controls, fix prices and are invalid and destructive.

Daily Bell: Are laws and regulations ever necessary, hypothetically speaking?

Jacob Hornberger: Laws that punish actions in which people initiate force against others are necessary. Murder, rape, stealing, fraud, etc., are examples. Laws and regulations that punish peaceful conduct are illegitimate. Examples including drug laws, insider-trading laws, and minimum-wage laws.

Daily Bell: Are central banks necessary? Should they be done away with?

Jacob Hornberger: No, central banks are unnecessary and are highly destructive. They are one of the twin engines by which the federal government confiscates people's wealth. (The other one is the IRS.) It should be done away with immediately. (So should the IRS and the income tax.)

Daily Bell: Are gold and silver going higher in terms of purchasing power? How high?

Jacob Hornberger: Owning gold and silver might not be for the faint of heart because of the stomach-churning plunges in price. But as long as federal spending and borrowing continue soaring, the longer the Fed will be debasing the currency, which means gold and silver will be going higher, at least in terms of the dollar. How high is anyone's guess.

Daily Bell: Where do you go from here? How about your Foundation?

Jacob Hornberger: We continue fighting for a free society by spreading sound ideas on liberty. With crisis comes opportunity – to opportunity to restore a free, peaceful, and prosperous society to our land. We invite everyone to subscribe to our daily FFF Email Update and to our monthly journal "Freedom Daily" and to support our work with tax-deductible donations and bequests. Our work depends on the financial support that people give us. As Mises pointed out, when society is headed toward destruction, none of us can stand aside. We all have a stake in the outcome. We must all throw ourselves vigorously into the battle.

Daily Bell: Are you working on any other books?

Jacob Hornberger: No, we are using the Internet as our primary means to disseminate our libertarian perspectives.

Daily Bell: Is this an exciting era in which to be a libertarian?

Jacob Hornberger: This is the most exciting time ever to be a libertarian. People are finally figuring out that something is fundamentally wrong in our country. If they can only achieve the breakthrough that we libertarians have achieved – that long ago America abandoned its philosophy of freedom, free markets, and a limited government republic and embraced socialism, imperialism, and interventionism, then we've got a real shot at ridding our nation of the statism that afflicts our land, along with all the horrible consequences it has wrought. More people are becoming interested in libertarianism than ever before, especially young people. With two libertarians who can competently and eloquently defend libertarianism now running for the Republican presidential nomination – Ron Paul and Gary Johnson – this will certainly add to libertarian excitement.

Daily Bell: Any other thoughts?

Jacob Hornberger: Thank you for the interview. It's an honor to be added to your cast of interviewees, many of whom have been heroes of mine for a long time.

Daily Bell: Thanks for sitting down patiently through an extensive interview and answering the "tough" questions. It's been a pleasure and honor to interview you.

Like so many others, we've admired Jacob Hornberger's dedication to the spread of libertarianism and the eloquent writing he's produced. The Future of Freedom Foundation is an essential free-market voice, and he's been an effective spokesperson throughout his career.

As a former military man and lawyer, he could have aimed his life's work toward a number of areas. There are certainly more lucrative ways to make a living, but he decided to focus on what he loved and believed in. He was "born" to do what he's doing and his passion is evident.

We learned a lot in this interview, as we expected to. Jacob Hornberger is a widely read individual, and that comes through in his books and articles as well as his interviews and radio appearances. His remarks on religion, free banking and the West's growing militarism were most thoughtful in our opinion. One issue where we still have questions (though admittedly his opinion is more mainstream than ours) is his perspective on the American justice system.

We pointed out some of our conclusions about tribal and clan justice as a workable and ancient system that predates British Common Law and emphasized familial as well as "elder" negotiation. His reply, as you can see in the interview, above, emphasized the system as it had evolved, including a trial by jury before an independent tribunal "where the state has a monopoly of force to enforce the judicial judgments."

Of course, once the state has a monopoly of force, doesn't that allow the state a good deal of latitude? It seems to us that we're reaping the unfortunate results of a monopoly of force, today, given the growing government lawlessness both in America and Europe. We also asked him about the idea that modern US courts operate under Admiralty law. He seemed to answer this question carefully: "I agree with the conclusion reached by the courts that such a claim is meritless and frivolous."

He was far blunter in regard to the how US courts evolved in the 20th century. His answer was unequivocal: "No, it is not true that lawyers are instructed not to cite precedent before 1930 or it is not true that courts will not recognize previous precedent. Lawyers are free to cite any precedent that is pertinent to their case."

He was clear about the ICC, stating that he doesn't see how "such a court acquires jurisdiction over the world" and that a "crime against humanity is too nebulous." We certainly agree with that and were not surprised by his perspective or willingness to speak out.

We thanked him at the end of the interview for answering "tough" questions but he's been taking on tough issues throughout his professional career. Those in the libertarian community are lucky to have his eloquence and influential think-tank the Future of Freedom Foundation to call on. The fight for freedom has never been more necessary than today.


Editor's Note: The Daily Bell is published by the Foundation for the Advancement of Free-Market Thinking (FAFMT). Your financial generosity supports interviews like today's, and other educational material that appears on these pages; we rely on your help. Please consider making a donation today so that we can to advance the principles of free-market thinking! Click here to help us now. We thank you for your support.




Anthony Wile:   View Bio  l  View Site Contributions
Jacob G. Hornberger:   View Bio  l  View Site Contributions
Internet Reformation :   View Glossary Description  l  View Site Contributions
Latest Daily Bell Articles
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits.
Want to learn more? click here
 
NOT A MEMBER YET?
Join The Daily Bell and take full advantage of the benefits TODAY:
MEMBER LOGIN:
USERNAME:
PASSWORD:
REMEMBER ME
LOST YOUR PASSWORD / USERNAME?
Showing 61 - 80 of 91 - Newest on top - Reorder Feedback
  Posted by Dave Jr on 06/05/11 07:21 PM

"He's not thinking. He's repeating the Safe Mantra. Go along, get along, go with the flow!"

And yet the "official" version was by definition a conspiracy (more than one collaborating perpetrator). It shows how easily folk can be brain washed.

  Posted by Wayne on 06/05/11 07:06 PM

Well said

Why think if it will put you in conflict with the very system that will destroy you for challenging their BS.? Safer to just repeat the Mantra of the Day!

And it works, for a while!

  Posted by Wayne on 06/05/11 07:01 PM

"What I refer to as emotional free critical thinking or emotional free empirical research is, for most people, even relatively intelligent people, a most difficult thing to do. I do not know anything about this man who was interviewed but if after nearly 10 years he still thinks 19 mickey mouse Arabs carried out 9/11 I cannot take him too seriously'

He's not thinking. He's repeating the Safe Mantra. Go along, get along, go with the flow!

  Posted by Wayne on 06/05/11 06:59 PM

@DB
"Religion too - unless one wishes for godless government.'

Interesting that there seem to be no Governmentless Religions!

Other than Daoism, which is a very small group

When you get to the nane brand religions, you get government worshippers by another name.

Why do I suspect a bias/agenda?

Reply from The Daily Bell

Interesting that there seem to be no Governmentless Religions!

DB: You mean over the past 50,000-100,000 years there have only been government religions? Are you sure?

-----------

DB: When you get to the nane brand religions, you get government worshippers by another name.

But we were not speaking of name brand religions, obviously. We were speaking of tribes and clans and PRE COMMON LAW environments.

-----------

Why do I suspect a bias/agenda?

Ha, you tell us! Maybe you misread?

  Posted by Wayne on 06/05/11 06:51 PM

"The presumption seems to be that people need to be controlled, with the implicit assumption that they are best controlled by being immersed in a culturally-instilled belief system based on the supernatural.'

Somehow these mumbo-jumbo invisible somethings are always watching us to make sure we obey, also say to support the Government.

Just a Coincidence! Go figure!

  Posted by scousekraut on 06/05/11 04:43 PM

I have a very good and long lasting friend who is a lawyer for big oil. When I bring up issues relating to 9/11, of which there are hundreds but I only mention a few key points, he looks at me with empty eyes. He is thinking to himself: "He has gone all wierd".

I ask him what evidence he could present to support the official vesion of events. There is another blank look and no answer. How would he react as state prosecutor if I, as defence lawyer, brought some of the alleged hijackers who are still alive into the court.

The reason he, and so many others like him who have a certain degree of intelligence, still hold onto the official version has nothing to do with evidence or research. They havent done any research and they will go to great lengths to avoid doing any. It has to do with their belief systems and their childhood programming.

The implications of what I am telling or suggesting to them is to big for them to handle at this point in their lives. It would destroy everything that holds their belief system together.

The big "F" word is in the way. FEAR. They are afraid of what they may find out if they begin to research the event. So they resort to defensive tactics such as "I dont believe in conspiracy theories", which is a big cop out.

What I refer to as emotional free critical thinking or emotional free empirical research is, for most people, even relatively intelligent people, a most difficult thing to do. I do not know anything about this man who was interviewed but if after nearly 10 years he still thinks 19 mickey mouse Arabs carried out 9/11 I cannot take him too seriously.

  Posted by Genie on 06/05/11 04:05 PM

I wonder if he finds nothing persuasive enough to question the bin Laden "death." By his answers in the interview we can guess what his answer would be.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Well, many people believe bin Laden, who had Marfen's Syndrome and failed kidneys in 2000, died holding a gun and protecting his wife on 2011 in Pakistan. We have stated our problems with this scenario ... But then again, we are not necessarily convinced that NASA went to the moon either these days. At least we have our suspicions ... (Should we?)

  Posted by Kelly on 06/05/11 03:45 PM

Sarcastic?

No ..., no I didn't mean to be sarcastic. That is a habit I've been trying to give up. But, maybe I didn't succeed. Looking at my inquiry I fail to understand how it could be interpreted as sarcastic.

Obviously I must be misunderstanding something here. Maybe I don't understand this fractional reserve issue. Lets see, here is the statement for Pentagon Federal Credit Union:

Click to view link

It shows total loans about equal to the shares (savings accounts and CDs). My uneducated guess is that deposits are almost equal to loans. So, obviously deposits are not this thing called reserves. So why is everyone upset about the reserves?

Reply from The Daily Bell

Who's upset about reserves? Maybe the mainstream press and the Fed and government bureaucrats. But why should they be? The Fed can basically print as much money as it wants to (apologies, Ingo Bischoff) and thus if a bank runs low on reserves, it can always be stuffed with more reserves via money printing or loans. At will, banking regulators either shut down banks (if they are not in the club) or re-fund them (as they did in 2008). The central banking system has hollowed out the real banking system (which used to hold gold as "reserves") and kept only the nomenclature, the better to confuse people. Try to visualize the banking system as Eastern Europe and central banks as the Kremlin's Politbureau and it may suddenly seem less confusing ...

  Posted by John Danforth on 06/05/11 03:22 PM

Correction:

Above, I wrote, "The presumption seems to be that people need to be controlled, even if it is by bamboozling or forcing them into behaving a certain way, on the grounds that they are incapable of learning objective grounds for behaving peaceably."

I can't edit, so I can't take it back. I didn't mean to come across as putting words in the elves' mouths, it was not my intention to set up a straw man. I didn't mean to impute that this is the position of the elves.

I should have stated it as,

The presumption seems to be that people need to be controlled, with the implicit assumption that they are best controlled by being immersed in a culturally-instilled belief system based on the supernatural.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Ah, but tribes are not gangs. Tribes are troops. Hominids run in troops, up to about 150. Always, apparently, for tens of thousands of years (assuming one accepts evolution). Even in modern times it is tribes and clans, until the Neolithic anyway - and even now cities are divided into smaller entities, And human biology doesn't change anyway. Thus, the question becomes not whether a pure libertarian society can be constructed (it cannot be from a biological point of view) but how people can best organize their lives within the constructs of naked-ape sociopolity and economic biology. Spirituality and religion will be preferable organizational elements to government wherever possible. It is not just the least of two evils, it is a preferable and realistic (historical) way to live. Smaller. Better. And within as much of a libertarian context as possible, acknowledging that pure individualism is mostly not feasible. One ordinarily has to mate, marry, have children and that brings up a whole host of family/communitarian issues. The tribe ye shall always have with you. Religion too - unless one wishes for godless government.

  Posted by John Danforth on 06/05/11 02:50 PM

Thanks for the acknowledgement. I agree with you that attaching belief to an action after the fact is both difficult and dangerous. This does not negate the fact that thought precedes action, action is in fact always the consequence of thought, the reaching of a conclusion. And that the actions people take in their relations with you are always and everywhere determined by their morality (their code of values). Even TSA agents.

@DB, to look on these issues from the standpoint of morality or philosophy misses the point? Even in understanding the point, what other means could be used to understand the phenomenon you described? Your statement was, "The freer the society, the more spiritual or at least religious it usually is because people need some sort of moral or behavioral structure." Iran (and a whole lot of history of mankind) comes to mind, but that wasn't what I chose to take issue with. I interpreted it as promotion of the variant version of the dominant social theme I described above, which you seem to agree with when you state "It is all about control". The presumption seems to be that people need to be controlled, even if it is by bamboozling or forcing them into behaving a certain way, on the grounds that they are incapable of learning objective grounds for behaving peaceably. I proposed a free market alternative. People who need leaders are dangerous. People who need their leaders to need a larger moral "authority" are dangerous. The moral "authority" itself is dangerous. People who "voluntrarily" accept the edicts of an "authority" that demands their edicts be accepted by discounting their own reason can be extremely dangerous.

My proposed free market alternative is "self-control". Autonomy. The evolution away from gang rule.

I don't dispute the history of tribes (gangs). I posit that we have taken a baby step away from that (by imposing moral rules on the rulers), and it was better for awhile but obviously has been hijacked. The rulers disregard the rules and simultaneously deny that they can be objectively defined, and those who intellectually agree on this point have no *moral* or *intellectual* grounds to oppose them, having ceded personal moral authority by abandoning intellectual means of defining it. The roots of its downfall were grown from the seeds planted by remnants of the use of unexamined morality-as-cultural-norm as a control mechanism by the elite.

A group of people with a consciously adopted morality is not impossible, it is the goal. It will result in a spontaneous structure that is superior in every way to the alternatives - but only if the people adopt a life-affirming morality. If we purposely discard reason as a basis for voluntarily deciding our own code of values, or if we are prevented from ever discovering them, then the battle is lost before it has begun. You cannot condemn an action or defend a victim without it being based on an underlying moral code and your certainty that it is correct. You cannot prescribe limits on authority if you have already ceded that authority the power to determine your own valuation of the value of your own life and its power over your life. A people which behaves because it has been handed a morality devised for the purpose of controlling them is not a moral people. A society formed on that basis will fail. It is failing.

More to the point raised, hasn't the whole morality-edict thing usually been exploited by clan/tribe leaders to keep the members ignorant and submissive for the personal gratification or expansion of influence and glory of the leaders?

I agree with the home rule concept. But I'd like to dream that it could be a community of like-mined people who are happy to pay the best person for whatever jobs need to be done, but would rebel at any suggestion that they need to be led, on anything.

  Posted by bionic mosquito on 06/05/11 01:41 PM

John,

I find nothing to demolish. My views on this subject are relatively simple (perhaps quite naive).

Most people will always need to believe something.

Beliefs don't harm me, actions can.

It is for actions that people can and should be judged on this earth. Any other realm is God's (or whatever's) business.

To attach belief to an action is both a difficult and dangerous concept. For example, what is the point of identifying a "hate crime?" Is it not enough that the action was a crime?

I say all of this fully acknowledging that "religion" has been and continues to be used as a tool for manipulation. For allowing one's self to be manipulated, especially toward immoral action, each individual is responsible and accountable.

As I said, simple and likely naive. But there is my two cents.

Reply from The Daily Bell

It is simply a fact that people congregate in tribes, clans and larger groups. In freer societies the tribal and clan leaders need a larger moral authority and derive it from spiritual elements. That's how it works. Has little to do with "rightness" of religion. It is all about control and the need for humans to organize in societies with some sort structure. The structure in the best of times is religious and in worser times is governmental. The religious suasion is "voluntary" and the government suasion is NOT. To look on these issues, first of all, from the standpoint of morality or philosophy is perhaps to miss the point ...

  Posted by rossbcan on 06/05/11 01:21 PM

Sorry John, you won't get your wish, I will not demolish your arguments, because I cannot.

But, I will add to your "intellectual vacuum" statement. IMHO, this is not an attribute of humanity, but, rather, a forcefully imposed state of affairs, because, power makes it dangerous to THINK, because, if you do so, there are two remaining choices: be miserable by inaction, OR, actively oppose them, both choices are survival risks. THINK about it:

Click to view link

  Posted by DarbyJie on 06/05/11 01:16 PM

That doesn't compute, Bill. He's had TEN years' time...and a mountain of highly-educated controverting testimony..

  Posted by John Danforth on 06/05/11 01:11 PM

Fear-Based Dominant Social Theme: Morality is supernatural -- it is outside the bounds of reason, it is the strict province of the mystic, it is undiscoverable by mere mortals. It can only be learned explicitly from the authoritative decree of those who have secret insider knowledge of the desires of supernatural entities, who can translate the unknowable into laws for mortals to follow on faith alone. Those who don't accept it on faith are doomed to burn in hell for eternity, or worse. Those who do accept it will earn their reward -- mostly after they are dead.

Alternative Version: People are too stupid to ever learn rational morality through reason, logic, and demonstrable principles, therefore they must be scared into behaving properly with ghost stories and fantastic threats, backed up by physical threats carried out by enacting religious edicts into law. Otherwise they will all behave like a tribe of drunken, murderous baboons or worse. Besides, it's easier and faster to get children to behave with this method before they are old enough to learn reasoning skills. Start them out with Santa Claus and the Devil, let them progress from there.

Free Market Alternative: It is possible (and has been done) to define what morality is, what it is for, and propose guidelines for a life-sustaining/enhancing morality based entirely on objective, rational, real-life, real-reality, provable principles that can be agreed upon without the need to resort to arguments from authority or communication with ghosts, and without coercion. It is not necessary to attempt to destroy anyone's religious beliefs (except the claim that morality can only be defined by the supernatural) or force anyone to adopt the proposed morality, it is enough simply to elucidate it in terms that do not require superstition or threats. And if that is not enough, what kind of morality would it be??

It is with the utmost respect for the people here (and the interviewee) who hold a position different than mine that I deliberately poke this hornet's nest. My assertion is that my views or anyone else's on the supernatural are not germane to the topic of morality, and the claim religions make of a monopoly on morality are not credible on their face. I realize it is a chicken-and-egg problem; for millennia religions DID have a monopoly on the subject because there was an intellectual vacuum on the subject (often enforced by religion via draconian means). So therefore most peoples' perception of what morality is, what it is for, and what it means overall are a hold-over, an unexamined remnant of the religious conceptions of morality.

The statement above is not advocacy of amorality, it is the opposite. It simply rejects the position that morality is unknowable in human terms in the real world. It rejects the notion that anyone lives without one moral code or another. It asserts that morality has a purpose, is always chosen (explicitly and carefully or not), and it asserts that universal, simple principles can be applied for at least the most basic tenets of a person's morality.

It is these basic tenets that allow people to live in peace and prosperity (or horrifically not), and this is the precise reason why it is a fatal mistake to abandon the reasoning behind morality to superstition or authority. The case can be made that the non-choice of god or authority is arbitrary and largely dependent on where one is born. Authorities and/or religious leaders have always ridden the horse of faith-based morality to further their ends, almost always to the detriment of the peaceful, productive individual, with piles of corpses to show for their work. The fact that one religion or authority generally produces more peace and prosperity than another does not answer the basic objection because it does not remove the threat (and besides, is not the criteria by which it is chosen -- it is not meant to be chosen, but dictated). Even the more benign ones will be used as justification to level death sentences against practitioners of the less benign ones whenever conditions seem to warrant it (in defense or simply in hatred).

If we ever hope to evolve into a culture where freedom and prosperity are enjoyed by all, we must have a means of living together without coercion, and to do this we must be able to reason with one another. If people are conditioned to determine right and wrong without being willing to be persuaded by reason and logic, persuasion through non-coercive means will be impossible. People are fallible, prone to mistakes, and swayed by passions, so people are the most dangerous threat to other people that exists. Whether someone attempts to kill you or not, or cheat you, or love you, or simply treat you with the benefit of the doubt and leave you alone depends entirely on their morality. People who accept an unexamined morality scare me. It doesn't matter which one they accept. If it unexamined it is dangerous.

Morality can be viewed as a tool to control the behavior of the ignorant, or as a tool to be used by the individual to further and enhance his life, hopefully leading to the kind of world he wants to live in, through persuasion and by example. I propose the second option (yeah, I know that makes me a minority).

The reader will hopefully note that I have not advocated for or against any specific moral principles (except implicitly on the premise that life, peace, and prosperity are shared values, which may or may not apply), only the means by which they are adopted by the individual.

Please, demolish my arguments.

My thanks to Anthony and the Elves for this interview and for the opportunity to present my views. And kudos to Jacob for the excellent work he has accomplished these many years.

  Posted by rossbcan on 06/05/11 12:59 PM

"Then he just destroyed all creditibility with me."

Clearly, assuming JH buys into 9/11, he is a busy guy, focussed on his own issues. Perhaps he has not yet had time to consider, or, been exposed to compelling facts.

That does not make him an enemy, nor lacking in credibility in areas that he does choose to take a position.

  Posted by DarbyJie on 06/05/11 12:45 PM

No kidding!??

Then he just destroyed all creditibility with me.

  Posted by BenEaston on 06/05/11 12:30 PM

Great interview. I have known Jacob for many years, a few in-person meetings, and as a regular subscriber to his FFF newsletter, as well as one or 2 personal e-mail exchanges over the years. In this article I learned a few things, and I appreciate the nuances that emerged from this series of questions and answers. While I don't agree with JH on every item, I highly respect his studied views. He occasionally teaches me that my own very high degree of libertarianism has its imperfections and prejudicial impurities (steeped in authoritarian Republicanism family dynamics probably), and I then endeavor to purify my own already idealistic (and therefore realistic!) philosophy.

Some of the other commenters seem to be positing subtle shiftiness in some of Jacob's responses, but I don't see that. I know him to be bold, courageous, and very straightforward. If disagreements exist, I believe the reasons are that JH ain't pure yet either. His mistakes, whatever they might be, will be ferreted out by him (and perhaps us), and he will fix them. This is what makes him a man of integrity and his FFF so valuable.

A spade is a spade is a spade.

  Posted by Kelly on 06/05/11 11:51 AM

WOW! I'm impressed! Straight forward answers in full sentence structure and with clear insight to the issues.

I do have a question for anyone who knows. Is a Credit Union (or Federal Credit Union) really a money warehouse or can they use fractional reserve lending?

Reply from The Daily Bell

Are you being sarcastic? All modern banking institutions operate much the same way. They have been hollowed out by Money Power. In a free-banking environment, warehouses would be free to make a determination as to their operations and then to advertise it.

  Posted by johnblenkins on 06/05/11 11:40 AM

Very interesting interview, A man clearly dedicated to his view of a Libertarian world.Being an ex lawyer his considered answer and DB subsequent afterthought was thought provoking.

DB; We also asked him about the idea that modern US courts operate under Admiralty law. He seemed to answer this question carefully: "I agree with the conclusion reached by the courts that such a claim is meritless and frivolous."

May I suggest He as all lawyers swear an oath to the BAR . Like the masons on steroids. I detect a little side step in his retort.


Daily Bell: Is the American system of justice now Admiralty justice? Is it true lawyers are instructed not to cite precedent before 1930 and that courts will not recognize previous precedent?

Jacob Hornberger: Under the Constitution, U.S. federal district courts have jurisdiction over admiralty or maritime cases, but I assume you mean by the term "admiralty justice" the claim that some tax protestors make that American courts are admiralty courts and, therefore, have no jurisdiction over such tax protestors. I agree with the conclusion reached by the courts that such a claim is meritless and frivolous. No, it is not true that lawyers are instructed not to cite precedent before 1930 or it is not true that courts will not recognize previous precedent. Lawyers are free to cite any precedent that is pertinent to their case.

Clever. First implying that matters of law on the high sea is subservient to the federal courts. This is no doubt the case but that was not the question. To support this smoke screen he asks almost bemused. " I assume you mean by the term "admiralty justice" . No such thing as the bar association acting under admiralty/corporate law. Move along nothing to see here.

The deception of the many by the few will last as long as The Law is based on the laws of subservience under a master and commander. Whilst imperfect the full and true meaning of Magna Carta The Constitution and the Bill of, Rights and common law. Tweaked to the 21st century would be a good start.

Lets not be coy and call a spade a spade. The PE are cocooned by the BAR/Law all aided by bought and paid for governments up to their necks in debts to the banking arm of this all embracing world Mafia. Events will happen faster than most people will see or cope with. Grab your tin hat and good luck.

  Posted by Jacob on 06/05/11 11:13 AM

Dave, with all due respect, I take issue with your rejection of free market fractional reserve banking. While personally I wouldn't conduct business with fractional reserve banking entities, I have no problem with those who do, just as I have no problem with those who gamble in Las Vegas, where the "house" enjoys an undisputed mathematical edge.

I go further. I am also a lawyer, yet I reject Jacob Hornberger's retention of the state for "other purposes" such as prosecution of fraud, murder, etc. As you might agree, the "state" has been operative for centuries worldwide and has amply demonstrated its uselessness [at best] and its treachery [at worst] in every circumstance. If joining or being ruled by the state were a free market choice [ie. panarchy], I know of no one who would buy. The state is a "gun at your head" phenomenon. Think "Mafia morphed to appear legitimate."

Back 1 2 3 4 5 Next


ABOUT US ARCHIVE THINKTANK   MEMBER ZONE
Editor's Message
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Contact
News & Analysis
Editorials
Exclusive Interviews
Videos
Special Reports
Polls
Biographies
Glossary
Links
Books
MEMBER LOGIN
© Copyright 2008 - 2013 All Rights Reserved.
The Daily Bell is published by High Alert Capital Partners Inc.