By Frederick Mann, 3/8/2000 (updates and examples added later)
Similar to "political correctness" there's "economic correctness." Overcoming "economic correctness" can help you gain your financial freedom. Hopefully, this article will help you do just that.
"Economic correctness" may keep you stuck in a dead-end job -- poor or relatively poor for the rest of your life. "Economic correctness" may prevent you from losing money in a myriad of ripoffs and scams. But "economic correctness" may also prevent you from gaining the riches every man, woman, and child on earth deserves.
Here's an extreme example from a presumed "libertarian":
Quite frankly, I'm appalled that you took something so beautiful as freedom and building freedom and combined it with something so despicable as a get-rich-quick Internet pyramid scheme or so-called "Internet marketing" as if they had anything to do with each other. It's sick. Oh but you will probably never read this, so I won't bother getting into why money making schemes should not be disguised behind libertarian motives.
Consider a continuum, spectrum, or scale of economic activities:
I suggest you rearrange this scale for yourself so it's more or less in sequence of what you consider best at the top to what you consider worst at the bottom.
Add other economic activities, if you like.
Now draw a line somewhere on the scale to serve as a demarcation between economic activities you would engage in because you consider them moral, and those you wouldn't engage in because you think them immoral. In other words, above your line are moral economic activities and below the line are immoral activities.
Then identify the principles, criteria, or yardsticks you use to distinguish between moral and immoral. For example, you might regard an activity as moral because it's "legal" or immoral because it's "illegal". Or you may use what the Bible, Koran, or some other religious text says about particular economic activities. A possible criterion is whether an economic activity can result in some people losing money. Another is whether you consider an activity generally constructive or destructive. Another criterion might be what your parents approve and disapprove of.
Now ask yourself to what extent your judgment about what's good and evil is based on rational analysis, emotions, or cultural traditions? Why are certain economic activities "legal" in one country but "illegal" in others?
The Bible says that "the love of money is the root of all evil." If you believe this, should you put all economic activities that involve money on the evil side of your line?
Consider the possibility that economic systems are games controlled by certain people to some extent to their own advantage and to some extent to the disadvantage of the vast majority. Set up the game so that after paying the taxes and bills there's nothing left at the end of the month for most? Manipulate the game so many individuals, companies, and countries run up huge debts on which massive interest is paid to the few who control the game? Force children into government schools and indoctrinate them so they'll become loyal factory and office workers or burger flippers? Is it possible that some of what you believe is right and wrong is what the economic masters want you to believe, so you'll be their economic slave for rest of your life?
Buckminster Fuller calculated that, given all the resources available on earth (including free energy from the sun), every man, woman, and child should be a millionaire many times over.
During the Middle Ages, the ruling religious elite didn't want the peasants to read the Bible. The more ignorant people are, the easier it is to exploit them and become rich from their toil.
Robert T. Kiyosaki wrote an excellent book Rich Dad, Poor Dad: What the Rich Teach Their Kids About Money -- That the Poor and Middle Class Don't. His real dad was a teacher who became Superintendent of Education in Hawaii -- his "poor dad". Early in his life, a businessman became Kiyosaki's mentor -- his "rich dad". From his poor dad Kiyosaki learned economic correctness: get a job; work hard; "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is"; "you must have security"; "money doesn't grow on trees"; "money is dirty -- you don't who may have touched it"; "the love of money is the root of all evil"; "MLM is evil"; etc. From his rich dad Kiyosaki learned very different lessons -- lessons that enabled him to become rich. See his website.
Kiyosaki writes: "The main reason people struggle financially is because they spent years in school but learned nothing about money. The result is, people work for money... but never learn to have money work for them." Could it be that, just as in the Middle Ages the religious elite didn't want the rabble to read the Bible, in our "modern world" the economic elite don't want the workers to understand money, in order to make it easier to keep them in economic bondage?
Kiyosaki's Rich Dad, Poor Dad is a "must read" for overcoming "economic correctness."
Yesterday, the share price of Proctor & Gamble dropped 30%. Some people lost money. About 90% of new businesses fail during their first year. Many businesses fail because of poor management, lack of capital, or other reasons. Some fail because they're outright scams. There are numerous scams around every corner to separate the suckers from their money.
Amway is a hugely successful MLM company. Yet I've heard that about 90% of its distributors earn less than $1,000 a year. Many MLM programs are structured such that the owners and a few distributors (particularly the early ones) make a lot of money, while the rest struggle.
Most "money-making" programs are scams or structured so it's unlikely that the majority of "average" participants will make money. With understanding and experience, you can get better at separating the wheat from the chaff -- see Money Skill #10: Understand money-making programs.
Most people who try to go into business for themselves lose money. About 90% of new businesses fail during their first year. Probably about 99% of people who get involved in "money-making" programs make little or no money, or actually lose money. So, if you randomly choose the programs you get involved in, the odds are overwhelming that you'll waste your time and lose your money.
Probably about 99% of casino and lottery gamblers lose their money. The odds are heavily stacked against them. To become a consistent winner, you need to find a way to gain a statistical advantage over the casino. In blackjack you may be able to do this by counting cards. In roulette you may be able to find a wheel that's biased toward certain numbers. In craps you may be able to exert a degree of control over the dice.
Because there's so much losing, it may seem that the safety and security of a steady paycheck from a reliable employer is your best bet. And for most people it is the best bet -- until they learn how to stand on their own feet.
In the world of money-making programs, you can also improve the odds so they're in your favor. You learn how to get into the right programs at the right time. Our Risk Meter, which is regularly updated, can help you with this. It greatly reduces the risk of loss.
We also operate the Financial Independence List. This is a good place to ask questions, get the latest information, and share views with others.
About a month ago, I posted the following to an email list for "PTs" (PT = Permanent Tourist, Perpetual Traveller, Prior Taxpayer, etc.):
In the same way that there's "political correctness," there seems to be "economic/financial correctness." This area often involves labels. A label is automatically put on certain perceptions. Instead of examining what is available for perception and thinking about, the "label-thinker" perceives only his/her own label and fails to perceive what's really available for perception, examination, and thinking about.
I've been a PT for more than 30 years. I constantly look for ways to earn the maximum effectively invisible income with the least effort. I make available to others the best I find.
Over the years, I've learned quite a bit about what tends to work best, namely programs that enable you to make money without having to recruit anyone nor sell anything.
Another subscriber responded:
I think the really interesting point here, that is not being addressed by anyone, is why most MLM programs don't work. IN THEORY, an MLM business is nearly a perfect PT occupation. One could travel around the world, spending a few months in each country recruiting and training key distributors.
Yet the hard reality is that MLM opportunities almost never turn out that way (with apologies to some of the early Amway people who have really done just that). With a theoretical opportunity that could be near perfect for PTs, instead of fighting over labels and throwing mud at each other, some PROFITABLE time might well be invested in collectively trying to figure out why MLM doesn't work, and what we as PTs could do to perfect this nearly perfect (in theory) PT occupation. It is a truly "Portable Trade" if one can figure out how to get it to work in practice.
(To subscribe to the PT list, see Build Freedom Lists and Forums; for more PT information, see Live Free and PT Reports.)
I believe BigBooster, specifically the Risk Meter, this article, and the ones mentioned at the end of this article, provide the answer.
"If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual." -- Frank Herbert
There's something very important to realize about those who seek to "put and keep you in your place" so they can exploit you. If they can indoctrinate (brainwash?) you with a set of fixed ideas, they can turn you into an "obedient slave" who will do what you are told.
"Nothing is as certain as death and taxes."
"To work you must have a job." (See The Strange "Job" Concept.)
"If it doesn't create value, it's immoral."
"If it doesn't have a product, it's immoral."
"If we say it's the law then it's the law and you must obey."
"If you break the law, you will go to jail."
"If we say it's illegal, then it's illegal and we'll punish you if you do it."
Etc., ad infinitum.
All of the above are fixed ideas. Economic Correctness consists of a set of fixed ideas. #TL03A: How to Discover and Release Fixed Ideas may help you clear fixed ideas from your mind.
Another subscriber posted to the PT list:
I agree it takes a different animal to qualify as a viable MLM/PT occupation. My personal requirements, same as most regulators:
- Not trying to sell Bic pens for a Mont-Blanc price.
- Has the last person coming in have an opportunity to make money?
- Is there a return policy in place?
- Can you REALLY retail products competitively in the streets?
- Is it globally portable?
- Is management MLM based or Wall Street minded?
- Is compensation available higher that usual 25%?
Well, all the above I think I have found, but for those still looking, its a good "weed-out" list. Presently, web-based industry can fulfill most of the above.
My response:
I suggest a new term to help PTs get beyond label-think about MLM. PTMP = PT money program, a program that's ideal for PTs to engage in as a sideline or occupation. To be able to see PTMPs for what they are, some PTs may have to do some work to overcome "economic correctness."
My personal requirements, same as most regulatorsDo you hold your "regulators" in high esteem? Do you regard them as the paragons of "economic correctness?"
1. Not trying to sell Bic pens for a Mont-Blanc price.Anything that involves such doesn't qualify as a PTMP.
2. Has the last person coming in have an opportunity to make money?One of the PTMPs I recommend is American Millennium Corp.(AMCI). (I just checked and it's up 20% at 12.43 EST, after an announcement.) It's quoted on Nasdaq. Like with all stocks, the last person coming in may not have much of a chance of making money. In general, to make money with stocks, you need someone to come in after you to buy. So logically the last person coming in can't make money.
It's worth examining what might cause someone to be the last person coming in: 1. A natural disaster such as an asteroid that hits earth and destroys all human life. 2. Hyperinflation which wipes out the US$ and results in everyone stopping to buy stocks. 3. Any disaster that wrecks AMCI or its business, resulting in the stock price dropping to zero. 4. Nasdaq delisting AMCI for whatever reason, so effectively no new people can effectively come in.
The future is not completely predictable. Although I have high hopes and strong expectations for AMCI, I have no guarantee that if I were to buy shares today, that I would make money. I realize that risk is involved. I also realize that there tends to be a relationship between potential reward and risk: the higher the potential reward, the higher the risk.
Can the very last person who puts money into Social Security be sure that he'll make money? Can anyone now putting money into Social Security be sure of making money? What do your "regulators" have to say about this?
Can the last person who pays any tax expect to make money.
How about anyone now paying any tax? What do your "regulators" have to say about this?
What about people buying collectibles such as paintings? Does the last person coming in have the opportunity to make money? What do your "regulators" have to say about this?
3. Is there a return policy in place?Generally, I handle the initial risk with PTMPs by getting out whatever money I put in plus at least a modest profit as soon as possible. In the case of Fortune Makers Network (FMN) nine days ago I sent in my $50. By yesterday I'd received $200. So I've already achieved the "can't-lose" position. In any case, the marketing and success know-how I received from FMN is worth $50 many times over.
Do your "regulators" ensure that there are "return policies" in place for Social Security and tax payments? What about a stockbroker who gives me bad advice? If the share price goes down, can I return the shares and get all my money back?
If I buy a Picasso from Christies for $10,000,000 and for whatever reasons art prices collapse, can I return my Picasso and get my money back? What do your "regulators" have to say about this?
4. Can you REALLY retail products competitively in the streets?Anything that involves such doesn't qualify as a PTMP.
5. Is it globally portable?A most important requirement. All PTMPs can be operated by computer over the Internet from anywhere in the world where you can "hook up."
6. Is management MLM based or Wall Street minded?More importantly, are they PTPM-oriented or "economically correct" lackeys of your "regulators?" Nevertheless, as in the case of AMCI, some Wall-Street-minded folks may provide great opportunities for PTs!
7. Is compensation available higher than the usual 25%?If you're talking about 25% per month, you're in the right ballpark! See Private Loan Club.
Well, all the above I think I have found, but for those still looking, its a good "weed-out" list. Presently, web-based industry can fulfill most of the above.Probably fewer than 1% of the programs I look at make it onto our Risk Meter.
One of the big objections to MLM-type programs is that MLMers tend to see everyone as a prospect for a meal ticket. So you promote your program to your family, friends, co-workers, contacts. You end up antagonizing and alienating all or most of them.
There are four answers to this objection:
Learning to use the Internet makes it relatively easy to recruit hundreds or even thousands of people into your programs without antagonizing or alienating them.
Someone else wrote to me:
I'd love to try some of your recommendations though some doubt keeps creeping up: Is it really the solution to play all those funny virtual games instead of producing something of real value? Obviously there is nothing wrong with the games as long as they really work, then they can be seen as a vehicle for financial independence to achieve other, even higher goals.
An aspect of "economic correctness" is that you must produce some tangible product or service of value. It's immoral to engage in "money games."
The first thing to realize is that because the sun shines and showers us with free energy every day, farmers, factory workers, and many others can produce surpluses. That is, they produce more than they consume. These surpluses are available to be soaked up by taxes, as profits to owners, entrepreneurs, and shareholders, and as savings and as "free funds" for playing "money games."
The second thing to realize is that besides paying taxes, whatever you do with surplus money essentially involves playing "money games." You might enjoy certain "money games" such as gambling in Las Vegas, paying for the bright lights and transferring surpluses to casino owners, shareholders, and workers. Or you can "invest" in the stock market. You could even buy government bonds -- some would argue that you're financing destruction because most of what government does is a "negative product."
Now, you could hide your surplus under your mattress. Or you could put it in a bank -- so they can play "money games" with it. Other than hiding your surplus under your mattress, whatever you do with your "excess disposable funds" will result in someone playing "money games" with your money.
Who says it's wrong to play "money games" (like gambling in Las Vegas) for fun, with the possibility of striking it rich and becoming financially independent -- while of course subjecting yourself to the risk of loss? Does the fact that some players lose make the game wrong?
I'd love to try some of your recommendations though some doubt keeps creeping up: Is it really the solution to play all those funny virtual games instead of producing something of real value?
It's important to realize that basically because the sun shines and showers us with free energy every day, many people can and do produce surpluses -- they produce more than they consume. Part of these surpluses are available for people to play "games" with.
Because the sun shines and food grows, and we have lots of technology and machines to do work, it requires only a relatively small percentage of humans to produce the "primary products and services" to enable all of us to survive and prosper. Some of us can provide information, services, and facilities to "primary producers" so they become more efficient, wealthier, happier, etc.
For most people most of the surpluses they produce are soaked up by taxes. Terrocrats (coercive political agents or terrorist bureaucrats) tend to play destructive games with surpluses.
If we can create games (or promote games created by others) that result in surpluses being diverted from terrocrats toward more productive use, we provide a great service to the world in general.
Many people are stuck in "jobs" that are organized in such a way that it's almost impossible for them to prevent most of their surpluses from being handed over to terrocrats. If we can create or promote games that enable these people to extricate themselves from such "jobs," we provide a great service to the world in general.
Furthermore, we can play games that enable us to accumulate and/or control large surpluses. We can eventually apply these surpluses in ways that make it easier for everyone (including "primary producers") to retain their surpluses and utilize them productively according to their own personal choices.
Obviosly there is nothing wrong with the games as long as they really work, then they can be seen as a vehicle for financial independence to achieve other, even higher goals
All games have a degree of workability, which may change over time. See Money Skill #10: Understand money-making programs.
A subscriber to one of our other lists wrote to me:
You know, I agree with you about freedom and how important the financial component is. I believe that if one creates honest value, the financial gains can be extraordinary. Trading in ponzi schemes, however, is not what I call creating value.
This is a variation of label-think described above. In the same way that some people put the label "MLM (bad)" on certain programs/companies, others use "ponzi scheme (dishonest)." The label "ponzi scheme (dishonest)" is put on any money-making program that is essentially a "money-game."
If we lived in a world, where nobody created surpluses (for others to play with), then an argument could be made that everybody should work at some "job" (or run a company with "jobs") "creating value." However, we live in a world of enormous surpluses, many provided by "nature" in the form of energy from the sun and other resources such as water, air, plants, and minerals. Creating value is important, but there's no "universal law" that says everybody has to create value.
Recently, I met up with a libertarian acquaintance after no contact for several years. He wrote:
Fredrick, I am working 60 hour weeks now [in my printing business.] If you have grown out of the Multi-Level-Marketing means of doing business, perhaps we could pool our resources and create some wealth.
My diplomatic response:
Growth is certainly involved in gaining understanding of what works best and how to maximize earnings per time spent. I think freedom activists generally could do more practical things about promoting freedom if they had more money and time.
His response:
For sure. I am looking to do business with libertarians... primarily objectivists. I am also not really interested in cyber-commerce. Past the means to meet and communicate, this is a very fragile system. I can't eat or live in my keyboard or monitor.
Is that why Bill Gates is starving? If you try to make money in some way dependent on telephones and radios, you could argue that these are very fragile systems and you can't eat your telephone or live in your radio! -- so you should instead dig ditches or do something similar.
When it comes to romantic and family relationships, monogamy is a norm in much of the world. It's a strong tradition in many cultures. You might call it "romantic correctness."
Some people seem to believe that you should do one thing or only one thing to make money. Or, if you're involved in one money-making program that works for you, you shouldn't look at any other programs. Some people seem to get "married" to their favorite program. If anyone suggests that they also look at other programs, they immediately want to start an argument about why their program is better. Jealousy might even rear its ugly head!
A money-making program isn't a lover or a wife. If you look at other programs, your favorite program won't become jealous!
Fear of loss could also play a roll here. Over the years you've tried numerous programs, with little or no success. You may have mostly lost money. Finally you find your "economic savior!" You make thousands. For someone to now suggest that you also look at another program is "sacrilege!" By comparison the new program is bound to be a loser!
Some people seem to believe that if anyone suggests a program other than their favorite, that the suggestion implies criticism of their favorite.
"Economic monogamy" is a form of "economic correctness." You need to overcome it so you're free to diversify. Many money-making programs start off very well and grow rapidly. They may be very good for several years. Then they start declining and eventually fail. "Economic monogamy" can keep you stuck in a declining or failing program, while you miss out on the potential riches from the new stars.
From someone on the PT list:
While I am very impressed with what you are and have been doing for many years, I think you are now doing a big disservice to this type of program by mentioning their names in places where "Big Brother" can so easily pick up the information and create trouble for those companies. In my humble opinion, there are a number of programs that shouldn't be promoted on the Net at all.
His "logic" seems to be that because there are programs that shouldn't be promoted over the Internet, I'm doing a disservice by promoting companies on the Internet that want to be so promoted!
My response:
I only promote companies in ways they want to be promoted.
Some companies want to be publicly promoted. Without such public promotion they may not be viable at all. You may overestimate BB's ability to create problems, and underestimate the ability of certain companies to deal with BB interference. BB doesn't have the manpower (and in many cases, not the jurisdiction) to do anything about the vast majority of companies out there.
Some companies -- like Private Loan Club -- may only be promoted to friends and associates. So I promote PLC the way they wish with their approval.
From a subscriber to the Financial Independence list:
You can't build a solid dependable income on Internet games. While you are playing the games you need to build a large stable organization in a baby-boomer-product driven company. And, I mean an income in a company which will allow you to will your company to family.
From another FI list subscriber:
I'd have to agree. After the StockGeneration fiasco, I can't imagine anyone trusting these Internet "get-rich-quick" games. In the end, they are all a ponzi.
And besides, the only way to earn a decent short-term income in these games is to get numerous people involved, which, if over the Internet, isn't terribly difficult. However, if you plan on inviting your family and personal friends into these games, good luck explaining to them what happened to their hard-earned money once the bottom falls out.
Same thing goes for the "surf-for-cash" opportunities. If you don't have the ability to generate a large organization, why bother at all? The problem lies in that many are already working 9-5 jobs and simply don't have the hours upon hours to put into building their downline. Ironically, the less you work (i.e., the more money you have set aside), the more likely you are to succeed in these opportunities.
All in all, just about each and every one of these programs is an MLM. And since that is the case, I have no idea why more people don't take a few dollars and invest in a real, stable company. Sure, you won't be able to con people into believing they are going to earn 10% weekly on their money, and lo and behold, your company's web site probably won't try to con them into believing that either, but with a little time, effort, and money, you might actually create some true financial success. Sorry, it's not going to happen overnight -- but since when did everyone get that mentality?
If you can't afford $50-$100 a month to involve yourself in a real MLM program, you certainly can't afford to throw $1,000 into a get-rich-quick Internet game. Think about your future instead of next week's price increase.
Note the form of reasoning above: "Because one game (SG) turned into a fiasco, therefore all similar games are "ponzi schemes." "Real MLM" is economically correct, but Internet games in which you can earn 10% per week on your money are not. The only way you can get people to put money into an Internet game is to con them.
Extracted from a moderator announcement to the PT list:
Though the subject of Stock Generation may be thrilling to some, it's not on topic. It's been going on for months now and it never goes anywhere. On the one side we have the believers and on the other side we have the sceptics...
As of 15th of this month I'd like us all to take a holiday from this topic. Why not do as Don says and discuss giving real value for money, trading, working. Let's cut the discussion on these 'programmes' please. They're bullshit systems for suckers. [Note: Before SG turned bad, I took out $100,000 in cash. Any program, company, business, or stock is prone to turn bad at some stage, at which point some people lose money. That doesn't necessarily make them "bullshit systems for suckers."]
If anyone should care to break this rule I shall wave a big stick and suspend your membership for a week. Not permanent banishment. Just a little holiday. I love you all but I WILL place you off the list temporarily if you break the rule.
I'm probably making myself very unpopular with this message, but I see it as the only way to get the PT List back on track and on topic. There's too much talk about MLM and SG (for which there are zillions of discussion groups) and not enough about PT matters.
How about some talk on investing? Real investing? Online? PT occupations. Personal experiences. That's the only way people are going to get themselves free. [My "economically correct" way is the only way. Everything else is banished from the list!] MLM is for losers and SG is a casino game, interesting, but not PT...
Just wondering, a few things:
1. Why do most people including most success seminar teachers believe that you make money by providing a real product or service or at best, doing something involving skill, when there may be hidden ways to get rich doing little?
Brainwashing. Practically all humans get brainwashed to believe that you have to work hard and produce products and/or services of value in order to become rich. The "education" system is designed to produce loyal, obedient wage slaves to work in offices and factories. See "Frederick Mann Interview."
2. has annyone ever made 1 million or more doing nothing but unusual "unproductive money games?"
Thousands have. The most notable is George Soros, who has made billions --http://www.investorhome.com/who2.htm#gs.
It's important to realize that there are trillions of "surplus" dollars "floating" around the world that millions of people like Soros are playing "money games" with. WHP has just reported that during the first 10 days of May 2000 their trades exceeded $500,000! Fortunes can be made by positioning yourself so some of this "free-floating surplus money" earns you a commission.
3. In your opinion, do you think that public schools prepare children for corporate feudalism, or socialism.
Absolutely. See "Frederick Mann Interview" and "Are Our Schools Concentration Campuses for Mind Destruction?"
It seems that although the corporate world externally is capitalist, the internal corporate world more resembles feudalism, where no matter what you do you make the same amount of money.
It depends how you define "capitalism." To me, capitalism describes an economic system characterized by private property ownership, voluntary exchange, and absence of institutionalized coercion.
Typically corporations get licenses from terrocrats (coercive political agents or terrorist bureaucrats). They collect taxtortion from the pay of their workers and hand it over to terrocrats. They obey many of the coercive dictates of terrocrats. Some corporations receive benefits from terrocrats in the form of handouts, monopoly powers, tariff protection, etc. Most corporations are really an "arm" of terrocrats. The so-called "private sector," from the perspective of natural liberty, is an integral part of the so-called "public sector."
Many corporations are indeed feudalistic. Most of the work you do in them goes to make the company owners, the terrocrats, and the bankers rich. Most company workers are economically trapped and will remain so until they develop alternative income streams.
See also:
We've created the BigboosterGroup Forum for people interested in breaking free from economic correctness.
In free countries, people are free to engage in voluntary contracts, transactions, and exchanges, provided they don't violate the rights of others.
Economic rebels maintain that they are free to claim and practise economic freedom, provided they don't violate the rights of others.
Capitalism means that people are free to engage in voluntary contracts, transactions, and exchanges, provided they don't violate the rights of others.
A free market also means that people are free to engage in voluntary contracts, transactions, and exchanges, provided they don't violate the rights of others.
This is the spirit in which the Founding Fathers created America. It is also the spirit of the US Constitution. America is supposed to be a free country.
According to the US Constitution, Article I, Section 10: "No state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts."
A very long time ago, even the US Supreme Court upheld the principle of voluntary contracts, transactions and exchanges ... as reflected by the famous Hale v. Henkel US Supreme Court Ruling:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." -- Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org - terrorcrat.com - mind-trek.com