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 81 - 91 of 91 - Newest on top - Reorder Feedback
  Posted by kenn on 06/05/11 10:06 AM

Agreed....

But the lawyers your speaking of are 'old school' Matlock types. Newbies just recite law and precedence and hope for the best. The whole justice system is compromised,,, this for sure includes the lawyers.

Believing 9/11 may be indicative of his VMI/Military training. At the end of the movie "Salt" Angelina declares she is 'Free' before she avenges her husband. This meant she had broken all the chains of her training. JH, like a lot of us, isn't quite there yet...

  Posted by Bischoff on 06/05/11 09:52 AM

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."

I closely associate myself with Mr. Homberger's answer.

I also strongly agree with his opinion that a "...a free society depends on citizen soldiers, not a professional standing army, to defend the nation from invasion.

I strongly oppose the federalization of State National Guard troops for the overseas employment in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe Mr. Homberger would concur.

  Posted by rossbcan on 06/05/11 09:49 AM

I think the fractional reserve versus fully capitalized bank loan issue will be solved by the market.

In particular, when comparing (deciding to choose) bank A (frac) versus bank B (full) with equivalent ability to lend, investors will realize that A contains risk that B does not with no increased ROI to compensate for the risk. The comparative evaluation will come down to degree of liberal lending policies (risk of loan defaults, degree of loan secured, the dominant ROI consideration) between banks.

As to Dave Jr's point "market cannot decide until the damage is done" and serial collapse / phoenix of fraudulent institutions, the internet is plunging us into an age of "full disclosure" and ability to get the real dirt on anyone / anything.

  Posted by Truthisavailable on 06/05/11 09:46 AM

This interview pushes all the regular buttons and seems to be a logical review of facts of people walking closely together with the "system of law". But, what is disappointing is that it is like walking with blinders to the Truth, and thus ignores the knowledge of truth that has been testified by many who have worked within the true system of the Crowne Trust's realm. There you see the truth that the public willingly accepts to convenently ignore, for it is clearly more acceptable to walk in blindness to truth, than to face the reality of truth. Thus, such interviews of this continues to lead the masses into their ultimate doom.

This is not light at the end of the tunnel. This is diminishing light. Having experienced firsthand work and meetings in this system, where the truth of the darkside was painfully exhibited, it is tragic to view the un-anointed eyes that so willingly guide their fellows to the end that moral man could in no way desire.

Truly, the only hope for us is that someday men, and hopefully a few articulate ones like this and the many others who add to this pleasant podium, will grab the fortitude of moral strength, and will come out from their comfort zone and seeming loft position, to gain the necessary courage to search out truth and tehn accept it. Hopefully, they will also find with themselves the moral conviction and necessary courage, to begin to do something worthwhile for mankind and bring forth the knowledge of Truth before the masses are destroyed entirely.

And, hopefully they will find within themselves a true heart for humanity and the desire for God's will, that they will do it before their own demise. Where is honor among men in these days. We can only hope that the heart has more stregnth than the eyes and hands of willing compromization.

From firsthand observance of the darkside, the points countered in this article about the law have been witnessed to be invalid. IF we fail to desire truth, and we love our lives to the death, then when we do experience the truth, it will be after being removed from the bear trap and we are being cooked in the pot. Then what good will the strength of the voice of Truth be? No one can cry out for joining in the cry for restoration of a system of Truth and Justice after the iron clamp of the snare has been closed. It must be exposed in the field where it lays before they or their fellows step into it.

Where, today, can be the hearts of compassion in a nation of complacent people who love their positions more than the liberty and longevity of their fellows and their nation? That heart is no longer beating in America, or anywhere that truth should be found and where honor should also be. It beats in many hearts, but it is not beating loudly enough, and is not driven strongly enough with moral conviction, to cause men who hold positions of honor, to step forward and bring forth what is necessary for even the sustainability of the seed of their own families.

Also, please consider what potential moral good can be obtained for the nation, by anyone, such as a Senator or a Congressmen, to gain personal elevation, while willingly misguiding their fellow countrymen, through the public promotion, via a non-factor Senate and Congress, of a program that proclaims as valued, the auditing of the Federal Reserve, when the Fed is not the source for the daily issuing of the currency.

If the desire is to truly bring forth actual value for the fellows they say they courageously represent, then why do these not have the moral strain, and the personal courage (aka John Kennedy), and submit for the audit of the Crowne Trust and the Bank of International Settlements? For, if they have actual knowledge of the truth as their position requires that they do, then they would surely know that the currency is issued from London each night, along with the coordination of Basel, Edinburg, etc. Such persons, performing on the basis of their position, should have the knowledge that the Fed is window dressing and to audit the Fed is a useless waste of time and public energy. To promote such activities only serves the purposes of assisting the works of the system's deception of the very citizens they claim to serve, while helping to keep these citizens from understanding and being able to comprehend the foundation of Truth. It is likened to removing a bandaide from a cut, for the bandaide looks important on the surface, but it has little to do with the wound.

Religion is a foundation of a nation if it is based upon the knowledge of Truth. Religion reveals the condition of the heart. If the root of the heart is based upon a driving desire for seeking growth in the comprehension of the truth, then it is now a useful religion for a nation, for it has no power. When teaching is based on principles of focus on the window dressing of Scripture, then it serves little or no purpose of service. Thus the churches put no power in the storehouse, and the people walk in a void of Truth. That greatly serves the purposes of the 13 families, the Great Merchants who so gleefully serve them for their crumbs, and the kings - the leaders of all the nations - who so willingly assist them in their quest for totalarity rule without flinching for a moral compass, through nothing more than the simple movement of their jawbones and tongues to release their words that explode into power because of the heart that seeks them like an enchanted lover.

The revelation of the Knowledge of Truth is the enemy of the 13 families, for they know from historical fact that by the simple speaking of a Voice of Truth, God rules the nations and trumps evil simply by voices that speak and do the Ways of His Truth. There is no Truth found in the "system of the 13 families". If the knowledge of Truth is revived, then the false falls. The greatest economies have always been those built upon Truth, all others always have failed, and will now fail. And the historic records reveal these falls are immediate and tumultous.

It is interesting that at the Solvay Physics conference the elite men debated the evidence of the existence of the "Law of Conscience". The way of men is that if such a thing exists, then it means that there is a power that is above all. Thus, since it is easier to ignore truth than to seek it out, the evidence was disgarded instead of pursued, for it would not serve the 13 families to find Truth, for it would lead them to the knowledge of the fact that true power over the physical science comes under the authority of "Words of God". It would prove the Bible is true, for the Bible points to the fact that there are Words established by God from before the Creation that He placed within them great Promises of Works that can never fail to be accomplished when those "Words" are acted upon (Whether it be by voiced word language, or by sign language). The Bible testifies that Jesus was sent into the world to testify to the Words of God, and to show the power of the Promsies of God that they contain. He was rejected. But, gave His blood to gain the authority to release them to those whom He Wills. He returned to His disciples and opened this knowledge that they had not understood until that time, and then they gained understanding and were without fear.

Thus, the point is, there is a power that is above all these things of this great system. It is a power so great that if found and spoken, the simple people can bring back truth and justice to the nation despite the rebellion to the knowledge of Truth by its leaders and great merchants, and even its priests (As in Jesus' day). There is a power through which this nation can be healed, and that can also heal the food seed, the medicines, and the environment. It can also heal stop the evil. It is time for people to open their eyes, anoint them, and have a heart desiring the knowledge of truth with no fear. Hearts for moral right are now needed.

  Posted by Bluebird on 06/05/11 09:41 AM

This was a fairly interesting interview and I thank the elves for their efforts. I only have one point to address and that is the judicial system. This may have worked in the past, but the people of today lack the morals necessary to be an effective jury. If anyone ever was part of a jury, they could see this. The jurists rarely follow the judges instructions and therefore make flawed decisions in such important matters. But as for what a solution could be, I am at a loss. I would suggest a mediator to sit in on a jury discussion, but then they might wrongly influence a jury by imposing their thoughts. "Tribal law" sounds somewhat barbaric, and when I look at "elders", I shudder to think of it. (Jimmy Carter comes to mind.) One thing is for certain, what we have is not fair and just. But a "solution" might just be worse, and mean an increase in dictatorship.

Reply from The Daily Bell

For thousands of years human beings operated under tribal/clan law. People saw to their own justice or had help from their families or from their tribe or clan. Or they negotiated the infraction through private third-party entities. What was wrong with this system? The aggrieved negotiated their justice or they simply took it if they could. The idea that the state must be the intermediary, prosecutor and tribunal seems ludicrous, especially given that the state is also involved in politics. This gives the state the opportunity to prosecute its enemies and reward its friends. It also means that the law itself is constantly changing and expanding as the state discovers new areas of monetary fraud that it wishes to make legal for its own application but not for others'. (Insider trading comes to mind.)

  Posted by bionic mosquito on 06/05/11 09:39 AM

In a free banking environment, you are free to choose to NOT use the currency or any services of an institution that practices such a business model. You are free to use a completely sound currency, one not subject to risks of inflation. Leave the funny money to others as you wish.

Thus, how are you harmed? How would you suffer inflation? Why do you believe institutions that go to excess regarding creation of excess credit would survive and thrive in a free-banking environment? Would they grow to the size we have today in the Fed and the banking cartel absent state involvement? Obviously not.

If you choose the good auto mechanic in town and not the bad one, your car will run fine. What is it to you if someone else decides he wants to use the bad mechanic?

Long after I came to the same conclusion as DB and Hornberger, I read that Mises believed the same. Good for him! Mises was prepared to let the market regulate the excesses of such practices. Read Human Action, Chapter 17 Section 12. You can get a free download at LvMI, or I have commented on it here:

Click to view link

Click to view link

Click to view link

  Posted by bionic mosquito on 06/05/11 09:26 AM

Jacob Hornberger is doing some very good work in the cause of educating people on the libertarian message, certainly (and obviously) from a minarchist point of view. While I lean much more to the anarchist camp of libertarian philosophy, I still view Mr. Hornberger as one to be greatly commended for his work.

He makes many wonderful statements here, too numerous for me to repeat.

I offer a few comments:

DB: 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.

BM: see the following site. I cannot unequivocally endorse all of its positions, but it is directly on point to the topic raised by DB.

Click to view link


Further, it must be remembered that the libertarian philosophy is not a life philosophy, nor does it provide a complete moral and ethical road map (beyond non-aggression. And because of the non-aggression principle, how could it?).

The libertarian philosophy is strictly a political philosophy, describing the proper political relationship between and amongst people in a free society. DB is correct, 'people need some sort of moral or behavioral structure.' This is often found in religion, but can be found in other ways.


JH: 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.

BM: AMEN (sorry, the religious side of this libertarian snuck out, in a burst of uncontrolled glee).

  Posted by scousekraut on 06/05/11 09:22 AM

He buys the 9/11 story. That takes some doing for a lawyer who should be trained in collecting evidence.

  Posted by Dave Jr on 06/05/11 09:07 AM

"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."

The Daily Bell is a proponent of sound money, yet endorses the fractional reserve practice of banking. This is conflicting because it cannot be both ways. The fractional reserve practice is the very root of creating money from thin air. I maintain that it is fraudulent to rent (earn interest on) something that does not exist. The practice is inflationary because the portion of money circulating that is not backed by anything (actual value is 0) eventually devalues all the rest of the money, even that portion which is secured by hard earned collateral that has been put up.

I do not buy into the argument that the market can decide. The market cannot decide until the damage is done. Laws are supposed to minimize the ability to do damage, and the courts to offer an avenue of recourse, none of which is possible unless the fraudulent nature of fractional reserve is recognized. What would stop fraudsters from starting a bank, run it up, let it collapse, move to another state and do it again and again? It seems earning a jail sentence for illegal operations would stop them.

If we want sound money, then we are left with the choices of exchanging with metals, and/or requiring that all paper be secured with real property.

So where is the fraud? Money is created for the purpose of lending. Interest is charged, but that interest portion was not created. Therefore, someone somewhere is destined to default. Therein lies one of the deceptions. Another is the inflationary nature of fractional reserve, because it constitutes a hidden tax.

Reply from The Daily Bell

We think he stated the issue very well. Took him a sentence, not a page.

  Posted by robert wheeless on 06/05/11 08:02 AM

There's little need to comment on an interview with which a person agrees with in each and every aspect discussed. Jacob Hornberger is the light at the end of a long, black tunnel.

  Posted by rossbcan on 06/05/11 07:28 AM

JH: "actually be in a perfect storm of failure and destruction of statism all over the world"

Actually, this is the unseen hand (collective self-interest choices) of the market at work, refusing to comply with coerced unproductive choices and making productive choices (carrots and sticks of people). States, by virtue of being unproductive (do not honestly trade, leaving only force / fraud as survival means) have proven themselves unfit to freely associate with and are being shunned. They have lost "consent of the governed" which has, over time devolved from: "fully informed, in voluntary agreement, an honest trade" TO "misinformed, in voluntary agreement with lies" TO "know they are lying, pointless to dispute unreason, tolerate by not opposing" TO "terror of the governed, where we are at now".

Since we are dealing with systemic, institutional criminal (aggression force / fraud) psychopathic behavior of states, the carrots and sticks of the motivational economics of productivity, being productive invokes predatory sticks and choosing to be unproductive yields carrots. States are getting what they wish for, by what they encourage. The grim reaper of "Mathematics of Rule" (reality) is in control, imposing inevitable consequences to economic choices. If we want better consequences, we must make better choices:

Click to view link

DB: "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."

I believe, that trial by jury, before juries were limited in power / scope and stripped of the right to nullify invalid law to be irrelevant IS tribal justice. IMHO, all conflictual matters should have mutually agreed juries (and judges) involved in determining justice, as they once did. As to who wields the power of enforcement, the issue is not monopoly, the issue is making sure that sanctions / victim restitution occurs. Let the monopoly exist, but, should the monopoly not comply, any citizen can take justice (jury ruling) into their own hands (including against elements of the non-complying monopoly) and, since complying with law, be immune from retaliation.

JH: "Laws against murder, rape, stealing, and other violent crimes place a price on violation, but I consider such laws perfectly valid."

These crimes fall within the valid moral scope of law which is solely based on right to life and self-defense OF VICTIMS (there are no legitimate victimless crimes). They also meet the no "moral hazard" test, because, by refraining from these crimes, we can be free of law's retaliation. These crimes are also REAL objective knowledge, a relationship between action and consequence. Whether the "law" reacts to these crimes or not is irrelevant, because the victims will and their defense will increase conflict, decreasing peace and civilization. The only point of law is to prevent arbitrary "tit for tat" conflict escalation by having unbiased / objective third parties determine the REAL aggression and sanction to the perps / restitution to the victims.

Because of Enlightenment II due to the internet, we are collectively, in a time-frame of decades rediscovering the subverted knowledge of civilization and what it takes to be civilized, ending a century plus elite lobotomy program using subverted education and monopoly media consolidation / control.

People are learning to think and differentiate the crucial difference between fact and opinion:

Click to view link

And, as we collectively discover that whatever political / moral / religious philosophy we hold are LIES, pretexts and part of an elite "divide and conquer" conflict creation agenda, we arrive at the truth that the "rule of law" has fallen and, if we want peace, civilization, prosperity or mere survival, we must again learn to "live and let live", "agree to disagree" and tolerate each others peaceful existance, under the "rule of law" enforced by ANYONE who sees or is faced with a violation:

Click to view link

We need to make better choices and allow force and arbitrary power no quarter, else, we are CHOOSING to not survive:

Click to view link

Back 1 2 3 4 5


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.