News & Analysis
A Good Man: Libertarian Mr. Bill Still Runs for President
I announce my candidacy for the Libertarian Party nomination for President of the United States. Now here's my promise to you; if elected as your President, I will take office on January 20, 2013 – interestingly, that occurs on my 65th birthday. I promise that on that day, I will do three things ... – Still2012.com
Dominant Social Theme: The government must work for the people.
Free-Market Analysis: Bill Still is one of those people you don't always hear about who's had a tremendous impact on the larger libertarian conversation taking place in the US and, in fact, throughout the West. Now he's running to be the Libertarian candidate for the US presidency.
Will he win? Probably not. But he won't mind, in our humble view. Mr. Still's career is all about education – getting out the word about liberty as he sees it and making a case for freedom to as many people as he can. If he does gain the nomination, he'll be running on the Libertarian ticket, which will make it very hard for him to win, but will no doubt give him a larger platform from which he can express his views.
We're certainly glad he's running however. Not least because his platform seems to us to cut to heart of the current libertarian argument over money, state-power and political systems. This is still something of a subterranean argument and if nothing else, Mr. Still may do the libertarian community the favor of more fully unearthing it. Here's something on his background from his own website:
Bill Still is a former newspaper editor and publisher, best-selling author and award-winning documentary writer/director. He has written for USA Today, The Saturday Evening Post, the Los Angeles Times Syndicate, OMNI magazine, and produced the first syndicated radio "shorts" program, Health News. He has written 20 books, including his latest, No More National Debt, due out in March 2011; and three feature-length documentaries, including The Money Masters (1995), one of the most-watched films in Internet history; and The Secret of Oz (2010), winner of Best Documentary of 2010 at the Beloit International Film Festival.
Unlike, say, libertarian Congressman Ron Paul (engaged in an increasingly successful run for president on the GOP ticket), Mr. Still doesn't seen overly concenred with gold-as-money. He does however have very clear priorities. At his presidential website, Mr. Still makes a three-part pledge.
1. I will put an end to government borrowing. No More National Debt! The United States will replace Federal Reserve Notes by re-issuing debt-free U.S. Notes, and gradually pay off the National Debt with them.
2. I will put an end to the ability of commercial banks to control the Quantity of money in our system through what is essentially counterfeiting. This has been a massive fraud on the people of the United States. We, the people, will take back the money power from the big banks and return the American economy to monetary stability and prosperity.
To ensure this system is enforced, I will appoint a Special Prosecutor experienced in matters of fraud to prosecute to the full extent of the law those who have abused our system in the past to serve as an example for the future.
3. I will abolish the Internal Revenue System and the income tax – both personal and corporate — and implement a fair, simple and equitable consumption tax in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. This is how we funded our government for the first 100 years, and we can do it again.
Mr. Still elaborates on these points at his website. He believes in incentives and fears in America that the incentive to work hard and gain compensation has been lost. He believes people simply don't believe in the American system anymore. He writes:
Without buy-in, no one will work hard. It's just common sense. And ending the Fed will not do it! True reform depends on putting an end to two things: 1. The ability of government to borrow; and 2. The ability of banks to control the quantity of money in a national money system.
That's it! This is the ONLY way we can finally achieve economic STABILITY and therefore prosperity. If you ended the Fed tomorrow and achieved neither of these two pillars of monetary reform, you would have done exactly NOTHING!
But instead of talking about these two real solutions – the only real solutions – all you hear from the major media – and all the political candidates except for Dr. Paul — is one slightly different flavor of the same old tune – that is, trying to fix a debt problem with more debt!
We're not quite sure of the entirety of Mr. Still's position, given his quasi-endorsement of Dr. Paul at the end of this statement. But there seems to us a great deal of good in what he's espousing. He wants to simplify the tax structure and end the horrid progressive income tax. Good. He wants to end government borrowing. Great. Presumably he wants to reduce or eliminate a number of wasteful fedgov programs.
He also seems to want to give the awesome monopoly power to print money to the US government. Granted, he is doing this for the best of reasons: He wishes to take away power from the "banksters" and return it to fedgov where it belongs. But will this end monetary abuse? We have struggled with this question for years, and have pointed out some potential contradictios in the message of one of the foremost narrators of this message (besides Mr. Still), Ms. Ellen Brown.
We have, in fact, put forth the following question: "How much money is too much?" Absent a competitive, private money system (presumably featuring gold and silver), how does "government" KNOW how much money to print?
Mr. Still also wants to appoint a "special prosecutor" to prosecute to the full extent of the law those who have recently abused the system. But the current US "system" seems very rotten to us. Financial regulators routinely expose the corruption in their own ranks – though nothing ever happens. Congress passes ludicrous laws (in our humble view) against such practices as insider trading (Wall Street RUNS on inside information; that's how markets become "efficient") while itself conducting the practice regularly.
The law enforcement community is increasingly corrupt, too (sorry to say) – violent and increasingly lawless, using illicit wiretaps and other forms of surveillance virtually without supervision. There really is no law in America any more so far as we can tell, or no law as it has been understood for hundreds of years whereby citizens attempt to utilize "democratic" government as a shield against overwhelming abuse of civil authority.
Aren't there enough people in US jails already (half the world's population of prisoners)? Couldn't we consider a system of private justice instead of repurposing the public one? Here's what the The American Civil Liberties Union wrote as recently as November 23, 2011:
"The U.S. Senate is considering the unthinkable: changing detention laws to imprison people — including Americans living in the United States itself — indefinitely and without charge." ... "The Defense Authorization bill — a "must-pass" piece of legislation — is headed to the Senate floor with troubling provisions that would give the President — and all future presidents — the authority to indefinitely imprison people, without charge or trial, both abroad and inside the United States."
Conclusion: Mr. Still is evidently and obviously a good, even great man who has spent a lifetime in the service of liberty. But is this a fully libertarian platform? Perhaps an even bigger question: What would one be?
l 
|
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 |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by dave jr on 11/28/11 05:42 PM
There is only one other activity that uses a progressive scale, i.e., how much you must pay, depends on how much you have. It is thuggery. Similarly, both the thug and the IRS back up their proposition with weapons.
 |
Posted by Thomas Molitor on 11/28/11 05:29 PM
This prognosis can only be changed by a drastic alteration of the American and world monetary system: by the return of a free-market commodity money such as gold, and by removing government TOTALLY from the monetary scene.
 |
Posted by Jeanna on 11/28/11 05:20 PM
I agree that any tax is intrusive. But, the US Constitution recognized excise taxes (sales taxes) as more fair than any other type of tax because it is readily apparent, and it is evenly applied. For this reason, I favor the consumption tax, a tax on sales of new items only, as being less intrusive than the income tax. It is also easier to protest as it is seen at the checkout counter. Everyone knows what it is. Everyone knows how much it is.
The same cannot be said of the income tax.
A consumption tax does not require the level of regulation and bureaucracy currently imposed by the IRS. Businesses already have accounting systems in place for 50 US State sales tax systems, and can easily collect and remit to the state and federal gov'ts. The same rate would apply to all, including the criminals, the drug traffickers, and other "underground" cash lifestyles.
While I do not believe the poor should pay any tax, whether sales or income tax, I do not believe a progressive tax system is consistent with the intent of the Founding Fathers. It is an idea that flourished with the populist movement, and by playing upon people's greed and envy. A progressive tax system is not for a free people.
Most of our accounting system is driven by the income tax code. So much of our lives are dedicated to supporting a tax bureaucracy that is a system of slavery. I'd like April 15th to be just another day in the US.
Reply from The Daily Bell
We responded to your previous statement.
|
Posted by dave jr on 11/28/11 05:14 PM
Thank God! And thank you Jeanna. I'm almost losing my mind over this.
|
Posted by Jeanna on 11/28/11 05:08 PM
I watched Mr. Still's documentary and was puzzled by the seeming conflict of gov't printing presses, and prolonged stability both he and Ms. Brown referred to under a gov't controlled money system.
Although the Tally Sticks lasted approx. 700 years in England, what was the controlling factor that kept gov't issued money in line? Was is that people were more honest 1000 years ago? The system in Philadelphia did not have a chance to play out over centuries as it was undermined by the British merchants, so I am not sure this is a worthy example for their discussion.
He frequently stated that the argument that the gov't printing presses would result in inflation was bogus, a red herring laid by the banksters. But, I am not convinced. The entire premise seems to be that debt free gov't money will cause a society to grow and prosper. What about the old saying that money doesn't grow on trees? If it is free, then it is also of no value. Right?
Bryan's 'Cross of Gold' depiction of the gold standard is a slavery system when it is mandated. I take exception to the word "standard" in gold standard as setting a price for gold means it is not the real standard at all, that some other medium of exchange is preferred. Any medium of exchange used and mandated by the bankers will result in a slave system. It is not gold that is the problem.
Money should be competitive, just as every other aspect of the market place should be. Copper, silver, gold, eggs, milk, chickens, salt. A medium of exchange does not have to be regulated to be of value to the other party. When people can freely choose the medium of exchange then free markets and economies flourish and grow.
Government control of money makes the citizens slaves to the government. Banker control of money makes people slaves to the bankers. We need to abolish all Central Banks, as well as the practice of fractional reserve banking, and go back to the US Constitution under which money is simply defined, and not controlled.
Reply from The Daily Bell
He frequently stated that the argument that the gov't printing presses would result in inflation was bogus, a red herring laid by the banksters.
Huh? What? OK ... HOW DOES GOVERNMENT KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY IS TOO MUCH?. This is the question. It is a simple question. Not complex. Let him answer it. Let Ms. Brown answer it. Let any one of them answer it. They cannot. The silence is deafening.
Insightful post. Thank you.
One question though. You write "abolish ... fractional reserve banking." OK ... who is to do the abolishing and where will you place the prisons?
Why don't you go all the way and jump into the chilly but bracing waters of free banking. You will find it may suit you after a while ...
|
Posted by dave jr on 11/28/11 05:06 PM
So then you trust there will be a relatively even playing field? You have more faith in government than I.
Reply from The Daily Bell
It isn't clear to you we are speaking hypothetically? And yes, there have been times in history when money has circulated privately. Hopefully they will come again.
|
Posted by dave jr on 11/28/11 04:57 PM
You are going along with the idea that government should be able to create currency, debt free, and spend it into the economy.
At the same time, you say the market should be able to create their own currencies to compete with this government fiat, but that is moot; because...
... what is able to compete with government?
Thus, another monopoly. Only this one totes a gun.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Oh, right. Yes, we stand by our paradigm. If government wants to print a money, let it, so long as others can circulate their own money in competition within a relatively even playing field ...
|
Posted by dave jr on 11/28/11 04:39 PM
DB: "We believe the optimal money is fully competitive money, free banking etc."
I believe that too.
But, we are not talking about free banking or the Constitutional duty to coin. We are talking about about an un-accounted government fiat monopoly.
Please tell me what is able to compete with government. "Really", I would like to know.
Reply from The Daily Bell
We don't understand the question.
|
Posted by GrandpaSpeaks on 11/28/11 03:41 PM
Basic strategy; If the Bankers hate it, I probably will like it. President Ron Paul with Vice President Bill Still. I think an audit of the Federal Reserve would answer a lot of questions. Probably the only thing left that truly scares the bejeezes out of the elite are these two. The founding fathers had it right, we need to concentrate on who and how we went haywire since then and these two are the only ones willing to face the truth. A drunk has to admit he is a drunk before they can turn themselves around. We are still mixing drinks during this election, which may be the last one where there is a real chance to affect change without revolution. Got the guts? To follow the Constitution that is.
|
Posted by dave jr on 11/28/11 03:36 PM
"Bar money chases out old."
meant, bad money chases out good.
I say end legal tender laws, the 16th and 17th ammendments. Let the federal reserve print its' worthless notes, and competing currencies will overtake it. The central bankers are nothing without government supported laws. Hand over the fed operation to the law makers? How will this be better?
Money creation belongs in the market, for the purpose of trade.
In the hands of the fed with gov support - bad.
Solely in the hands of gov. - worse, much worse, communist russia worse.
|
Posted by dave jr on 11/28/11 03:17 PM
"With competing currencies, like gold or silver or bitcoins or whatever, we have options, which will control that printing press."
We would have competing currencies now, except Fed/Gov has stepped in with fiat legal tender. Who would pay their bills in gold when legally, the vender must accept fiat. If we can pay with fiat, then we might as well earn fiat. Bar money chases out old.
Do you really think government will print and not retain legal tender laws to retain a monopoly? Can you gaurantee it?
No, government has no business in the money business. Then without the coercion of law, can we truly have competing currencies.
DB, very good? Really?
Reply from The Daily Bell
We believe the optimal money is fully competitive money, free banking etc.
"Really."
|
Posted by dave jr on 11/28/11 03:04 PM
And what currency can compete with one that is printed debt free?
Currency is a debt/credit instrument to facilitate a trade. Take the debt out and there is no credit. No value. You say you don't like violence, but promote a system that requires it?
Do you understand that gold transfers debt. It transfers the productive effort to mine and refine it. Bit coin too requires input.
Why would you give the violent entity, that which you cry about, a free unearned pass to recieve our properties, that we earned by productive and honest effort?
|
Posted by laceja on 11/28/11 02:48 PM
How do you answer this question: How much money is too much, and how does the government (or central banks) know how much to print?
The private market knows. Does Mr. Still?
Obviously, Mr. Still does not know, because he makes it clear gold is bad. Gold, or any other currency for that matter, is only bad if it is declared to be the only acceptable currency, especially for payment of taxes. As he points out, that's where we got the American Revolution.
That's one very good reason, why I like Ron Paul very much. Just ending the Fed and allowing the US Government to print money won't solve the problem. It needs competition to "keep it honest".
The real problem is how to oust the bankers. Frankly, I'm beginning to think the direction we're headed in now is, because the bankers fear they will indeed lose control. They need to have chaos and rebellion to distract us from zeroing in on them. Even if we do, they'll use their power to destroy as much as possible. Their attitude is, "it's my ball and we either play by my rules or we won't play at all".
Reply from The Daily Bell
It is the great families behind the Fed that are driving the world to catastrophe in our view. The bankers you worry about mean little or nothing in the scheme of things. End the Fed.
|
Posted by laceja on 11/28/11 02:41 PM
Competing currencies. The government should (must) be able to print its own currency, without having to borrow it, but it should also not have a monopoly on it. With competing currencies, like gold or silver or bitcoins or whatever, we have options, which will control that printing press.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Very good.
|
Posted by laceja on 11/28/11 02:30 PM
Nice try, we've already been attacked! In many cases violently.
|
Posted by flying_pig on 11/28/11 02:24 PM
"Ron Paul is a White version of Obama."
So, he's going to win in 2012? Awesome, dude!
|
Posted by dave jr on 11/28/11 01:42 PM
Thankyou for this article DB. It blows my mind that even some libertarian minded people can not see the flaw in Stills' proposal. I feel like I have slipped into one of Agent Weebleys' alternate reality games. This issue needs to be moved to the top of the list.
If government can print money, debt free, to spend into the economy, what then are the restraints to an already bloated, over reaching, over regulating, increasingly draconian, war mongering, paternalistic government? DB, do you really struggle with this? Or are you just kneeling down to talk to the kiddies?
If we have to work for the money they can just print, how is this different from slavery? If they can just print the coupons we are bound by law to accept for our efforts, and need for our survival, they will become our legal and legitimate overlord and dictator.
Who will produce wealth when it can not be traded without this intermediary, non-restrained, non-productive, non-accountable, irresponsible mechanism installed between transactors; designed to usurp the greater portion of value acheived by real effort. This will be much worse than what we have now under a central bank, where we at least have some visabity of government expansion beyond its' bound by way of accounting the national debt. It is GOVERNMENT debt, not OURS. Do not fall for it.
C'mon people. This isn't rocket surgery.
|
Posted by vivek on 11/28/11 11:50 AM
I watched his documentary, the Wonderful Wizard of Oz... and could not argue his logic.
Can you? Gold is bad in his books. I agree.
The Silver Slippers? Hmmmmmm? Very telling stuff. I like Bill Still.
And even if he loses, I'll Still like Bill.
Vivek
Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
How do you answer this question: How much money is too much, and how does the government (or central banks) know how much to print?
The private market knows. Does Mr. Still?
|
Posted by laceja on 11/28/11 11:30 AM
In his statement, Mr. Still says:
"Occupy Wall Street folks, bless you for making this your generation's new human rights movement. But one - and only one warning: treat ANYONE promoting violence as the enemy of this movement. There is no more effective way to destroy this movement than to incite violence."
Now, I'm not a militant person, by nature. However, it seems to me, when we are all being herded coerced at the point of a gun, how do you stop the injustices, without violence? I mean, we've got one family, controlling the world with $500 trillion, as estimated, directing massive military forces against us to insure their supremacy over us. How on earth do you overthrow such a dictatorial power, without violence?
I am not advocating violence, I just want to know, how do we free ourselves from such power, without it?
Reply from The Daily Bell
You use the principal of nonviolence. You don't attack until attacked, which gives you the upper hand morally, anyway ...
|
Posted by Harry_Schwartz67 on 11/28/11 10:52 AM
Scott,
Ron Paul is a White version of Obama.
Both promise the Moon & Stars, but once in office they have a metamorphosis!
Reply from The Daily Bell
Keep it up and we will block you again. Write comments without referring to people's race or religion. You can do it. Try to be human (in a good way).
|
|
