The Ati-thesis , Marxism


"By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[3] Friedrich Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, argues that state capitalism would be the final stage of capitalism consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state.[4]"

Quoted from Wikepedia

Friday, April 29, 2016

Categorically A Progressive Cannot Earn the Conservative Nomination !


Being a Republican and a conservative is a moral qualification for earning the Republican nomination.



Ever since Trump entertainment Industries entered the Republican primaries, the media has been talking about the Trump candidacy as a done deal as if conducting psychological warfare by intentional design. In fact the delegates have not voted yet and in truth qualifications for earning the conservative party nomination should have a required measure of conservatism. Recently Mr Trump said that America should just have a "great president" and it doesn't matter whether the president is Democrat or Republican, which begs the question, if that is the way Mr Trump feels , why isn't he running as an Independent? To Republicans and conservatives it does make a difference and so one must ask how can one earn the Republican nomination when one is, by self admittance neither a conservative nor a Republican? Shouldn't "earning the Republican nomination" have something to do with actually being a Republican? 

 The Republican party is a private organization which has long been the party of conservatism in the USA. Just as a public company has an obligation to its stockholders to make a profit , a private organization has an obligation to its private supporters to uphold the values and the philosophy for which that support is granted. When Trump entered the race he snapped up the antiestablishmentarain base so effectively that it couldn't have been done better if it were planned in advance. In just about a nano second the mainstay of the antiestablishmentarian media dropped Ted Cruz as their favorite son and all together embraced Trump. 

 Anyone in the marketing industry can identify a ready made political base like the antiestablishmentarians. Any one who has ever engaged in a conversation with half a dozen antiestablismentarians knows exactly how an argument with any antiestablishmentarian on any particular subject will unfold . The talking points are predictably consistent across the entire populous of antiestablishmentarians. Any one knowing the talking points can design a political platform tailor made to the specs of antiestablishmentarianism but let it be said that a fundamental characteristic of this political base is that there was within it massive support for Libertarian candidate Ron Paul in the 2012 election. 

 Ron Paul is a self identified Libertarian so what was Ron Paul doing running in the Republican party primary and why did the leaders of the Republican party allow Mr Paul to do so? Republicans and Libertarians are much closer on many issues than Republicans and Democrats but they part ways on national defense. The most important role of the President of the United States is Commander in Chief and so the policy difference between Libertarians and Republicans is no small matter. In the 2012 Republican primaries, Ron Paul delivered a speech in which he dismissed the Iran threat as a foolish and made up fantasy. Mr Paul announced that there is no Iran threat to the United Sates and western civilization. When Mr Paul was not allowed to deliver a speech during the Republican convention in which Mitt Romney was nominated, the antiestablishmentarians were outraged , so much so, that from that day forward they conducted a massive campaign against Mitt Romney. They came up with the meme that Romney is exactly the same as Obama. The only rational to which I can attribute such an idea is RomneyCare, which is a state health care program. Romney campaigned on the promise that he would repeal ObamaCare . This was insignificant to the antiestablishmentarians,. What mattered was that Romney supported a state health care program when he was Governor of a blue state. 

 The antiestablishmentarians campaigned aggressively against Romney and once Obama was re-elected the antiestablishmentarians blamed everything that Obama did or that couldn't be done under an Obama administration on the Republicans. For four years meme after meme after meme streamed across our social media walls deeming with little evidence that the entire establishment is corrupt- especially the Republicans, the targeted party for what was at core a progressive movement's design to take over from that party from within.

The antiestablishmentarians didn't call them selves the antiestablishmentarians of course. they called them selves the "true conservatives'. Donald Trump is now the current favorite of the antiestablishmentarians. Trump advocates for federalized universal health care , which is no longer a major concern among that faction which not too long ago identified themselves as the true conservatives and deemed the entire Republican establishment to be RINOS, never considering that it should be the Republican party which defines a Republican and not the antiestablishmentarian party. 

 It is the job of the delegates to nominate a candidate who represents Republican values and who is electable. Those are the rules. The Republican party is a private organization and they can make their own rules in the USA. When the nomination process moves to convention it moves from a process dominated by the antiestablishment party to a process dominated by the Republican party- the real Republican party- the gatekeepers of conservatism. Although most delegates are bound to the people's choice in the first round . I have heard that they are not bound to vote.- that they can abstain. from voting. 

 And so whether or not the progressive candidate Mr Trump gets his number of delegates it should be an interesting shift in power when we get to the convention. The delegates have a serious responsibility to uphold the conservative political philosophy, which is a small government philosophy. When Mr Trump came out in support of federalized universal health care, he said in his own words that he knows it is not a Republican policy. Not only is it not a Republican policy but repealing federalized universal health care was one of the biggest issues of the 2012 elections. What happened?

 Republicans and conservatives ! It's time to take back our party! When it is said that Mr Trump has brought millions of new Republicans into the party, those are not real Republicans, they are Republicans in name brought in just to vote for Mr Trump who often talks about "his people". Mr Trump brought his people into the Republican primaries. The end game of the Trump candidacy is to wipe conservatism off the ticket all together. The delegates do not have a duty to help Mr Trump to achieve his end game and it doesn't matter that the rinobots supporting Trump will be angry. They will be angry at Republicans for anything Republicans do except executing a suicide mission to the drum beat of the antiestablishmentarian rhetoric. It doesn't matter! What matters is keeping conservatism alive and very very well! We can do this!

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

How Progressivism Got Its Foothold In Maine In 1951

This is an preview chapter of my book Public Private relationships and The New Owners of The Means of Production

Separation of Corporation and State


 In the 1920’s fascism became the governing system in Italy, not by constitutional amendments but by an ordinary process of legislation. There has been a similar process undergoing in Maine since the late seventies. The first stirrings of these changes date back even earlier. In this chapter we see how a 1951 Opinion of the Justices guts the core out of Article IV Part Third Sections 13 and 14 of the Maine Constitution but first, we shall go back to 1876 when Article IV Part Third Sections 13 and 14 were included in Maine’s Constitution.

Governor Seldon Conner had just taken office. His inaugural address passionately railed against special interests and abuses of governmental powers which Article Iv Part Third Sections 13 and 14 of the Maine Constitution were intended to cure,


Article IV.
Part Third.
Legislative Power.

Section 13. Special legislation. The Legislature shall, from time to time, provide, as far as practicable, by general laws, for all matters usually appertaining to special or private legislation.

Section 14. Corporations, formed under general laws. Corporations shall be formed under general laws, and shall not be created by special Acts of the Legislature, except for municipal purposes, and in cases where the objects of the corporation cannot otherwise be attained; and, however formed, they shall forever be subject to the general laws of the State.

In 1951 an Opinion of the Justices used Governor Seldon Connor’Inaugural Address to determine the intent of the Article IV Part Third Sections 13 and 14 of the Maine Constitution. The Justices cherry picked the Governor’s speech in support of an interpretation which reads like a foregone conclusion ignoring many points made by Governor Connor. The key difference between what is in the Governor’s speech and what is found in the text of the Constitution is a reference to existing laws, the point upon which the conclusion drawn by the Judges depends and without which a substantively differenmeaning prevails.

Governor Seldon Connor's Speech
Section thirteen presents a discretionary field of action which your own honor will impel you to occupy to the fullest extent.'The title of 'Special and Private Laws,' which includes so large a portion of the laws of former Legislatures, is an obnoxious one, conveying suggestions of privilege, favoritism and monopoly; though happily these evils have not in fact, stained the character of our legislation, they should not be suffered to have, even in the form of our laws, any grounds of suspicion that can be removed. Other weighty objections to special laws for private benefit are, that they are obtained at the public expense, and in their passage distract the attention of legislators from matters of public interest. The opportunity is now afforded, and the duty enjoined upon you, by the amendment, to restrict the necessity for such laws to the narrowest possible limits. An analysis and classification of the private and special laws upon the statute books, will inform you of the objects or which it is desirable to provide by general laws, if practicable. 'Many objects have been hitherto specially legislated upon although they were amply provided for by general laws. I have distinguished authority for the statement that sixty or more of the corporations created by a special act for each, by the last Legislature, could have been created and organized under general laws. The reason why the general laws have not been resorted to to a greater extent, is not, so far as I am informed, to be found in any insufficiency or defect of those laws, but in the greater ease and simplicity of the method of application to the Legislature and in the fancied higher sanction of an authority proceeding directly from it. Section fourteen, relating to corporations is compressive and peremptory.. It relates to all corporations, except only those for municipal purposes. It clearly prohibits their creation by special acts if the objects desired can be secured under existing general laws.' From Governor Seldon Conner's Inaugural Address 1876 – I 1 (emphasis mine)

The 1951 Opinion of the Justices addressed the Legislature's constitutional authority to incorporate the Gardiner Finance Co pursuant to Article IV Part Third Section 14 . 2 3

Governor Connor’s speech iinformative to reasons why Article IV Part Third Sections 13 and 14 were added to the Maine Constitution, but is not the primary source of constitutional interpretation. The use of governor’s speech as the primary measure of constitutional interpretation is equivalent to transferring the authority of interpreting the law to the administrative branch of government .
The reference to exiting laws is found only in the Governor’s speech and not in the text of the Constitution which uses the verb “shall’ to indicate the future tense.
The Opinion of the Justices declare Governor Connors speech to mean that Sections 13 & 14 authorizes the Legislature to determine the field or fields in which corporations should be formed under general laws, The justices should be using the words of the Constitution to substantiate their opinions but there is no one to object when there is no one representing the people vs the Maine Legislature and so Governor Connor’s speech is used because it works for what is wanted to be done by the Legislature and the Justices, which is to t make it optional whether the Legislature chooses to create a general law to serve a specific field.
The Opinion of the Justices uses the word “authorize” when it is more accurate to say “requires” or “instructs”. The use of the word “authorizes” changes the intent of the amendment from limiting the powers of the Legislature to expanding upon legislative powers to include authority to interpret the law as the Legislature sees fit, and this in the case concerning constitutional law governing the parameters of legislative powers.
There was only one party presenting their point of view before the Justices, the same party- the Legislature, which Article IV Part Third, Legislative Powers, Sections 13 & 14, limits the powers there of.
Opinion of the Justices, 68 Me. 5824
It cannot be doubted that the framers of Art. IV, Part Third, Sec. 14 intended that it should be construed as Governor Connor construed it, as authorizing the Legislature to determine the field or fields in which corporations should be 'formed under general laws,'


Article IV Part Third Section 13. Special legislation. states that “Corporations shall be formed under general laws, and shall not be created by special Acts of the Legislature, except for municipal purposes, and in cases where the objects of the corporation cannot otherwise be attained; and, however formed, they shall forever be subject to the general laws of the State. While the 1951 Opinion of the Justices later concludes that there is no other way to interpret the meaning of Article IV Part Third Sections 13 & 14 than what they stated in their opinion, it is viable to interpret the intended meaning of Section 14 as if there is no general law covering the object of the corporation, the Legislature shall pass a general law applicable to any corporation having such an object. The constitutional role of the Legislature is to create general laws to cover specific fieldsSection 14 is specifically written to prohibit the Legislature from chartering corporations except within “the narrowest possible limits” to quote Governor Connor.
The Governor’s speech lays emphasis on the fact that there already existed general laws under which 60 or more corporations which had then been chartered by special acts of legislation could have been formedAn examination of the Article IV Part Third Sections 13 clarifies that the Legislature shall from time to time provide general laws for all matters usually appertaining to special or private legislation. The Constitution does not limit the use of general laws to existing laws. ”Shall from time to time provide” is in the future tense. Instead the Constitution instructs the use of general laws with only two exceptions. Section 13 says the Legislature shall create general laws under which any corporation serving any object can be formed. Section 14 says that if there exist an object which cannot be accommodated by a general law, only then can the Legislature charter a corporation as a special act. Since the only other exception is for municipal purposes, it precludes corporations chartered by special acts of legislation for private regional and state purposes.

In the next conclusion drawn by the Justices the words written in the Constitution Section 13 are ignored as the Justices use Governor Connor’s words as a stand in for the text codified in the Constitutional amendment:
Opinion of the Justices, 68 Me. 582- continued
and that in the absence of an existing general law under which the objects of the corporation can be attained the Legislature may create such corporation by special act. (emphasis mine)
The two thoughts, one immediately following the other, produces a meaning inconsistent with the meaningful context of Governor Connor speech as well as the Maine Constitution. The Justices construe the meaning of the amendment as intending ” Art. IV, Part Third, Sec. 14... authorizes the Legislature to write a general law, but the Legislature may at its own discretion charter a corporation by special act of legislation instead.”
The paragraph then concludes with these words:
Neither can it be doubted that it has been construed in conformity with that view for more than three-quarters of a century. In this construction we heartily concur for no other meaning can be fairly given to the language used in the amendment.
Since the adoption of these sections, the successive Legislatures of this State, as evidenced by their action, have consistently interpreted Section 14 as permitting the creation of corporations by special charter whenever the objects thereof could not be attained under existing general laws.”


In Governor Connor speech, he states that the intention is "to restrict the necessity for such laws to the narrowest possible limits” and tells of “sixty or more of the corporations created by a special act for each, by the last Legislature, could have been created and organized under general laws.” and that “The title of 'Special and Private Laws,' which includes so large a portion of the laws of former Legislatures, is an obnoxious one, conveying suggestions of privilege, favoritism and monopoly” Governor Connor uses established practice as a model for what not to do and an explanation as to why Article IV Part Third Sections 13 and 14 was needed in the Maine Constitution. Conversely, the Opinion of the Justices repeatedly use the word “existing” found only in Governor Connor’s speech and absent in fact or implication in the text of the Constitution as the basis of their interpretation of constitutional intent.
An Unconstitutional Precedence
The Justices use established legislative practice as a legal precedence establishing the meaning of the Constitution. Another paragraph begins by saying “established principles of constitutional construction require that the views of the framers be given great consideration”. In the second half of the sentence the Justices declare that whenever the Constitution is ambiguous, then the long course of practice can be taken as established law.
Ambiguity is cited as the reason for using entrenched practice as the basis of constitutional interpretation but the ambiguity is of the Justices own making. In his inaugural speech, Governor Connor acknowledges the exception for municipal purposes but the Opinion of the Justices occludes the exception for municipal purposes and treats the second exception, an object which cannot be otherwise attained, as the only exception to the prohibition against legislatively chartered corporations. When the exception for municipal purposes is taken into consideration, it clarifies the intention to prohibit the Legislature from chartering corporations for state, regional and private purposes. If that were not the case, there would be no need to make an exception for municipal purposes, in fact no need for section 14 at all. The Constitutional intent is specific that private corporations are to be incorporated under general law. Municipal corporations are chartered by the Legislature and government corporations are forbidden unless the object of the corporation cannot be achieved another way.
Governor Connor cites the long existing practices as the purposeful reason for the constitutional amendment. Contrarily, the Justices conclude that if a practice is engaged in for a length of time after the amendment was added to the Maine Constitution, that practice by those whose very power the constitutional amendment is intended to limit, makes said practice constitutional, discounting that the legal authority of the Constitution is derived from the consent of the governed.

The object in question is to incorporate the Gardiner Finance Company. The opinion states that “its objects, as declared in Legislature Document No. 383, cannot be attained by organization under any existing general law”. Document No 383 is a charter for a private finance company and does not contain an argument as to why the Gardiner Finance Corporation cannot be chartered under general law and yet the Opinion of the Justices states that it cannot be done withouany further ado although this is the condition that the Constitution says must be satisfied.
Opinion Of The Justices 1951 continued 5
It being manifest that your inquiry relates particularly to the proposed incorporation of
Guardian Finance Co., and [146 Me. 324] that its objects, as declared in Legislative Document No. 383, cannot be attained by organization under any existing general law, we supplement the foregoing by saying that said corporation may be chartered by special act.
Dated at Augusta, Maine, this eighth day of May, 1951.
Respectfully submitted:
HAROLD H. MURCHIE, SIDNEY ST. F. THAXTER, RAYMOND FELLOWS, EDWARD F.MERRILL, WILLIAM B. NULTY, ROBERT B. WILLIAMSON

The Rise Of Progressivism
According to the Opinion of the Justices in 1951, Article IV, Part Third sections 13 and 14 was ignored by the Maine Legislature since the day the amendment was included in the Maine Constitution, when it is written “Since the adoption of these sections, the successive Legislatures of this State, as evidenced by their action, have consistently interpreted Section 14 as permitting the creation of corporations by special charter whenever the objects thereof could not be attained under existing general laws.” The Opinion of the Justices of 1951 rules that the Constitution can be over ruled by contrary practice and disregard for the oaths of offices taken by our public servants. When the consent of the governed as codified in the Maine Constitution has no standing, there is no Rule of Law governing Maine law makers.
In The Maine Constitution, -a Reference Manual, Marshal J Tinkle writes:

"In the late nineteenth centuries, the Law Court evinced more concern for economic rights, and under the "takings" clause and taxing power clause struck down legislation that promoted private industry at the expense of property owners or tax payers. This approach harmonized with the national trend, but the Maine court went further in restricting state as the Law Court has increasingly deferred to legislation in reviewing a wide variety of regulatory schemes and funding projects. In rationalizing this turnabout, the Justices have explained that they had "interpreted our Constitution as a live and flexible instrument fully capable of meeting and serving the imperative needs of society in a changing world" ( Opinion of the Justices, 231 A. 2D 431, 434 {ME 1967})."1

The concept of the Constitution as a living and flexible instrument is the philosophy of progressivism. An Opinion of the Justices is respected but is not as robust as a hearing in a court of law where there is more than one faction presenting an argument before the Justices. In the case of the 1951 Opinion of the Justices, the court ruled on a constitutional amendment which restricts the authority of the Legislature but there is no other party but the Legislature represented before the Justices. The Legislature cannot be representative of the governed in a case where in the issue is concerned with restrictions which the governed have placed over the Legislature.


1 Opinion of the Justices, 68 Me. 582 at page 585
2 H.P, 641, House of Representatives 1951
3 Opinion of the Justices, 68 Me. 582 at page 585
4 State v. Longley, 119 Me. 535 at page 540, 112 A. 260, 262.

5 State v. Longley, 119 Me. 535 at page 540, 112 A. 260, 262.



Monday, March 7, 2016

What Is Conservatism ?


http://goo.gl/6Z9sEu

This is the introductory chapter of Public Private Relationships and The New Owners of the Means of Production in which I identify my own political philosophy
There is much talk in today's American political landscape about conservatism. This is my view.

Conservatism is Individualism

The purpose of American conservatism is to preserve the political philosophy of the founders of the United States, as documented in The United States Constitution, the Federalist Papers and The Declaration of Independence. The fundamental principal of that philosophy is individual liberty. A conservative considers policy within the framework of the United States Constitution. A progressive regards the Constitution as outdated and no longer suitable for today's world. A conservative rejects policy if it is inconsistent with the Constitution. A progressive devises ways around the Constitution and the statutes if they pose obstacles to what the progressive wants. The progressive prioritizes policy and finds a way to make the Constitution fit policy- or as in the case of the Maine Legislature, just ignores the Constitution all together as it has been said in high circles that no one reads the Maine1 Constitution, perhaps because the Maine Constitution is absent in the Maine educational system.
The United States Constitution was created by men who believed in God. Most were Christian, but the founding documents do not speak of Christianity for while the United States Constitution is founded on a philosophy accepting the existence of God, the United States Constitution protects and provides for religious freedom.
Throughout metaphysical thought God is conceived as wholeness and includes and is within everything that is. Oriental philosophy speaks of Oneness. In the new physics that broke into human awareness at the dawn of the twentieth century, the scientific paradigm evolved to include numerous theories positing non-locality (wholeness) as the hidden variable at work in the quantum leap so inexplicable by classical physics laws of nature.2 The concept of God, or wholeness, is common to the world's religions, but is not itself a religion. The belief in the existence of God is a philosophical premise. One takes either the existence of God or the non-existence of God to be self evident. Neither view can be objectively proven for there is no perspective outside of everything that is and it is impossible to prove a negative
In esoteric Christianity, Christ is wholeness within individual man. The path to discovery of the Christ within the individual is unique for each individual and so the founding philosophy of the United States, in placing individual freedom at its center, is resonate with Hermetic Christian philosophy and identifies America as a Christian nation.
In placing individual freedom as central to our governing philosophy, the United States political philosophy is built upon a spiritual – or non-materialistic foundation.

Conservatism is Fundamentally Spiritual

In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison writes:
" The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.”
In Madisonian thought, the first object of government is the protection of the faculties of men- that which is inherent to each individual, our own talents and skills out of which is grown the fruit of our own labor which is the means through which each individual acquires property. Some may argue that some inherit wealth and that is not earned wealth, to which I say that the circumstances into which each individual is born is God's will and whatever one makes of those circumstances is the fruit of one's own labor. Martin Buber wrote lucidly about the events of our own lives being a conversation with God3, which begins its earthly manifestation when we are born into this world.
The Constitution of the United States of America is a design of a process intended to protect individual liberty to the degree that such liberty can be retained within a larger society. It is a process inclusive of all factions and as such every faction must negotiate and sometimes compromise with other factions.

Contemporary Dialogue on Conservatism

There exists today a newly emergent political faction which often calls its self “We the People”. Until all the people of the United States are of one collective mind sharing one collective ideology, there can be no one faction which represents the voice of We the People. However such a condition assumes an annihilation of individuality and as such is oppositional to the fundamental philosophy of the United States Constitution. The United States electoral process represents the many voices of We the People.
The fore mentioned contemporary faction, refers to itself casually as “true conservatives” and seeks to bring down the establishment conservative party, the Republicans, by which they mean those who currently serve in our government as a result of our electoral process. This faction has not formed its own political party but seeks to win the Republican nomination despite the fact of having spent many years attacking Republicans mercilessly and I might add with a great deal of dis-information. Claims are repeated over and again, that the representatives elected by the people have lied to the people and broken their promises, but the claims are generalized and applied with shotgun precision to everyone and anyone who stands in the way of the newly formed political faction's agenda, which is to rise to power themselves. If playing by the rules of fairness, the new political faction would form their own political party and run their own primaries but their chosen means of achieving power is identity theft. This political faction uses as the measure of conservatism their own political policies. Their most sacrosanct issue is immigration policy by which antiestablishmentarians call for the deportation of all current resident illegals.
As a member of the original Tea Party movement, I have been a witness to the emergence of said faction on my social media portals for many years. My first political social media friends were those who also were members of the original Tea Party movement. I have witnessed the transformation of the Tea Party movement into something entirely different. For a while I became the minority arguing against the politics that populated my social media walls but as I added friends who sympathized with my subjective views the voice of “We the People” transformed. In social media every subject creates a version of what may be mistakenly taken as an objective view of popular opinion. Quoting the physicist Niels Bohr, “Naturally, it still makes no difference whether the observer is a man, an animal, or a piece of apparatus, but it is no longer possible to make predictions without reference to the observer or the means of observation” and so the observer is inseparable from what is observed and as such there is no objective view point. One can take a similar view of polling, particularly when manifested in our new data driven culture- which is to say polls are subjective interpretations as well, although presented as “scientific” ignoring the fact that In the new scientific paradigm heralded in at the beginning of the twentieth century, objectivity is but an illusion.
As I set out to record the historical narrative unraveled through six years of researching Maine economic development statutes, the currently perceived front runner of the Republican primaries, is Donald Trump who has turned his polling numbers into a campaign strategy, reminding the listener on almost every speaking occasion that candidate Trump is leading in the polls, as if intending to exercise a subliminal mind control technique. The antiestablishmentarians became Mr Trumps pre-fabricated political base the instant that candidate Trump entered the race and never get tired of telling the electorate about Mr Trumps poll numbers as if to say we have no other choice but to accept Mr Trump as our next president so early in the Republican primary race.

Policy vs Philosophy

It is arguable that immigration policy is the definitive antiestablishmentarian measure of conservatism for the reason that it is the most divisive issue among conservatives. All conservatives agree that the order of the illegal immigration process is to first secure the border before instituting solutions about the problem of millions of resident illegal aliens. The foundational difference in opinion among conservatives is about what to do about the millions of resident illegal aliens. The antiestablishmentarian defines conservatism in accordance with conformity to their “right” view on the resident illegal alien issue, which is to deport all current resident illegal aliens. Given that border security is first accomplished, as all agree it should be, the problem of the current resident aliens is a temporary issue of these times. In terms of conservatism's elementary purpose, to preserve the American political philosophy, the contemporary illegal immigration issue, given that the border is secured, does not threaten that philosophy. Some say it threatens the preservation of Americanism because it is said that new immigration weighs the electorate to the left, but I do not see that as a core issue to preserving the American political philosophy as it is not a philosophical issue but a political one.
Antiestablishmentarians shout loudly about upholding the rule of law and give no further consideration to the many contingent public issues. Most of the establishment conservatives are for a path to legal status with robust conditions attached. The United States Constitution provides for a presidential pardon, the purpose of a which is for the public good.
Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist Paper #74 ,
"in seasons of insurrection or rebellion there are often critical moments when a welltimed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible after wards to recall."
The problem of what to do with millions of resident illegal aliens is a similar issue. The establishment conservatives argue that deporting all resident illegal aliens would have a disruptive effect on many lives, not only those directly deported. It could have a disturbing affect as well as on the American psyche. The intention of the presidential pardon is to balance justice and mercy, which is to say it takes into account multifarious considerations affecting human society. A pardon of the act of entering the United States illegally is not a grant of citizenship. It grants only a legal status and is within the rule of law of our Constitution.
Conservatism is a philosophy. Immigration is a policy. In conservatism the first measure of policy is that it be consistent with the Constitution. The Constitution does not dictate policy, it defines a philosophy and a structure for government concordant with constitutional philosophy. It can be that divergent policies are each consistent with the Constitution. That is why the antiestablishmentarian movement is wrong when if chooses immigration policy as the measure of conservatism. The true measure of conservatism is constitutional consistency. The solution advocated by establishment conservatives is a path way to legal status which is constitutionally consistent with the presidential power of pardon.

Conservatism believes that small government is the best government. I submit that the conservative measure of the right size of government is that it be limited to serving the common good, by which I mean good which is commonly shared by all.


Conservatism is for Small Government


Preamble United States Constitution:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 

The phrases “common good”. “general welfare” and are similar sounding phrases that has caused much debate over how they are to be interpreted. In The United States Constitution, the adjective “common” is applied to Defense, while the adjective “general” is applied to Welfare. The phrase “common good” is not actually used, but has been used abundantly in discussions of the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” I submit that the use of the term “common good” is derivative of the conflation of the terms “common defense” and “general welfare”.

In contemporary times the term “welfare’ is associated with government assistance but at the time of the United States founding fathers, there were no government assistance programs and so the meaning must have been “for the general good- or for the general well being”

The founders of the United States Constitution wrote a great deal about the problem of fairness and factions. The solution was a system designed with internal checks against tyranny and totalitarianism. In that context the term “general” takes on the meaning of “that which is common to all factions- or individuals”. National defense is such a common good and so the term “common” has been used in the Constitution as a qualifier of Defense. All of the colonies benefited by the Union of the States in shared defense making national defense a “common welfare”, 

Today the terms “common good” and “general welfare” are often times replaced with “public benefit”, a term which removes the reference to something commonly shared and replaces it with the concept of something which is “public”. “Public” is related to the terms “common” and “general” but does not require that all factions share in the benefit. A public benefit need not be a common good but a common good is always a public benefit. A common good leaves much less to interpretation than does public benefit. Public roads are a common good because one way or another everyone benefits by public roads even those that never drive on them receive mail and goods that have been delivered on a public road. Job creation by the government is declared to be a public benefit but it is a benefit for some while its cost is a burden for others.

There are many ways that one can interpret almost anything as a public benefit and likewise argue that it is a common good to the point that one could say that everything and anything that does not do the public harm is a public and common good. In the strictest sense of conservatism, the size of government should be restricted to serving the common good and let the private sector develop ways to serve the public benefit. On that note I would say that providing a net for the most unfortunate in society is a public benefit and I could even argue that it is a common good but there in lies my own interpretation. It was because there exist people at the bottom who rely on government services that the founding fathers of Maine’s corporate state declared that it is likewise appropriate for them to avail themselves to public funds and that is how it came to be that Maine is a state that provides rations entitlements for the bottom and opportunity entitlements for the top, where the gap between the haves and the have nots has been steadily increasing and the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. General welfare roles have grown along side of the expansion in corporate welfare. The middle class which is the opportunity zone for those on the bottom has been gradually withering away in Maine and the USA.

The Preamble to Maine’s Constitution is written with similar words as the United States Constitution and includes the philosophical premise of a Sovereign Ruler of the Universe possessing the quality of goodness which will aid and direct in the accomplishment of justice, tranquility, mutual defense , common welfare and liberty. The term ”general welfare” has been transposed as “common welfare” .The individual states follow the United States Constitution as the premise of state constitutions and were influenced as well by other states Constitutions. It is reasonable to speculate that at the time the Maine State Constitution was created that the term “general welfare” had been discovered to be a term with a wide range of interpretation. The term common welfare is more specific. The Maine State Constitution identifies the object of government as limited to promoting welfare which is shared commonly by all. The goodness of God is called upon as a guide in achieving the objects of government.
Preamble Maine Constitution:
Objects of government. We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same.

Conservatism is Free Enterprise

There are many standards for measuring conservatism. The definition of conservatism that I articulate here must include protecting a free enterprise system and clearly distinguishing free enterprise from a centrally managed economy. State capitalism is found in the two most influential political systems which rose to power during the twentieth century, communism (and by extension socialism), and fascism. The current political development which has transformed Maine and other parts of the USA is called in contemporary terms “public private relationships” Where as state ownership of the means of production is communism, public private relationships are fascism. In Benito Mussolini's vision private business was allowed but the private sector had to serve the purposes of the state4. I submit that within the public private relationship, there will always exist a power struggle between the state and the private corporation. When in 1977 the public private relationships were codified into Maine law with a glorifying rhetoric worthy of Mussolini himself, the Legislature assigned a leadership role to the private sector but as the corporate state expanded, the state acquired it's own ownership of the means of production mainly through the university system.
The Maine Legislature has jurisdiction over the educational curricula in Maine and uses the educational system as a component of its centrally managed economy serving the interests of state capitalism. Since the early 2000's the Legislature has entrenched a minor in Marxist and Socialist Studies which dominates the Southern University of Maine's political science department. One does not find fascism as a subject in the educational curricula. It is neither taught nor talked about. It merely proliferates in practice, unnamed and abundant. There is a taboo surrounding the identification of fascism. Both fascism and Marxism have historically resulted in genocidal dictatorships, but it is only fascism which one cannot identify within contemporary political culture without being accused of having broken a rule of politically correct conduct. Many a person who abhors President Obama's refusal to use the words “radical Islam” or “terrorism”, will adamantly insist that the use of the term or symbol of fascism is socially and politically unacceptable. How ever it is as true for fascism as it is for radical Islam, if we cannot identify the enemy we cannot fight it. I submit that conservatives who believe in preserving the American political philosophy must reject the ban against identifying fascism as a political ideology. We must understand the underpinnings of fascism in its political structure is separate from the acts of barbarism to which it led. Fascism did not come into being with popular acceptance as an ideology advocating genocide and militarism, that is only how it evolved under the Nazi’s in the twentieth century. Fascism is growing right under our noses even as it is anti-theoretical to the American political philosophy. In its economic manifestation fascism is state corporatism partnering with private corporatism.
The Constitution of Maine forbids the Legislature from chartering corporations for state purposes5 but that has been ignored as the Maine Legislature has entrenched an ever expanding network of state corporations over the last four decades. The states are said to be the experimental laboratories of government. By the consent of the governed, the state of Maine should be an experiment in the free enterprise economic system but Maine is no longer a state governed by its Constitution and in that sense Maine is no longer a state but has become a colony of a corporation run by public-private relationships.

Donald Trump and Kelo vs New London

State capitalism in relationship with private capitalism is the economic system advocated for by the antiestablishmentarian's leading candidate, Donald Trump. By the standards of conservatism put forth in this narrative, the antiestablishmentarian movement is not a conservative movement in its support of candidate Trump. State capitalism is a progressive movement, relying on a collectivists philosophy inconsistent with that of American individualism.
Donald Trump echoes the rhetoric used to sell state capitalism to the people of Maine. The key selling point is job creation by the government. It was only a few years ago that my social network walls were filled with posts opposing the concept that the state picks winners and losers as well as the concept that the private sector and not the government creates jobs but in the 2016 election season those ideas have receded into history. The self proclaimed true conservatives are all praise and adulation for candidate Trump celebrating the idea that President Trump will run the government like a business.
Mere similarity in rhetoric is not enough to conclude that Trump intends to create jobs by expanding the corporate state. It is when Donald Trump says in an interview broadcast on the Fox News Channel's “Special Report” that eminent domain used for private projects that “employ thousands of people” is “a wonderful thing” that Donald Trump confirms that he is a state capitalist and advocates a collectivist political philosophy characteristic of a Marxist or fascist political system in which a class of overlords designs society for everyone else. This may not have been Marx's intent but it has consistently been the result of attempts to implement Marxism. It is clearly the intent of fascism as documented in The DOCTRINE OF FASCISM, 1932 by Benito Mussolini. Once collectivism is institutionalized, be it in a communist or fascist system, a well to do bureaucratic class emerges, which has historically evolved into public private relationships functioning as channels for redistributing public wealth to private and/or state owners of the means of production6. In Maine it has become a system in which the taxpayer subsidizes an upper crust of the economy.

Kelo vs New London, United States Supreme Court Decision

The form of eminent domain praised by Donald Trump was legally established in 2005 by a decision made by the United States Supreme Court:
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
6"Over the ensuing decades, particularly in the 1990s when massive investment poured into China, the families of CCP bureaucrats utilized political power and links with foreign capital to transform
themselves into a new property-owning capitalist elite. CCP-connected entrepreneurs, executives,
outsourcing contractors, import and export traders and professionals have emerged as the junior partners of major transnational corporations in ruthlessly exploiting the working class."
SUSoETTE KELO ET AL.
v.
CITY OF NEW LONDON ET AL.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Argued December 2, 2002
Officially released March 9, 2004
Opinion
NORCOTT, J.
The principal issue in this appeal is whether the public use clauses of the federal and state Constitutions authorize the exercise of the eminent domain power in furtherance of a significant economic development plan that is projected to create in excess of 1000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas.
The court ruled in favor of the defendants, the City of New London and the New London Development Corporation.Together they comprise a public-private relationship and so this United States Supreme Court ruling, so consequential to the United States constitutional right to individual property ownership is a case of that new and fluid form of government called the public private relationship against the private individual, whose individual rights the United States Constitution was formed to protect.
I came across two papers discussing the lack of transparency of the public private relationship, a fluid institutional identity that behaves in a chameleon fashion, sometimes taking on the identity of a public entity while at other times enjoying the privacy of a private entity. One paper is called LOOKING FOR AN INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT by Mitchell W Pearlman, former director of the Connecticut Freedom of information. This paper is not dated. The second is an independent study on the Baltimore Development Corporation by Maximilan Tonro, written in December 2010.The paper by Maximilan Tonro discusses the Kelo vs New London decision and makes particular note of the fact that the Supreme Court justices failed to take in the distinction that the City of New London and the New London Development Corporation are separate entities. The City of New London is a public entity. The New London Development Corporation was described by Justice Stevens as a “private non-profit entity”, which Mr Tonro notes that after an initial discussion recognizing the distinction of two separate and differently formed entities, Justice Stevens treated both as one and the same entity with the exception of a foot note. According to Mr Tonro, Justice Kennedy never distinguished the two entities as having separate legal natures or separate identities but treated both as the City of New London. Justice O'Connor wrote the dissenting opinion in which attention was made to the lack of accountability of the New London Development Corporation but nonetheless throughout the opinion continued to conflate The New London Development Corporation with the City of New London “under the rubric of “sovereign”. Mr Tonro makes note of the fact that the Connecticut Legislature has authorized pubic institutions to assign authority to private institutions but since the decision in Kelo v. New London hinges on defining a public purpose argues at length that this is insufficient to justify that a private economic development project serves a public purpose under the rule of law in the United States Constitution.
The concept that a private corporation serves a public purpose is straight from the mouth of Benito Mussolini when he says:
The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. Individuals and groups are admissible in so far as they come within the State. Benito Mussolini- The Doctrine of Fascism 1932
Mussolini describes fascism as allowing private enterprise but all must serve the purposes of the state, which in today's terms is called a public-private relationship. The United States Supreme Court Kelo vs New London decision is based in the collectivist political ideology of fascism and does not consider the American Constitution principal of individual liberty, which Mussolini railed against
If liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government.
...
Fascism desires the State to be strong and organic, based on broad foundations of popular support. The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporative, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organized in their respective associations, circulate within the State.
To make the legal identity of the New London Development Corporation even more confusing, according to a report on the New London Development Corporation prepared for The American Assembly by Peggy Cosgrove, The New London Development Corporation was established by the Connecticut Legislature in 1978. That makes the New London Development Corporation a private non-profit entity established by the State of Connecticut and conflated with the Municipality of New London in a United States Supreme Court decision affecting the right to private property ownership. Three levels of governmental power conspire against the constitutional property rights of the private individual.
The New London Development Corporation was established by the Connecticut Legislature in 1978 around the same time that the Maine Legislature chartered the Maine Development Foundation as a non-profit corporation. There exists a fundamental difference in the state Constitutions of Connecticut and Maine. The Connecticut Constitution does not have a provision forbidding the Legislature from chartering corporations for state purposes as is found in the Maine Constitution.
The report on the New London Development Corporation prepared for The American Assembly by Peggy Cosgrove ends with these words:
Don't expect to be popular or thanked. Economic development is as much political change as it is economic change. It will be vigorously resisted by the standing political system even though they stand to gain economically. The shifts are perceived as threats to the old power structure, and probably are “
Indeed public private relationships formed in the interests of centrally managing the economy do represent a political change. In Maine that change has been from a state responsible to the consent of the governed as codified in the Maine State Constitution to a public corporation working in conjunction with private interests and ultimately serving the masters of global capitalism.
This story is about the fundamental transformation of the State of Maine, focusing on the years commencing in 1977 when the Maine Legislature chartered the Maine Development Foundation- a non-profit corporation, declaring as they did so that centrally managing the economy is an essential government function and thus initiating a political as well as an economic change without ever asking for the consent of the governed in a state once identifed with rugged individualism.
1 The Maine Constitution A Reference Guide by Marshall J Tinkle, Preface, first page, quoting Professor Edward F Dow; “Nobody, but nobody reads the state Constitution”
2 David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order
3 Between Man and Man by Martin Buber 1947
4 THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM, BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932) http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm



5 Maine Constitution Article IV Part Third Sections 13 & 14

Download the book in the sidebar to continue following this story,