A Court for Freedom

As I have mentioned before, I think one of the more sane approaches to dealing with the mess we are in is to have a sort of bankruptcy proceeding for the entire nation. This would be a very messy thing, and I've no doubt on certain particulars in specific cases the court would get things wrong. I am not thinking utopia.

There are two issues at hand- there are wealthy, connected people who have directly broken the law and are getting away with it (indeed, they have every incentive to continue doing so) and there are the various assets currently under the control of various bad actors. The two issues are related, but somewhat separate. I think bad actors should be punished, but it is far more important to me that bad actors cease to have control of assets (and power).

This is one of the reasons I would like to see an old fashioned sort of court. Take a particular case, like Bank of America, or even the Federal Reserve itself; these entities have assets which basically need to be sold off- dispersed among the people. This isn't redistribution of wealth; these entities were not entitled to these assets in the first place, so we need a somewhat fair way of dispersing them.

Another thing we desperately need is for the court to make a decision on an asset, get the asset sold- that is owned by a person, and basically forevermore not make anymore decisions about the item. It is probably impossible to find the original rightful owner for everything, especially in a reasonable amount of time, but is important to get the assets to actual owners (rather than thieves and politicians)- otherwise the court would morph into a coercive modern state and become thieves themselves. Obviously, the judge and other court personnel would have to be paid; it would be best if their financial incentives lined up with the activity of clearing assets out from under their control, rather than them having any financial interest in keeping control of anything.

Perhaps it is advisable to point out that owners do most of essential 'governing' of whatever it is that they own. Landlords are called landlords, for instance, because they used to be able to establish standards of behavior that would occur on their land. It is an extremely boring and normal reality that some people are capable of handling property very well, while others waste everything, so despite the propaganda certain professors like to foist on us as history, such distinctions are not indicative of oppression. What we have now is oppression. We are less free now than our grandparents were, and the constant mantra of progress, the idea that we are freer or that we have more 'voice' or that things are just getting better over time is just part of the scam our oppressors are playing on us.

So, you can see where this is different from the 'revolutionary' ways of dealing with things. Revolutionaries seek to control everything and make a lot of promises they can't keep. I'd make no promises, because I wouldn't expect to have anything at the end of it with which to provide for those promises. Instead, I would expect that a free people, being liberated from the parasites, and once again having clear title to real property, will grow the economy and far more effectively provide for their own concerns than any government ever could.