The Enemy of My Enemy…

By on October 13, 2011 in Featured, Tenther Rants
  • Share on Tumblr

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 9:13 — 8.4MB)

by Michael Boldin

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Michael Boldin’s “Tenther Rant” at the end of Episode 17 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time at http://radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com.
Find the show on iTunes at this link.

*******

In a recent interview with a reporter from the BBC, I was asked – “Is the Tenth Amendment Center affiliated with the Tea Party movement?”

My answer?  “We’re affiliated with the Constitution.  When people in the Tea Party take proper constitutional positions, we applaud them.  When they don’t, we educate – or when needed – we blast them.”

The reporter seemed a little stunned.  He was given my contact info as someone who could help him put together “viewpoints from the Tea Party” on some recent economic issues.  He researched our website and seemed certain that the Tenth Amendment Center was a tea party group.  He pretty much asked me, “are you sure – what is it, are you with the Tea Party or not?”

My response was the same.  The only thing that the Tenth Amendment Center is “with” is the constitution.  And furthermore, since our organization was founded in 2006, a few years before the Tea Party explosion, shouldn’t the question be the other way around?

The fact of the matter is this – we work with Tea Party groups all the time.  Many have sponsored our Nullify Now! events around the country, and many others reach out to us with questions.  And, as long as people from these groups are interested in learning about the Constitution, we’ll be more than happy to educate and lead.

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

When talking with strict constitutionalists, I’m often asked – “Do you think it might be a bad idea to participate in events with the Tea Party groups?  People might think you support all their goals, and many of them take positions that are totally repugnant to the principles of the Constitution.”

To verify that view – and the concern – you don’t need to look any further than tea party leaders like Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain.

Bachmann proudly voted to extend the Patriot Act – a wildly unconstitutional act that Judge Andrew Napolitano called the “most hateful piece of legislation” in over 200 years.  She regularly twists the Constitution’s meaning by claiming that the federal government has control over health care in the states.  She refers to Mitt Romney’s awful health care mandate as “unconstitutional” instead of a “bad idea.”  Is she proposing that the federal government go in and stop Massachusetts from making their own decisions in this area?

Her house vote against letting states make their own choices on marijuana might be an indicator of her view of the constitution and centralized decision-making.  And no, it’s not good.

Herman Cain is no better.  He supported the TARP bailouts that took money from you and gave it to politically-connected corporations.  He considers the Patriot Act “about 90% right on.”  And, this week’s republican debate, while praising the inflationist Alan Greenspan, he lied about his opposition to an audit of the federal reserve.  Even worse, just look at his website.  In reviewing his positions on the issues, he doesn’t name a single program or department that would be completely eliminated.  Even Obamacare would be repealed, but “replaced” with something else.  No mention of the fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in the health care industry at all.

On ten major national issues covered on his website, the word “constitution” isn’t mentioned even once.  Not one single time does Hermain Cain say that a program, act, or department is unconstitutional.  With just thirty powers delegated to the federal government in the constitution, he has plenty to choose from.   If the word Constitution is off-limits to this guy, is he even interested in it?

So, no, with bad constitutional positions like these – and many others – I don’t consider the Tenth Amendment Center as part of the tea party.  We are more than happy to work with and educate Tea Party leaders and activists as long as they’re willing, though.

THE OTHER SIDE?

In recent days, I’ve been hearing the same kind of questions – “don’t you think it’s a bad idea to be involved with these people?” – but directed towards a different group of protesters, the Occupy Wall Street groups.  Like the Tea Party’s general consensus that government power is too big and taxes are too high – which I agree with – I find myself also opposing some of the things these new protesters appear to oppose.  Wealth redistribution to the rich?  Happens every day, and it’s not good.  Bailouts to banks and corporations?  Unconstitutional and economically destructive.

The best way to sum up what I’ve seen from them so far was a sign in New York – “The banks got bailed out, we got sold out.”

Absolutely true.  But many, if not most of the solutions I’ve heard offered from Occupy Wall Street protesters are things I vehemently oppose.  More regulations, more government control, more centralized power.  These have nothing whatsoever to do with our mission for the Constitution.  And because of this, the Tenth Amendment Center is absolutely not “part” of the Occupy Wall Street movement – just like we’re absolutely not “part” of the Tea Party movement.

THE MISSION

Some people have suggested to me that because of incorrect, constitution-violating solutions like these being offered by people at Occupy Wall Street, we should have nothing whatsoever to do with them.  We should even be wary of simply going there and talking with them – trying to educate people on different, better, and constitutional positions.

It’s almost like saying – “you don’t agree with me already, so I’m not going to talk with you!”

The fact of the matter is that we want to talk with everyone.  Our mission is to educate people on the proper role of government under the constitution.  And whether it’s people from the Tea Party or from Occupy Wall Street, many, if not most, have plenty to learn.

If we only wanted to talk and work with people who already had it right, we’d not only be idiots, but we’d be wasting our time.  This would be like demanding that a university only accept fully-licensed, practicing doctors into a pre-med program.  What’s the point in trying to educate people who are already educated?

Support Sound Money with a TAC Medallion!

All this makes me think of a great quote from Sun Tzu – “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

These days, as a constitution-supporter, we’ve got enemies all across the political spectrum.  And, until we recognize the need to connect with and be peaceful with all of them, with a goal of educating them in mind, we’ll just be spinning our wheels in the mud.

With adherence to the 10th Amendment becoming a growing concern for Americans, we aren’t part of any other movement.  We are our own movement.  Small, but growing, our efforts must continue no matter what.  And, as long as someone is willing to listen, we’ll be willing to talk.

About Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter - @michaelboldin, on LinkedIn, and on Facebook.
View all posts by Michael Boldin →

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?
34 comments
  Livefyre
Newest | Oldest
Blc Sattler
Blc Sattler

The federal govt has no Constitutional authority to bail out private companies; take them over and run them. TIME TO TAKE BACK OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC!!

Turdzilla Central
Turdzilla Central

Obama was an idiot to sign-on to these bailouts before he even took office! well that foreshadowed the appeasements to come. what if he had balls and said, hell no, i will look at the bail out situation once i take office.

San Diego for Ron Paul
San Diego for Ron Paul

I have been attending my city's Occupy for a week now, trying to get them to register republican, respectfully debating, unifying OWS and the tea party under one banner, discussing sound money, and speaking to some very impoverished kids about simple concepts such as private property, which they clearly understand as one is not to go into someone else's tent. These kids are a huge voting block that simply have not drained the swamps of economic fallacies that have been fed to us our entire lives. These kids are so close to realizing that it is a statist socialist system that bails out insolvent banks, and that a true free market enterprise system eats them with a smile of justice. These kids are so close to voting for the good Dr.

Michael Boldin
Michael Boldin

I'd rather dump the paper crap they give to us as "money" - but that's a different discussion.

Turdzilla Central
Turdzilla Central

a secret audit shows the actual amount of the bailout was 14 trillion dollars! well they sold us out folks, the USA is worse than flat broke, no way to ever pay back 14 trillion. this is like a homeless bum buying a Ferrari -it ain;t never getting paid for :(

Jeff Brodhead
Jeff Brodhead

When government hides behind the Constitution of the People, rather than stands behind it, it is time for course correction! ~jb

Jeff Brodhead
Jeff Brodhead

Sharing!

Progressive (or intimidated) judges say We the People "have no standing" in matters of OUR government (i.e. BS-Barry's TOTAL LACK OF LEGAL IDENTIFICATION)...

We the People placed that Amendment X as the last word, as the final warning to all who would dare step into positions of power and do wrong. THE POWER REMAIN WITH THE PEOPLE. (note the legal placement of 'or the People.' IT is at the very end of the 10A, which means WE reserve ALL THE POWERS.

(I recommend spending significant time reading at http://www.1215.org and http://www.DirtyUncleSam.com

Co-opted Confederate
Co-opted Confederate

WHY HAS NO ONE EXCEPT ME A 80% disabled Vietnam Veteran: Ever declared those who obviously and wilfully disreguard the U.S. Constitutionwhile in an elected or appointe government position What they really are, a Domestic Enemy of the Constitutution. All Us Military Swear to Support and defend the U.S Constitution (I have Sworn that oath 9 time in my career) against ALL ENEMIES BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. Then we couls sic the Aermy and Marines on the District of Colombia and have Them all arrested and tried for Mis feasance and Malfeasance of office. WE ALL KNOW WHO THEY ARE ANY WAY AND WE ALL KNOW THAT BETWEEN ELECTIONS THE MORAL REPROBATES CAN WREAK MOR HAVOC UPON US AND THE NATION WITH LEGISLATI9ON AND REGULATION S THE WOULD TOTALLY NULLIFY THE ENTIRE COBSTITUTION. I AM FUREN ATTEMPT TO DWCLARE WAR ON GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION AND CRIMINALITY.IOUS THATNO ON EXCEPT FOR ME IN MY LIMITED INTERNET EXPOSURE HAS NAMED THE NAME AND CALLED THEM VILEST ENEMIES OF THE CONSTITUTION EVER SPAWNED. wILL NO ONE EXCEPR RON AND RAND PAUL LISTEN OR EV

Rayma
Rayma

Thanks for your service, I am a widow of Korean war and mother of Iraq veteran,I believe as Michael does,if they don't talk Constitution,other than changing it, I won't vote for them.Our country was founded on it however,they stole the history from our children, so they have NOTHING to go by and they believe what any college professor or politation tells them. Everyone likes Comic books, I wish someone would come up with one on the HISTORY of the United States, and pass it out to these kids on College Campus, and in parks where they are displaying hate for the America, that they don't even know anything about.

M.D.
M.D.

@ Motorman

I wanted to address the California situation briefly first. This is an immensely rich state, and it's wealth is growing year over year in aggregate. It is far wealthier today than 1, 5 or 10 years ago, and it will be wealthier next year than this. The so-called crisis of budgeting - which is being passed off as a need for austerity - is of course manufactured public relations. There's no more need for austerity today than in 1966. What we have is an unworkable Constitution that has made the state ungovernable, especially with regards to tax collections. This "bind up" of the mechanics is working of course to the benefit of the wealth holders who now claim "austerity" for the state. Just wanted to make that clear.

There are two main ways to view government. First as the oppressive force of the propertied owners of the land. This is our usual first response. This is the tilting of rules, the exclusive use of force, war making, and elimination of competition. But there is a benign definition of government possible too, and that is simply as the administration of the culture's wishes. No one can imagine a nation of 307 million people without administrative functions. Even most anarchist theory is ok with that. So, we have to be clear when talking about the government what we mean.

Example. Medicare is an administrative operation. And man, it is efficient. It's more efficient than Aetna, or Wellpoint. It has scale, and it runs well. The culture wants this kind of benefit to be administered well. By contrast, the ATF and DOJ are a part of that more sinister force of government. The culture doesn't want the government telling you what kind of weed you are allowed to ingest for pleasure. And, we don't want them skipping merrily past the major crimes prosecution of say, Wall Street thieves, as they are doing now.

So, my overall concern in this area isn't the preoccupation with the US C. per se - as a document - as a specific absolute reference. My concern is with what outcome we are trying to achieve. I'd be delighted to roll back the out of control ATF, but have no reason to want to turn the hatchet on Medicare.

The beast then, isn't just so clear as being called "government."

Motorman
Motorman

I believe that SS and Mecaid are unsustainable from their inception.
But the misuse of the resources is unconscionable. The following clip is a good example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGgjU-h_xQw

M.D.
M.D.

Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable? In what way? Social Security is a pretty simple set of algorithms which involve nothing more dramatic than inflows and outflows. This kind of mathematics is perfectly understood by the undergraduate. For comparison it is nowhere near the math used by the MIT Ph.Ds who went to Wall Street to invent derivative products that crashed the economy. People pay money in while working, they take money out in retirement. There are half a dozen levers and knobs to twist to run Social Security. That's about the extent of the complexity. Right now the biggest drag on SS is the regressive cap placed on the tax. I think the tax stops after about $106,800 a year in income. So, a guy making $50k pays 4.2% and a guy making $5M pays a mere fraction of that rate. Although it is solvent for the next 20 years or so, all one needs to do to increase that solvency buffer is raise the cap.

Medicare is only slightly more complicated because there are so many externalities to the cost structure. But in principle, it has all the same actuarial features as any other health insurance. The big benefit of it is that layers of profit are eliminated by dis-intermediating private insurers. It's an extremely efficient system, which suffers the most from frauds committed by private business against it.

These are two of the best working and most popular aspects of our government. If there's something to go after, why not go after the deep pockets getting subsidies? Or go after the DOD budget. I never understand the idea of going after the small guy first - the guy lowest on the totem pole. Let's screw the old people - they're defenseless? I don't follow that line of reasoning.

Jeff
Jeff

You are referring to funds set up for the people, using the people's money, and then, raided in order to steer it into the hands of a preferred group? Well, then, yeah. In that case, our Constitution was unsustainable from its inception. Just look where we are today.

Jeff
Jeff

The same is true of SS and Medicaid. It would work okay, but for the immoral people. In some respects, it is still superior to people losing the ability to live post-retirement because all their retirement accounts went up in flames due to Wall Street crashes. The one in 1929 proved just how devastating reliance on self-funded and managed retirement accounts can be - especially when the real management of those accounts occurs by outfits in the private sector.

Motorman
Motorman

But it was violation of Constitution that took the peoples money to misappropriate. Question is what is the source of the corruption?

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

Apart from a moral people, the Constitution is unsustainable. You are Correct.

Motorman
Motorman

It seems you present 2 views, the Oppressive and the Benign forms of government.
But we must remember that government is NEVER benign. It is force.
Force can be useful like fire in you heater, or when out of control all consuming like a house fire.
I think by calling it benign is not giving it the respect it deserves.
Everyone, good and bad, seeks to use the power of government for their purpose.
I would prefer we would respectfully stand away from it, and let the principles of limited government provide the intended assistance. The peoples true needs are best met apart from state and federal governments. Governments programs that serve such as medicaid and social security have an appearance of meeting needs. But when you pull back the curtain, the corruption of misappropriation is blatant and the ability to deal with the problem is out of reach for the common man, and barely addressable for the statist. This is the problem.

We must not embrace government as a power for good.
But as a dangerous force to be chained and bound.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. GW

M.D.
M.D.

There's no reason that governance is intrinsically a negative force. It comprises many components and much of it is mundane administration. Some of it is deadly force. Why try to paint with such a big brush?

The phrase limited government means nothing without a lot of context. Is the limited government of 300M people in an advanced culture going to look like the limited government on a small island nation of pastoralists? It sounds to much like a dogmatic interpretation unless a lot of context is provided.

Shall we limit our success? Limit our achievements? Limit our dreams in order to slave ourselves to an artificial definition? Shall we suffer for a lack of simple administration? To say the people's true needs are met apart from the state is also arbitrary. If 300M people decide they need something where scale matters, they will need some form of "administration" of that function. What matter is it that you call it "government" or "a utility" or "institution?" It's a function of organizing to meet the will of the people.

We must not embrace government as a power for good? Sounds like shooting yourself in the foot. Government does get corrupted, but that's not a requirement. If I compared two agencies, let's say the CDC and the FDA, I think I'd find that the CDC has very little corruption and that the FDA has been almost completely corrupted. If I likewise compared the NIH to the SEC, I would see the same dramatic contrast. Reform the bad, encourage the useful.

Government is not reason? That is pure dogma. There's no utility in such a comment. There's plenty of errant government operation, but the goal of eliminating government is strictly abstract and achieves nothing. The goal of reforming it to a purpose has great public utility.

Jeff
Jeff

Government is a necessary thing, benign or not. At issue is not whether it will exist or not. Instead, what is at issue is how it will be controlled.

The corruption in the system is the very thing that prevents reform.

It's all well and good to be able to critique government, but how are we going to change it? I have yet to see any event in history where the corrupt acceded to a tireless minority. My recollection of the only two events of wholescale, radical change in this nation are the American Revolution and the Civil War.

Motorman
Motorman

I would agree that government is a necessary, even naturally occurring institution. But it is made up of men who also are corrupted. This side of judgement, it will never be perfected. Corruption being a constant. The virtue of the US government requires continuous, perpetual input to survive. Its amazing it has lasted this long. But you can't argue with the fruits of the prosperity of America. Even with its problems, it is still a light to the world. But like any nation of the world, the current US prosperity will return to the mire of oligarchy, and eventually a ruthless dictator.
Remember the American Revolution was abuse of federal power. Slavery was one issue used to make it palatable to the masses.
Thanks to Mike, we see the lines drawing again, to date, we have 14 states declaring sovereignty via the Constitution, 31 discussing it, but when the line is drawn, what will happen next? One comment to this was 'this hasn't been seen since the Civl War.'
You may live to see a last attempt at radical change.
If history repeats itself, its what is coming that I fear for my children and theirs.

Jeff
Jeff

In your first paragraph, are you saying that Hollywood and Wall Street are the same??

M.D.
M.D.

As sources of wealth yes, as sources of power of course not.

Motorman
Motorman

MD. from Jacobs post
"we have to be willing to live far below our means in order to build our wealth with our own two hands"

The problem is one of delegation and responsibility of the delegated. We have 50 labratory's of innovation and some want a nanny state, it can become a reality.
At the federal level responsibility by delegation should, in my opinion be lean, almost to a fault, and that I believe was the philosophy of the Republic.
States are free to provide services according to citizens demands. We see California and Massachusetts struggling under their unsustainable plans. But the feds seem to think the Constitution and laws of financial stability do not apply to them.
If I say I do not support state run schools, it is not that I am not concerned with education. It is the distance from the need that bothers me as the parent/citizen is the ultimate discerner of the need.
I like local districts where I have some weight when I voice a concern. Minimal government, maximum citizens responsibility.
It is not a denial of culture to limit governments, it is usually governments that institutionalize denial of culture that creates vast chasms injustice eventually. The bigger the beast, the more difficult it is to control.
Governments are only as good as the citizens who input to it. If it starts our defending rights, and the culture changes to living at the other's expense through plunder, then the culture has failed. And history shows it always will.

Jacob Lorang
Jacob Lorang

"Minimal government, maximum citizens responsibility"

Well put!

Jeff
Jeff

History shows that 99.5% of the time, the plunder consists of the aristocracy plundering the working class. The other 0.5% of the time consists of a revolutionary reversal of that plunder.

M.D.
M.D.

I think Jacob's position is errant in assuming it is the state which is responsible for helping him in times of his troubles. The state in that case is nothing but a mechanism, the ethic behind the help was the culture he is living in. e.g. his neighbors.

The state has no interest ever in helping anyone except to hold property. The state is an enforcement of property rights and never much more than that. But the culture has other interests - stray dogs for example, or homeless people, or people who come down with mono and lose their jobs. This is our natural humanity - often even the result of religious training - which seeks to eliminate suffering. Why should individuals deny this aspect of the culture? I WANT to help other people. I WANT to eliminate their suffering to whatever reasonable extent is possible.

I am thus always intrigued when the state is blamed as being a nanny, or confiscating wealth or offering assistance. That isn't the state's "mind" - it is simply a mechanical function of writing the check.

All of that is not to say we shouldn't live within our means - because of course we should. But to deny the culture the right to care, is also a means of adopting an "I don't care about others" attitude. That knife cuts in both directions.

Jeff
Jeff

Excellent position!

I have one question, a very difficult one, IMO.

Your quote: "Wealth redistribution to the rich? Happens every day, and it’s not good. "

Now suppose this has been going on for years and a big chunk of the people's money has found its way to a few people as a result of acts in violation of the Constitution. Does TAC believe the people ought to be able to get their money back? I know it's not your typical "enumerated powers" issue, but it is nonetheless a real and serious issue where would-be followers of the Constitution might like to know what can be done while remaining in the spirit of the Constitution.

Motorman
Motorman

From a Constitutional level, you deal with it at that level.
That is the express reason law should never be whim or passion.
Once enacted, it is almost impossible to repair the ensuing damages.
At the federal level, our representatives are our only input into its management of appropriations of its resources, and our only alternative is to rewrite the law or walk away with our losses and learn from the mistakes and make repairs. But to undo the evil is like trying to harness the wind.

The problem you are addressing is not federal. When the feds tax us and give it to Corporations to bail them out with the doctrine of 'too big to fail', we have a federal issue. To deal with all the details is too difficult. It is best to demand your representative cease all unconstitutional acts and encourage others to do the same. It we succeed, then let all appropriations and entitlements time out without renewal. There will be some serious disruption to follow, and it will be painful. But it will be less than if we do nothing. I am reminded of Germany and the devaluation of the Reichsmark. We in America have the stage set for such a scenario. Question is has the event to start the countdown to devaluation of our fiat dollar already happened?

So I think we need to trim our governmental tree. Not worry to much about the abusers at the federal level, or even state. Demand obedience to the Constitution is our only hope. If we loose that battle, the war is over before it starts.
Time will tell.

Jacob Lorang
Jacob Lorang

Idk bout TAM, but I can tell u my story: after coming down with mono five years ago while delivering chips for Frito Lay, my family went on food stamps. A couple years later, my wife went back to school. Last year, I made about $5000, recieved that much in gifts from friends and family, but lived as though we made over $30,000! When I added up all the gov't assistance (including financial aid), I was horrified! We have accepted this philosophy that the state needs to pick up the slack in order to maintain a lifestyle that is disallusional.

Since then, we have cut up our food card, refused financial assistance, rejected health insurance (which is just a scam btw), and moved into a trailer park. Why? Because I have the right to live according to my means, and whatever wealth I accumulate should be my own. I say this only to point out how drastic it may be to do as you suggest (though I believe it's the only real way to stop the spending spree in it's tracks).

Farmers need to do the same thing. Subsidies are killing our industry. It's encouraging ppl not to become intuitive and inventive for new product and markets. The proplem is, they would suffer immensely. But.... that's what it would take, and we have to be willing to live far below our means in order to build our wealth with our own two hands. My take on it. ;)

Rae
Rae

Right on friend. Thanks for your integrity and your example.

Jeff
Jeff

I sympathize with these positions, but is that it? I mean to ask, Do we just let the thieves keep the spoils? No refunds? No returns? No justice? Just let them keep it, and we'll figure out how to do with less on our own? They keep their multiple mansions, private jets and yachts, and we go find trailer parks?

That just sounds very defeatist to me, when the public is ever more so aware that theft and plunder have been, and continue to be, occurring at a magnificent rate at the top.

Jeff
Jeff

Michael, it ate my reply. Can you restore it? If I recall, the blocker filters any post with the word, "communism." I can see why this might be good with an immature crowd, but it has a stifling effect among honest debaters with good intent.

Jeff
Jeff

OMG! You are one of the first people to hit the nail on the head and spot the real issues.

Implicit in the issues you raise is the fact that if the people do not rip down people, like Buffet, who just simply benefited by playing the system according to its rules (assuming he's as innocent as that), then, nothing will change.

On an orderly level of the concept of justice, people tend to look more at the scienter (state of mind) of the accused. "Did he have corrupt intent?"

When things skew too far, mob rule ensues, and orderly justice breaks down to passion. In fact, this is exactly what happened in the culmination of our American Revolution. Our revolutionaries confiscated the property of the British Loyalists and banished them, whereupon the plundered items were redistributed to the revolutionaries. It's the same process in all other revolutions, be they driven by socialists, communists or capitalists.

As is apparent, there becomes a tipping point in social order where "scienter" is no longer what drives the wrath of the people. Instead, the driving force is an oppressive level of inequality itself. Social survival, at some point, simply demands redistribution and cares not about the character of the individual aristocrat.

Len
Len

So how do we identify the thieves? How do identify their ill-gotten gains? These kind of issues are often discussed among libertarian scholarly types, but unless one is actually willing to employ force against force there will be no recouping of that which has been gained through the unjust imposition of laws (or just ignoring of laws).

Take for example Warren Buffet, of course ha has profited from a financial scheme that has been set up to favor people like him, but where is the line between those enabling him, and him just operating within the environment created to benefit him? Would he have been able to amass his wealth in a truly free market? Absolutely not, but again, until we are actually willing to DEFEND ourselves from the theft imposed by a political and corporatist elite, and those who also enable a welfare/warfare state we'll get nowhere.