Some Thoughts

Some Thoughts

Thomas Allen, editor

Presented below are the laws of life, Nock’s laws of decline, and Sumner’s “Forgotten Man.”

The Laws of Life

For those of you who are familiar with the laws of thermodynamics, especially the second law, the following may look familiar.

1. You can’t win.

2. You can’t even break even.

3. Things are going to get worse before they get better.

4. Who says things are going to get better?

Nock's Laws of Decline

Albert Jay Nock codified these laws to explain the corruption and decline of all that is fine, noble, and good in Western Civilization. (Source: Issacs, Mark D. “The Case for Superfluity.” The New American. April 24, 1989.)

Epstean’s Law: If self-preservation is the first law of human conduct, exploitation is the second: Man tends to satisfy his needs and desires with the least possible exertion, and the easiest way to satisfy one’s needs and desires is by exploitation; it is easier to seize wealth than it is to produce it — the chief instrument of exploitation in the modern age is the state, the ultimate huckster of privilege.

Gresham’s Law: The bad drives out the good: Hence, bad literature, art, culture, society, etc. drives out good literature, art, culture, society, etc.

Newton’s Law of Diminishing Returns: As things grow in size and strength, they tend to fall apart: Hence, the more students (or voters, etc.), the lower the standards and the lower the median level of intelligence — and an endless downward spiral of democratic mediocrity.

Cram’s Law: The reason that most people do not act like human beings is that they are not: Only a small minority of homo sapiens ever rise out of the sea of barbarians and philistines to achieve the status of true humanity; the masses are merely sub-human raw material out of which the occasional human being is produced.

Nock’s Law of Reform: If everyone would reform one (that is, oneself) and keep one steadfastly following the way of life which Jesus Christ recommended, the Kingdom of Heaven would be coexistive with human society.

The Forgotten Man

(William Graham Sumner, The Forgotten Man and Other Essays.)

The Forgotten Man . . . is the man who never is thought of. He is the victim of the reformer, social speculator, and philanthropist. . . . He is the simple honest laborer, ready to earn his living by productive work. We pass him by because he is independent, self-supporting, and asks no favors. He does not appeal to the emotions or excite sentiments. He only wants to make a contract and fulfill it, with respect on both sides and favor on neither side. He must get his living out of the capital of the country. The larger the capital is, the better living he can get. Every particle of capital which is wasted on the vicious, the idle, and the shiftless is so much taken from the capital available to reward the independent and productive laborer. But we stand with our backs to the independent and productive laborer all the time. We do not remember him because he makes no clamor. . . . He is the clean, quiet, virtuous, domestic citizen, who pays his debts and his taxes and is never heard of out of his little circle. . . . He works, he votes, generally he prays — but he always pays — yes, above all, he pays. He does not want an office; his name never gets into the newspaper except when he gets married or dies. He keeps production going on. He contributes to the strength of parties. He is flattered before election. He is strongly patriotic. He is wanted, whenever, in his little circle, there is work to be done or counsel to be given. He may grumble some occasionally to his wife and family, but he does not frequent the grocery or talk politics at the tavern. Consequently, he is forgotten. He is a commonplace man. He gives no trouble. He excites no admiration. He is not in any way a hero (like a popular orator); or a problem (like tramps and outcasts); nor notorious (like criminals); nor an object of sentiment (like the poor and weak); nor a burden (like paupers and loafers); nor an object out of which social capital may be made (like the beneficiaries of church and state charities); nor an object for charitable aid and protection (like animals treated with cruelty); nor the object of a job (like the ignorant and illiterate); nor one over whom sentimental economists and statesmen can parade their fine sentiments (like inefficient workmen and shiftless artisans). Therefore, he is forgotten. All the burdens fall on him, or her, for it is time to remember that the Forgotten Man is not seldom a woman. . . . the Forgotten Man and the Forgotten Woman are the very life and substance of society. They are the ones who ought to be first and always remembered. They are always forgotten by sentimentalists, philanthropists, reformers, enthusiasts, and every description of speculator in sociology, political economy, or political science. . . . He is our productive force which we are wasting. Let us stop wasting his force. Then we shall have a clean and simple gain for the whole society. The Forgotten Man is weighted down with the cost and burden of the schemes for making everybody happy, with the cost of public beneficence, with the support of all loafers, with the loss of all the economic quackery, with the cost of all the jobs. Let us remember him a little while. Let us take some of the burdens off him. Let us turn our pity on him instead of on the good-for-nothing. It will be only justice to him, and society will greatly gain by it. Why should we not also have the satisfaction of thinking and caring for a little about the clean, honest, industrious, independent, self-supporting men and women who have not inherited much to make life luxurious for them, but who are doing what they can to get on in the world without begging from anybody, especially since all they want is to be let alone with good friendship and honest respect.

More articles.

The South's Greatest Blunder

The South's Greatest Blunder

Thomas Allen, editor

In The United States Unmasked: A Search into the Causes of the Rise and Progress of These States, and an Exposure Of Their Present Material and Moral Condition (London, Ontario: J. H. Vivian, 1878), pages 100-102, G. Manigault identifies the South greatest blunder at the outbreak of Lincoln’s War:

The people of the South and their leaders committed many and great blunders. But we will only name one which we think the first and greatest of all. The politicians, urging on the people the necessity of seceding from the Union, universally pronounced secession to be a peaceful right. And so it was. The terms of the treaty which had united the States into a confederation having been grossly, repeatedly, and notoriously violated by the Northern States, to the injury of the Southern, any one or all of them had a right to declare the treaty null and void, and withdraw from the Union. This was a peaceful right and no act of hostility. But the politicians went beyond this and assured the people that secession would prove a peaceful remedy for their wrongs. This was as gross an absurdity as any man, calling himself a statesman could utter. The people of the Northern States had control of the Federal government and of all its powers and resources; they had been for years in the enjoyment of large contributions or rather tribute from the industry and fertility of the South; their prosperity had been largely, we think chiefly built upon these contributions, and must decline on their withdrawal. Now it is flying in the face of all history and all experience in human nature to suppose that any people or government, with large means of waging war, will abandon possession of rich tributary territories without first striving to retain them by force of arms. It matters not whether the tribute is the result of robbery or of right. They will fight rather than give it up. 

Some individuals in the South uttered earnest warnings that secession meant war, for it must lead to it; and urged prompt preparation for it. But they had not the ear of the people. If the South had any statesmen, their counsels were not heard amid the harangues of politicians; and the States which seceded went out of the Union, with the most flimsy preparations for maintaining in arms the step they had taken. The most important provisions made for defence were due to the foresight and activity of a few individuals.

More Southern articles. 

Salvation with a Focus on Israel Identity

Salvation with a Focus on Israel Identity

Thomas Allen

Two schools of salvation are discussed with a focus on salvation according to the Israel Identity folks. Israel Identity is known as British-Israelism, Christian Identity, and Kingdom Identity.

Salvation

Two schools of salvation are (1) salvation is by faith and faith alone, and (2) salvation is by faith plus some other condition. The first school reads John 3:16 literally and does not attach any conditions. The second school reads John 3:16 with conditions attached, although the verse and surrounding verses do not mention any conditions. John 3:16 reads:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

According to the salvation by faith-only school, anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah who guarantees everlasting life has everlasting life as taught in the Gospel According to St. John. According to the faith plus school, a person must not only believe in Jesus but must also meet some other qualification to be saved. To be saved, he must also:

– be baptized, although the proper form of baptism is disputed,

– repent,

– be obedient until he dies,

– attend church regularly,

– be a member of the proper denomination (several denominations contain the condition),

– believe the Trinity Doctrine,

– be chosen by God for salvation,

– be a descendant of Israel,

– whatever, or

– any combination of the above.

Thus, the second school reads John 3:16 as follows:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life if he is baptized, repents, is obedient, attends church regularly, is a member of the proper denomination, believes the Trinity Doctrine, is chosen by God, is a descendant of Israel, or complies with whatever.

Most Israel Identity people believe that the Bible is written about and for the Israelites and applies only to them and no other ethnicity. Therefore, John 3:16 reads:

For God so loved the world [i.e., meaning the Israelites], that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever [i.e., meaning Israelites and only Israelites who] believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Israel Identity

The following is a further discussion of Israel Identity on salvation. Most of it is based on the works of Arnold Kennedy. He is typical of the Israel Identity adherents.

According to Kennedy, the Bible is written about and for the Israelites and applies only to them and no other ethnicity. Jesus came to redeem and save only the descendants of Israel; therefore, no other people, including non-Israelite Whites, can be saved unto everlasting life. Only unadulterated descendants of Israel can be saved.

In one place, Kennedy suggests that non-Israelites cease to exist when they die. Yet, in another place, he suggests that since the Bible does not say what happens to non-Israelites when they die, people should not speculate about their fate. (Which is it, Kennedy? In one place, you speculate that they cease to exist when they die, and in another place, you write that people should not speculate about their fate.) 

According to Kennedy, racial genes come from the male side only. Consequently, males determine the race of the offspring; females never do. Therefore, the genes that fix a person's race are on the male Y chromosome. If true, how do women, who lack this chromosome, acquire their race? Although racial genes come from the male side only, the female must be of suitable stock for the offspring to be genetically acceptable to God — presumably, a descendant of Israel, but he does not define what makes a woman suitable stock.

When an Israelite male begets a child by a Negro female, the offspring is a mulatto. Why, if the male fixes the race? Should not all the children of a male Israelite be White? Anyway, the Negro female is not a suitable stock, and, therefore, the offspring is not genetically acceptable to God.

Moreover, according to Kennedy, God incorporated a "spirit" component into the Y chromosome of Abraham. This spirit component passed to Isaac, then to Israel, afterward to his twelve sons, and onward to all their male descendants. Somehow, Esau failed to receive this spirit component. Furthermore, he suggests that possessing this spirit component is essential for salvation, even though females do not receive it because they do not have the Y chromosome. (He is unclear whether a male offspring of an Israelite male and a non-Israelite female inherits this gene. He seems to imply that he does not; for this gene to pass, the Israelite’s mate has to be a woman of suitable stock. In any event, dilution of the spirit content from race-mixing leads to rejection by God.) Since females lack the Y chromosome, they do not possess this spirit component. If this spirit component is necessary for salvation, then how are women saved? 

Like all Israelite Identity adherents whom I have encountered, Kennedy fails to explain how one distinguishes between an Israelite White and a non-Israelite White. Whites also descended from Japheth or Shem who are not descended from Israel. Since the law requires Israelites to marry only Israelites, then one has to be able to distinguish between the two so that he does not violate the law. (Joseph's wife was a White non-Israelite Egyptian, who bore Ephraim and Manasseh; she was not an Israelite. Was she suitable stock? If she were not, Israelite Identity collapses. If she is, then at least some females who are not descendants of Israel are suitable stock. Who are they? [According to most Israel Identity adherents, the descendants of Ephraim inhabit England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Manasseh's descendants inhabit the United States.])

Without an accurate genealogy tracing all of one's ancestry back to Israel (Jacob), how does one prove without question that he is an unadulterated descendant of Israel? (I do have a genealogy that traces my ancestry back to Israel, but I have no confidence in it, especially when it gets into the Dark Age and beyond. Much of it was probably invented to satisfy some king's ego. However, I cannot trace all my ancestors back to Israel.)

Based on conjecture and speculation, Kennedy is convinced that he is an Israelite. However, he offers no convincing evidence that he is. Although Kennedy seems certain that he is an Israelite, how does he know that he is? Does he have an accurate genealogy that traces all of his lineage back to Israel with no adulteration? Can he prove that all his male ancestors and female ancestors are descendants of Israel? If he can, he is the only human who can. His belief that he is an Israelite is based on supposition and wishful thinking.

I have not read all of Kennedy's works, so he could have resolved some of the issues that I have raised in the unread articles and books.

(For more discussion on Israel Identity and salvation, see “Israel Identity” by Thomas Allen. Also, see "Questions on Israel Identity" by Thomas Allen.)

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Natural Rights

Natural Rights

Thomas Allen

What are natural rights? According to natural rights doctrine, the rights of a free people come from the laws of nature, which God has ordained. Unlike what many people claim or seem to believe, natural rights do not come from governments, i.e., states.

Nevertheless, much disagreement exists about natural rights. One ethnicity’s concept of natural rights often differs from another’s concept. The natural rights of a Christian, even a nominal Christian, country differ from those of a Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu country. Europeans, South Asians, East Asians, American Indians, and Africans have different concepts of natural rights — if they have any concept of natural rights at all.

Still, most people consider natural rights to be life, liberty, and property, plus the right and means to support and defend them. However, much disagreement occurs about liberty, property, and their protection.

Except for warmongers, proponents of abortion, and advocates of genocide, most people consider the right to life a natural right — at least for members of their ethnicity.

Before 1861, most Americans considered freedom of speech, religion, association, and assembly to be among the natural rights of liberty they were to enjoy. (The natural right of liberty did not include libertinism, public immorality, sexual perversion, and trespass against other persons or their property. Today, however, these are the natural rights of liberty, and traditional pre-1861 liberties are not.)

Many other societies do not consider these liberties to be natural rights. Today, in America, many of these liberties are being suppressed. Freedom of association died with the advent of the Civil Rights Era.

  Further, much disagreement exists over the right to own property and to use it as the owner desires, provided he does not trespass against another. This was the commonly accepted concept of property rights in the United States before 1861. This natural right is fading away. Except for some small personal items, it hardly exists in some countries. In socialist and fascist countries, the government regulates, i.e., controls the use of property — especially real property. Even in the United States, property rights are restricted via excessive taxation, zoning, and other laws that restrict the use of property, and the like. Moreover, while some, like the founding fathers, consider collective property, such as race, ethnicity, culture, and heritage, worthy of protection, others, like progressives and libertarians, do not. In America today, the latter now prevails over the former.

Many people consider the freedom from want to be a natural right. Where freedom from want is considered a natural right, the ownership of property is not a natural right. Freedom from want depends on forcibly taking property from people who have earned it and giving it to people who have not earned it.

Also, people dispute over the appropriate means to defend the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Does an individual have the right to defend his life, liberty, and property with deadly force? Although some jurisdictions allow the use of deadly force by an individual to defend life, others do not. Rare is a jurisdiction that allows an individual to use deadly force to defend property, and even rarer is one that allows a person to use deadly force to defend liberty. Instead, most, if not all, societies depend on governments to defend the natural rights of the people. Yet, governments, especially those that have morphed into states, are the greatest enemy of natural rights.

The United States were founded on the concept of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property and their protection. This concept of natural rights was the foundation of the constitutions of the several States, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of 1787. Moreover, the concept that sovereignty rests in the people of each State was another foundation of these constitutions.

People are not free because, at any particular moment, their government is not violating their rights. They are free if they force their government to live within the bounds of the constitution that establishes it — such a constitution being approved by the body politic, i.e., the people who wield political power in the territory under that constitution.

Today, Americans are not free because the federal government ignores most of the bounds of the Constitution that establishes it. Likewise, the State governments operate beyond the bounds of their constitutions. And the people let their governments violate the laws under which they are supposed to operate — mostly because the oligarchs, who control the federal government, have bought them with their (the people’s, i.e., the taxpayers’) money. To a lesser extent, State governments have acted likewise.

Unlike the federal government, which has strictly delegated powers beyond which it is not supposed to exceed, State constitutions grant their governments the authority to legislate on all matters where they are silent. Further, State governments are not to trespass against any restrictions that their constitutions place on them. Thus, all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are denied, while State governments have all the powers not denied.

Free people do not allow their governments to go beyond the limits of their constitutions. Therefore, Americans are not free because their federal and State governments act beyond these limits. Moreover, much of the rest of the world is not free because their governments exceed their constitutional limits. The exceptions are countries like North Korea and China, which were not free to start with because the ruling oligarchs set no limits on governmental power, and, therefore, they can never exceed their limits.

Unless the people rise and enforce their constitutions, they will continue to live in tyranny, i.e., live under an unlawful, arbitrary, and unrestrained government. To free their people, the States need to oppose the federal government and beat it back into the bounds of the Constitution. Similarly, the people of each State need to rise and force their State back into its constitutional bounds.

To force the federal government to return to its proper bounds, a powerful weapon that the States may use is to cease cooperating with the federal government in enforcing unconstitutional federal laws. However, to do this, the States would have to give up the bribe money that the federal government pays them. Probably, all States lack the fortitude and integrity to do this.

Nullification is another weapon that States may use. However, to be effective, the States need to arrest and jail any federal agent trying to enforce the nullified law. Again, probably all States lack the fortitude and integrity to do this.

Being sovereign, the people have the duty to force both the federal government and their State governments to operate within the bounds of their constitutions — with arms if necessary — hence, the reason for the Second Amendment of the US Constitution and similar clauses in their State constitutions. 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Three Thoughts About Money

Three Thoughts About Money

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are Executive Order 11110, cryptocurrency as a form of fiat money, and payment of interest on the national debt.

Executive Order 11110

Some people believe that President Kennedy was assassinated because he was planning to abolish the Federal Reserve System. Their proof is Executive Order 11110. Using this executive order as proof, some claim that Kennedy was planning to replace federal reserve notes with US notes, a.k.a. greenbacks. One wonders if these people have ever read Executive Order 11110.

The portended part of Executive Order 11110 reads:

(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption,  (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-11110-amendment-executive-order-no-10289-amended-relating-the-performance)

Executive Order 11110 had nothing to do with the Federal Reserve. It delegated the President's authority to issue silver certificates to the Secretary of the Treasury. In 1878, Congress authorized the President to issue silver certificates — long before the Federal Reserve existed. 

Moreover, Executive Order 11110  had nothing to do with US notes. By law, the Department of the Treasury had to maintain $346,681,016 of US notes in circulation from 1878 to 1971. 

When this executive order was issued, three types of paper money were circulating in the United States: silver certificates, US notes, and Federal Reserve notes. Although all had equivalent purchasing power, all were issued under different laws. (One may still find silver certificates and US notes in circulation. I have received one of each since 2000.)

Furthermore, the President cannot abolish the Federal Reserve. Only Congress can abolish it. Congress created it; Congress can abolish it.

        Moreover, a common misconception that some people have about US notes is that they are debt-free money. They are not. A note is a debt instrument. Therefore, a US note is a debt. However, it is a noninterest-bearing and nonmaturing debt that is legal tender.

This strange notion that President Kennedy was assassinated because of Executive Order 11110 and that this executive order replaced Federal Reserve notes with US notes, which would have led to abolishing the Federal Reserve, has been floating around for at least 40 years.

Cryptocurrency

Cryptocurrency like Bitcoin is not real money. It is a type of fiat money. Real money has quantity, measurement, and substance. Fiat paper money has only quantity. Likewise, cryptocurrency has only quantity.

An early illustration of these three attributes in real money is recorded in Genesis 23:16. Abraham bought a burial plot. He paid 400 (quantity) shekels (measurement of weight) of silver (substance). In pre-1933 money, if a person bought something with a $20 gold coin, he paid with money that had quantity (20), measurement (dollar, a unit of weight equal to 23.22 grains), and substance (gold).

Cryptocurrency lacks two of these three characteristics. For example, a Bitcoin has a quantity of one. It can be converted to fiat money, such as dollars or euros, which has quantity but, like Bitcoin, lacks measurement and substance. (Bitcoin averaged about $60,000 in 2024 and ranged between about $39,507 and $99,637.) Unlike fiat paper money like the dollar, which appears to have a measurement, cryptocurrency does not even seem to give the illusion of a measurement until it is converted to a fiat currency. However, even if cryptocurrency has a measurement, its measurement, like fiat currency, is an abstraction. It measures nothing of substance. A unit of measurement has to be something concrete and definable, like the meter, ounce, minute, or horsepower, so that things can be compared with it. It has to be something that instruments can determine. Also, it lacks substance as its monetary value exceeds the value of the material of which it is made, and it does not promise to deliver anything concrete. (See “What Is the Difference Between Commodity and Fiat Money” and “Differences Between Real Money and Fiat Money” by Thomas Allen.)

Another distinction between real money and fiat money is how the quantity of money in circulation is determined. With real money, the markets decide how much money is in circulation. The money supply adjusts automatically to meet monetary needs. Under a fiat monetary system, the money supply is regulated artificially; instead of the markets deciding, some entity decides. For paper fiat money, the government or its central bank regulates the quantity in circulation. With cryptocurrency, the programmer regulates it with the program that he wrote that creates the cryptocurrency. Like other fiat currencies, the quantity of cryptocurrency is independent of the market or economic needs or demand for money. (See “Gold and Silver as Fiat Money” by Thomas Allen.)

One advantage that the existing paper fiat monetary system has over cryptocurrency is that it has a mechanism for withdrawing excess money. Cryptocurrency lacks such a mechanism. Once cryptocurrency is issued, it remains in circulation forever unless it is lost.

Interest on the National Debt

Many people express concern about paying the ever-growing interest on the ever-growing US national debt. However, two legal methods can be used to eliminate paying the interest on the US debt.

First, Congress can require the Federal Reserve Bank to buy all US government’s debt securities. Under current law, all earnings of the Federal Reserve above its operational cost go to the US Treasury. Thus, nearly all the interest that the federal government pays on its debts would return to the US Treasury. If Congress thought that the Federal Reserve’s operating expenses were too high, it could limit those expenses.

Second, the federal government could pay the interest with government notes, a.k.a. US notes, also called greenbacks. Also, it could pay off or even buy back the US government’s debt securities with government notes. Government notes are notes issued directly by the government instead of indirectly through the central bank, as are Federal Reserve notes. Moreover, instead of issuing bonds, treasury bills, etc., the federal government could just issue government notes. From the government’s perspective, government notes have a great advantage over other governmental debt. Government notes pay no interest and never mature. (See “Difference Between Bank Notes and Government Notes” by Thomas Allen.)

Of course, if either of these two methods is used, the US dollar will go the way of the Zimbabwean dollar much quicker than it will under the current system. (At its peak, the Zimbabwean inflation was estimated at 79.6 billion percent month-on-month, 89.7 sextillion percent year-on-year in mid-November 2008.)

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More money articles.

Tariffs as Revenue

Tariffs as Revenue

Thomas Allen

Some people, like President Trump, suggest replacing the federal income tax with tariffs. Tariffs are heralded as a means to increase employment and wages and to reduce, if not eliminate, dependency on foreign sources.

The primary benefit of replacing income tax with tariffs is that the federal government's size would need to be reduced by 80 to 90 percent. That is about the size of the federal government that tariffs could support without exploding debt that would dwarf the current federal debt — this assumes that the tariff is for revenue and not protectionism. 

Replacing the income tax with tariffs will, at least in the short run, result in a large-scale loss of jobs. More than a million federal employees will lose their jobs. Likewise, a much larger number of people whose livelihoods depend on federal contracts will lose theirs. Also, many State and local employees will lose their jobs because these jobs depend on federal grant money. Many people whose jobs depend on the federal government will become unemployed.

Additionally, if the goal of the tariff is to promote and protect domestic companies, the federal government will collect even less revenue. The more effective that a tariff is at protecting domestic companies, the less the country imports. Fewer imports result in less revenue for the federal government.

Exports buy imports. The less the country imports, the less it can export. Conversely, the less the country exports, the less it can import. If the country imports less, the federal government collects less revenue. As the country approaches autarky, the federal government becomes smaller for want of revenue — if tariffs are the primary source of revenue. By then, most of the federal government’s budget will be used to prevent smuggling.

Also, many people believe that the exporters pay the tariffs. They do not. Consumers of the importing country pay the tariffs. In this respect, tariffs are like sales taxes; the buyer pays the tax; the seller does not.

One great advantage resulting from abandoning the income tax is that it frees the slaves from the largest slave owner in the country, the US government. Slavery is defined as one party or person owning the labor of another. The income tax is a tax on labor; that is, the amount of labor that it takes a person to pay his taxes is the amount of labor owned by the US government.

If the purpose of tariffs is revenue, then the same percentage should be levied on all imported goods without considering the product imported or the country of origin. Thus, the federal government does not pick favorites or winners and losers by levying higher tariffs on some imports than on others.

Appendix 1. Reciprocal Tariffs

President Trump has implemented reciprocal tariffs on countries that levy tariffs on imports from the United States. His goal is for these countries to eliminate their tariffs on imports from the United States in exchange for the United States eliminating their tariffs on imports from their countries. However, such reciprocal tariffs are unconstitutional — at least under the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave the United States.

The Constitution delegates to Congress the authority to levy tariffs. It does not delegate the President such power. Consequently, Congress would have to levy the reciprocal tariffs and give the President the authority to implement them. Even if Congress enacted such a law, it would be unconstitutional. According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, the Constitution authorizes Congress to levy tariffs for revenue and for no other reasons, such as protectionism or reciprocity. The goal of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs is to eliminate tariffs and, consequently, eliminate raising revenue from tariffs.

Appendix 2. Replacing the Income Tax with a National Sales Tax

For years, some people have been promoting replacing the federal income tax with a national sales tax. If a sales tax is to replace the income tax, it needs to be done by constitutional amendment. This amendment must clearly prohibit all taxes on income from whatever source (wages, salaries, tips, dividends, interest, capital gains, etc.). Also, it must fix the maximum tax rate. Further, it must clearly define in great detail what can be taxed and what cannot be taxed. Moreover, it must not provide any outs, such as national or economic emergencies or war. Most importantly, the amendment needs to be written so that someone with an IQ of 70, which is about the average IQ of federal judges, can understand it.

Appendix 3. Eliminating the Corporate Income Tax

The North Carolina General Assembly is moving toward eliminating the corporate income tax. If it retains an income tax, it should eliminate the personal income tax instead of the corporate income tax. Why? Corporations (C corporations, S corporations, B corporations, limited liability companies, nonprofits, closed corporations, professional corporations, etc.), unlike a natural person, are creatures of the government and have privileges that individuals do not have. Moreover, the personal income tax enslaves people. Corporate income taxes do not because corporations are not living beings (contrary to what the US Supreme Court and many libertarians believe).

Moreover, a natural person has a natural law right to privacy. The income tax is a massive invasion of privacy. On the other hand, being creatures of the government, corporations have no right to privacy; the government has every right to know what its creatures are doing. (If we have a government of, by, and for the people, and if the people are the masters and the government is the servant — as our politicians continuously remind us — then the people have the right to know everything about the government, including information classified as top secret; the government has no right to secrecy. By extension, the people also have a right to know everything that a corporation does.)

Proprietaries, partnerships, and associations that do not have a charter from a government should be treated as individuals. Likewise, churches that are not incorporated should be exempt from income taxes. Individuals and organizations exempt from income tax should not report any kind of income to the government.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More economic articles.

Commentary on Hebrews 1:8

Commentary on Hebrews 1:8

Thomas Allen

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever;

Hebrews 1:8 is another verse that Trinitarians use to prove the Trinity Doctrine. This verse calls Jesus God. Therefore, it proves that Jesus, who is the Son of God, which Trinitarians interpret as God the Son, is the second person of the Triune God. Adam Clarke writes, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. If this be said of the Son of God, i.e., Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ must be God; and indeed the design of the apostle is to prove this.” (Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, abridged by Ralph Earle, 1967, p. 1249.)

Like Unitarians, Trinitarians note that the author of Hebrews contrasts Jesus, the Son of God, with the angels. However, according to the Trinitarians, Jesus rules as God and, therefore, is God.

According to Trinitarians, the exalted Jesus is superior to the angels, and they minister to him — with which Unitarians agree. Moreover, he is a sovereign sitting on a throne, and the angels worship him because he is their creator and God. Although angels may change according to God’s will, Christ is the unchangeable, ever-reigning King because he is God. Thus, in this verse, God declares His Son to be God.

Hebrews 1:8 supports Modalism as much as, if not better than, it supports Trinitarianism. After all, it refers to Jesus as God and not as the second person of a Triune God. Hence, it refers to a different manifestation of God and not to a different person of God.

Both Trinitarians and Unitarians agree that Hebrews 1:8 describes Jesus, the Son of God. However, they disagree about the meaning of “God” in reference to Jesus. For Trinitarians, “God” means the Supreme God. For Unitarians, “God” means that Jesus is the perfect agent of God, i.e., Jesus is the Messiah.

Also, both Trinitarians and Unitarians agree that the author is using Psalm 45:6 (“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.”) to describe Jesus. However, according to Unitarians, the writer of Hebrews is not suggesting that Jesus is God. He is contrasting the Son with the angels and asserting that the Son is superior to the angels — with which Trinitarians agree. Therefore, the Son can be addressed as God. Moreover, he can be called God because he is God’s agent, just as judges in the Old Testament were called god because they were God’s agents. Only Jesus is the perfect agent, the Messiah. In Hebrews 1:8, “God” means a divine hero who reflects divine majesty. Further, in Psalm 45:6, “God” refers to the king of Israel. Thus, the author of Hebrews is applying the title given to a king of Israel to Jesus as the Messiah. This verse is part of the author’s proof that Jesus is the Messiah, who is a man. He is not arguing that Jesus is the preexisting God-man, the second person of the Triune God. Because of his perfect obedience, Jesus qualifies to be the righteous ruler of the world.

Also, the Bible does not always use the term “god” to mean the Supreme God. For example, Moses is called god in Exodus 7:1.

Moreover, since chapter one of Hebrews proves that Jesus, the Son of God, is superior to the angels, he cannot be God (or God the Son). Proving that God is superior to angels is unnecessary. Further, Jesus cannot be an archangel because archangels are angels, and Jesus is their superior.

Additionally, some Bibles provide an alternative translation. Instead of reading “. . . your throne, O God, . . .,” they read, “ . . . God is your throne . . .”. The alternative translation undermines the Trinitarian interpretation of this verse.

Further proof that Hebrews 1:8 does not support the Trinity Doctrine is Hebrews 1:9 (“Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”). This verse declares that Jesus has a God. If the exalted Jesus is God, how can he have a God? The Supreme God has no God. If Jesus is God, this verse is nonsensical. Thus, “God” in verse 8 is used in an inferior sense as a title designating Jesus as a king who is a superior being and does not mean the Supreme Being.

When Hebrews 1:8 is read in context, it refers to the post-resurrected Jesus and his exaltation to God’s right hand. God has given him the privilege to rule along with his Father, God Himself. Because he is God’s perfect agent, Jesus can be called God in the sense that human representatives of God were called god in the Old Testament. Nevertheless, Jesus still has a God, the one true God, his Father, to whom he is accountable.

Even some Trinitarians agree with the Unitarians. They do not view this text as proof of the Trinity. It stresses the exalted function of God’s Messiah as the ruler of men. (Most of the Trinitarian commentators that I consulted do not give any weight to Hebrew 1:8 as supporting the Trinity Doctrine.)

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.