In the minds of many people around the world, including in the United States, the term “capitalism” carries the idea of unfairness, exploitation, undeserved privilege and power, and immoral profit making. What is often difficult to get people to understand is that this misplaced conception of “capitalism” has nothing to do with real free markets […]
When you type a website address into a browser, you might have noticed that the letters “http” appear at the front. “HTTP” stands for Hypertext Transfer Protocol. In typing a Web address, you are actually sending an HTTP command to transmit that website to you. Hypertext Transfer Protocol is the means by which information is […]
Some people are saying it is just what the doctor ordered. Others are saying that the cure is worse than the disease.The Affordable Care Act? Reengagement in Iraq? Tea Party bullying in the GOP?Not this time. Just as protracted in the corridors of Congress and the White House is the debate over the proposed reform […]
In 2012, money mandarins running the European Union chose stagnation over restructuring. Here’s a consequence of that choice: expectations for a self-sustaining economic recovery keep getting crushed.Two years ago, European Central Bank (ECB) chief Mario Draghi promised to do “whatever it takes” to hold the eurozone together. He bluffed nervous investors into believing in a […]
Picture the scene. It’s 2020. You’re at the checkout in a convenience store with a carton of milk. But you’ve got no cash and you’ve left your cards at home. No problem. You scan your right index finger; the green light flashes. Purchase approved and you leave. Easy.Is this a realistic vision of the future, […]
“In the beginning, all the world was America.” — John Locke“The Garden of Eden was a perfect place,” my friend Manuel explained. “Man had free will. He could live in harmony with nature and God — and everything would be fine. But if he defied God, the stain of original sin would be on his […]
After a week of reckoning about the American oil and gas boom… I’ve got to get something off my chest.I can’t stand it when a coworker takes credit for something I did.Whether it’s a special report I wrote or just a little investing trick I found on my own — if someone takes it and […]
It might sound like the latest new product from Apple, but IPAB is actually the newest major legal challenge to Obamacare.Recently, a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco heard arguments about the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, a 15-member panel created by the Affordable Care Act and empowered […]
Americans have come to believe that the IRS and the income tax are inevitable parts of our lives. After all, most everyone alive today has lived his entire life under federal income taxation.It wasn’t always that way. For some 125 years, the American people lived without having any tax imposed upon their income.The obvious question […]
Here’s a fun fact: Although we all hate the U.S. dollar, as it continues to hemorrhage wealth, its foothold as the world’s reserve currency isn’t going to disappear overnight.A Russian gas deal with China won’t change that — as we’ll highlight below.But before we get to the nitty-gritty, let’s dive into a story that’s right […]
Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously used the term “forgotten man” in a 1932 speech to describe those at the bottom of the economic pyramid who, he felt, government should aid.But the originator of the phrase “forgotten man” had a whole different meaning in mind. He aimed to expose the seeming good intentions of government to reveal […]
“As the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding […]
The Keynesian disaster recovery plan has been to lower rates, force people to take more risk in search of yield, and entice others to borrow and spend and, magically, more jobs will be created. If people won’t buy stocks, central banks will.Back in 2011, Ben Bernanke, when asked if QE2 was driving up stock prices, […]
In September 2009, when President Obama made a primetime speech pitching his not-yet-passed health care overhaul, he made the following promise: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. Period.” To prove his seriousness, he further promised that “there will be a provision […]
Whatever your views on the role of government, one thing is clear: There will be no way to pay for it if the economy doesn’t grow. And I’m not talking by a measly percentage point or two. If we can’t find our way back to 5% annual economic growth or above soon, America’s accumulated federal […]
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, consumer prices are rising at a 2.1% annual rate. This suggests to us that the current stock market boom will die with a bang, rather than a whimper.Fed economists say they don’t think inflation rates are rising. They think the most recent reading is a fluke. But why […]
Real progress happens through real people, ideas, and innovations. Not by legislation argued and debated in Congress. Right now, one of the most influential technologies is changing the way people do business. And reinventing the future in the process.
Innovation can change the world… if the world lets it. Unfortunately, society’s gatekeepers make it a point to constrain, regulate, and control these ideas. But their power is limited, and the power of innovation is too great. Unfortunately for regulators, there are some technologies they can’t control.
“Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.” — Emperor Palpatine, The Return of the JediJon Stewart made great comedic hay during the Bush Administration out of the enormity of Dick Cheney’s “Sith Lord” malevolence. Events in Iraq in the past week have made especially palpable Cheney’s Palpatine-like quality.As Iraq unravels, you may suspect that Cheney might now […]
Entrepreneurs are high-tailing it out of the United States, and it’s the politicians’ faultThe U.S. government is driving some of its most productive citizens abroad. The only beneficiaries are countries such as Singapore and Switzerland, which offer sanctuary to Americans fleeing avaricious Uncle Sam.Three years ago Eduardo Saverin, one of Facebook’s founders, joined 1,780 other […]
Politicians love raising the minimum wage because they don’t have to ask voters to pay more in taxes. They just dump the costs onto shop owners. But they don’t act like politicians and go into debt to pretend like they have all the money in the world. They face real world situations. And sometimes that means replacing workers with more affordable options...
A cushy job in Hawaii that pays six figures. A beautiful girlfriend/boyfriend. Job security and professional experience that gives you plenty of future opportunities. Would you throw that all away to do what you think is right? Last year, one government contractor did just that. And now you see the world the government tried to hide from you.
As the world gets more digital, people forget about the benefits of transacting in cash. And government officials know that.
Regulation is supposed to keep you safe and make the economy function smoothly. At least that’s what they tell you in the news. But there’s another cost to regulation. One that you won’t hear about unless you have to deal with directly. And for the people in the economy who do, they’re the ones who have to pay the final cost.
The experts will tell you the recession is over, but they’re only torturing the data to hide the truth. The economy never recovered from the downturn it experienced. But the downturn happened in 2000, not 2008. The country’s been in the middle of a 14 year recession and hardly anyone knows the truth.
All paper currency has a shelf life. It could be 5 years or 500 years, but at some point, the value of any paper currency eventually reaches zero. That's why, for centuries, people have turned to one shiny metal to safeguard their personal store of wealth. And, as Jim Rickards explains, you still have that option. Read on...
Edward Snowden’s one year visa in Russia expires at the end of next month. With only a few weeks left before he finds himself without a safe country to live in, he sat down to give an exclusive interview. Here are the most important things he wants you to remember from his recent sacrifice.
Black’s Law Dictionary is considered definitive on the meaning of legal terms. The Dictionary defines “privilege” as “a special legal right, exemption, or immunity granted to a person or class of persons; an exception to a duty.” It usually refers to the legal right to withhold information from authorities or to refuse to participate in judicial proceedings.
Western courts recognize “privilege” in specific cases and to varying degrees. For example, such strong privilege attaches to attorney-client communication that it is considered a prerequisite of justice itself. In R v. Derby Magistrates’ Court (1996), the court found,
The client must be sure that what he tells his lawyer in confidence will never be revealed without his consent. Legal profession privilege is thus much more than an ordinary rule of evidence, limited in its application to the facts of a particular case. It is a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole rests.
Utterances made to the clergy, especially during confession or spiritual counseling, enjoy similarly strong protection as part of the separation of church and state. Doctor-patient privilege exists to a lesser degree because of recent requirements for doctors to report any suspicion of crimes such as domestic violence. A journalist’s First Amendment ‘right’ to protect the identity of sources has been under concerted attack for decades.
One of the most famous types of privilege is ‘spousal immunity’ that, in America, includes two separate legal rights: a communications privilege and a testimonial privilege. The specifics, including exclusions, vary from state to state and in the federal courts. In general, however, the communications privilege protects confidential communications made during a marriage. The testimonial privilege protects one spouse from being forced to testify against the other on the basis of observations; for example, if a spouse accused of embezzlement kept large sums of cash in a shoebox. The purpose of spousal immunity is to draw a line between the private and public sector across which the state cannot step and, so, interfere with marital harmony.
But the idea of legal privileges for any individual or class creates tension within American law. The phrase “equal justice under law” is engraved on the front of the U.S. Supreme Court building, and equal justice presupposes the equal application of law. In short, the American ideal of justice runs counter to legal privilege.
THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND LEGAL PRIVILEGE
Legal privilege has been part of the common law tradition for centuries; common law refers to the part of the English law that derives from custom and court precedent,not from statutes. Consider spousal privilege. Lord Edward Coke – the foremost jurist of the Elizabethan period – penned what is widely viewed as the first statement of spousal privilege in his book The First Part of the Institutes of the Lawes of England (1628),
it hath beene resolved by the Justices that a wife cannot be produced either against or for her husband, quia sunt duae animae in carne una [for they are two souls in one flesh], and it might be a cause of implacable discord and dissention betweene the husband and the wife, and a meane of great inconvenience.
No one knows the precise genesis of this privilege but it probably had Biblical roots similar to that of many other marital laws. For example, the Bible quotes Jesus as stating, “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (King James Bible, Mark X:9.) This had been interpreted as an advisement for the law to avoid turning spouses against each other. By the late 17th century, the spousal privilege was well established.
Coke’s interpretation of common law was particularly important to the American colonies because it coincided with the drafting of their charters. The colonies in America adopted something of a patchwork approach to the law but, overall, they tended toward the common law tradition. In reviewing the book The Common Law in Colonial America: Volume I: The Chesapeake and New England, 1607-1660 by William E. Nelson, George W. Liebmann explained,
New England law  was founded on views resembling the Protestant approach to the Bible…while the Catholic minority in Maryland consciously adopted English common law to provide a fixed standard to shield a religious minority from future majority oppression. Virginia ultimately turned toward the English common law to provide assurance to providers of capital and because the colony could no longer be governed on a military command system.
Thus the Founding Fathers, most of whom were of English extraction, were familiar with English common law and tended to incorporate aspects of it that seemed to make society and the courts work well. Of Coke, Thomas Jefferson once wrote to James Madison, “a sounder whig never wrote, nor of profounder learning in the orthodox doctrines of the British constitution, or in what were called English liberties.”
Legal scholars Robert Catz and Jill Lange explained the tension caused by adopting English common law, however. They wrote,
“Framers of the American legal system quite naturally looked to England as a foundation for establishing legal doctrine.” Nevertheless, the idea of legal privilege was closely associated with royalty and a class structure. Thus, it was “met with some ambivalence….The Framers wanted an egalitarian system….Many viewed privilege as a type of title/class obstacle to the search for truth and as an impediment to the right to a fair and just trial.”
Other forms of legal privilege to silence share a similar history. For example, the attorney-client privilege harks back to ancient Rome and, in 1577, it became the first such privilege recognized within common law. The American colonies adopted the practice, with Delaware codifying it in its 1776 constitution.
The legal privilege of remaining silent is usually discussed in connection with special classes of people, like journalists or spouses, whom the law treats differently due to their profession or their personal relationship to an accused. When that privilege is questioned, it is generally done in the name of ‘the public good’ or ‘the public’s right to know’.
When phrased in this manner, the debate usually concludes by removing or eroding any right to silence. For example, a recent news headline in ACLA (Australian Corporate Lawyer Association) read, “The Demise of Spousal Privilege in Australian law.” The article chronicled the High Court case Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart (2011) in which the court was asked to determine if spousal privilege was, indeed, part of common law. The High Court “held that the common law did not provide a sufficient basis for the conclusion that spousal privilege exists in the modern context.” Increasingly, the debate veers in this direction.
It is a false debate, however. The right to remain silent and not divulge what you know is not a class privilege. It is an integral, inseparable aspect of everyone’s right to freedom of speech. Whether you base this right upon a Constitution, natural law or God’s will, it is inalienable. That is, the right can neither be stripped away nor augmented because of someone’s profession or his relationship to another person who is accused of a crime. Thus, the question of whether a journalist or priest should be able to remain silent misses the point. The issue is “why isn’t everyone able to exercise this inalienable aspect of free speech?”
In other words, there should be no privilege under the law or in its application. This does not mean abandoning the legal right of spouses, attorneys, clergies and other currently ‘privileged groups’ to remain silent. It means the ‘privilege’ of privacy and freedom of speech should be universalized; it should be extended to all individuals so that no one is compelled by government to disclose information or to testify in court.
In his book The Ethics of Liberty, libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard wrote,
The solution to the problem of the newsman’s sources [or any alleged 'privilege' to not divulge information]…rests in the right of the knower — any knower — to keep silent, to not disseminate knowledge if he so desires. Hence, not only newsmen and physicians, but everyone should have the right to protect their sources, or to be silent, in court or anywhere else. And this, indeed, is the other side of the coin of our previous strictures against the compulsory subpoena power. No one should be forced to testify at all, not only against himself (as in the Fifth Amendment) but against or for anyone else. Compulsory testimony itself is the central evil in this entire problem.
A solid case can be made for using social pressure and other peaceful inducements in order to persuade people to speak and to testify. But, if peaceful inducements fail, then it is not within the proper jurisdiction of government to force people to provide it with information. Courts must not violate rights in the name of protecting them.