You're correct of course, Christopher, and the right-wingers who think we just need to vote harder are utterly delusional. The left will always find some way around any piece of paper, be it through violence or just bribing the masses with endless money-printing and promises of sunlit uplands. That's why I say, and I'm going to choose my words carefully with all due respect to your Substack, we have to be prepared to get our hands dirty... otherwise we just continue slouching towards Gomorrah.
I am reading a book by Daniel Mallock called "Agony and Eloquence," which is about the relationship between Adams and Jefferson. I am only halfway through, and Jefferson has already said a whole mess of really intemperate things in a whole bunch of letters to different people!
I feel I might be guilty of that too but wouldn’t mind receiving a verbal lashing through a letter in his penmanship and cursive. So much more impact than emojis.
Also Tom, thank you for your solution driven approach to our problems, really excited to dive into your reading recommendations from Feb 6th and discuss with my young adult offspring and their left-of-center-friends. Looking forward to hearing more of your ideas on “a distributed nation”, flies, honey, vinegar, blood and all.
You are correct. And well written, as usual. Most of the founders were the super wealthy elite of their time. They saw themselves as the only ones worthy of leadership. And some Federalists even stated that they should hold all the wealth because they were the only ones capable of managing it and it was legitimate that they took everyone else's money through taxation and funneled it to their own businesses.
They sabotaged the Articles of Confederation because citizens in the states were using them to defend themselves against abuses by the elites. The new constitution gave them all the power in the states and the federal government. Yes, some objected but the Federalists won. And to cement their power, Hamilton started the first political party a year after the first election under the Constitution. That allowed them to rule the government through the political parties and subvert the Constitution. This power structure of elite-controlled political parties who control the government is the root cause of the political divide and of most of our problems.
But there is another point. Why shouldn't we continually improve the government? How could decisions 250 years ago be valid for managing a complex government and society today? And why would we hope that those who are benefiting from it would ever change it?
And the third point is who is the most capable of managing or ruling? If we modified the Constitution or did away with it, how would we change it or what would replace it?
Simply replacing it with another representative form of government would not solve the problem. That includes communism. Eliminating it and leaving a vacuum as proposed by anarchists would leave the same vacuum that was filled by the elite after the revolution. What would stop those who own and control the big businesses in most industries, the global elite, from taking control as they did before? In reality, isn't the federal government just a big business that is an extension of their other businesses that funnels our tax dollars into their pockets? I can't see how the results would be any different unless controlled by a greater power. Allowing that greater power to be in the hands of businesses would only create more elite control.
I believe the answer lies in changing two Federal processes that would create a Collaborative Democracy. It puts the people in control, but with a process that guides their collective intelligence rather than their emotions. It inoculates government from political parties and elite control. The major parts of it have been used successfully around the world. The blueprint and plan to accomplish it is contained in the book End Politics Now. You can read it for free on endpoliticsnow.com.
If we stand together, we have all the power. If we don't, the elites have all the power. It's that simple. And the only way to stand together is use our collective intelligence to rule ourselves.
Do you believe human nature includes the desire to participate in community organization? If not, what percentage of participation is acceptable. Governments exploit human weaknesses and one of the greatest weaknesses is selfishness.
The normal sane human being is a dynamic equilibrium of competing impulses and desires. 'Selfishness' and 'Unselfishness' are usually in some kind of tension with neither truly dominating for extended periods of time. It's not just 'governments' that exploit people's weaknesses, its all 'Machiavellians' who do so. The best 'solution' isn't to control either 'selfishness' or 'unselfishness' but to empower different kinds of 'selfishness' and 'unselfishness' to compete and collaborate with one another. John C. Calhoun's idea (in brief) was that 'democracy' should be constrained to civic organizations who then represent the interests of their members on the state of national politics. He accepted that each individual state (in the USA) would create its own rules for franchise, but could not be permitted to create franchise rules for 'civic organizations' such as unions, associations, mutual aid societies. We cannot solve the problem of political power by removing or sublimating the realities of political power. The better approach is to more widely distribute power (and the knowledge of its uses and limitations) and to put different 'interests' and the factions representing those interests into positions to collaborate, compete or nullify one another in an ongoing manner. More a political ecology than a 'government'.
An excellent reply. What you explain requires a process. It is the process that determines the results. That's why I took all the issues and the root cause and redesigned two government processes for the solution. It creates what I call a Collaborative Democracy. It is designed to drive solutioning to the lowest possible level. It's not part of the design, but I envision that the best end result that could be accomplished over time with these new processes would be to replace the states and the counties with 300 metro area governments where most decisions would be made. But that's generally too big a pill to swallow for most people. Better to start with a solution that they can relate to and participate in to learn how to rule themselves. But one that allows continual improvement.
I think you're probably right that, given time and inclination, the 'basic political unit' would not be as currently configured, at least in the USA. But there's an entire other aspect to the issue which is 'economy'. In general, it seems to me that political self-determination is enhanced by economic autonomy (autarky). I think the ability to harvest and utilize non-human resources is going to affect the viable scale of the political units, what they manage and when their management of some piece of the political-economy shifts to another (more encompassing) layer of organization.
If true devolution occurs, regional economies with regional (collaborative) cartels organizing regional resources will (more or less) be decisive in where 'decision-making' occurs. In my opinion, 'the city' has outlived it's utility almost entirely. After ten-thousand years, it's just spent as a megamachine for production. Now it's just a resource-sink.
For me, the primary purpose of a government entity is to guide the people to make decisions to rule themselves through a process other than simple voting that enhances collect even intelligence. If the people do not rule themselves, then cartels and businesses will, whether they are called businesses or government. People with money and power will gain more and the rest of the people less. So an important part of government is to inoculate decisions from external power sources such as the elite and their businesses.
I don't see how you can innoculate decision-making from power. All that it seems to me that can be done is to create multiple, relatively independent nodes of power going from the very small to the very large. In the USA, one of the powers of the states (and counties) is nullification. A simple refusal to implement plans made by remote authorities. This kind of power has been used to, essentially, legalize marijuana growing and using and undocumented immigration as well as curtail attempts to limit access to instruments of self-defense.
Where virtue fails, deterrence may provide the remedy.
Another anon. Smart but incapable of standing and delivering in his own name. There are 33 states and each has a legitimate Constitution. There is no United States of Washington District of Columbia! There is a de facto corporation there instead. www.orsja.org..
That is a very good question. I believe people participate when it benefits them, when they care about the outcome, which is what they find in Switzerland for citizen initiatives. Here is the answer from my book, End Politics Now, on page 185 (print version).
“Citizens who participated in our process would be those with an interest in the outcome of the solution who chose to participate. In our case, solving the issue with those most interested in the issue would be an advantage, not a disadvantage, justifying self-selection over random selection. You could say that the participants represent 100% of the population of citizens who care about a solution to the issue.
That aside, if we want to set a minimum number of participants for a solution to pass, we could use the sample size calculation. For issues that affected the entire population, we could calculate the minimum sample size to represent the 232 million citizens ages 18 and older. A common level of confidence for scientific studies is 95%, but is sometimes lower in political polls. Assuming the most stringent 99% confidence level and a 1% margin of error, a minimum of 16,600 participants would be needed. For a strong consensus of 60% or more of the 16,600 participants, a minimum of 10,000 would need to vote to approve the new solution at the end of the democratic solution process.
In other words, if you posted a national issue that affected everyone, you would need to persuade at least 16,600 people to complete the entire solution process. If less than 16,600 people were participating in the issue after a given time, the issue would be cancelled for lack of participation. In addition, at least 16,600 people would need to vote at the end to confirm the consensus solution with an approval vote of at least 10,000 for the consensus solution to pass.
Keep in mind that these 16,600 people would not be simply voting their opinion. They would go through the solution process together and the solutions would be based on their collective intelligence. While it may seem remarkable that a minimum of 16,600 people would be sufficient to represent our nation, statistically we could be 99% confident that they do with a 1% margin of error. To state that in practical terms, 99% of the time, the participation of additional citizens would not change the percentage of Agree and Disagree assessments of each statement or the approval vote, even if all 232 million adult citizens participated.”
Love it. In theory, we have that now. However, currently a small percentage of those with greatest interest both lie to and manipulate those with a more casual interest to follow the leader. We find this in corporate overlords who manipulate public opinions and political parties who do the bidding of oligarchs while claiming interest in a wider range of people.
Brent, you need to read and comprehend. We have had color of law since 1861. We are seeking remedy. Starting with a Constitutional republican form of government this year 2024. We did Oregon November 2022. www.orsja.org
We have received notification from Zero, not one other Civilian common law Court of record. It would seem to me that a digital handshake would be in order. www.orsja.org
We are still looking for any additional survivors of Mookini303, another Article III one supreme Court claiming original jurisdiction? Please pass the word, our Amendment VII court whose jury verdict has no appeal in fact, as the value exceeds $20.00 there is no judge involved. It has the unique, de jure Article III court where a man or woman can find remedy against the state, the de facto state, Article I, martial law, FEMA or additional bullshit. .
Right now it is critical that the decision is made. “ I will not acquiesce to any infringement against my unalienable rights.” Executing that concept has begun or you have already acquiesced to the lesser of two evils.
You have so much figured out correctly, then your conclusion is wrong and you go down an alternate de facto route. Then so much effort is invested in “Counties or classes on Grand Jury; Common law, Drivers License, Gun Control. Pedos, LGBTQ, COVID and all the rest of the diversions from the GOAL. De jure in 2024.
I’m told there are militia, cops, Deputy Sheriffs, bailiffs and security lunkheads that do not grok the difference between de facto and de jure.
More classes, study, just one more seminar and I’ll be ready! That is wrong. No one can teach you how to do it for yourself, it is mindset. You already have a preponderance of evidence. Then it is done and you do not need anyone to authenticate you. Then form a social compact as we cannot do it alone. You need two witnesses to your Living testimony in the form of an affidavit of truth. Record that in your Court of record. Do you have one?
We haven’t had a de jure government of / for / by / from The United States of America since 1861 and you want to do it all over. You do not have what you want to change. Phuque Buckminster Fuller. This is not commerce. There is no law only color of law. There is no jurisdiction in their court for a man or woman. Our Court files into their Court for us with a Claim of Conusance. We must not select another de facto color of law, when de jure is available. We proved that on Oregon. November 2022. 62.5% will not speak truth to the de facto. Leave them alone. They will do as they are told by the de jure. 10 million invaders makes the task more difficult. But that is not the task. A provisional government is required before you can obtain a lawful, de jure Article IV Section 4.
You need your state 33, or territory 17 to do the simple and important tasks. Not the pretend tasks. It is not enforcement. They fold or hide when we go against them. Over and over. Be careful they do not hit you with a stick, spray your eyes and arrest you. A court of 4. Confront them and we either get a proper oath and proper bona fides or they vacate the office of Sheriff. Read ORS 206. Do you have an authentic ARTICLE I Section 1 provisional government on your state??? What about an Article III Amendment VII Civilian common law Court of record?? A Functioning Jury pool from which to draw a Grand Jury or Trial Jury?? Ex parte Milligan, Lieber Code, FEMA. Federal is de facto from Nevada on.
Now among yourselves find the error in what we have done on Oregon, we made several and corrected them as we moved on. You will not make those as we did that for you. You must do the rest yourselves. www.orsja.org.
So, I know and / or know of most of you. Several in our social compact are as knowledgeable as needed to assist you and are much nicer than I am. This is not a popularity contest. They are killing us and you appear to be inept, ignorant, stupid, de facto, agent provocateur, controlled opposition, timid, afraid, fooled, confused, willfully wicked, not on the correct page doing the correct tasks. We meet at 7:00 PM Monday Pacific on Skype @ Oregon Statewide Jural Assembly 2
We have received notification from Zero other 2nd Amendment Militia, Jural Assembly with their bona fides in order and prepared for an Electoral College, Civilian common law Court of record. It would seem to me that a digital handshake would be in order.www.orsja.org
I agree to a degree because human nature is self serving and nothing will ever change that which is why the intent to keep government limited sounds so good. But we have to face the fact that the Constitutional Republic yielded the corporatacracy-oligarchy we have today. The Anti-Federalists (who I believe were the real Federalists and the Federalists were really nationalists) predicted this outcome we have today- big federal government (creating the deep state) leading to tyranny. Can we downsize the federal government- Bigly? Considering it continues to grow bigger- it’s unlikely -but we are seeing real Federalism gain traction now. So when global powers like the WHO attempt control, will it be individual states fighting back without a cohesive national government? As Patrick Henry said, ‘Give me Liberty or Give me death.’ It’s not looking good.
I too am heartened by actions being taken by some states. But those actions are ephemeral and will eventually be changed, and then we will continue down the path we've been on since the beginning.
So what is the place where we disagree? On hope much hope to place in such things?
I guess I still have hope that we can reduce the federal government Bigly! (Maybe out of a market crash that makes it happen.) But that is a foolish thought and you are too smart for that!!
I don't know if I am smart or if I am simply sick of believing in something that is clearly never going to happen.
But even if we were successfully to reduce the government, would that suddenly make the imposition of involuntary governance—even a limited kind—morally permissible?
IDK. Who will answer 911 when danger knocks? No one because 911 doesn’t exist. What about hospitals? Funding for libraries? Can you imagine a society without a library???? Society without a competent police presence might lead to chaos. Is government a necessary evil that must be restrained always since living without one is well…what is it – voluntary governance? Anarchy and mobocracy go hand in hand. Viktor Frankl made a point when he said America needs a Statute of Responsibility on the west coast to complement the east coast’s Statute of Liberty, since unrestrained freedom leads into mere arbitrariness.
I understand George Washington’s intent to nationalize from the problems and lack of cohesiveness that the Articles of the Confederation presented ($$), but I see the failure that the US became more as a moral failure from the lazy, spoiled people Americans became who wanted too much v. the Constitution’s intent of limited government. The prescience of our founders seems quite remarkable - they were pondering about the electoral college – they did try and protect us from “democracy” but WTP failed. Abundance led to people who were more interested in what exotic feather to put in their hat or bonnet during the Gilded Age while little children lost limbs and fingers working in factories. Progressiveness was bound to happen, but WTP did not keep watch over the progressive movement that led to the disastrous year of 1913 and so on.
A greatly reduced federal government does not have slackers “living on the dole.” People down on their luck could have a safety net (6 months) and it would be tied into charitable foundations (given by the rich producers). And, because slackers are not allowed, they either go the route of Darwinism or become independent and self-reliant, thus feeling better about themselves so they don’t need to dope it up. No government purchases for narcan! Added bonus might be that happier people would be better citizens. And, we do need requirements to vote like passing a citizen/civics test when registering to vote – at age 25? IDK. Earth is supposed to be boot camp for a reason!
Thank you for your detailed and passionate comments.
Is a "greatly reduced" government possible? How?
Name one large government program that has ever been removed once ensconced. Social Security, Medicare, and the Great Society are literally (and I do mean literally) going to bankrupt the country. It is inevitable; it is just a question of when. Every honest analyst and economist can see this writing on the wall. The politicians know this. The math is unavoidable. It is the longest telegraphed punch in history, and yet nothing will EVER be done about it. A few have tried. But they are drowned out by the perverse incentives that cause government to grow in the first place.
(How about small programs? Heck, we cannot even get rid of stupid daylight saving time!)
Once government grows, it never shrinks back to where it was. The rate of growth slows. It shrinks a tiny bit for a few years. Then it goes right back to getting even larger than before. Before 1861, the United States were plural, and it was believed that States created the union and could leave if they want. That notion is completely gone. Governments do not ever de-centralize themselves once they have centralized, unless they are forced to by extreme circumstances. And those circumstances do not involve voting or any sort of normal political action. I mean coups and bankruptcy.
There is no action, using the normal systems established by the Founders, that will ever put this genie back in the bottle. That is not black-pilled doomerism on my part; it is just fact. And I say that as someone who spent the bulk of my adult life as a patriotic conservative who believed in most of the political notions that you likely believe in now. We are coming from the same place, but I have allowed myself to accept that there is just no way to do it. It is not in the nature of any government to shrink. Not even this one that the Founders created.
And even if you could shrink it, how long could it stay shrunk? The same people and processes that got it to where it is now would still exist. You would not be able to maintain the shrunk condition for more than a few years. It is the nature of the beast. It might've taken our constitutional republic longer to get there, but it was inevitable here too.
But all of the above in actually just preamble for the main show. I am going to be presumptuous and ascribe a thought to you, and you can tell me if I am wrong…
Among the reasons why you continue to cling (as I did, for virtually my whole adult life) to the belief that we can, through political action, restore some sublime condition of limited governance is (at least in part) because you believe that there is no other alternative. That the only condition that is possible in the absence of our current system is Hobbesian chaos.
What if it weren't? What if there were another way?
In discussions like this, conservatives generally believe they are arguing for "the Founders." But they are actually arguing for just >some< of the Founders. (Hamilton/Madison far more than Jefferson.)
As a lover of freedom, you want to believe you are arguing the Jeffersonian position. But Jefferson would be on my side here. If you read his writings and learn about his ideas, he would not have agreed that our only course of action is to freeze 1789 in amber and then spend 200 desperate years in a fruitless scramble to get back there. He would have seen the achievements of 1789 as one stone on a pathway to greater liberty.
So let me ask you—if you were to glimpse a path that led forward, rather than just one that continues desperately gazing backward, would you be interested in learning more?
Thank you for your thoughtful response and I do agree with you. It is inevitable that our monetary system will crash, and I suspect it is coming sooner than later, which is why I think we may be forced to defund the fed, so to speak. But you are right - how long will it last?
And you are absolutely correct about not knowing what is on the other side. I’ve tried in my work life to not complain without having a viable solution for a problem b/c complainers who have no solution waste a lot of time and energy. But, that said, yes, I am willing to look at any alternative because what we have is becoming unbearable (and I live in a blue state that used to be somewhat moderate).
And, I’ve actually gone through the entire cycle of being an independent in my young days, switching to GOP when seeing welfare recipients brag about it, and then the stupid war in Iraq when I became a democrat (voted for Obama – pure naivete), then changing back to GOP when the Michael Brown narrative was too obvious to ignore (although only because I live in a closed primary state) and then just being too disgusted and going back to being an independent, but knowing that my 2 children who are self-reliant adults now are facing incredible odds to reap what they sow (work hard, don’t give up and it all works out in the end.)
And thanks for defending the Articles of Confederation, that allowed States to write some beautiful declarations of their own values in their Constitutions, particularly against slavery--which the Constitution enshrined by forbidding any amendment that made it illegal. And most importantly, the Constitution took away the right of the States to issue their own currency for internal trade. That was its purpose.
Patrick Henry is one of my heroes along with Ben Franklin but I wouldn't include Sam Adams who in response to Shay's Rebellion, drew up the Riot Act, immediately suspending habeas corpus and proposing execution for rebellion.
And anti-Federalist, of course, was an example of Orwellian double-speak pre-Orwell. They were the people FOR a federal gov't, lowercase, rather than a consolidated centralized gov't, as Patrick Henry denounced it. By the deliberate mislabelling of them, many people were tricked into thinking they stood for the opposite of what they really did. We now have no word, since federal has been usurped, to describe the negotiating body between sovereign entities.
the biggest change from the articles of “confederation” to the constitution was the “federal” power to tax. that is THE sole true power of the federal government. everything goes back to taxation and money, because you cannot legislate the human heart for good. you can coerce, which inherently requires power. power requires control of money and resources.
They are a gang who haver declared themselves legitimate, and who are granted the presumption of legitimacy, but who primary activity is to run a protection racket and take money from us at the point of a gun.
(a) In no case shall information be classified in order to conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; to restrain competition; or to prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security
Excellent point regarding the efficacy of the constitution. It seems to me the reason people cling to it the way you describe is that we have not yet determined what form of “government” should come next, and even more so the (quite legitimate fear) that the attempt to establish a successor government would require violence that is unpalatable to conservatives, and to any person of good will (which I consider to be most people in this country-the exceptions being the fringe elements on both the “left” and the “right”)
Until we have a thoroughly crafted concept for what should replace the constitution, it will remain the rock around which most Americans will rally, until such time it’s perversion has transitioned into intolerable tyranny. (The only action the government could take that would lead a critical mass of people to recognize such a transition, IMO, is an attempt to confiscate weapons).
That said, it is important we articulate possible alternatives to constitutional republicanism, and continue to point out the failures and shortcomings of the constitution. This is the process by which we can peacefully develop a successor ideology.
As I’ve said before, let us wield the pen relentlessly in these times, and hope we can do so with success before someone comes along with a sword. My guess is that whoever wields the sword to this end will not gave the same love of freedom that you and I have.
And yes, I am not a proponent of violent revolution. I prefer secession. The sword comes into play if we are physically prevented from exercising our rights to self-determination. I think that perhaps that can be avoided, though, if we begin moving the Overton Window now…
You are correct that the absence of a known alternative is a stumbling block.
Yet when I do point out that there are alternatives, quite a few conservatives respond with rather vitriolic disdain—dismissing an entire school of thought about which they know nothing.
If they were fully aware that the Constitution is not the answer, their reaction would be, "Oh great—there are alternatives. I should learn more about them." The fact many do not have that reaction—and choose instead to talk down to me like I am a lunatic or a silly utopian child—tells me that they aren't quite ready yet. I try to be understanding, though (https://christophercook.substack.com/p/no-way-i-can-convince-you-anarchism). They'll get there. Or at least many will. And there are many who are getting closer all the time!
John C. Calhoun's 'Disquisition on Government' has a much clearer idea of what 'the constitution' is. Quite simply, it's the will of the people when in agreement. It can be nothing else and anything that attempts to be 'the constitution' other than 'the will of the people when in agreement' is doomed to collapse or tyranny.
The sword feels inevitable at this point, but let's hope for the best. Only good people get a good government. People forget that they are responsible to a large degree by creating systems with their own thoughts and actions,
I, too, fear the sword is inevitable. Another often overlooked Lockesean observation is that self government requires a people capable of self government. It is a precondition, not a result. It seems to me that, collectively, the west has lost the virtue necessary for such an endeavor, leaving tyranny of some sort as the eventual outcome.
If Christians followed Christ, instead of their local ministers or Paul who IMO is largely responsible for the political church, there could be heaven on earth. Good governments require good citizens.
Christian virtue as exemplified by Christ, if cultivated by all, would certainly lead to a far better society than we currently have. Alas, conversion is continual, and original sin taints is all. While such a state of affairs should be sought, there will always be wolves among us. The best we can do is see to it that we are not the wolves, and that those we love do not become wolves while we remain silent.
I can't think of a single system that doesn't claim that 'If everyone just agreed to live by this system all problems would be resolved'.
Christianity is the original liberalism. The promotion of universal values and the totalitarian state demanding not only overt obedience but inner belief is the root of much of the poison of the liberal managerial state.
My high school bore his name before virtue signaling school board members erased the name & it is now named Meridian HS in Falls Church, Va.
Mason owned slaves, his Will is available online. Though the School Board of Falls Church, Va erased the name…silence on the State University that bears his name. Good thing that Mr. Jefferson’s University doesn’t bear his name. Washington & Lee U. are considering what to do, they’re private.
The authority of the badge and a court ordered detention order opened many doors for me and cleared the way through adults attempting to obstruct. I just don’t see people cooperating where there is no court order or sworn law enforcement. People routinely blow-off private investigators & non-law enforcement.
You may not see it, but that is, in part, because you have only been studying these ideas at the most cursory level for less than 48 hours! 🤣🤣
(And I don't mean that in a mean way—just a fact. It's not something you get right away. Just like it took 85 Federalist Papers and eight months to sell people on the Constitution. Big things don't come in a single conversation.)
Given the computer age, I have found that I can roughly find the law issue/topic with a few keystrokes. Yes, it is massive, especially when looking into R.I.C.O. And Conspiracy laws. The “due process” occurred when our representatives took the power we gave to them and they voted.
On the day I was sworn in as a Police Officer in 1982, I took an oath to uphold the laws of the City & State and recognized the U.S. and Virginia Constitution. The Clerk of the City administered the oath. Where did she obtain the power? It was delegated to her by the elected city council. Where did they get their power? It was handed over to them through the ballot. Where did the voters get the power? It is found in George Mason’s Declaration on the Rights of Man, adopted, in large part, by Jefferson in his writing of the Declaration of Independence and Constittution.
"On the day I was sworn in as a Police Officer in 1982, I took an oath to uphold the laws of the City & State and recognized the U.S. and Virginia Constitution. The Clerk of the City administered the oath. Where did she obtain the power? It was delegated to her by the elected city council. Where did they get their power? It was handed over to them through the ballot. Where did the voters get the power? It is found in George Mason’s Declaration on the Rights of Man, adopted, in large part, by Jefferson in his writing of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution."
—This, I am sorry does say, does not work. It is making excuses for the failure of the system to live up to the principles that they hoped the system would actuate.
"It was delegated to her by the elected city council. Where did they get their power? It was handed over to them through the ballot."
—Voting is not consent. Whether I vote or not, whether my guy wins or not, whether he has the power in a legislature to actuate my will or not…things will be done to me without my consent. And the whole system has been imposed upon me without my consent.
This notion, held by Locke and the natural lawyers and then adopted by the Founders, that your consent to the social contract is "tacit" and "implied" was a philosophical cheat code. It was a workaround for the fact that, at that moment in time, they were not able to think of a way to properly actuate their principles that did not violate human consent. It was the best they could do at the time. But now we can do better. And we should know that, and not freeze their work in amber and never progress, just because of the conservative impulse to preserve old things. Chesterton's Fence is meant to be a caution, not a prison.
"Where did the voters get the power? It is found in George Mason’s Declaration on the Rights of Man, adopted, in large part, by Jefferson in his writing of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution."
Jefferson wrote the Declaration (with the help of the committee), but that does not have the force of law. It briefly expresses some principles and then enumerates some complaints.
Jefferson did not write much of the Constitution. That, IIUC, was primarily Madison and Hamilton. Jefferson wasn't a fan, but he knew it was his duty to go with it once it was done.
Mason, on behalf of the Antifederalists, who were very rightly suspicious of the Constitution (and of Hamilton's motives), gave us the Bill of Rights—by far the best part of the Constitution. Did Mason write something called a "Declaration on the Rights of Man"? I was unaware. I know of Paine's "Rights of Man" and the French "Declaration on the Rights of Man and the Citizen." But not of another work by those titles.
But neither whatever he wrote, nor the Declaration, has the force of law, and that which does—the Constitution—violates my rights as a human person by granting others decision-making authority over me.
Indeed, if you think through the principles that the Founders believed in—self-ownership chief among them—and carry them to their logical conclusion, you must see that this is so. We have natural rights because of self-ownership, which is an ineluctable moral fact emanating from natural law and reality itself. Any imposition to which a peaceful person has not consented—explicitly, transparent, and on an ongoing basis—violates the self-ownership and inalienable rights of that person.
I believe the Founders knew this, either dimly or as something that they quickly put out of their minds. But given their moment in history, they were just not going to do any better than they did. And they did well, all things considered. But if they were alive now, while Hamilton might be on the side of a massive centralized state, and J. Adams might be indulging his insecurities from position of power, Jefferson, Mason, P. Henry, and S. Adams would all be acting! They would not be freezing 1790 in amber—they would be extreme minarchists or market anarchists. Because that is the actual logical moral conclusion of their principles, even though they could not see it at the time.
So, if you’ve ever had and encounter for a traffic or bicycle infraction with a sworn law enforcement officer…are yo friendly & respectful or do you proclaim his legitimacy as invalid? For six years working Juvenile cases, I recovered 100% of the runaways and the power & badge cleared the way for me to plow through efforts of youth & their parents to harbor the runaways. Once caught, where did the juvenile go? Before a neutral & detached J&DR Judge who heard their story. My job was to, with deliberate speed, catch them & let the system work.
I don’t know if you or family members have children who could become runaways. In your schema, who would go out and find them while overcoming efforts to harbor them?
"who would go out and find them while overcoming efforts to harbor them?"
—The answer is simple: agents I pay as a voluntary client, rather than police whom I "pay" involuntarily through taxes enforced by the threat of violence.
Agents who have a fiduciary responsibility, and market incentives, to do a good job, rather than government agents, who by law are required to protect no one. Agents who, on top of whatever good personal incentives they may have, also have all the perverse incentives that go along with being enforcers of an involuntary government that imposes its authority though violence.
…on the subject of "ignorance of the law is not a defense."
I must say, I am dismayed that you are making excuses for that terrible diktat. In addition to the the strenuous objection I offered in that thread, I will further say this:
You are obviously a man whom reveres the old and the traditional. So I will remind you that the Founders (most of them, anyway) were seeking to restore the liberties of Englishmen that were lost after 1066, under the Norman Yoke. One of the core beliefs of that pre-Norman era was that law was to be discovered, not invented.
The king was not there to create laws. His role was to enforce natural law. The common law process was then supposed to progressively, over time, discover the nuances of that law through the accumulation of court decisions. Those decisions, in turn, were the result of a bottom-up process of accumulated human wisdom—from juries and judges and advocates and the ongoing exploration of the human experience. There was not supposed to be the invention of laws out of thin air.
What we have always looked at as a great classical-liberal innovation—the parliament/legislature—has turned out to be a mistake. It is an understandable mistake—a logical step away from the power of a single monarch, through the Witan to the barons to the burgesses to modern legislative bodies. But it has turned out to be a monstrosity, for it says that, "We can invent any law we want [even if it runs directly counter to natural law] because it is 'the will of the people.'"
This development was a part of the history of the development of classical liberalism, but it turns out to be a violation of the principles of classical liberalism.
The notion that people are responsible to look up and maintain knowledge of every one of these millions of pages of laws, many of which have been invented in violation of the natural law, is simply awful and unacceptable.
None of that deals, in any significant way, with the substantive critiques I have offered of the underlying phenomenon. All it does, in essence, is cling onto a little piece of flotsam called "the state." A attempt to justify the unjustifiable, rooted in one's belief in the 7,000-year-old lie that without having overlords to rule us, we'd all be in complete chaos.
"Inform oneself before taking a chance."
—Taking a chance. Even the language establishes one as a permanent slave, in need of rebuke and control by the masters.
House of Lords, House of Commons. U.S. Senate, U.S. House. Three-part Republic, checks & balances. Something in America created an environment that enables college dropouts to become billionaires. William Wordsworth, in England, and Thoreau, in America, can write as we are doing and make the case for the individual in tension with his government/society. And a SCOTUS Justice, William O. Douglas is always mindful of the individual’s rights and perspective. I find it good that Wyoming and Rhode Island have the same number of Senators as populous states like California and Texas. I continue to see America as an experiment that is moving the index towards “better.” Yes, of the three branches, some try to encroach on the other branches- fully aware of each other’s roll. Many voters would like to reduce power for some & increase it for others. Some want to start over. Until that day, we know that we have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thanks for following & responding.
I share your sentiments, but not your conclusions. I do not see any evidence that America is moving towards the better. It seems that it has only gotten worse—major shifts left on your slider, with only the occasional small and temporary move to the right. And I see no reason to believe that any amount of political action can do more than make a tiny delay in that overall trend.
A few years ago, I believed as you do. I recognize that a great deal of hope is wrapped up in this belief. After all, without an alternative, what else does one have but this belief? Thus, what I am saying—if absorbed in any way—is a psychological and mental blow, since it would appear to be claiming that there is no hope.
And indeed, I do believe that there is no hope within the system as it exists. Rather, I believe our hope lies elsewhere.
In 1997, knowing that I had been a gun-toting Detective, my son (17) and daughter (14) asked me why people need to have guns.
That did it for me. I said, we are taking a vacation to Concord, Ma. To the North Bridge and Minuteman Statue.
We drove there and walked Boston’s Freedom Trail, we visited Plymouth Rock & Plymouth Plantation and the replicated Mayflower…accented by a reading of the Mayflower Compact (worthy reading for all, today!). Then we visited Walden Pond and walked its circumference. Then Concord & Emerson’s, Hawthorne’s & Melville’s home, the Manse, overlooking North Bridge. Then we walked across the bridge and observed the tribute statue of the Minuteman, standing by his plow while holding his long arm musket. We read the inscription. Then I asked them whether they finally had the answer to their question. They tried, but could not accurately answer the Q: why do we need guns? So I answered it.
Your government can march against you!
They did not understand. I explained how Colonists held gun powder stores at Bunker Hill and their non-representative, Red Coat government had marched against them to take their gun powder so they would be defenseless. They had a difficult time comprehending that their government could become their enemy and take-up arms against them.
People today have the same difficulty in comprehending.
It is a simple lesson from Colonial & American History.
I cherish those same moments that you do. They were animated by the correct principles. The Declaration that followed was too.
And the Articles of Confederation were a decent attempt to actuate those principles.
Sadly, statists like Hamilton conspired to kill the Articles in favor of a Constitution whose letter and spirit he, and those who followed in his footsteps, had no intention of following from the start.
If the only way that we can restore the spirit of Jefferson and the Antifederalists is to wait for people to become like Wordsworth's Milton, we will be tilting at windmills forever.
I feel bad, for it seems like I am attempting to rob you of the hope upon which you hang your hat—a patriotic reverence for the Founders and their bequest.
I would never rob anyone of HOPE. But I would indeed rob people of THAT hope. For if ever there was a ship that carried that hope, it has long since sailed. Our hope lies elsewhere now.
Christopher, in the poem, we could replace the word England with United States. What lone man could replace Milton?The line Altar, sword & pen is Wordsworth’s way of describing how the faith/church, military and writing had declined since John Milton’s time. For England, arguably Churchill wrote, spoke and led. We should be mindful of his multi-volume “History of the English Speaking People - even though modernists have labeled him an Imperialist and cast him onto the rubbish heap of Anglo-American History. Yes, America needs a political revival, on orderly, peaceful, political revival.
I actually listened to all of “A History of the English Speaking Peoples” on audiobook. It took a trip to Florida and many more months of local driving!
I want to see things orderly and peaceful. But the concept of a single system being imposed by force upon all human beings living between these two coasts is not what I am after. In fact, imposing inescapable systems upon large groups of people, whether they consent to them or not, is morally repellent.
There is a general doctrine in State and Federal law that it is the responsibility of the person who has reached the age of majority to inform themselves of the laws of the land; local, state & Federal. Yes, imposed, but for many who are oblivious, nevertheless not the duty of government to inform - the obligation is to self-inform.
In an American History course I took long ago, we were assigned Sinclair Lewis’ Book “It Can’t Happen Here”, set in 1935 as European Fascism was on the rise - some believe that the man who inveigled himself into the U.S. POTUS was modeled after Louisiana’s Huey Long. Of course, everyone’s darling was FDR…let’s hear it for unlimited terms of office and stacking the Supreme Court. Lewis’ objective was to dispel a notion - at any time along the timeline of the life of America- where Americans can dismiss a concept that unimaginable things can actually occur in this young Country, at any time. If one reads the implausible book, they can at least question their presumptions about the longevity of our experiment. As readers have responded to our posts, I sense that many are ready to uproot things gradually…or all at once. You must know of the theory of order vs chaos.
Since 2020, my generation which observed the anti-war demonstrations, Kent State and the DNC riots in Chicago 1968 as well as The riots in Blue Cities, we want order. Nixon referred to it as law & order, so did Harry Callahan in the Dirty Harry series of movies.
One final story and I will close. It is about a Christian college young lady who sought to hasten her vision for American Societal change. Diana Oughton was an idealistic graduate of Bryn Mawr College in 1962. She signed-up with the American Friend’s Service Committee and volunteered in Guatemala for two years. When she arrived, she learned that the business that thrived the most in the local marketplace was the manufacture and sale of infant coffins. She vowed to herself that her purpose for the mission she entered would be to eliminate infant mortality and crush the infant coffin sales to zero. At the end of her two years, the sale of infant coffins had increased. When she returned to America she concluded that a more radical approach was needed to eliminate things that she believed were wrong and in need of change. To her, faith and government were too slow, so she joined the Weather Underground. In 1970, while working in a bomb manufacturing factory in a townhouse in Greenwich Village, to which two boxes containing 50 lbs of dynamite had been brought, the Townhouse exploded, was leveled and she died.
A lesson which is apparent to all of us is that impatience can be our worst enemy. I hope that aspiring revolutionaries in the U.S. do not perform desperate things intending to hurry-up the change they seek.
Yeah—it’s pretty gross that everyone was so worried about fascism, but somehow managed to accept the proto-fascism Wilson imposed during WWI. And then to believe that the actual fascist FDR was this great fighter against fascism. Even Mussolini recognized him as a fellow dictator. “Ecco, un dittatore!” Ugh. People are so gullible. Especially democrats.
Just an FYI, re: the rest of your comment and the impression of me that it conveys…
I am not in favor of revolution. You can read back through my archives if you wish: I do not believe violent revolution is desirable, nor do I believe it would work. In fact, my most recent piece is on this subject.
So, your plan for extracting yourself from a compelled system that taxes you with representation, under penalty of losing your freedom…yes, following due process. Enter a barter system? All cash, no banking? Go off the grid? Live on a boat? Sovereign Nation? Not asking for details. You’ve identified the problems you see; what are your general remedies for you? Thanks.
I like the way you at least begin an examination of the “Why” found in England’s Crown and Parliament’s abuses of “their subjects” because few American critics of our Bill of Rights, Constitution, even the Declaration all can be “corrective remedies” in America’s “experiment”.
An examination of American History must begin with a study of English History.
If we can imagine a continuum with the left end marked “worse” and the right end labeled “better” (not “perfect”) and a sliding “index” is positioned somewhere along the continuum, then the Declaration addresses what you describe: “In order to form a more perfect Union.”
POTUS BHO repeated this phrase repeatedly. In one sense, it describes a flawed system that needs improvement. In another sense, it is the relative “best” in the world that, from inception, knowingly recognized how improvements can be made as the index is advanced towards “better.”
My $0.02, from a lover of English and American History.
Let's take your slider and apply it to the points in my piece. I think you are saying that the system here puts the slider somewhere closer to the "better" range than any other system. That is reasonable.
But where is it? To the right of the centerpoint, or to the left? Let's ask a question: were you living in Wessex under King Alfred, would you be freer than you are now, or less free?
How many different ways did Alfred and the Witan regulate your life? How much did they tax? Far less than today, no?
Yes, they had the Fyrd, and military conscription is always slavery. But we have had the draft for much of our history, and we still have Selective Service, which means we still have the draft too, really.
Our lives are far more heavily managed and regulated, and our property is subject to far more confiscation, than it would have been in 9th century Britain. So what does that tell us about where we are on that slider?
How far have we slid on that slider since the start? Could we reclaim anything more than a token and temporary amount of that distance now by pushing on the slider? How? Where is the evidence that that would be remotely possible?
The slider does not seem to me to be a continuum from better to worse; it seems to be a continuum from bad to worse. The metaphor basically condemns us to only one possibility—some degree of oppression or another. A hard 1984-esque oppression to one end (side by side with its "Brave New World" variant) and de Tocqueville's soft, administrative despotism to the other…with all forces slowly pushing the slider towards the 1984 end.
I believe we can do better. By hopping off the slider entirely.
Christopher, when you have time, could you process what you wrote above in light of what I list as improvements that led our Country towards “better”? Let’s begin with slavery out of the gate and fractional humans. Not long after the conclusion of the Civil War, three Constitutional Amendments regarding abolition of slavery, recognition of freedom for all, granting women the right to vote in 19th amendment 1920, then the terrible SCOTUS Plessy v Ferguson case of 1893 re: separate-but-equal decision quasi-ended by Brown v board of Ed v Topeka in 1954, but lingering until 1974 or beyond, the Civil Rights Act & Voting rights acts of ‘64 &’65. The Bakke case of 1978. Many see these Constitutional Amendments and SCOTUS decisions as moving the index towards “better.” Maybe I should have cited them when I initially made my claim.
Yes, for sure there were some major punctuation marks that solved some fundamental problems—gaps that did not make sense within the overall promise of the system (slavery, not everyone having the franchise, etc.). But really, that is some really low-expectations stuff right there. Those moments are not things to be proud of—they are the bare minimum, to fix some hideous errors. Not something to pat oneself on the back over.
And I contrast that with the increase in taxes, regulation, and government being all up in our business in general. Yes, there was once a time when taxes were even worse. And a few things have recently improved from a previous worse state (gun rights, e.g.). But those, like taxes, had gotten dramatically worse for the bulk of the rest of our history.
And then there is what happened in 2020, which basically revealed that we never really had any protections of our rights at all, since it can all be cast aside the moment they declare an emergency.
The government is 10,000 miles from the size it was in 1790, and it is never getting back there, or anywhere close.
I think the underlying problem is that a lot of people say they love freedom, but actually are terrified of the accompanying responsibility. As a nation we have been mollified into complacency by the “safety nets” the state provides, not recognizing them as traps.
One thing the few things that that monster Karl Marx was actually right about is this: a good deal of human behavior really is material: about acquiring the things we want and need to survive and thrive. It is thus quite easy to woo people with "free" goodies.
Each of us has to be actively doing things to create a better life for ourselves. Sleepwalking will not work. The WEF and their minions want you and I and everyone we know dead. As this realization sinks in and the evidence is in front of us the sleepwalkers may act to change things. The stench of death is starting to be noticed.
"Each of us has to be actively doing things to create a better life for ourselves."
—Yes, exactly.
Building. Creating. Not voting and pretending that there is any chance of reforming something that cannot be reformed and does not deserve to be. That is a form of sleepwalking too, since it means believing something false and doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
People will be better off if they opt out of the matrix and start building something new for themselves and their families and friends. Something REAL.
The Constitution clearly has been ignored. This means that it is incapable of preventing itself from being ignored. This means we are relying on other people not to ignore it. But they do ignore it.
So what do we do now?
Try again for another 200 years?
Hope that people change to the point where they won't ignore it? Where is the evidence that something like that would work?
Yes. This requires personal sacrifice that has not been made yet. I say yet, because it is coming. So nothing you die, do something and you may die. Which is the rational choice? Each has to bear the responsibility for their actions. We are approaching an event horizon. A decision day. Whether you want it or not.
I cannot speak to, or predict, any particular eschatological claim or event. But if you are referring to doing nothing politically, that is not what I propose.
But let me make sure I do not misrepresent, or misunderstand, your view. You agree that the system established by the Constitution cannot be repaired within the system. Correct?
And then am I also correct in perceiving that you see the only solution in some major or even universal religious awakening, or some form of eschatological event?
Our founders knew that only moral & ethical people can benefit from & sustain any Constitution. The most fundamental ethic is truthfulness & trustworthiness. When checks & balances fall away, because of pharisaical sabotage (common in Judaism -- creating loopholes around their laws -- which Jesus condemned as supremely evil), then decline & more devilry are inevitable. Addicts usually clean up only after they hit bottom. This is where our slothful, sleepy country is headed unless we experience a moral & ethical revival of some sort. This need not be of the typical religious sort. Thomas Paine envisioned something else: https://thomaspaine.us/article_tepfer02.html
So the Constitution was either perverse to begin with, or was incapable of preventing its own perversion. Either way, it is now largely perverted.
And it depended for its proper function upon a moral and ethical people, but it was incapable of either instilling or maintaining such morality and good character.
So what do you see as the solution? To restore national character? How? And then, after that Brobdingnagian feat is somehow accomplished, to use the mechanisms in the Constitution to restore it to…what, exactly? To the same thing that either authorized or was incapable of preventing its own perversion?
The problem is with false expectations of any legislative or constitutional document.
The best-laid plans of mice and men still often go awry for a variety of reasons, often because the problem is not in the stars, or laws, but in ourselves.
And, then, there are intruding circumstances beyond our control, such as war, disease, famine, natural catastrophes and more.
We appear to be at the threshold of a recurring global disaster that is beyond our control.
Yes, no system is perfect, and yes, the flaw lies in ourselves, and in the realities of our life in this free universe.
But there are better and worse courses we can follow. I, for one, am done with the quixotic belief that we can somehow make things work with this Constitution, or any system that uses voting and nonconsensual "social contracts."
But that does not make me pessimistic. There is a better way, and I aim to find it.
I'm not pessimistic either. But I'm a realist who is experienced enough in life to understand the logical, probable, natural course of things. Many if not most people wake up to certain realities when they have to -- from difficulty usually. They change when they are forced to change, such as when they are sufficiently disturbed about something and even their own conscience will not let them rest until they do better or try something else.
Our Framers understood the Constitution would need to grow and expand and change over time, hence the process of carefully crafted amendments. Once again, however, only good people can make good amendments. Bad or foolish people will create selfish or shortsighted amendments.
And there are probably more bad, foolish, selfish, and shortsighted people than good people. Which is why I no longer want to live under any system that tethers me to the whims of others.
Like it or not, we’re part of the natural realm that’s always competing for dominance, one way or another. Our detachment from nature does not improve us.
Again, our founders understood this, and knew that people would have to fight generation by generation for their freedom, whether that fighting was in the political arena or on the battlefield.
We’ve been relying on mercenaries too long. Our system allows us to be more engaged than we are. Our apathy and ignorance create the problems. Not the system.
You're correct of course, Christopher, and the right-wingers who think we just need to vote harder are utterly delusional. The left will always find some way around any piece of paper, be it through violence or just bribing the masses with endless money-printing and promises of sunlit uplands. That's why I say, and I'm going to choose my words carefully with all due respect to your Substack, we have to be prepared to get our hands dirty... otherwise we just continue slouching towards Gomorrah.
Yup. 100 percent.
And I think choosing our words carefully is not just the nice thing to do, it is also going to be more effective. Flies, honey, vinegar and all that.
Jefferson used a lot of honey in his letters to George III but knew very well that you can’t water the tree of Liberty with vinegar.
I am reading a book by Daniel Mallock called "Agony and Eloquence," which is about the relationship between Adams and Jefferson. I am only halfway through, and Jefferson has already said a whole mess of really intemperate things in a whole bunch of letters to different people!
That sounds worth a gander as in person it was said he spoke with too soft of an “inside voice” but wow did he really write with a roar.
Yeah, and sometimes he roared one thing to one person and then another thing ABOUT that person to a third person.
Very duplicitous
I feel I might be guilty of that too but wouldn’t mind receiving a verbal lashing through a letter in his penmanship and cursive. So much more impact than emojis.
Also Tom, thank you for your solution driven approach to our problems, really excited to dive into your reading recommendations from Feb 6th and discuss with my young adult offspring and their left-of-center-friends. Looking forward to hearing more of your ideas on “a distributed nation”, flies, honey, vinegar, blood and all.
Wrong it is done with good faith and clean hands.
You are correct. And well written, as usual. Most of the founders were the super wealthy elite of their time. They saw themselves as the only ones worthy of leadership. And some Federalists even stated that they should hold all the wealth because they were the only ones capable of managing it and it was legitimate that they took everyone else's money through taxation and funneled it to their own businesses.
They sabotaged the Articles of Confederation because citizens in the states were using them to defend themselves against abuses by the elites. The new constitution gave them all the power in the states and the federal government. Yes, some objected but the Federalists won. And to cement their power, Hamilton started the first political party a year after the first election under the Constitution. That allowed them to rule the government through the political parties and subvert the Constitution. This power structure of elite-controlled political parties who control the government is the root cause of the political divide and of most of our problems.
But there is another point. Why shouldn't we continually improve the government? How could decisions 250 years ago be valid for managing a complex government and society today? And why would we hope that those who are benefiting from it would ever change it?
And the third point is who is the most capable of managing or ruling? If we modified the Constitution or did away with it, how would we change it or what would replace it?
Simply replacing it with another representative form of government would not solve the problem. That includes communism. Eliminating it and leaving a vacuum as proposed by anarchists would leave the same vacuum that was filled by the elite after the revolution. What would stop those who own and control the big businesses in most industries, the global elite, from taking control as they did before? In reality, isn't the federal government just a big business that is an extension of their other businesses that funnels our tax dollars into their pockets? I can't see how the results would be any different unless controlled by a greater power. Allowing that greater power to be in the hands of businesses would only create more elite control.
I believe the answer lies in changing two Federal processes that would create a Collaborative Democracy. It puts the people in control, but with a process that guides their collective intelligence rather than their emotions. It inoculates government from political parties and elite control. The major parts of it have been used successfully around the world. The blueprint and plan to accomplish it is contained in the book End Politics Now. You can read it for free on endpoliticsnow.com.
If we stand together, we have all the power. If we don't, the elites have all the power. It's that simple. And the only way to stand together is use our collective intelligence to rule ourselves.
Do you believe human nature includes the desire to participate in community organization? If not, what percentage of participation is acceptable. Governments exploit human weaknesses and one of the greatest weaknesses is selfishness.
The normal sane human being is a dynamic equilibrium of competing impulses and desires. 'Selfishness' and 'Unselfishness' are usually in some kind of tension with neither truly dominating for extended periods of time. It's not just 'governments' that exploit people's weaknesses, its all 'Machiavellians' who do so. The best 'solution' isn't to control either 'selfishness' or 'unselfishness' but to empower different kinds of 'selfishness' and 'unselfishness' to compete and collaborate with one another. John C. Calhoun's idea (in brief) was that 'democracy' should be constrained to civic organizations who then represent the interests of their members on the state of national politics. He accepted that each individual state (in the USA) would create its own rules for franchise, but could not be permitted to create franchise rules for 'civic organizations' such as unions, associations, mutual aid societies. We cannot solve the problem of political power by removing or sublimating the realities of political power. The better approach is to more widely distribute power (and the knowledge of its uses and limitations) and to put different 'interests' and the factions representing those interests into positions to collaborate, compete or nullify one another in an ongoing manner. More a political ecology than a 'government'.
An excellent reply. What you explain requires a process. It is the process that determines the results. That's why I took all the issues and the root cause and redesigned two government processes for the solution. It creates what I call a Collaborative Democracy. It is designed to drive solutioning to the lowest possible level. It's not part of the design, but I envision that the best end result that could be accomplished over time with these new processes would be to replace the states and the counties with 300 metro area governments where most decisions would be made. But that's generally too big a pill to swallow for most people. Better to start with a solution that they can relate to and participate in to learn how to rule themselves. But one that allows continual improvement.
I think you're probably right that, given time and inclination, the 'basic political unit' would not be as currently configured, at least in the USA. But there's an entire other aspect to the issue which is 'economy'. In general, it seems to me that political self-determination is enhanced by economic autonomy (autarky). I think the ability to harvest and utilize non-human resources is going to affect the viable scale of the political units, what they manage and when their management of some piece of the political-economy shifts to another (more encompassing) layer of organization.
If true devolution occurs, regional economies with regional (collaborative) cartels organizing regional resources will (more or less) be decisive in where 'decision-making' occurs. In my opinion, 'the city' has outlived it's utility almost entirely. After ten-thousand years, it's just spent as a megamachine for production. Now it's just a resource-sink.
For me, the primary purpose of a government entity is to guide the people to make decisions to rule themselves through a process other than simple voting that enhances collect even intelligence. If the people do not rule themselves, then cartels and businesses will, whether they are called businesses or government. People with money and power will gain more and the rest of the people less. So an important part of government is to inoculate decisions from external power sources such as the elite and their businesses.
I don't see how you can innoculate decision-making from power. All that it seems to me that can be done is to create multiple, relatively independent nodes of power going from the very small to the very large. In the USA, one of the powers of the states (and counties) is nullification. A simple refusal to implement plans made by remote authorities. This kind of power has been used to, essentially, legalize marijuana growing and using and undocumented immigration as well as curtail attempts to limit access to instruments of self-defense.
Where virtue fails, deterrence may provide the remedy.
Another anon. Smart but incapable of standing and delivering in his own name. There are 33 states and each has a legitimate Constitution. There is no United States of Washington District of Columbia! There is a de facto corporation there instead. www.orsja.org..
So?
I identify those of little or no consequences. You cannot participate in an outcome. You may not even be able to climb onto a Band Wagon.
'I *claim*to identity those of little or no consequence.'
Fixed it for you.
That is a very good question. I believe people participate when it benefits them, when they care about the outcome, which is what they find in Switzerland for citizen initiatives. Here is the answer from my book, End Politics Now, on page 185 (print version).
“Citizens who participated in our process would be those with an interest in the outcome of the solution who chose to participate. In our case, solving the issue with those most interested in the issue would be an advantage, not a disadvantage, justifying self-selection over random selection. You could say that the participants represent 100% of the population of citizens who care about a solution to the issue.
That aside, if we want to set a minimum number of participants for a solution to pass, we could use the sample size calculation. For issues that affected the entire population, we could calculate the minimum sample size to represent the 232 million citizens ages 18 and older. A common level of confidence for scientific studies is 95%, but is sometimes lower in political polls. Assuming the most stringent 99% confidence level and a 1% margin of error, a minimum of 16,600 participants would be needed. For a strong consensus of 60% or more of the 16,600 participants, a minimum of 10,000 would need to vote to approve the new solution at the end of the democratic solution process.
In other words, if you posted a national issue that affected everyone, you would need to persuade at least 16,600 people to complete the entire solution process. If less than 16,600 people were participating in the issue after a given time, the issue would be cancelled for lack of participation. In addition, at least 16,600 people would need to vote at the end to confirm the consensus solution with an approval vote of at least 10,000 for the consensus solution to pass.
Keep in mind that these 16,600 people would not be simply voting their opinion. They would go through the solution process together and the solutions would be based on their collective intelligence. While it may seem remarkable that a minimum of 16,600 people would be sufficient to represent our nation, statistically we could be 99% confident that they do with a 1% margin of error. To state that in practical terms, 99% of the time, the participation of additional citizens would not change the percentage of Agree and Disagree assessments of each statement or the approval vote, even if all 232 million adult citizens participated.”
Love it. In theory, we have that now. However, currently a small percentage of those with greatest interest both lie to and manipulate those with a more casual interest to follow the leader. We find this in corporate overlords who manipulate public opinions and political parties who do the bidding of oligarchs while claiming interest in a wider range of people.
Brent, you need to read and comprehend. We have had color of law since 1861. We are seeking remedy. Starting with a Constitutional republican form of government this year 2024. We did Oregon November 2022. www.orsja.org
I'll check it out.
We have received notification from Zero, not one other Civilian common law Court of record. It would seem to me that a digital handshake would be in order. www.orsja.org
We are still looking for any additional survivors of Mookini303, another Article III one supreme Court claiming original jurisdiction? Please pass the word, our Amendment VII court whose jury verdict has no appeal in fact, as the value exceeds $20.00 there is no judge involved. It has the unique, de jure Article III court where a man or woman can find remedy against the state, the de facto state, Article I, martial law, FEMA or additional bullshit. .
Right now it is critical that the decision is made. “ I will not acquiesce to any infringement against my unalienable rights.” Executing that concept has begun or you have already acquiesced to the lesser of two evils.
You have so much figured out correctly, then your conclusion is wrong and you go down an alternate de facto route. Then so much effort is invested in “Counties or classes on Grand Jury; Common law, Drivers License, Gun Control. Pedos, LGBTQ, COVID and all the rest of the diversions from the GOAL. De jure in 2024.
I’m told there are militia, cops, Deputy Sheriffs, bailiffs and security lunkheads that do not grok the difference between de facto and de jure.
More classes, study, just one more seminar and I’ll be ready! That is wrong. No one can teach you how to do it for yourself, it is mindset. You already have a preponderance of evidence. Then it is done and you do not need anyone to authenticate you. Then form a social compact as we cannot do it alone. You need two witnesses to your Living testimony in the form of an affidavit of truth. Record that in your Court of record. Do you have one?
We haven’t had a de jure government of / for / by / from The United States of America since 1861 and you want to do it all over. You do not have what you want to change. Phuque Buckminster Fuller. This is not commerce. There is no law only color of law. There is no jurisdiction in their court for a man or woman. Our Court files into their Court for us with a Claim of Conusance. We must not select another de facto color of law, when de jure is available. We proved that on Oregon. November 2022. 62.5% will not speak truth to the de facto. Leave them alone. They will do as they are told by the de jure. 10 million invaders makes the task more difficult. But that is not the task. A provisional government is required before you can obtain a lawful, de jure Article IV Section 4.
You need your state 33, or territory 17 to do the simple and important tasks. Not the pretend tasks. It is not enforcement. They fold or hide when we go against them. Over and over. Be careful they do not hit you with a stick, spray your eyes and arrest you. A court of 4. Confront them and we either get a proper oath and proper bona fides or they vacate the office of Sheriff. Read ORS 206. Do you have an authentic ARTICLE I Section 1 provisional government on your state??? What about an Article III Amendment VII Civilian common law Court of record?? A Functioning Jury pool from which to draw a Grand Jury or Trial Jury?? Ex parte Milligan, Lieber Code, FEMA. Federal is de facto from Nevada on.
Now among yourselves find the error in what we have done on Oregon, we made several and corrected them as we moved on. You will not make those as we did that for you. You must do the rest yourselves. www.orsja.org.
So, I know and / or know of most of you. Several in our social compact are as knowledgeable as needed to assist you and are much nicer than I am. This is not a popularity contest. They are killing us and you appear to be inept, ignorant, stupid, de facto, agent provocateur, controlled opposition, timid, afraid, fooled, confused, willfully wicked, not on the correct page doing the correct tasks. We meet at 7:00 PM Monday Pacific on Skype @ Oregon Statewide Jural Assembly 2
We have received notification from Zero other 2nd Amendment Militia, Jural Assembly with their bona fides in order and prepared for an Electoral College, Civilian common law Court of record. It would seem to me that a digital handshake would be in order.www.orsja.org
Wow, that's a lot of new information to understand. It looks like some research is now on my agenda. Thanks!
I agree to a degree because human nature is self serving and nothing will ever change that which is why the intent to keep government limited sounds so good. But we have to face the fact that the Constitutional Republic yielded the corporatacracy-oligarchy we have today. The Anti-Federalists (who I believe were the real Federalists and the Federalists were really nationalists) predicted this outcome we have today- big federal government (creating the deep state) leading to tyranny. Can we downsize the federal government- Bigly? Considering it continues to grow bigger- it’s unlikely -but we are seeing real Federalism gain traction now. So when global powers like the WHO attempt control, will it be individual states fighting back without a cohesive national government? As Patrick Henry said, ‘Give me Liberty or Give me death.’ It’s not looking good.
Not sure exactly where we disagree.
I too am heartened by actions being taken by some states. But those actions are ephemeral and will eventually be changed, and then we will continue down the path we've been on since the beginning.
So what is the place where we disagree? On hope much hope to place in such things?
I guess I still have hope that we can reduce the federal government Bigly! (Maybe out of a market crash that makes it happen.) But that is a foolish thought and you are too smart for that!!
I don't know if I am smart or if I am simply sick of believing in something that is clearly never going to happen.
But even if we were successfully to reduce the government, would that suddenly make the imposition of involuntary governance—even a limited kind—morally permissible?
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/exact-moment-i-became-anarchist
IDK. Who will answer 911 when danger knocks? No one because 911 doesn’t exist. What about hospitals? Funding for libraries? Can you imagine a society without a library???? Society without a competent police presence might lead to chaos. Is government a necessary evil that must be restrained always since living without one is well…what is it – voluntary governance? Anarchy and mobocracy go hand in hand. Viktor Frankl made a point when he said America needs a Statute of Responsibility on the west coast to complement the east coast’s Statute of Liberty, since unrestrained freedom leads into mere arbitrariness.
I understand George Washington’s intent to nationalize from the problems and lack of cohesiveness that the Articles of the Confederation presented ($$), but I see the failure that the US became more as a moral failure from the lazy, spoiled people Americans became who wanted too much v. the Constitution’s intent of limited government. The prescience of our founders seems quite remarkable - they were pondering about the electoral college – they did try and protect us from “democracy” but WTP failed. Abundance led to people who were more interested in what exotic feather to put in their hat or bonnet during the Gilded Age while little children lost limbs and fingers working in factories. Progressiveness was bound to happen, but WTP did not keep watch over the progressive movement that led to the disastrous year of 1913 and so on.
A greatly reduced federal government does not have slackers “living on the dole.” People down on their luck could have a safety net (6 months) and it would be tied into charitable foundations (given by the rich producers). And, because slackers are not allowed, they either go the route of Darwinism or become independent and self-reliant, thus feeling better about themselves so they don’t need to dope it up. No government purchases for narcan! Added bonus might be that happier people would be better citizens. And, we do need requirements to vote like passing a citizen/civics test when registering to vote – at age 25? IDK. Earth is supposed to be boot camp for a reason!
Thank you for your detailed and passionate comments.
Is a "greatly reduced" government possible? How?
Name one large government program that has ever been removed once ensconced. Social Security, Medicare, and the Great Society are literally (and I do mean literally) going to bankrupt the country. It is inevitable; it is just a question of when. Every honest analyst and economist can see this writing on the wall. The politicians know this. The math is unavoidable. It is the longest telegraphed punch in history, and yet nothing will EVER be done about it. A few have tried. But they are drowned out by the perverse incentives that cause government to grow in the first place.
(How about small programs? Heck, we cannot even get rid of stupid daylight saving time!)
Once government grows, it never shrinks back to where it was. The rate of growth slows. It shrinks a tiny bit for a few years. Then it goes right back to getting even larger than before. Before 1861, the United States were plural, and it was believed that States created the union and could leave if they want. That notion is completely gone. Governments do not ever de-centralize themselves once they have centralized, unless they are forced to by extreme circumstances. And those circumstances do not involve voting or any sort of normal political action. I mean coups and bankruptcy.
There is no action, using the normal systems established by the Founders, that will ever put this genie back in the bottle. That is not black-pilled doomerism on my part; it is just fact. And I say that as someone who spent the bulk of my adult life as a patriotic conservative who believed in most of the political notions that you likely believe in now. We are coming from the same place, but I have allowed myself to accept that there is just no way to do it. It is not in the nature of any government to shrink. Not even this one that the Founders created.
And even if you could shrink it, how long could it stay shrunk? The same people and processes that got it to where it is now would still exist. You would not be able to maintain the shrunk condition for more than a few years. It is the nature of the beast. It might've taken our constitutional republic longer to get there, but it was inevitable here too.
But all of the above in actually just preamble for the main show. I am going to be presumptuous and ascribe a thought to you, and you can tell me if I am wrong…
Among the reasons why you continue to cling (as I did, for virtually my whole adult life) to the belief that we can, through political action, restore some sublime condition of limited governance is (at least in part) because you believe that there is no other alternative. That the only condition that is possible in the absence of our current system is Hobbesian chaos.
What if it weren't? What if there were another way?
In discussions like this, conservatives generally believe they are arguing for "the Founders." But they are actually arguing for just >some< of the Founders. (Hamilton/Madison far more than Jefferson.)
As a lover of freedom, you want to believe you are arguing the Jeffersonian position. But Jefferson would be on my side here. If you read his writings and learn about his ideas, he would not have agreed that our only course of action is to freeze 1789 in amber and then spend 200 desperate years in a fruitless scramble to get back there. He would have seen the achievements of 1789 as one stone on a pathway to greater liberty.
So let me ask you—if you were to glimpse a path that led forward, rather than just one that continues desperately gazing backward, would you be interested in learning more?
Thank you for your thoughtful response and I do agree with you. It is inevitable that our monetary system will crash, and I suspect it is coming sooner than later, which is why I think we may be forced to defund the fed, so to speak. But you are right - how long will it last?
And you are absolutely correct about not knowing what is on the other side. I’ve tried in my work life to not complain without having a viable solution for a problem b/c complainers who have no solution waste a lot of time and energy. But, that said, yes, I am willing to look at any alternative because what we have is becoming unbearable (and I live in a blue state that used to be somewhat moderate).
And, I’ve actually gone through the entire cycle of being an independent in my young days, switching to GOP when seeing welfare recipients brag about it, and then the stupid war in Iraq when I became a democrat (voted for Obama – pure naivete), then changing back to GOP when the Michael Brown narrative was too obvious to ignore (although only because I live in a closed primary state) and then just being too disgusted and going back to being an independent, but knowing that my 2 children who are self-reliant adults now are facing incredible odds to reap what they sow (work hard, don’t give up and it all works out in the end.)
Damnit, the moment I saw the title I was going to quote Spooner in the comments but I should have known you'd use his remarks yourself.
What can we say? He was undeniably correct.
wrong
Glad to see you haven't changed, Ron!
I'm so glad you're raising this point, Christopher. I think I've linked this before but some readers have thought it was the clearest evidence for that point they'd read: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-constitutional-convention-coup.
And thanks for defending the Articles of Confederation, that allowed States to write some beautiful declarations of their own values in their Constitutions, particularly against slavery--which the Constitution enshrined by forbidding any amendment that made it illegal. And most importantly, the Constitution took away the right of the States to issue their own currency for internal trade. That was its purpose.
Patrick Henry is one of my heroes along with Ben Franklin but I wouldn't include Sam Adams who in response to Shay's Rebellion, drew up the Riot Act, immediately suspending habeas corpus and proposing execution for rebellion.
I am looking forward to reading this!
These are all great points. I did not know that about S. Adams. I just included him as an Anti-Federalist. Thank you!!
And anti-Federalist, of course, was an example of Orwellian double-speak pre-Orwell. They were the people FOR a federal gov't, lowercase, rather than a consolidated centralized gov't, as Patrick Henry denounced it. By the deliberate mislabelling of them, many people were tricked into thinking they stood for the opposite of what they really did. We now have no word, since federal has been usurped, to describe the negotiating body between sovereign entities.
Just like the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Double-speak labeling by opponents.
the biggest change from the articles of “confederation” to the constitution was the “federal” power to tax. that is THE sole true power of the federal government. everything goes back to taxation and money, because you cannot legislate the human heart for good. you can coerce, which inherently requires power. power requires control of money and resources.
Very well said.
They are a gang who haver declared themselves legitimate, and who are granted the presumption of legitimacy, but who primary activity is to run a protection racket and take money from us at the point of a gun.
and they regularly violate this: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/laws/national-security-information
Sec. 1.6 Limitations on Classification.
(a) In no case shall information be classified in order to conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; to restrain competition; or to prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security
its how they get away with virtually everything.
It is rule of men, not rule of law.
Excellent point regarding the efficacy of the constitution. It seems to me the reason people cling to it the way you describe is that we have not yet determined what form of “government” should come next, and even more so the (quite legitimate fear) that the attempt to establish a successor government would require violence that is unpalatable to conservatives, and to any person of good will (which I consider to be most people in this country-the exceptions being the fringe elements on both the “left” and the “right”)
Until we have a thoroughly crafted concept for what should replace the constitution, it will remain the rock around which most Americans will rally, until such time it’s perversion has transitioned into intolerable tyranny. (The only action the government could take that would lead a critical mass of people to recognize such a transition, IMO, is an attempt to confiscate weapons).
That said, it is important we articulate possible alternatives to constitutional republicanism, and continue to point out the failures and shortcomings of the constitution. This is the process by which we can peacefully develop a successor ideology.
As I’ve said before, let us wield the pen relentlessly in these times, and hope we can do so with success before someone comes along with a sword. My guess is that whoever wields the sword to this end will not gave the same love of freedom that you and I have.
And yes, I am not a proponent of violent revolution. I prefer secession. The sword comes into play if we are physically prevented from exercising our rights to self-determination. I think that perhaps that can be avoided, though, if we begin moving the Overton Window now…
Keep up the good work. Hopefully it continues to open mind and keep the swords in the sheath.
Thanks—you too!
You are correct that the absence of a known alternative is a stumbling block.
Yet when I do point out that there are alternatives, quite a few conservatives respond with rather vitriolic disdain—dismissing an entire school of thought about which they know nothing.
If they were fully aware that the Constitution is not the answer, their reaction would be, "Oh great—there are alternatives. I should learn more about them." The fact many do not have that reaction—and choose instead to talk down to me like I am a lunatic or a silly utopian child—tells me that they aren't quite ready yet. I try to be understanding, though (https://christophercook.substack.com/p/no-way-i-can-convince-you-anarchism). They'll get there. Or at least many will. And there are many who are getting closer all the time!
As it happens, I am among those who are working toward the future. This is a small downpayment on and aspect of that future: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/human-constitution
John C. Calhoun's 'Disquisition on Government' has a much clearer idea of what 'the constitution' is. Quite simply, it's the will of the people when in agreement. It can be nothing else and anything that attempts to be 'the constitution' other than 'the will of the people when in agreement' is doomed to collapse or tyranny.
The sword feels inevitable at this point, but let's hope for the best. Only good people get a good government. People forget that they are responsible to a large degree by creating systems with their own thoughts and actions,
I, too, fear the sword is inevitable. Another often overlooked Lockesean observation is that self government requires a people capable of self government. It is a precondition, not a result. It seems to me that, collectively, the west has lost the virtue necessary for such an endeavor, leaving tyranny of some sort as the eventual outcome.
If Christians followed Christ, instead of their local ministers or Paul who IMO is largely responsible for the political church, there could be heaven on earth. Good governments require good citizens.
Christian virtue as exemplified by Christ, if cultivated by all, would certainly lead to a far better society than we currently have. Alas, conversion is continual, and original sin taints is all. While such a state of affairs should be sought, there will always be wolves among us. The best we can do is see to it that we are not the wolves, and that those we love do not become wolves while we remain silent.
I can't think of a single system that doesn't claim that 'If everyone just agreed to live by this system all problems would be resolved'.
Christianity is the original liberalism. The promotion of universal values and the totalitarian state demanding not only overt obedience but inner belief is the root of much of the poison of the liberal managerial state.
Hard to argue with that. The line between good and evil runs through every human heart, indeed.
Agreed.
My high school bore his name before virtue signaling school board members erased the name & it is now named Meridian HS in Falls Church, Va.
Mason owned slaves, his Will is available online. Though the School Board of Falls Church, Va erased the name…silence on the State University that bears his name. Good thing that Mr. Jefferson’s University doesn’t bear his name. Washington & Lee U. are considering what to do, they’re private.
Lefties ruin everything.
The authority of the badge and a court ordered detention order opened many doors for me and cleared the way through adults attempting to obstruct. I just don’t see people cooperating where there is no court order or sworn law enforcement. People routinely blow-off private investigators & non-law enforcement.
You may not see it, but that is, in part, because you have only been studying these ideas at the most cursory level for less than 48 hours! 🤣🤣
(And I don't mean that in a mean way—just a fact. It's not something you get right away. Just like it took 85 Federalist Papers and eight months to sell people on the Constitution. Big things don't come in a single conversation.)
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/
https://uscode.house.gov/download/download.shtml
Given the computer age, I have found that I can roughly find the law issue/topic with a few keystrokes. Yes, it is massive, especially when looking into R.I.C.O. And Conspiracy laws. The “due process” occurred when our representatives took the power we gave to them and they voted.
On the day I was sworn in as a Police Officer in 1982, I took an oath to uphold the laws of the City & State and recognized the U.S. and Virginia Constitution. The Clerk of the City administered the oath. Where did she obtain the power? It was delegated to her by the elected city council. Where did they get their power? It was handed over to them through the ballot. Where did the voters get the power? It is found in George Mason’s Declaration on the Rights of Man, adopted, in large part, by Jefferson in his writing of the Declaration of Independence and Constittution.
"On the day I was sworn in as a Police Officer in 1982, I took an oath to uphold the laws of the City & State and recognized the U.S. and Virginia Constitution. The Clerk of the City administered the oath. Where did she obtain the power? It was delegated to her by the elected city council. Where did they get their power? It was handed over to them through the ballot. Where did the voters get the power? It is found in George Mason’s Declaration on the Rights of Man, adopted, in large part, by Jefferson in his writing of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution."
—This, I am sorry does say, does not work. It is making excuses for the failure of the system to live up to the principles that they hoped the system would actuate.
"It was delegated to her by the elected city council. Where did they get their power? It was handed over to them through the ballot."
—Voting is not consent. Whether I vote or not, whether my guy wins or not, whether he has the power in a legislature to actuate my will or not…things will be done to me without my consent. And the whole system has been imposed upon me without my consent.
This notion, held by Locke and the natural lawyers and then adopted by the Founders, that your consent to the social contract is "tacit" and "implied" was a philosophical cheat code. It was a workaround for the fact that, at that moment in time, they were not able to think of a way to properly actuate their principles that did not violate human consent. It was the best they could do at the time. But now we can do better. And we should know that, and not freeze their work in amber and never progress, just because of the conservative impulse to preserve old things. Chesterton's Fence is meant to be a caution, not a prison.
"Where did the voters get the power? It is found in George Mason’s Declaration on the Rights of Man, adopted, in large part, by Jefferson in his writing of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution."
Jefferson wrote the Declaration (with the help of the committee), but that does not have the force of law. It briefly expresses some principles and then enumerates some complaints.
Jefferson did not write much of the Constitution. That, IIUC, was primarily Madison and Hamilton. Jefferson wasn't a fan, but he knew it was his duty to go with it once it was done.
Mason, on behalf of the Antifederalists, who were very rightly suspicious of the Constitution (and of Hamilton's motives), gave us the Bill of Rights—by far the best part of the Constitution. Did Mason write something called a "Declaration on the Rights of Man"? I was unaware. I know of Paine's "Rights of Man" and the French "Declaration on the Rights of Man and the Citizen." But not of another work by those titles.
But neither whatever he wrote, nor the Declaration, has the force of law, and that which does—the Constitution—violates my rights as a human person by granting others decision-making authority over me.
Indeed, if you think through the principles that the Founders believed in—self-ownership chief among them—and carry them to their logical conclusion, you must see that this is so. We have natural rights because of self-ownership, which is an ineluctable moral fact emanating from natural law and reality itself. Any imposition to which a peaceful person has not consented—explicitly, transparent, and on an ongoing basis—violates the self-ownership and inalienable rights of that person.
I believe the Founders knew this, either dimly or as something that they quickly put out of their minds. But given their moment in history, they were just not going to do any better than they did. And they did well, all things considered. But if they were alive now, while Hamilton might be on the side of a massive centralized state, and J. Adams might be indulging his insecurities from position of power, Jefferson, Mason, P. Henry, and S. Adams would all be acting! They would not be freezing 1790 in amber—they would be extreme minarchists or market anarchists. Because that is the actual logical moral conclusion of their principles, even though they could not see it at the time.
So, if you’ve ever had and encounter for a traffic or bicycle infraction with a sworn law enforcement officer…are yo friendly & respectful or do you proclaim his legitimacy as invalid? For six years working Juvenile cases, I recovered 100% of the runaways and the power & badge cleared the way for me to plow through efforts of youth & their parents to harbor the runaways. Once caught, where did the juvenile go? Before a neutral & detached J&DR Judge who heard their story. My job was to, with deliberate speed, catch them & let the system work.
I don’t know if you or family members have children who could become runaways. In your schema, who would go out and find them while overcoming efforts to harbor them?
Still not feigning anything.
"who would go out and find them while overcoming efforts to harbor them?"
—The answer is simple: agents I pay as a voluntary client, rather than police whom I "pay" involuntarily through taxes enforced by the threat of violence.
Agents who have a fiduciary responsibility, and market incentives, to do a good job, rather than government agents, who by law are required to protect no one. Agents who, on top of whatever good personal incentives they may have, also have all the perverse incentives that go along with being enforcers of an involuntary government that imposes its authority though violence.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/virginia-declaration-of-rights
Ah yes, the Virginia stuff. I just heard Tom Woods talking about that recently.
Mason was a far better Founder than Madison or Hamilton, or even J. Adams, who acquitted himself well before 1790, but less well after.
I believe this reply was meant to be to this thread: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/conservatives-constitution-not-salvation/comment/59282917
…on the subject of "ignorance of the law is not a defense."
I must say, I am dismayed that you are making excuses for that terrible diktat. In addition to the the strenuous objection I offered in that thread, I will further say this:
You are obviously a man whom reveres the old and the traditional. So I will remind you that the Founders (most of them, anyway) were seeking to restore the liberties of Englishmen that were lost after 1066, under the Norman Yoke. One of the core beliefs of that pre-Norman era was that law was to be discovered, not invented.
The king was not there to create laws. His role was to enforce natural law. The common law process was then supposed to progressively, over time, discover the nuances of that law through the accumulation of court decisions. Those decisions, in turn, were the result of a bottom-up process of accumulated human wisdom—from juries and judges and advocates and the ongoing exploration of the human experience. There was not supposed to be the invention of laws out of thin air.
What we have always looked at as a great classical-liberal innovation—the parliament/legislature—has turned out to be a mistake. It is an understandable mistake—a logical step away from the power of a single monarch, through the Witan to the barons to the burgesses to modern legislative bodies. But it has turned out to be a monstrosity, for it says that, "We can invent any law we want [even if it runs directly counter to natural law] because it is 'the will of the people.'"
This development was a part of the history of the development of classical liberalism, but it turns out to be a violation of the principles of classical liberalism.
The notion that people are responsible to look up and maintain knowledge of every one of these millions of pages of laws, many of which have been invented in violation of the natural law, is simply awful and unacceptable.
I was suggesting that you, as an adult in a distant state who is considering a bicycle ride could check that state’s Code for:
Helmets required?
Against traffic or with traffic?
Does a bicyclist have all rights -and duties- on the travelled portion of the road?
Can I ride on sidewalks? When pedestrians are present?
A few simple questions can be answered online & you don’t have to read millions of laws or pages.
Same/similar questions for hunting or fishing. Inform oneself before taking a chance.
I am not going global on the question of informing oneself.
None of that deals, in any significant way, with the substantive critiques I have offered of the underlying phenomenon. All it does, in essence, is cling onto a little piece of flotsam called "the state." A attempt to justify the unjustifiable, rooted in one's belief in the 7,000-year-old lie that without having overlords to rule us, we'd all be in complete chaos.
"Inform oneself before taking a chance."
—Taking a chance. Even the language establishes one as a permanent slave, in need of rebuke and control by the masters.
House of Lords, House of Commons. U.S. Senate, U.S. House. Three-part Republic, checks & balances. Something in America created an environment that enables college dropouts to become billionaires. William Wordsworth, in England, and Thoreau, in America, can write as we are doing and make the case for the individual in tension with his government/society. And a SCOTUS Justice, William O. Douglas is always mindful of the individual’s rights and perspective. I find it good that Wyoming and Rhode Island have the same number of Senators as populous states like California and Texas. I continue to see America as an experiment that is moving the index towards “better.” Yes, of the three branches, some try to encroach on the other branches- fully aware of each other’s roll. Many voters would like to reduce power for some & increase it for others. Some want to start over. Until that day, we know that we have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thanks for following & responding.
And thank you for being here!
I share your sentiments, but not your conclusions. I do not see any evidence that America is moving towards the better. It seems that it has only gotten worse—major shifts left on your slider, with only the occasional small and temporary move to the right. And I see no reason to believe that any amount of political action can do more than make a tiny delay in that overall trend.
A few years ago, I believed as you do. I recognize that a great deal of hope is wrapped up in this belief. After all, without an alternative, what else does one have but this belief? Thus, what I am saying—if absorbed in any way—is a psychological and mental blow, since it would appear to be claiming that there is no hope.
And indeed, I do believe that there is no hope within the system as it exists. Rather, I believe our hope lies elsewhere.
In 1997, knowing that I had been a gun-toting Detective, my son (17) and daughter (14) asked me why people need to have guns.
That did it for me. I said, we are taking a vacation to Concord, Ma. To the North Bridge and Minuteman Statue.
We drove there and walked Boston’s Freedom Trail, we visited Plymouth Rock & Plymouth Plantation and the replicated Mayflower…accented by a reading of the Mayflower Compact (worthy reading for all, today!). Then we visited Walden Pond and walked its circumference. Then Concord & Emerson’s, Hawthorne’s & Melville’s home, the Manse, overlooking North Bridge. Then we walked across the bridge and observed the tribute statue of the Minuteman, standing by his plow while holding his long arm musket. We read the inscription. Then I asked them whether they finally had the answer to their question. They tried, but could not accurately answer the Q: why do we need guns? So I answered it.
Your government can march against you!
They did not understand. I explained how Colonists held gun powder stores at Bunker Hill and their non-representative, Red Coat government had marched against them to take their gun powder so they would be defenseless. They had a difficult time comprehending that their government could become their enemy and take-up arms against them.
People today have the same difficulty in comprehending.
It is a simple lesson from Colonial & American History.
More to follow in final response.
I cherish those same moments that you do. They were animated by the correct principles. The Declaration that followed was too.
And the Articles of Confederation were a decent attempt to actuate those principles.
Sadly, statists like Hamilton conspired to kill the Articles in favor of a Constitution whose letter and spirit he, and those who followed in his footsteps, had no intention of following from the start.
Will reply with a few posts.
1.
London, 1802
BY WILLIAM WORDSWORTH
Milton! thou shouldst be living at this hour:
England hath need of thee: she is a fen
Of stagnant waters: altar, sword, and pen,
Fireside, the heroic wealth of hall and bower,
Have forfeited their ancient English dower
Of inward happiness. We are selfish men;
Oh! raise us up, return to us again;
And give us manners, virtue, freedom, power.
Thy soul was like a Star, and dwelt apart:
Thou hadst a voice whose sound was like the sea:
Pure as the naked heavens, majestic, free,
So didst thou travel on life's common way,
In cheerful godliness; and yet thy heart
The lowliest duties on herself did lay.
If the only way that we can restore the spirit of Jefferson and the Antifederalists is to wait for people to become like Wordsworth's Milton, we will be tilting at windmills forever.
I feel bad, for it seems like I am attempting to rob you of the hope upon which you hang your hat—a patriotic reverence for the Founders and their bequest.
I would never rob anyone of HOPE. But I would indeed rob people of THAT hope. For if ever there was a ship that carried that hope, it has long since sailed. Our hope lies elsewhere now.
Christopher, in the poem, we could replace the word England with United States. What lone man could replace Milton?The line Altar, sword & pen is Wordsworth’s way of describing how the faith/church, military and writing had declined since John Milton’s time. For England, arguably Churchill wrote, spoke and led. We should be mindful of his multi-volume “History of the English Speaking People - even though modernists have labeled him an Imperialist and cast him onto the rubbish heap of Anglo-American History. Yes, America needs a political revival, on orderly, peaceful, political revival.
I actually listened to all of “A History of the English Speaking Peoples” on audiobook. It took a trip to Florida and many more months of local driving!
I want to see things orderly and peaceful. But the concept of a single system being imposed by force upon all human beings living between these two coasts is not what I am after. In fact, imposing inescapable systems upon large groups of people, whether they consent to them or not, is morally repellent.
There is a general doctrine in State and Federal law that it is the responsibility of the person who has reached the age of majority to inform themselves of the laws of the land; local, state & Federal. Yes, imposed, but for many who are oblivious, nevertheless not the duty of government to inform - the obligation is to self-inform.
At church now, will respond later
I wish you a terrific and reverent time at church.
3.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can't_Happen_Here
In an American History course I took long ago, we were assigned Sinclair Lewis’ Book “It Can’t Happen Here”, set in 1935 as European Fascism was on the rise - some believe that the man who inveigled himself into the U.S. POTUS was modeled after Louisiana’s Huey Long. Of course, everyone’s darling was FDR…let’s hear it for unlimited terms of office and stacking the Supreme Court. Lewis’ objective was to dispel a notion - at any time along the timeline of the life of America- where Americans can dismiss a concept that unimaginable things can actually occur in this young Country, at any time. If one reads the implausible book, they can at least question their presumptions about the longevity of our experiment. As readers have responded to our posts, I sense that many are ready to uproot things gradually…or all at once. You must know of the theory of order vs chaos.
Since 2020, my generation which observed the anti-war demonstrations, Kent State and the DNC riots in Chicago 1968 as well as The riots in Blue Cities, we want order. Nixon referred to it as law & order, so did Harry Callahan in the Dirty Harry series of movies.
One final story and I will close. It is about a Christian college young lady who sought to hasten her vision for American Societal change. Diana Oughton was an idealistic graduate of Bryn Mawr College in 1962. She signed-up with the American Friend’s Service Committee and volunteered in Guatemala for two years. When she arrived, she learned that the business that thrived the most in the local marketplace was the manufacture and sale of infant coffins. She vowed to herself that her purpose for the mission she entered would be to eliminate infant mortality and crush the infant coffin sales to zero. At the end of her two years, the sale of infant coffins had increased. When she returned to America she concluded that a more radical approach was needed to eliminate things that she believed were wrong and in need of change. To her, faith and government were too slow, so she joined the Weather Underground. In 1970, while working in a bomb manufacturing factory in a townhouse in Greenwich Village, to which two boxes containing 50 lbs of dynamite had been brought, the Townhouse exploded, was leveled and she died.
A lesson which is apparent to all of us is that impatience can be our worst enemy. I hope that aspiring revolutionaries in the U.S. do not perform desperate things intending to hurry-up the change they seek.
Blessings, Phil
Yeah—it’s pretty gross that everyone was so worried about fascism, but somehow managed to accept the proto-fascism Wilson imposed during WWI. And then to believe that the actual fascist FDR was this great fighter against fascism. Even Mussolini recognized him as a fellow dictator. “Ecco, un dittatore!” Ugh. People are so gullible. Especially democrats.
Just an FYI, re: the rest of your comment and the impression of me that it conveys…
I am not in favor of revolution. You can read back through my archives if you wish: I do not believe violent revolution is desirable, nor do I believe it would work. In fact, my most recent piece is on this subject.
So, your plan for extracting yourself from a compelled system that taxes you with representation, under penalty of losing your freedom…yes, following due process. Enter a barter system? All cash, no banking? Go off the grid? Live on a boat? Sovereign Nation? Not asking for details. You’ve identified the problems you see; what are your general remedies for you? Thanks.
I think this provides an adequate summary: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/what-kind-world-you-want
Of the variants taxonomized there, I personally lean towards market anarchism.
I like the way you at least begin an examination of the “Why” found in England’s Crown and Parliament’s abuses of “their subjects” because few American critics of our Bill of Rights, Constitution, even the Declaration all can be “corrective remedies” in America’s “experiment”.
An examination of American History must begin with a study of English History.
If we can imagine a continuum with the left end marked “worse” and the right end labeled “better” (not “perfect”) and a sliding “index” is positioned somewhere along the continuum, then the Declaration addresses what you describe: “In order to form a more perfect Union.”
POTUS BHO repeated this phrase repeatedly. In one sense, it describes a flawed system that needs improvement. In another sense, it is the relative “best” in the world that, from inception, knowingly recognized how improvements can be made as the index is advanced towards “better.”
My $0.02, from a lover of English and American History.
Thank you for joining in on the discussion!
Let's take your slider and apply it to the points in my piece. I think you are saying that the system here puts the slider somewhere closer to the "better" range than any other system. That is reasonable.
But where is it? To the right of the centerpoint, or to the left? Let's ask a question: were you living in Wessex under King Alfred, would you be freer than you are now, or less free?
How many different ways did Alfred and the Witan regulate your life? How much did they tax? Far less than today, no?
Yes, they had the Fyrd, and military conscription is always slavery. But we have had the draft for much of our history, and we still have Selective Service, which means we still have the draft too, really.
Our lives are far more heavily managed and regulated, and our property is subject to far more confiscation, than it would have been in 9th century Britain. So what does that tell us about where we are on that slider?
How far have we slid on that slider since the start? Could we reclaim anything more than a token and temporary amount of that distance now by pushing on the slider? How? Where is the evidence that that would be remotely possible?
The slider does not seem to me to be a continuum from better to worse; it seems to be a continuum from bad to worse. The metaphor basically condemns us to only one possibility—some degree of oppression or another. A hard 1984-esque oppression to one end (side by side with its "Brave New World" variant) and de Tocqueville's soft, administrative despotism to the other…with all forces slowly pushing the slider towards the 1984 end.
I believe we can do better. By hopping off the slider entirely.
Christopher, when you have time, could you process what you wrote above in light of what I list as improvements that led our Country towards “better”? Let’s begin with slavery out of the gate and fractional humans. Not long after the conclusion of the Civil War, three Constitutional Amendments regarding abolition of slavery, recognition of freedom for all, granting women the right to vote in 19th amendment 1920, then the terrible SCOTUS Plessy v Ferguson case of 1893 re: separate-but-equal decision quasi-ended by Brown v board of Ed v Topeka in 1954, but lingering until 1974 or beyond, the Civil Rights Act & Voting rights acts of ‘64 &’65. The Bakke case of 1978. Many see these Constitutional Amendments and SCOTUS decisions as moving the index towards “better.” Maybe I should have cited them when I initially made my claim.
Yes, for sure there were some major punctuation marks that solved some fundamental problems—gaps that did not make sense within the overall promise of the system (slavery, not everyone having the franchise, etc.). But really, that is some really low-expectations stuff right there. Those moments are not things to be proud of—they are the bare minimum, to fix some hideous errors. Not something to pat oneself on the back over.
And I contrast that with the increase in taxes, regulation, and government being all up in our business in general. Yes, there was once a time when taxes were even worse. And a few things have recently improved from a previous worse state (gun rights, e.g.). But those, like taxes, had gotten dramatically worse for the bulk of the rest of our history.
And then there is what happened in 2020, which basically revealed that we never really had any protections of our rights at all, since it can all be cast aside the moment they declare an emergency.
The government is 10,000 miles from the size it was in 1790, and it is never getting back there, or anywhere close.
I think the underlying problem is that a lot of people say they love freedom, but actually are terrified of the accompanying responsibility. As a nation we have been mollified into complacency by the “safety nets” the state provides, not recognizing them as traps.
Yes, for sure.
One thing the few things that that monster Karl Marx was actually right about is this: a good deal of human behavior really is material: about acquiring the things we want and need to survive and thrive. It is thus quite easy to woo people with "free" goodies.
Each of us has to be actively doing things to create a better life for ourselves. Sleepwalking will not work. The WEF and their minions want you and I and everyone we know dead. As this realization sinks in and the evidence is in front of us the sleepwalkers may act to change things. The stench of death is starting to be noticed.
"Each of us has to be actively doing things to create a better life for ourselves."
—Yes, exactly.
Building. Creating. Not voting and pretending that there is any chance of reforming something that cannot be reformed and does not deserve to be. That is a form of sleepwalking too, since it means believing something false and doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
People will be better off if they opt out of the matrix and start building something new for themselves and their families and friends. Something REAL.
Yes.
You're on the road now!
When the powerful ignore the Constitution, and you do nothing to enforce it, then it is just a piece of paper.
Let us proceed with that as our working thesis…
The Constitution clearly has been ignored. This means that it is incapable of preventing itself from being ignored. This means we are relying on other people not to ignore it. But they do ignore it.
So what do we do now?
Try again for another 200 years?
Hope that people change to the point where they won't ignore it? Where is the evidence that something like that would work?
Try to force people not to ignore it? How?
Do you see my point…?
Yes. This requires personal sacrifice that has not been made yet. I say yet, because it is coming. So nothing you die, do something and you may die. Which is the rational choice? Each has to bear the responsibility for their actions. We are approaching an event horizon. A decision day. Whether you want it or not.
I cannot speak to, or predict, any particular eschatological claim or event. But if you are referring to doing nothing politically, that is not what I propose.
But let me make sure I do not misrepresent, or misunderstand, your view. You agree that the system established by the Constitution cannot be repaired within the system. Correct?
And then am I also correct in perceiving that you see the only solution in some major or even universal religious awakening, or some form of eschatological event?
Cortection: Do dothing you die, do something you may die.
Our founders knew that only moral & ethical people can benefit from & sustain any Constitution. The most fundamental ethic is truthfulness & trustworthiness. When checks & balances fall away, because of pharisaical sabotage (common in Judaism -- creating loopholes around their laws -- which Jesus condemned as supremely evil), then decline & more devilry are inevitable. Addicts usually clean up only after they hit bottom. This is where our slothful, sleepy country is headed unless we experience a moral & ethical revival of some sort. This need not be of the typical religious sort. Thomas Paine envisioned something else: https://thomaspaine.us/article_tepfer02.html
I will check out the Paine link; thank you.
So the Constitution was either perverse to begin with, or was incapable of preventing its own perversion. Either way, it is now largely perverted.
And it depended for its proper function upon a moral and ethical people, but it was incapable of either instilling or maintaining such morality and good character.
So what do you see as the solution? To restore national character? How? And then, after that Brobdingnagian feat is somehow accomplished, to use the mechanisms in the Constitution to restore it to…what, exactly? To the same thing that either authorized or was incapable of preventing its own perversion?
Do you see the problem here?
The problem is with false expectations of any legislative or constitutional document.
The best-laid plans of mice and men still often go awry for a variety of reasons, often because the problem is not in the stars, or laws, but in ourselves.
And, then, there are intruding circumstances beyond our control, such as war, disease, famine, natural catastrophes and more.
We appear to be at the threshold of a recurring global disaster that is beyond our control.
https://youtu.be/j635Cv2aOlA?feature=shared
Yes, no system is perfect, and yes, the flaw lies in ourselves, and in the realities of our life in this free universe.
But there are better and worse courses we can follow. I, for one, am done with the quixotic belief that we can somehow make things work with this Constitution, or any system that uses voting and nonconsensual "social contracts."
But that does not make me pessimistic. There is a better way, and I aim to find it.
I'm not pessimistic either. But I'm a realist who is experienced enough in life to understand the logical, probable, natural course of things. Many if not most people wake up to certain realities when they have to -- from difficulty usually. They change when they are forced to change, such as when they are sufficiently disturbed about something and even their own conscience will not let them rest until they do better or try something else.
Our Framers understood the Constitution would need to grow and expand and change over time, hence the process of carefully crafted amendments. Once again, however, only good people can make good amendments. Bad or foolish people will create selfish or shortsighted amendments.
And there are probably more bad, foolish, selfish, and shortsighted people than good people. Which is why I no longer want to live under any system that tethers me to the whims of others.
Like it or not, we’re part of the natural realm that’s always competing for dominance, one way or another. Our detachment from nature does not improve us.
Again, our founders understood this, and knew that people would have to fight generation by generation for their freedom, whether that fighting was in the political arena or on the battlefield.
We’ve been relying on mercenaries too long. Our system allows us to be more engaged than we are. Our apathy and ignorance create the problems. Not the system.