Idol worship from people who are spiritually empty from their fake entertainment churches is my opinion on it. Ditto that magic cloth they worship, the one that supposed free speech advocates go apopleptic when someone 'disrespects' it. Ditto when people lose their mind when other of their false idols take a knee during the national anthem. In other words, the state is their 'god' and is placed above all else, including God and family
Yes, I would say that even those who do not worship the state do presume its existence in the same way that they presume that the sun will rise. It exists. It will always exist. Its existence is necessary.
This paradigm is thrust upon us all, however. So, for example, when I began to question the left-wingery with which I had been raised, I was handed a pre-packaged opposition team to pick instead. And indeed, because of how horrified I was once I realized the true nature of the left, I did pick the boilerplate opposition team for a long time, including all its general suppositions. One of the reasons that pre-packaged ideologies exist is because people generally do not have time to think each supposition through themselves. So they just take the package. I chose to think it all through, and it took me two decades to fully realize that the logical conclusion of those suppositions takes one further politically than most are willing to go.
In fairness to members of that conservative “team,” their(our) principles are generally correct. And I think they are conservatives largely because they have those principles, if that makes sense. They defend the Revolution, the Constitution, and the Founders because of those principles. The problem is that they are stuck in the mode of defending a moment in time. That moment was a stage in the classical liberal revolution, but they are treating it like it was the final destination. “We gained this ground. We must defend it.” They are caught in amber—stuck defending the 18th-century political, cultural, and aesthetic MANIFESTATION of our principles, rather than creating new manifestations with which to take that defense to the next stage of its evolution.
Am I making sense there? Their hearts are in the right place. More importantly, their principles are in the right place. But they are locked into a fight from 200 years ago, and they have not yet realized that defense of those principles requires a new and different kind of fight, including new realizations. But if one has not yet thought all this through or been convinced of what I am saying by another, then all one has to go by is that we must continue the Founders’ fight. Put on the tricorne hat and protect what they gave us. It’s a defensive strategy doomed to fail, but they don’t realize it.
Christopher is of course correct that none of us agreed to the implicit contract that theoretically governs our lives. Given the speed with which individual liberties were abandoned--before the founding generation had even left the playing field--it is arguable that our revered Constitution was never adequate.
Since the Covid lockdown began in March of 2020 I’d say it’s become more obvious to more people that the Constitution is not now protecting individual liberties--if it ever did.
Should constitutional challenges be dropped? Perhaps Christopher would say yes: forget trying to make things right and live as though government doesn’t exist. (That reminds me of an old libertarian in the Chicago area who decided that, since he owned his house, he shouldn’t have to pay property taxes every year to keep living in it. So he lived the last 20 or so years of his life in jail.)
The Grizzled Angelino points out that Christians answer to God rather than to government. I agree. Christians who tried to live as though government’s unconstitutional Covid mandates prohibiting corporate worship didn’t exist were arrested and jailed in some cases.
Yes, the Constitution is not protecting us. Yes, we need a new kind of fight. The Bill of Rights in particular can be a reminder of what we should claim as natural rights, but I don’t know how we break free of the system that has its tentacles everywhere.
You are already taking the first step. You are changing your consciousness. Think of it this way: If everyone on the planet changed their consciousness and realized the moral impermissibility of nonconsensual governance on a morning in early May, involuntary government would not exist anywhere by June. The consciousness step cannot be skipped. It is the first step. (Or maybe the second—Step 1 might have to be "realizing there is a problem in the first place"—something that is less common than we might wish.) This does not mean it is the only step, but it must be the first step.
But also, we can do two things at once…
I do not believe voting makes a government consensual, but I am aware that it matters who gets elected, so I can still vote for the lesser of two evils.
I believe that my title to my land is, by right, allodial, and ought to be so by law. But I will still pay my property taxes because I am not a fool.
If someone comes along with a proposed amendment that I believe would improve the Constitution, I can still recognize that an improved Constitution will be better than an unimproved one.
IOW, we can walk and chew gum and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good all at the same time. It is necessary to change our consciousness and outlook, but that does not mean we must shoot ourselves in the foot. Right?
As far as the Christians who were arrested, though, one might be able to make two different arguments. Yes, they could have gone underground—just as the Church has done many times, in many oppressive places. But those who got arrested did help show the world the true face of who we are dealing with. In that way, they were a kind of martyr.
"it is arguable that our revered Constitution was never adequate."
I know that your choice of the word "arguable" here was simply a defense against making an absolute statement, but I would like to propose that the statement ought to be absolute. Piggybacking on Spooner's genius, allow me to offer the following argument:
Premise 1: In order for a constitution to be "adequate," it must successfully protect against tyranny.
Premise 2: The United States Constitution does not successfully protect against tyranny.
Conclusion: The United States Constitution is not adequate.
I believe that the argument is sound (the premises are true) and valid (the conclusion follows from the premises). Therefore, I think you can take the world "arguably" out of your sentence. This too, I believe, is a part of the consciousness shift.
I think you're really on to something and hope you will pursue it. Unfortunately, the left uses that argument mainly to defend their desire for gun control. I, however, am too aware that the size of our population is an impediment to representative government. Who wants 3,000 members of the House?
Sadly, I'm unsure if a fix is possible. Too much corruption.
A divorce sounds like a reasonable solution, but the logistics would be difficult. I live in NC, and people move here and bring their politics with them. If we get the divorce, can we get them to move out? 😊
Ultimately, a divorce is just a transitional measure towards a true condition of voluntary order. It sets the stage by making people aware that the boundaries and political entities that exist now are not set in stone. Once we get to the point where truly free polities can form, they are free to determine their own immigration policies. And yes, if I were the owner/administrator of such a polity, how a person voted in the previous order would be of interest to me. Then again, I would never use voting as a mechanism for anything the end result of which could violate rights.
I would not worry about whether or not national divorce (or anything else) is within the Overton Window, either. Just start advocating for it. To heck with living inside the Window. Be a bright light and people will follow!
Christopher, I'm in the twilight of my life (actually closer to midnight), and you are young. Most of my peers are only interested in things within their bubble, and I'm a thorn in their side as I disturb their complacency. Honestly, if I were to advocate for a divorce I might cause a stroke! A number (most?) of them are unaware that a divorce might be needed. Most say they can't worry about things they can't change.
I divide people basically into two camps: hiders and seekers. Sadly, the hiders far outnumber the seekers. I read Substack articles to widen my concepts and lessen my isolation. Thanks for turning my wheels in this most interesting conversation.
Sep 14, 2023·edited Sep 14, 2023Liked by Christopher Cook
First, yes, you are making sense. And I for all intents and purposes fully agree.Pre-packaged opposition is a great way to describe it by the way. Putting aside both of our opposition to voting and elections for a second, I think if the whole electoral process wasn't rigged to keep 'third parties' out, many would jump ship. For all its flaws, the national LP at least gets some important issues right, and many of those are things principled conservatives could fully support. But there is the two party trap that far too won't step away from lest they 'throw their vote away'. One major blind spot in the so-called right IMO is that due to its 'pre-packaged' nature, the right as commonly understood is really just one half of a false binary. When the opposing ends both ultimately lead to authoritarianism, that's not real choice, but some see no other 'team' to join. Natural tribal tendencies being used against people.
The question of opposition to voting and elections is an interesting one. A lot of anarchists—most, probably—would say don't vote at all. That voting validates the system. I would say something different: Don't TALK about voting as if it is good, consensual, will enable us to fix anything in any sort of durable fashion, etc. IOW, don't fall into the mythology of voting. It's not the act of actually casting a vote that hurts, its continuing to spread and believe in voting mythology. What do you think?
As I think I may have mentioned before, I'm not opposed to voting completely. Is the national ones my problem is with, mainly because people think it will change something. And never has or never will, at least not to any of our benefit. Keep it local where change can (and does often) happen.
I get the local-is-better-than-central argument, and I agree with it. Ultimately, I am opposed to voting on anything that will result in an initiation of force. Even a local government does that, so ultimately I am opposed to a system that allows that.
But I am also opposed to a system that extracts taxes by force, yet I still pay my taxes!
In my view, the most important first step is the consciousness shift of realizing the moral truths here—that all involuntary governance is morally impermissible and that democracy does not solve that problem. But if you and I and anyone else differs on the precise pathway from there to here, we're still 95% on the same page, and that is more than good enough.
(In another comment thread, I am being critiqued for "misthinking" because I say I am not opposed to quietly voting, so long as the consciousness shift is also there. It just seems to get a bit doctrinaire to focus too much on the little differences, when all the important sames are there.)
While I agree, whether one votes or not, the end result is the same cuz the state is still there and isnt going away anytime soon, but to more clarify what I mean exactly, I will refer back to the time I voted for a sheriff who ran on following state law on concealed carry permit issuance (we're shall issue), when the incumbent refused to issue unless he felt like it (maybe issue. if he liked you). Or say my local school board has some trans pushing freak on the ballot. I would most certainly vote against that person. Can only speak for myself, but I do have exceptions to my no voting rule, but they are few and far between, and is something I would only do if I felt it might return some freedom and/or sanity, such as the above examples. Tactical voting is what I refer to it as. More of a fail safe if there is literally no other option, or other means have been tried and failed.
I am at variance with the question. Conservatives very much distinguish between the Christian religion and the US Constitution and do not think any US foundational document is holy. Perhaps John Adams held that our government couldn't be operated by anything less than a religious and moral people because Christians do not place their trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help.
I thought of this objection and should have addressed it in the piece. I do get that conservatives make a distinction between the Constitution and the Bible. But when I make a critique of the Constitution or—Heavens forfend—question the very foundations of its legitimacy, the response I often get is very similar to the kind of response one would get by doing the same thing to the Bible. Anger. Sometimes foaming-at-the-mouth, disproportionate anger—the kind that is often directed at people who have challenged something that has been deemed to be beyond challenge. At heretics and people who are simply outside the realm of acceptable discourse. The Constitution is treated with a level of reverence that is, while not exactly the same, analogous enough. Know what I mean?
Posted this on Mastodon earlier today. Getting some interesting responses, all acting pretty much as if it is a Holy document. One suggested adding an amendment the allows execution of any elected official violates their oath, as if it wouldnt just be another ignored amendment
Devising concepts for constitutional mechanisms that allow for punishment of officials who "violate the spirit or letter of the provisions herein"……ah yes, that's where I was about three years ago. I cannot fault anyone for not having gotten quite where we are yet…but I sure wish they'd hurry up and get here anyway!
For people who have become naturalized citizens of every other sovereign nation on the planet is is of cardinal importance the distinction of our singularly unique self governing founding documents which are NOT fungible by definition of having to swear an Oath to uphold these principles as a defining act of citizen sacred privilege reflected by the sworn allegiance to a FLAG which stands for a nation governed by a document one must swear an OATH to uphold
While I share your underlying reverence for the achievement of our Founders, I really do not feel as though I am in any way self-governing. If I were, I would not be subjected to edicts to which I do not consent. I believe they WANTED it to be self-governing, but the only mechanism they could think of (based on their knowledge of history) does not actually allow for self-government.
When you accept the citizenship of any other country , such as Canada for ex. You are required to swear allegiance to they monarch , other than USA ( which makes America - THE exceptional nation )
and legal immigrants to this exceptional nation are eternally grateful that they have been granted the freedom and Liberty to take that sworn oath to uphold and defend USA.. the binary question remains - does an ethical citizen uphold the oath or not of a document which cannot ever be fungible because it would represent a breach of contract to oathkeepers in contrast to those who would willingly breach that oath , which is why your first act of entering illegally cannot be a foundation for such lawbreakers to ever be eligible sign a non- fungible set of ideals to which legions of law abiding citizens both natural and naturalized have legally sworn to uphold and defend
Our American Constitution is not - a living breathing modifiable document and it must not ever degenerate into something of diminishing importance lest it make a mockery of every sacrifice by our brave defenders , who risk Life and limb to preserve every last WORD of those documents for US.
I adore the irrefutable logic by American scholar and in my view , a Patriot who truly understands this philosophical principle:- Dr William Bennett - who espoused his famous :- GATES principle - namely :-
- when you lift the Gates bordering our nation - which is defined as a Constitutional Republic - do the People RUN in..., or RUN OUT ..?
Other countries ruled by monarchs or dictators , flawed singular despotic humans and their ilk.. do not protect individual rights .., even places like Canada , who call themselves democracies , where Free speech - enshrined in the First amendment for US as Americans , has eroded and the concepts of individual Freedom and Liberty can only survive and thrive by the unwavering sworn Oath of its citizens .
I appreciate your patriotism and share your view that the American experiment is unique and better, and that having specific protections in the Bill of Rights better protects our rights than would be the case in its absence. As you say, we are better off in that regard than our Anglophone cousins.
That being said, my broader point is somewhat different.
The Constitution is not a contract.
A contract is voluntarily and explicitly signed by both parties. A contract deals in the exchange of something alienable (goods, property, labor).
The Constitution, by contrast, imposes a non-consensual system by force. No one (except the delegates to the Convention) has ever explicitly agreed to this. (And the Constitution was also rammed through in a rather bullying way, against the wishes of delegates and states, though that is another story.)
I did not sign any contract to be governed in this way, and neither did any other human who has lived for almost 200 years. We are told our agreement is 'tacit' and 'implied' and then the whole arrangement is forced upon us. You may like the Constitution and the system it instantiated, but you cannot deny the truth of this.
Indeed, by imposing a nonconsensual agreement by force, the Constitution violates self-ownership. Contracts deal in alienable things, and since self-ownership is inalienable, the Constitutional system pushes itself even further from being a contract. Indeed, it shares more in common in this regard with involuntary servitude than with a contract.
Look, I totally get it. I have been on the American system-defending patriotic conservative right for the bulk of my adult life. I know that what I am saying feels like yet one more attack to defend against—just as we have been defending against the endless attacks from the left. What I am saying probably gets your hackles up, as it would have mine. But what I am saying is also inescapably true. Once I saw it, I could not unsee it. What we ought to do about it is a separate question, but we ought not pretend that something is not so when it clearly is.
I am new to this topic. It's okay if you find me way off base but I want to ask you about this particular perception of reality. Can it be that the USA is in fact two "governments". One is the United States of America with a Bill of Rights and a natural man and woman. The other is the United States of America Inc that has been selling off our rights and our assets since way back when they became bankrupt. From what I have gathered since taking up the topic as a personal interest in 2022, it is my belief that we have a CEO of a corporation and not a president. It is my belief that a fictitious corporation is created on the day we are born and the seal for the USA INC (which was on our stimulus checks) is not the same as the seal for the United States of America. I could be wrong. Here is what I know is true. natural law. Some would call it God's law, some would call it natural law. Whatever it is, it is global and it is immutable. I agree with you there. We would have to be protected from being taken over by giant corporations and there needs to be accountability for both the fraud perpetuated in our court systems on a regular basis as well as the frauds perpetuated on us upon birth. (If that is all correct)
I have heard the we-are-secretly-a-corporation argument before. I have no idea whether it is true or not. Nothing would surprise me.
However, I think your natural-law argument is closer to the mark. Whether we are secretly a corporation or not, involuntary governance—even the kind the Founders gave us—is morally impermissible.
I look forward to it. Thank you. I do feel crazy when I think these things. It's nice to have landed here. I am ready to start thinking about solutions with people. I am all for natural law, it's the only law I ever truly follow (in my mind and heart). Everything else is a negotiation in the moment because of certain constructs or "societal norms" or because of potential negative effects; in other words, "under duress". But nature is the true law. No one can change that. Whatever they try to do against nature, in the end, they loose. I do not require mind control to run my life. They have proven to be false and more harm than good. I think it's clear we don't need any more of what we have had to this point. I have been ready to scrap the whole system for a long time but am only beginning to really understand why. Before it was just intuition. Now it's a lot more knowing. Of course, I know nothing. But I know 10 times what I knew three years ago. It takes some adjusting.
We are on similar trajectories, and we are coming to similar realizations. I think a lot of people are. A new evolution is underway. And I think "solutions with people" is a good way to put it. It's coming!
At one time I was one of those fools who revered the Constitution. One fundamental flaw was the lack of term limits in representatives and senators. Another amendments were too easy to accomplish in early days, but more difficult, I hope to do now.
I can't believe that the founders didn't have an understanding of human nature; therefore I must conclude the Federalists were tyrants in sheep's clothing.
Representative government would work better in a small country, but without terms limits it's a disaster. Career politicians are always corrupt.
Right now anarchy is more appealing; rules, but no rulers.
In defense of the Founders—even the Federalists—could it be that they were just products of their time? You and I have had the benefit of Hoppe and Rothbard and D. Friedman and the Tannehills and Spooner and everyone else who has come since 1800. They had no such advantage. They were taking us from HumanGovernance 1.0 (monarchy, for shorthand) to something that was virtually unknown in the modern era. Call it 2.0. Maybe, as smart as they were, the leap from 1.0 to 3.0 (anarchy, for shorthand) was just too great, both politically and cognitively…
Were they really a product of their times? Weren''t the ideas in the Constitution really radical in the 1700s? These people only knew monarchies. Just the idea espoused in the Declaration were foreign to most people. Doesn't it seem that many of our countrymen would be quite comfortable with a monarchy? Full circle?
This is an interesting question. I am not a scholar of the period, but from what I know, I would say yes and no. It was radical, but following the Enlightenment as it did, maybe not quite as radical as one might think. The 1600s was when classical-liberal ideas really got rolling (though they obviously had their roots throughout Anglophone history). They had had the English Civil Wars, the rise of Parliament, the Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights of 1689—all of those events taking place in England were divisive issues here, and even caused some sparring here. Those events would have all moved the Overton Widow far enough that by a century later, the ideals of the Declaration would be held commonly enough among Anglophones. Of course, many of them still preferred monarchy, but after the previous century, getting rid of monarchy would no longer have seemed completely insane. And even more were convinced after reading "Common Sense," of course.
I think when we expand the scope beyond Anglophones, then what you are saying becomes more true. What the Colonials did was quite radical in the grand scheme. But this change was also in the air—the French Revolution was different in character from the American, but it was still an outgrowth of the same Enlightenment zeitgeist and happened just shortly after.
Where I think you are most correct is in your assessment of people today. I think most of them have actually regressed, in terms of their understanding of liberty, from where we were in the 18th century. Too many people today would probably be just fine with some authoritarian leader, especially if he were good looking and had a lot of followers in social media.
It's an entertaining venture to try to understand people from 200 years ago, especially the rank and file. Most of what we know was written by the elite, and their world view was formed by their own experience. I think it took certain circumstances to spur ordinary people to break away from the chains of oppression. Many serfs "loved" their lord, while a smaller number chafed from their yokes. I wonder if the percentage has changed that much.
I know the Davey Crockett story. Can you imagine the name calling and ridicule heaped upon a politician espousing such radical ideas today?
And good points on the rest. There is much we do not know. I was blown away, for example, when I read Winston Churchill's "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples." So much to learn!
Idol worship from people who are spiritually empty from their fake entertainment churches is my opinion on it. Ditto that magic cloth they worship, the one that supposed free speech advocates go apopleptic when someone 'disrespects' it. Ditto when people lose their mind when other of their false idols take a knee during the national anthem. In other words, the state is their 'god' and is placed above all else, including God and family
Yes, I would say that even those who do not worship the state do presume its existence in the same way that they presume that the sun will rise. It exists. It will always exist. Its existence is necessary.
This paradigm is thrust upon us all, however. So, for example, when I began to question the left-wingery with which I had been raised, I was handed a pre-packaged opposition team to pick instead. And indeed, because of how horrified I was once I realized the true nature of the left, I did pick the boilerplate opposition team for a long time, including all its general suppositions. One of the reasons that pre-packaged ideologies exist is because people generally do not have time to think each supposition through themselves. So they just take the package. I chose to think it all through, and it took me two decades to fully realize that the logical conclusion of those suppositions takes one further politically than most are willing to go.
In fairness to members of that conservative “team,” their(our) principles are generally correct. And I think they are conservatives largely because they have those principles, if that makes sense. They defend the Revolution, the Constitution, and the Founders because of those principles. The problem is that they are stuck in the mode of defending a moment in time. That moment was a stage in the classical liberal revolution, but they are treating it like it was the final destination. “We gained this ground. We must defend it.” They are caught in amber—stuck defending the 18th-century political, cultural, and aesthetic MANIFESTATION of our principles, rather than creating new manifestations with which to take that defense to the next stage of its evolution.
Am I making sense there? Their hearts are in the right place. More importantly, their principles are in the right place. But they are locked into a fight from 200 years ago, and they have not yet realized that defense of those principles requires a new and different kind of fight, including new realizations. But if one has not yet thought all this through or been convinced of what I am saying by another, then all one has to go by is that we must continue the Founders’ fight. Put on the tricorne hat and protect what they gave us. It’s a defensive strategy doomed to fail, but they don’t realize it.
I need to write about this!
Christopher is of course correct that none of us agreed to the implicit contract that theoretically governs our lives. Given the speed with which individual liberties were abandoned--before the founding generation had even left the playing field--it is arguable that our revered Constitution was never adequate.
Since the Covid lockdown began in March of 2020 I’d say it’s become more obvious to more people that the Constitution is not now protecting individual liberties--if it ever did.
Should constitutional challenges be dropped? Perhaps Christopher would say yes: forget trying to make things right and live as though government doesn’t exist. (That reminds me of an old libertarian in the Chicago area who decided that, since he owned his house, he shouldn’t have to pay property taxes every year to keep living in it. So he lived the last 20 or so years of his life in jail.)
The Grizzled Angelino points out that Christians answer to God rather than to government. I agree. Christians who tried to live as though government’s unconstitutional Covid mandates prohibiting corporate worship didn’t exist were arrested and jailed in some cases.
Yes, the Constitution is not protecting us. Yes, we need a new kind of fight. The Bill of Rights in particular can be a reminder of what we should claim as natural rights, but I don’t know how we break free of the system that has its tentacles everywhere.
You are already taking the first step. You are changing your consciousness. Think of it this way: If everyone on the planet changed their consciousness and realized the moral impermissibility of nonconsensual governance on a morning in early May, involuntary government would not exist anywhere by June. The consciousness step cannot be skipped. It is the first step. (Or maybe the second—Step 1 might have to be "realizing there is a problem in the first place"—something that is less common than we might wish.) This does not mean it is the only step, but it must be the first step.
But also, we can do two things at once…
I do not believe voting makes a government consensual, but I am aware that it matters who gets elected, so I can still vote for the lesser of two evils.
I believe that my title to my land is, by right, allodial, and ought to be so by law. But I will still pay my property taxes because I am not a fool.
If someone comes along with a proposed amendment that I believe would improve the Constitution, I can still recognize that an improved Constitution will be better than an unimproved one.
IOW, we can walk and chew gum and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good all at the same time. It is necessary to change our consciousness and outlook, but that does not mean we must shoot ourselves in the foot. Right?
As far as the Christians who were arrested, though, one might be able to make two different arguments. Yes, they could have gone underground—just as the Church has done many times, in many oppressive places. But those who got arrested did help show the world the true face of who we are dealing with. In that way, they were a kind of martyr.
"it is arguable that our revered Constitution was never adequate."
I know that your choice of the word "arguable" here was simply a defense against making an absolute statement, but I would like to propose that the statement ought to be absolute. Piggybacking on Spooner's genius, allow me to offer the following argument:
Premise 1: In order for a constitution to be "adequate," it must successfully protect against tyranny.
Premise 2: The United States Constitution does not successfully protect against tyranny.
Conclusion: The United States Constitution is not adequate.
I believe that the argument is sound (the premises are true) and valid (the conclusion follows from the premises). Therefore, I think you can take the world "arguably" out of your sentence. This too, I believe, is a part of the consciousness shift.
I think you're really on to something and hope you will pursue it. Unfortunately, the left uses that argument mainly to defend their desire for gun control. I, however, am too aware that the size of our population is an impediment to representative government. Who wants 3,000 members of the House?
Sadly, I'm unsure if a fix is possible. Too much corruption.
A fix is always possible. It just might require things that are well outside the Overton Window. Like, for example, starting with national divorce…
A divorce sounds like a reasonable solution, but the logistics would be difficult. I live in NC, and people move here and bring their politics with them. If we get the divorce, can we get them to move out? 😊
Ultimately, a divorce is just a transitional measure towards a true condition of voluntary order. It sets the stage by making people aware that the boundaries and political entities that exist now are not set in stone. Once we get to the point where truly free polities can form, they are free to determine their own immigration policies. And yes, if I were the owner/administrator of such a polity, how a person voted in the previous order would be of interest to me. Then again, I would never use voting as a mechanism for anything the end result of which could violate rights.
I would not worry about whether or not national divorce (or anything else) is within the Overton Window, either. Just start advocating for it. To heck with living inside the Window. Be a bright light and people will follow!
Christopher, I'm in the twilight of my life (actually closer to midnight), and you are young. Most of my peers are only interested in things within their bubble, and I'm a thorn in their side as I disturb their complacency. Honestly, if I were to advocate for a divorce I might cause a stroke! A number (most?) of them are unaware that a divorce might be needed. Most say they can't worry about things they can't change.
I divide people basically into two camps: hiders and seekers. Sadly, the hiders far outnumber the seekers. I read Substack articles to widen my concepts and lessen my isolation. Thanks for turning my wheels in this most interesting conversation.
First, yes, you are making sense. And I for all intents and purposes fully agree.Pre-packaged opposition is a great way to describe it by the way. Putting aside both of our opposition to voting and elections for a second, I think if the whole electoral process wasn't rigged to keep 'third parties' out, many would jump ship. For all its flaws, the national LP at least gets some important issues right, and many of those are things principled conservatives could fully support. But there is the two party trap that far too won't step away from lest they 'throw their vote away'. One major blind spot in the so-called right IMO is that due to its 'pre-packaged' nature, the right as commonly understood is really just one half of a false binary. When the opposing ends both ultimately lead to authoritarianism, that's not real choice, but some see no other 'team' to join. Natural tribal tendencies being used against people.
And now I feel like I may not have made sense.
You made complete sense to me. Everything is as you have described it!
The question of opposition to voting and elections is an interesting one. A lot of anarchists—most, probably—would say don't vote at all. That voting validates the system. I would say something different: Don't TALK about voting as if it is good, consensual, will enable us to fix anything in any sort of durable fashion, etc. IOW, don't fall into the mythology of voting. It's not the act of actually casting a vote that hurts, its continuing to spread and believe in voting mythology. What do you think?
As I think I may have mentioned before, I'm not opposed to voting completely. Is the national ones my problem is with, mainly because people think it will change something. And never has or never will, at least not to any of our benefit. Keep it local where change can (and does often) happen.
I get the local-is-better-than-central argument, and I agree with it. Ultimately, I am opposed to voting on anything that will result in an initiation of force. Even a local government does that, so ultimately I am opposed to a system that allows that.
But I am also opposed to a system that extracts taxes by force, yet I still pay my taxes!
In my view, the most important first step is the consciousness shift of realizing the moral truths here—that all involuntary governance is morally impermissible and that democracy does not solve that problem. But if you and I and anyone else differs on the precise pathway from there to here, we're still 95% on the same page, and that is more than good enough.
(In another comment thread, I am being critiqued for "misthinking" because I say I am not opposed to quietly voting, so long as the consciousness shift is also there. It just seems to get a bit doctrinaire to focus too much on the little differences, when all the important sames are there.)
While I agree, whether one votes or not, the end result is the same cuz the state is still there and isnt going away anytime soon, but to more clarify what I mean exactly, I will refer back to the time I voted for a sheriff who ran on following state law on concealed carry permit issuance (we're shall issue), when the incumbent refused to issue unless he felt like it (maybe issue. if he liked you). Or say my local school board has some trans pushing freak on the ballot. I would most certainly vote against that person. Can only speak for myself, but I do have exceptions to my no voting rule, but they are few and far between, and is something I would only do if I felt it might return some freedom and/or sanity, such as the above examples. Tactical voting is what I refer to it as. More of a fail safe if there is literally no other option, or other means have been tried and failed.
Yes to this. It is my belief that I am only being "polled" when I vote.
I wrote more about this today, and then Libertarian Prepper offered some very provocative thoughts in the comment thread. I commend those (and also the chart he links in one of his comments) to your attention. https://christophercook.substack.com/p/overton-window-consciousness-shift-voting
Thanks, I will check it out.
I am at variance with the question. Conservatives very much distinguish between the Christian religion and the US Constitution and do not think any US foundational document is holy. Perhaps John Adams held that our government couldn't be operated by anything less than a religious and moral people because Christians do not place their trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help.
I thought of this objection and should have addressed it in the piece. I do get that conservatives make a distinction between the Constitution and the Bible. But when I make a critique of the Constitution or—Heavens forfend—question the very foundations of its legitimacy, the response I often get is very similar to the kind of response one would get by doing the same thing to the Bible. Anger. Sometimes foaming-at-the-mouth, disproportionate anger—the kind that is often directed at people who have challenged something that has been deemed to be beyond challenge. At heretics and people who are simply outside the realm of acceptable discourse. The Constitution is treated with a level of reverence that is, while not exactly the same, analogous enough. Know what I mean?
Posted this on Mastodon earlier today. Getting some interesting responses, all acting pretty much as if it is a Holy document. One suggested adding an amendment the allows execution of any elected official violates their oath, as if it wouldnt just be another ignored amendment
Oh, and thanks for sharing it on Mastadon!
Devising concepts for constitutional mechanisms that allow for punishment of officials who "violate the spirit or letter of the provisions herein"……ah yes, that's where I was about three years ago. I cannot fault anyone for not having gotten quite where we are yet…but I sure wish they'd hurry up and get here anyway!
For people who have become naturalized citizens of every other sovereign nation on the planet is is of cardinal importance the distinction of our singularly unique self governing founding documents which are NOT fungible by definition of having to swear an Oath to uphold these principles as a defining act of citizen sacred privilege reflected by the sworn allegiance to a FLAG which stands for a nation governed by a document one must swear an OATH to uphold
While I share your underlying reverence for the achievement of our Founders, I really do not feel as though I am in any way self-governing. If I were, I would not be subjected to edicts to which I do not consent. I believe they WANTED it to be self-governing, but the only mechanism they could think of (based on their knowledge of history) does not actually allow for self-government.
When you accept the citizenship of any other country , such as Canada for ex. You are required to swear allegiance to they monarch , other than USA ( which makes America - THE exceptional nation )
and legal immigrants to this exceptional nation are eternally grateful that they have been granted the freedom and Liberty to take that sworn oath to uphold and defend USA.. the binary question remains - does an ethical citizen uphold the oath or not of a document which cannot ever be fungible because it would represent a breach of contract to oathkeepers in contrast to those who would willingly breach that oath , which is why your first act of entering illegally cannot be a foundation for such lawbreakers to ever be eligible sign a non- fungible set of ideals to which legions of law abiding citizens both natural and naturalized have legally sworn to uphold and defend
Our American Constitution is not - a living breathing modifiable document and it must not ever degenerate into something of diminishing importance lest it make a mockery of every sacrifice by our brave defenders , who risk Life and limb to preserve every last WORD of those documents for US.
I adore the irrefutable logic by American scholar and in my view , a Patriot who truly understands this philosophical principle:- Dr William Bennett - who espoused his famous :- GATES principle - namely :-
- when you lift the Gates bordering our nation - which is defined as a Constitutional Republic - do the People RUN in..., or RUN OUT ..?
Other countries ruled by monarchs or dictators , flawed singular despotic humans and their ilk.. do not protect individual rights .., even places like Canada , who call themselves democracies , where Free speech - enshrined in the First amendment for US as Americans , has eroded and the concepts of individual Freedom and Liberty can only survive and thrive by the unwavering sworn Oath of its citizens .
I appreciate your patriotism and share your view that the American experiment is unique and better, and that having specific protections in the Bill of Rights better protects our rights than would be the case in its absence. As you say, we are better off in that regard than our Anglophone cousins.
That being said, my broader point is somewhat different.
The Constitution is not a contract.
A contract is voluntarily and explicitly signed by both parties. A contract deals in the exchange of something alienable (goods, property, labor).
The Constitution, by contrast, imposes a non-consensual system by force. No one (except the delegates to the Convention) has ever explicitly agreed to this. (And the Constitution was also rammed through in a rather bullying way, against the wishes of delegates and states, though that is another story.)
I did not sign any contract to be governed in this way, and neither did any other human who has lived for almost 200 years. We are told our agreement is 'tacit' and 'implied' and then the whole arrangement is forced upon us. You may like the Constitution and the system it instantiated, but you cannot deny the truth of this.
Indeed, by imposing a nonconsensual agreement by force, the Constitution violates self-ownership. Contracts deal in alienable things, and since self-ownership is inalienable, the Constitutional system pushes itself even further from being a contract. Indeed, it shares more in common in this regard with involuntary servitude than with a contract.
Look, I totally get it. I have been on the American system-defending patriotic conservative right for the bulk of my adult life. I know that what I am saying feels like yet one more attack to defend against—just as we have been defending against the endless attacks from the left. What I am saying probably gets your hackles up, as it would have mine. But what I am saying is also inescapably true. Once I saw it, I could not unsee it. What we ought to do about it is a separate question, but we ought not pretend that something is not so when it clearly is.
I am new to this topic. It's okay if you find me way off base but I want to ask you about this particular perception of reality. Can it be that the USA is in fact two "governments". One is the United States of America with a Bill of Rights and a natural man and woman. The other is the United States of America Inc that has been selling off our rights and our assets since way back when they became bankrupt. From what I have gathered since taking up the topic as a personal interest in 2022, it is my belief that we have a CEO of a corporation and not a president. It is my belief that a fictitious corporation is created on the day we are born and the seal for the USA INC (which was on our stimulus checks) is not the same as the seal for the United States of America. I could be wrong. Here is what I know is true. natural law. Some would call it God's law, some would call it natural law. Whatever it is, it is global and it is immutable. I agree with you there. We would have to be protected from being taken over by giant corporations and there needs to be accountability for both the fraud perpetuated in our court systems on a regular basis as well as the frauds perpetuated on us upon birth. (If that is all correct)
I have heard the we-are-secretly-a-corporation argument before. I have no idea whether it is true or not. Nothing would surprise me.
However, I think your natural-law argument is closer to the mark. Whether we are secretly a corporation or not, involuntary governance—even the kind the Founders gave us—is morally impermissible.
I make that argument in minute philosophical detail here. Not to send you down endless rabbit-holes of links, but this one is pretty fundamental to the whole case I make. I would love to know what you think: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/is-any-government-morally-permissible
I look forward to it. Thank you. I do feel crazy when I think these things. It's nice to have landed here. I am ready to start thinking about solutions with people. I am all for natural law, it's the only law I ever truly follow (in my mind and heart). Everything else is a negotiation in the moment because of certain constructs or "societal norms" or because of potential negative effects; in other words, "under duress". But nature is the true law. No one can change that. Whatever they try to do against nature, in the end, they loose. I do not require mind control to run my life. They have proven to be false and more harm than good. I think it's clear we don't need any more of what we have had to this point. I have been ready to scrap the whole system for a long time but am only beginning to really understand why. Before it was just intuition. Now it's a lot more knowing. Of course, I know nothing. But I know 10 times what I knew three years ago. It takes some adjusting.
We are on similar trajectories, and we are coming to similar realizations. I think a lot of people are. A new evolution is underway. And I think "solutions with people" is a good way to put it. It's coming!
So shall it be.
At one time I was one of those fools who revered the Constitution. One fundamental flaw was the lack of term limits in representatives and senators. Another amendments were too easy to accomplish in early days, but more difficult, I hope to do now.
I can't believe that the founders didn't have an understanding of human nature; therefore I must conclude the Federalists were tyrants in sheep's clothing.
Representative government would work better in a small country, but without terms limits it's a disaster. Career politicians are always corrupt.
Right now anarchy is more appealing; rules, but no rulers.
That is a fatal flaw, no term limits. Sakes alive.
Rules without rulers. Yes!
In defense of the Founders—even the Federalists—could it be that they were just products of their time? You and I have had the benefit of Hoppe and Rothbard and D. Friedman and the Tannehills and Spooner and everyone else who has come since 1800. They had no such advantage. They were taking us from HumanGovernance 1.0 (monarchy, for shorthand) to something that was virtually unknown in the modern era. Call it 2.0. Maybe, as smart as they were, the leap from 1.0 to 3.0 (anarchy, for shorthand) was just too great, both politically and cognitively…
Were they really a product of their times? Weren''t the ideas in the Constitution really radical in the 1700s? These people only knew monarchies. Just the idea espoused in the Declaration were foreign to most people. Doesn't it seem that many of our countrymen would be quite comfortable with a monarchy? Full circle?
This is an interesting question. I am not a scholar of the period, but from what I know, I would say yes and no. It was radical, but following the Enlightenment as it did, maybe not quite as radical as one might think. The 1600s was when classical-liberal ideas really got rolling (though they obviously had their roots throughout Anglophone history). They had had the English Civil Wars, the rise of Parliament, the Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights of 1689—all of those events taking place in England were divisive issues here, and even caused some sparring here. Those events would have all moved the Overton Widow far enough that by a century later, the ideals of the Declaration would be held commonly enough among Anglophones. Of course, many of them still preferred monarchy, but after the previous century, getting rid of monarchy would no longer have seemed completely insane. And even more were convinced after reading "Common Sense," of course.
I think when we expand the scope beyond Anglophones, then what you are saying becomes more true. What the Colonials did was quite radical in the grand scheme. But this change was also in the air—the French Revolution was different in character from the American, but it was still an outgrowth of the same Enlightenment zeitgeist and happened just shortly after.
Where I think you are most correct is in your assessment of people today. I think most of them have actually regressed, in terms of their understanding of liberty, from where we were in the 18th century. Too many people today would probably be just fine with some authoritarian leader, especially if he were good looking and had a lot of followers in social media.
Our ancestors had a better grasp on the principles of the Enlightenment, because they were in the air in the 17th and 18th centuries. The story of Horatio Bunce might be apocryphal, but it represents a truth about our forebears that most of us have lost: https://www.selfgovernment.us/news/not-yours-to-give-the-story-of-david-crockett-and-horatio-bunce
It's an entertaining venture to try to understand people from 200 years ago, especially the rank and file. Most of what we know was written by the elite, and their world view was formed by their own experience. I think it took certain circumstances to spur ordinary people to break away from the chains of oppression. Many serfs "loved" their lord, while a smaller number chafed from their yokes. I wonder if the percentage has changed that much.
I know the Davey Crockett story. Can you imagine the name calling and ridicule heaped upon a politician espousing such radical ideas today?
I can very much imagine, yes!
And good points on the rest. There is much we do not know. I was blown away, for example, when I read Winston Churchill's "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples." So much to learn!
Thankfully some of us are curious and still want to learn. Isn't it interesting that the more we learn, the more we are aware of our ignorance?