Brilliant post, thank you. I loved reading the “Federalist Papers”, by Madison , Hamilton and Jay...but as said the stage is changing its performance. I am into, “The Republic” by Plato...some good reads in there...it’s like what is truly going on today! Thanks, Lee
Good question. 85 essays... but short answer-not one single man today in our political system, is opportunistic, as these three men. Founding Fathers. Jay-the strong patriot, Hamilton-argued for a national banking system, and Madison-founder of the Federalist Party. All very radical men, whom, tried to better the constitution. If you have to write anonymously, then they were definitely radical...we need to shake things up. Today, society is too complacent. Times were much different, but the core remains the same. I think it’s time we start standing up like these founding fathers. They are all hero’s to me. Short answer! ☺️
Good design, to be sure, but it is failing us because 'We the People' have only periodic elections as feedback to Big Government, and now even those elections are showing clear signs of corruption.
Like the circuit breakers or fuses that protect our homes despite all the carefully designed equipment and wiring built to code, we need fast-acting protection from a Big Govt run amok.
Our state legislators have the legitimate power to override Big Govt excesses. They can begin by proclaiming their dissent, on our behalf, to excesses like multi-trillion-dollar spending bills passed at the 11th hour without review or debate.
These declarations of dissent must be followed by an amendment giving state legislators real power to force an intervention. For example, see the proposed amendment below and more discussion at https://bityl.co/CKhd
The mere presence of this amendment would restrain the excesses of Big Govt, even if it were rarely exercised.
------------------------------------------------
Amendment XXVIII (Draft)
To empower state legislatures to override the federal government
Section 1.
The several state legislatures, by a three-fifths majority vote, shall have the power to:
(1) reduce any line item in any appropriations or other spending legislation,
(2) repeal, in whole or in part, any law passed by Congress,
(3) vacate, in whole or in part, any ruling of the Supreme Court or any inferior federal court,
(4) cancel, in whole or in part, any Presidential executive order or guideline,
(5) withdraw, in whole or in part, any regulation issued by any Federal agency or department.
Section 2.
(1) In any action under this amendment, each state legislature shall have exactly one vote, and none of the actions shall be subject to federal judicial review.
(2) Each action shall become effective on the day that the three-fifths-majority requirement is met.
If I hadn’t come to the conclusions that I have reached over the last year, I would love this. But I have, and those conclusions are, in essence, these:
1. The system cannot be fixed. (I owe this understanding primarily to personal observation and reflection, and reading Hoppe.)
2. The system does not deserve to be fixed. ANY system (even ours) that subjects the individual human person to the rule of others is morally insupportable. (I came to this conclusion after 15 years of careful deconstruction of every philosophical concept undergirding the classical-liberal tradition.)
I have found the intransigent surety of anarcho-libertarians to be rather irritating, at times, but the logic of their position is nearly unassailable. I tried for the longest time to assail it and resist it, but I can no longer do so. Indeed, in my effort to do so, I ended up proving them correct.
What you suggest would help, and if we could restore something closer to what the Founders wanted, we could live happy lives. Setting aside the question of whether getting back to anything close to that is even possible, I certainly would be pleased if we could.
But even if we could, it does not solve the fundamental moral problem with any system that imposes involuntary governance and inescapable “social contracts,” and that subjects nonaggressive human persons to the rule of people whose purposes are not their own. Doing so violates human self-ownership, thus rendering any such situation to be a species of slavery.
I hear you, and I guess you're way ahead of me on this point. I concede that even the best of government has the fundamental flaw you point to .
But --
I will still willingly license (not "grant" or "abdicate") certain powers to government so that govt can do its fundamental job -- protect us from force and fraud. The good thing about a license is that it can be modified or even withdrawn. Article V is there for that purpose. Big Govt has now become a *source* of force and fraud, so its license *ought* to be modified.
James Madison said something like "If men were angels, we wouldn't need government." Until that day, we do need government, govt regrettably does need a license that they *must* not abuse, and we do need remedies when they do abuse it.
Even with that government, we can still be free -- the poet Robert Frost once defined freedom as "comfort in the harness". That applies here, IMHO. But more and more, Big Govt is now plainly abusing its license, and We the People need to use every remedy that the Framers left us to get back to the feeling of "comfort" that most of us once had (more or less).
It is a perennial problem that the energetic evangelist will ply his conversion efforts with a sometimes-off-putting zeal—especially the recent convert. I have recently been at least occasionally guilty of this. With that as caveat, please accept my response in the spirit of rational inquiry in which it is intended…
Do you believe, in your heart of hearts (or in your mind of minds), that it is a license? Do they PtB see it that way? Their palliative rhetoric notwithstanding, do they act that way? Did they ever, really? And if, somehow, we were to convince enough people that it once was a license but it isn’t now, and that now we must bring the PtB to heel, do you actually believe it would work? And if it did, in that we got one amendment through, how long do we believe it would last?
Recently, I wrote this to some colleagues:
“The Founders gave us a nation based on all those notions. How's it working out?
Within a couple of years, Adams—a great man!—was pushing the Alien and Sedition Acts, and his party was using last-minute lame-duck patronage to cram the government full of Federalists.
A decade later, slavery, which was supposed to expire, didn't.
A few decades after that, the notion that the states had created the Union (rather than the reverse) was destroyed.
A few decades after that, it was ruled that growing wheat on your own land constituted "interstate commerce."
A few decades after that, the Military Industrial Complex and intelligence establishment started running the country. No matter who you elect, they win. We were lied into the Spanish-American War, Vietnam War, and Iraq War and intentionally provoked the Korean War. Millions die, but they get what they want. Just like they're getting it now in Ukraine.
And now, people of a particular race are being attacked from the seat of government and child-mutilators are being protected by the law.“
That was just a quick, off-the-top-of-my-head list of how quickly the spirit of the Founders’ vision was compromised by its practice. I am sure could spend all day listing more examples. Can this slide not only be arrested but reversed? How many lifetimes would that take? Can we make anything other than marginal and temporary fixes at this point?
And that of course returns us to the salient moral question of whether any system that is, at its fundamental moral core, a species of slavery ought to continue in any form. If you concede that fundamental moral problem, then am I safe in assuming that you currently believe (as I did, until about nine months ago!) that in a world full of flawed choices, it is a necessary evil, for the alternative would be worse? And if that is the case, then what if you were presented with an alternative—a way that order could be maintained without empowering the involuntary rule by some over others? Would that alternative help to change your mind?
Brilliant post, thank you. I loved reading the “Federalist Papers”, by Madison , Hamilton and Jay...but as said the stage is changing its performance. I am into, “The Republic” by Plato...some good reads in there...it’s like what is truly going on today! Thanks, Lee
How would you say it is like what is going on today?
Good question. 85 essays... but short answer-not one single man today in our political system, is opportunistic, as these three men. Founding Fathers. Jay-the strong patriot, Hamilton-argued for a national banking system, and Madison-founder of the Federalist Party. All very radical men, whom, tried to better the constitution. If you have to write anonymously, then they were definitely radical...we need to shake things up. Today, society is too complacent. Times were much different, but the core remains the same. I think it’s time we start standing up like these founding fathers. They are all hero’s to me. Short answer! ☺️
Long answer tomm...
Good design, to be sure, but it is failing us because 'We the People' have only periodic elections as feedback to Big Government, and now even those elections are showing clear signs of corruption.
Like the circuit breakers or fuses that protect our homes despite all the carefully designed equipment and wiring built to code, we need fast-acting protection from a Big Govt run amok.
Our state legislators have the legitimate power to override Big Govt excesses. They can begin by proclaiming their dissent, on our behalf, to excesses like multi-trillion-dollar spending bills passed at the 11th hour without review or debate.
These declarations of dissent must be followed by an amendment giving state legislators real power to force an intervention. For example, see the proposed amendment below and more discussion at https://bityl.co/CKhd
The mere presence of this amendment would restrain the excesses of Big Govt, even if it were rarely exercised.
------------------------------------------------
Amendment XXVIII (Draft)
To empower state legislatures to override the federal government
Section 1.
The several state legislatures, by a three-fifths majority vote, shall have the power to:
(1) reduce any line item in any appropriations or other spending legislation,
(2) repeal, in whole or in part, any law passed by Congress,
(3) vacate, in whole or in part, any ruling of the Supreme Court or any inferior federal court,
(4) cancel, in whole or in part, any Presidential executive order or guideline,
(5) withdraw, in whole or in part, any regulation issued by any Federal agency or department.
Section 2.
(1) In any action under this amendment, each state legislature shall have exactly one vote, and none of the actions shall be subject to federal judicial review.
(2) Each action shall become effective on the day that the three-fifths-majority requirement is met.
If I hadn’t come to the conclusions that I have reached over the last year, I would love this. But I have, and those conclusions are, in essence, these:
1. The system cannot be fixed. (I owe this understanding primarily to personal observation and reflection, and reading Hoppe.)
2. The system does not deserve to be fixed. ANY system (even ours) that subjects the individual human person to the rule of others is morally insupportable. (I came to this conclusion after 15 years of careful deconstruction of every philosophical concept undergirding the classical-liberal tradition.)
I have found the intransigent surety of anarcho-libertarians to be rather irritating, at times, but the logic of their position is nearly unassailable. I tried for the longest time to assail it and resist it, but I can no longer do so. Indeed, in my effort to do so, I ended up proving them correct.
What you suggest would help, and if we could restore something closer to what the Founders wanted, we could live happy lives. Setting aside the question of whether getting back to anything close to that is even possible, I certainly would be pleased if we could.
But even if we could, it does not solve the fundamental moral problem with any system that imposes involuntary governance and inescapable “social contracts,” and that subjects nonaggressive human persons to the rule of people whose purposes are not their own. Doing so violates human self-ownership, thus rendering any such situation to be a species of slavery.
We have to evolve to the next level.
I hear you, and I guess you're way ahead of me on this point. I concede that even the best of government has the fundamental flaw you point to .
But --
I will still willingly license (not "grant" or "abdicate") certain powers to government so that govt can do its fundamental job -- protect us from force and fraud. The good thing about a license is that it can be modified or even withdrawn. Article V is there for that purpose. Big Govt has now become a *source* of force and fraud, so its license *ought* to be modified.
James Madison said something like "If men were angels, we wouldn't need government." Until that day, we do need government, govt regrettably does need a license that they *must* not abuse, and we do need remedies when they do abuse it.
Even with that government, we can still be free -- the poet Robert Frost once defined freedom as "comfort in the harness". That applies here, IMHO. But more and more, Big Govt is now plainly abusing its license, and We the People need to use every remedy that the Framers left us to get back to the feeling of "comfort" that most of us once had (more or less).
It is a perennial problem that the energetic evangelist will ply his conversion efforts with a sometimes-off-putting zeal—especially the recent convert. I have recently been at least occasionally guilty of this. With that as caveat, please accept my response in the spirit of rational inquiry in which it is intended…
Do you believe, in your heart of hearts (or in your mind of minds), that it is a license? Do they PtB see it that way? Their palliative rhetoric notwithstanding, do they act that way? Did they ever, really? And if, somehow, we were to convince enough people that it once was a license but it isn’t now, and that now we must bring the PtB to heel, do you actually believe it would work? And if it did, in that we got one amendment through, how long do we believe it would last?
Recently, I wrote this to some colleagues:
“The Founders gave us a nation based on all those notions. How's it working out?
Within a couple of years, Adams—a great man!—was pushing the Alien and Sedition Acts, and his party was using last-minute lame-duck patronage to cram the government full of Federalists.
A decade later, slavery, which was supposed to expire, didn't.
A few decades after that, the notion that the states had created the Union (rather than the reverse) was destroyed.
A few decades after that, it was ruled that growing wheat on your own land constituted "interstate commerce."
A few decades after that, the Military Industrial Complex and intelligence establishment started running the country. No matter who you elect, they win. We were lied into the Spanish-American War, Vietnam War, and Iraq War and intentionally provoked the Korean War. Millions die, but they get what they want. Just like they're getting it now in Ukraine.
And now, people of a particular race are being attacked from the seat of government and child-mutilators are being protected by the law.“
That was just a quick, off-the-top-of-my-head list of how quickly the spirit of the Founders’ vision was compromised by its practice. I am sure could spend all day listing more examples. Can this slide not only be arrested but reversed? How many lifetimes would that take? Can we make anything other than marginal and temporary fixes at this point?
And that of course returns us to the salient moral question of whether any system that is, at its fundamental moral core, a species of slavery ought to continue in any form. If you concede that fundamental moral problem, then am I safe in assuming that you currently believe (as I did, until about nine months ago!) that in a world full of flawed choices, it is a necessary evil, for the alternative would be worse? And if that is the case, then what if you were presented with an alternative—a way that order could be maintained without empowering the involuntary rule by some over others? Would that alternative help to change your mind?