I make no attempt to hide the fact that secession is my preferred approach for returning to a constitutional republic.  At this stage in our history, the divisions in our republic seem too wide and too deep to quickly heal.  Rather than allow the situation to further degrade to the point of dictatorship or outright civil war, it seem to me better to let those states/regions with significantly divergent motivations go their own ways, each pursuing what it thinks in its own best interest.  After all, in a truly free society, which is my goal, each party has an equal right to its own ideas as to what is best.  However, in this scenario, each party would be in the position of imposing its vision of what is best on itself, rather than on its peers.

I am convinced that the very best way to help a people understand what they truly believe is to let them live by those beliefs.  For instance, if you think slavery is a great idea, then confirm it by becoming a slave.

I would like to think that, after some period of experimentation, the several states would come back together into some manner of commonwealth or, perhaps even a union of sovereign states (what a novel idea!).  Let’s look at it:

PRO:

1. This approach provides the maximum freedom for everyone, allowing each state or region to decide for itself the manner and form of its government.
2. There should be nothing to prevent like-minded states/regions from forming a union or partnership with each other.  Indeed, even merging into a single state, if that is what they collectively desire.
3. This approach would be nothing more than the physical manifestation of a breakup that has already happened in principle.
4. The time is right as evidenced by the 20 states (at this writing) who are asserting their 10th amendment rights.  My assumption being that secession is the only thing that will secure these rights for the states.

CON:

1. I am making the huge, possibly incorrect, assumption that the state I “land in” after secession would be inclined toward the kind of government I prefer – specifically, a constitutional republic.  There is no guarantee this would be the case for me, or for anyone else.  Without doubt, some of us would be required to either move to a state more suited to our desires, or stay where we are, under a government we do not approve of – hardly an improvement from our current situation.
2. We have no assurance that our enemies would sit idly by while we suffer the pains of dissolution.  They might see it as a perfect time to seek our conquest and/or physical destruction.

ISSUES:

1. What happens to the immense military capability currently controlled by the federal government?  In particular, how would we handle our nuclear arsenal?  In a perfect world, we would find some equitable way to divide it up.  However, were this a perfect world, we would not be entertaining these ideas to begin with.  We know from our experience with the dissolution of marriage that the division of what was commonly-held property is contentious at best.
2. How might we address those who end up in a state/region they don’t belong in, but who have such property or business holding as to make the move to another state overly difficult and/or harmful to others (i.e. employees)?
3. The last attempt at secession ignited a civil war.  Even with the changed circumstances, nothing prevents this happening again.

ASSESSMENT:

Among a list of options, none of which is truly desirable (including the status quo), I see this as the most palatable approach, certainly the fairest to all concerned.  This might well lead to another civil war.  I am inclined to accept this risk in the sure knowledge that doing nothing will lead to armed conflict or slavery.  At least in a civil war, we will know what we are fighting for – therefore would know clearly when we have won or lost, making it time to quit the conflict.  Contrast this with internal armed conflicts that are based on vague, general disagreements and emotion.  In such cases, none of the combatants actually knows when something important has been decided, making such conflicts tend to go on until everything and everyone have been destroyed.

Bottom line, I urge a combined approach where we simultaneously persue voting our way back to constitutional government, organizing a constitutional convention, and seceeding from the union, gradually concentrating our energies and resources on whichever of these is showing the most tangible progress.  All the while, keeping our guns oiled and our ammunition dry just in case.

Like everything I write, this essay begs for your comments.

Tweet This Post 

Striking has long been used in Europe as a method of putting pressure on government.  With varying degrees of success. The two types of
strike that come immediately to mind are:

• A tax strike – that is, a unified refusal to pay taxes, and,
• A general strike – that is, a unified refusal, on the part of the productive, to perform productive work.

In the United States, the income tax withholding system makes an income tax strike impractical, and this is the only type of tax the
ordinary citizen can use effectively against the federal government.  Most of the taxes ordinary citizens have direct control over
affect state and local governments and, at this moment, these are not the target of our efforts. Given this, the following will be
directed only toward the general, or productivity strike.  Let’s look at it:

PRO:

1. General strikes can be very effective, given adequate participation.  It is very hard for government to fight back against a general strike – giving the ordinary citizen the upper hand in a situation where that is rarely the case.
2. General strikes do not depend on support from the “takers”, slackers, and other parasites on society.
3. General strikes can be used to very quickly bring an entire economy to a standstill. Even those who did not intend to participate soon find themselves unintentional participants as various enterprises shut down due to the lack of essential goods and services.
4. General strikes very quickly deny the government the goods, services, and cash flow that are needed to operate, thus rendering government virtually powerless.

CON:

1. General strikes also very quickly affect the strikers and other innocent bystanders.  Without some advance planning and stockpiling, the strikers may well find themselves under even more pressure than that they have brought upon government.
2. In the present economy, it is very hard to ask already financially stressed workers to voluntarily give up what, for most, is their only source of income.
3. General strikes too often lead to general mayhem, violence, looting and the like.

ISSUES:

1. Labor unions are the best equipped to organize and implement strikes.  However, given that most unions are socialist entities, often “thugocracies”  themselves, they are very unlikely to help ordinary citizens resist socialization.
2. It is not at all clear to what extent the armed forces of the United States would, if so ordered, sustain fire upon unarmed citizens. My present assessment is that most would not, especially after witnessing it actually happening in the early stages of a conflict.  However, this can quickly change as command is passed from patriots to thugs.

ASSESSMENT:
Possibly viable but not at all an attractive approach.  The odds are simply too great that it would cause undue harm to the very people
whose freedom it presumes to regain.  The possibility of a general collapse of civilized conduct, especially in the inner cities, is already too great.  A general strike might well be all that is needed to set off such a collapse.

One might well ask how this is different from armed resistance (which we will discuss in a future essay)?  To my mind, the difference is
that armed resistance suggests some level of organization, some clear tactical and strategic goals, a clearly defined “enemy”, and
intentional limitations on collateral damage.  A general societal collapse suggests mindless violence and pointless chaos.

Tweet This Post 

Elsewhere in this blog, I mentioned the possibility of a constitutional convention http://www.troy.thoughtsaloud.com/2009/02/01/its-a-social-disease/.  Certainly the use of a constitutional convention sounds inviting – but, how viable is it really?  Let’s look at it.

PRO:

1. It is a constitutionally approved method of altering (indeed, of rewriting) our Constitution.
2. Two thirds of the legislatures of the 50 States must call for a convention to be held.  By my count, that would be 34.  At this writing, 32 states are on record as calling for a convention.  In theory, we need only 2 more (discussed further below).
3. Were a convention called, each States delegation gets 1 vote toward ratification of the new constitution and a 3/4 majority is required.  This would effectively nullify the huge voting majorities in some of the most liberal states, giving the so-called “red states” an actual majority, despite our lower population density.

CON:

1. We can be sure that the power elite would do everything in their considerable power to: first, prevent  convention being held, and, failing that, to try to load the delegations with delegates that can be persuaded, by threat or bribe, to prevent a return to a constitutional republic.
2. Most of the existing calls for a constitutional convention date from several years ago when a balanced budget amendment was all the rage.  We can be sure that the power elite would do everything they could to have these earlier calls declared null and void – even though there is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that they are.
3. Were a convention held, there is no guarantee the delegates would design a new constitution that is to our liking.  If the power elite have their way, we might actually end up with a new constitution that prescribes a socialist pseudo-republic.

ISSUES:

1. As suggested above, calls for a constitutional convention will not be looked upon favorably by the power elite current in charge.  These people are dedicated to turning the USA into a socialist state that will be part of a one-world government (run by them of course).
2. Given all that has transpired to date, we cannot expect a lawful, constitutional response to a call for a convention from our current government.  A concerted effort to force the issue could well be the spark that ignites another civil war.

ASSESSMENT:

This is a potentially dangerous approach that is bound to cause some level of political, if not physical, upheaval.  But, given the situation at hand, probably still worth the effort, especially if pursued in tandem with other approaches.  At the least, a serious call for a constitutional convention would give our would-be masters something serious to think about and could well cause them to use time and resources that otherwise would be used to further the cause of socialism.

And, if many of us are serious in our intent to resist a socialist dictatorship, there will be armed conflict before the issue is settled, no matter what approaches are tried.  In fact, sparking the civil war now, before widespread weapons restrictions are put into effect, might be to our advantage, however sad the process itself would be for so many innocent Americans.  But, hasn’t the tree of freedom always been watered with the blood of patriots?  Can it ever be otherwise?  At the end of the day, the cost of freedom is consistent with its value.

It sure would be nice to see some other points of view.

Tweet This Post 

Why not just use our voting franchise to vote the republic back to constitutional rule?  Let’s look at it…

PRO:

1. It is, presumably, still possible – at least in most regions of the country (a few regions being so corrupt that an honest result of the voting process is very much in doubt).
2. It is the constitutionally approved, traditional way to change the direction of government in the USA.
3. Historically, congressional elections better represent differences in the “will of the people” because the voting districts are smaller making many of them free from the overwhelming “inner city” votes in the major metropolitan areas.

CON:

1. We were voted into this mess.
2. Those who, in one way or another, are dependent on government for their sustenance, constitute a voting majority in many voting precincts.
3. It is two years until the next congressional elections and four years until the next presidential election.  A lot of harm can be done in two to four years.
4. The court system is a very real part of the problem in that it has totally failed to keep its collective oath to protect and defend the Constitution.  When the courts went -from- ensuring the acts of the other 2 branches of government were consistent with constitutional rule -to- constantly “interpreting” and “reinterpreting” the intent of a “living” constitution and legislating from the bench, it became an enemy of constitutional rule, rather than its enforcer.  I raise this point because replacing a meaningful portion of the federal court system, via the voting process, will take many years.  A wholesale impeachment of errant judges is too much to expect.

ISSUES:

1. Who do we vote for?  That is, where will we get viable candidates who support a constitutional republic?  It is quite obvious that most Democrats do not fit this description, and, the experience of the GW Bush administration shows many Republicans to be no better.
2. Even if we get the kind of candidates we need, how do we know they will stay that way?  There are several very powerful factors working against an office holder remaining true to his/her commitments.  These include the seduction of power plus the more practical fact that, when plunder is the rule rather than the exception, a legislator may honestly feel she/he is cheating his constituents by not going along to secure their fair share.
3. How can we push secondary issues to the background so that they do not polarize, ergo split, the votes of people who actually agree on the primary issues?  Stated another way, with the very survival of free markets in a constitutional republic at stake, issues like abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools, etc., are really not that important, even though many voters have strong opinions about them.  If we lose the freedom to choose, our preferences on these secondary issues will be beside the point!

ASSESSMENT:

While highly desirable, changing the current direction of government through the voting process is problematic.  So long as the franchise is extended to slackers and political morons, voting is less than a totally reliable approach.  I suggest that this approach should be seriously pursued, but with realistic expectations -and- with other approaches being pursued in parallel.

Tweet This Post 

As I review the options open to us for saving our country, it seemed best to start with the one most people are prone to take.  That is, just wait around hoping things will get better.  After all, has not the chosen one himself embraced “hope” as a way toward the future?  Don’t get me wrong… there is nothing whatever wrong with hoping for a better tomorrow.  But there are two ways this can be done:

1. You can hope for the best while doing nothing whatever to make any difference, or,
2. You can be actively engaged in whatever action you think best, all the time hoping for a good outcome.  I am more inclined to call this “positive expectations” rather than “hope”.

This essay is about the first kind – the “I hope someone else does something” kind of hope.  Let’s look at it:

PRO:

1. It is by far the easiest path to take and, as indicated above, it is the path most of our citizens will take anyway.

CON:

1. With all due respect to my religious friends, there is no rational basis for expecting this to work.  If mere hope would work, how did we get into this mess to begin with?
2. By the time one realizes that this approach is not working, it will be too late in the game for any meaningful alternative.

ASSESSMENT:

Not a viable approach.

Well, that was simple enough – and, a good warm up.  Should any of you disagree, or want to expand on my analysis, please comment.  Next we will get into the realm of those things that might actually work.  Stay tuned.

Tweet This Post