There is a lot of chatter on the media these last few days about the (supposedly) ill chosen gifts that Obama has given the Queen and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.  The consensus seems to be that the Obamas just don’t have much experience selecting appropriate gifts.

This explanation simply does not get it.

We are talking about the POTUS here.  Do you have any idea the size of the staff supporting this man?  Do any of you actually believe that Barack took a break from his rock star appearances to stop by the local WalMart, made this purchase himself, then went back to the White House to load it with songs and film clips?  Get real.

This man has available all the expertise he needs to do anything that needs to be done in the world of diplomatic protocol.  Much of it having served in previous administrations.

I submit that both of these incidents were quite intentional, indeed, were calculated to have an effect.  Since I am not an insider, and , obviously lack the ability to read minds, I can only speculate on the underlying intent.  However, I can offer some good guesses.  In my opinion, there are 2 obvious benefits, for the Obama administration from doing this:

1. To a degree, it detracts media and citizen attention from the financial insanity unfolding before our very eyes.
2. More important, it ridicules an essential partner in our former attempts to preserve freedom in the world.  Particularly, it ridicules an important ally of the Bush administration.  One that is still trying to help us in Afghanistan, the war front the Obamanation says needs more troops!

Is there not a clear pattern here?  So far, the Obama administration has offered to improve relations with virtually every government known to hate us, known to desire our destruction, while, at the same time, going out of their way to offend our most important, most powerful ally.

No my friends, this was no innocent gaff.  It is part of a plan to reduce America to just another weak state ruled by a one-world government.

The time to wake up and smell the oppression is now!  Soon, the administration will be so powerful that it will be impossible to resist.  And, when I say SOON, I mean it.  This process is going forward at a speed that surprises even a cynic like me.

Send your tea bags and go to the tea parties.  Then go home and start working with your neighbors to form/reinforce a local militia.

Or, you can just sit there and watch your freedom disappear, as you moan: “if we only had term limits”; “if we only had (you fill it in)”; “why doesn’t somebody do something?”; “why doesn’t the government fix itself?”.

As they take away everything you have worked for, I suggest you also moan to your new masters “why me?  I didn’t do anything”.  At least you will have the comfort of having been right about something.

Tweet This Post 

As everyone knows, in America we have 2 prominent political parties: The Democrat Party (a.k.a. “Dems”) and the Republican Party (a.k.a. “GOP”).

Particularly in recent years, both these parties have let us down.  By not doing what they promised and by doing what they promised not to do.  And, by presenting us with second-rate candidates, often candidates that nobody really wants in office — although many still feel compelled to vote for what they consider “the lesser of two evils”, lest their votes be “wasted”.

So, what are political parties really all about, and, why do we have them?  Indeed, do we even need them?  Let’s analyze a bit:

For starters, I submit that “Political Party” is just a more palatable name for “Political Machine”.  How many of us instinctively feel distaste when we hear or read the term “Machine Politics”?  How many of us, when confronted with the term, immediately envision such things as: ward healing (community activism); ballot box stuffing; voter fraud (dead people “voting”, people voting multiple times, etc.); voter intimidation by thugs working for the “political machine”; vote buying and other forms of bribery?

The truth is that political parties exist for their own benefit, not for the benefit of the voters or the nation as a whole.  Surprising to many, Political parties are not a part of our constitutional government.  They are private businesses, and they should be treated as such — obliged to obey laws, subject to anti-trust rules, and taxed, just like any other business.  Wait, you say, at least they are not for profit businesses.  Right.  And the Pope is a Muslim.

I contend that our present Democrat/Republican duopoly actually harms the political process in several important ways:

1. They use their power, power they have seized, to exclude additional political parties from meaningful participation in the process.  For this, they should be brought up on anti-trust violations.
2. Each of the duopoly parties present voters with what I call a “package deal” (they call it a “platform”).  In voting for candidates of either party, you vote for their entire “package”, even if you have significant objection to parts of it.  Given the 2 party limit, most voters are very likely to have such objections to both party “packages”.  Let me use myself as an example.  I am libertarian in my political leaning.  As such, I tend to be fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and favor small, limited government.  Should I try to support the GOP, I am turned off by the attempts at social engineering and by the influence that religion has in the party.  Should I try to support the Dems, I gag on their wish to grow government and to throw money, my money, at every conceivable problem.  Should I try to support the Libertarian Party (which I do), I am marginalized because the duopoly keeps that party, and a number of others, from full participation in the political process.  However, I suspect my political views are very similar to those of a majority of Americans, if only they were given the opportunity to express those views.
3. They use their power to keep good candidates from becoming viable candidates, simply because many good candidates do not want to associate themselves with certain of the platform “planks” of the duopoly.
4. Our political process has begun to resemble that of most communist countries.  They allow only 1 viable party (the Communist Party) while we allow only 2 viable parties (the duopoly).  Hence, there is only a 1 party difference in what those with a choke-hold on the political processes of the two systems will allow – much too close for my comfort.
5. The idea that our elections are open and honest is a myth.  The notion that there are fundamental differences between the duopoly parties is rapidly becoming a myth as well.

What can be done about this mess?  A lot!  First, it is not logical to propose that the duopoly parties actually be disallowed.  Not in a country that prizes and protects the right of free assembly.  But, we can seriously limit their duopoly power in a number of ways, including:

1. Remove the straight party ticket selection from all voting devices.  All this does is make it easier to buy or coerce the votes of the uninformed (they only have to remember one simple thing to do when they get to the polls).
2. Remove party designations from voting devices for the individual races.  This should have the effect of forcing voters to vote for candidates, not for parties.  If you were too dumb to write down the names of the candidates you want to vote for before coming to the polls, or did not even know who the candidates were to begin with… well, I guess that would just be too damn bad would it not?
3. Level the playing field for access to the process.  For instance, if the Green Party has to petition to get on a given ballot, then the Democrat and Republican parties should have to as well.  The notion that the duopoly parties have some natural right to access while all others must work for it is nonsense.  Likewise, all candidates that have qualified to be on the ballot should have equal access to any and all public debates between peer candidates, these debates being little more than free campaign advertising anyway.
4. Treat the organized parties – all of them – like the business entities they are.  That is, make them follow the same laws and rules that other businesses are subject to.
5. Add the new selection “None of the above” to ballots for all elected offices.
6. Add a new amendment to the US Constitution that says “Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of a political party”.

If we intend to take back control of our constitutional republic, then a logical first step is to take back control of the process by which those who govern are selected.

Get mad, get involved and don’t take it anymore!!  Demand change that will make a real difference.

If anyone reading this has good reasons why the two party system, as it currently exists, should be preserved, I would be most interested in hearing them.

Tweet This Post 

There is a lot of chatter in the media lately on the subject of self interest.  A.K.A. greed.

On one side, there are the Objectivists (like me) as well as noted economists (like the late Milton Friedman – view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A).  Those in this camp claim that self interest is the motive power that makes a free economy work, in turn delivering the goods and services required for our amazing standard of living.

On the other side, there are those, mostly liberals and socialists, who claim that unrestrained greed is the root of all economic evil.  That it is the reason for the income/wealth disparity in America, that it causes evil companies (especially the CEO’s) to cheat and steal from us to satisfy their endless greed.

Which side is right?  Both are.  Self interest definitely is the motive force of a free economy, yet, in the form of simple greed, it can also destroy a free economy.  How can both be true at the same time?  Simple.  When self interest is enlightened, it is a force for good.  When it is not enlightened, i.e. is simple greed, it can be a force for destruction.  What is the difference?  Let’s analyze:

First, what do we mean by enlightened?  Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines enlightenment as:

1. freed from ignorance and misinformation
2. based on full comprehension of the problems involved

In my simple terms, it means understanding things – in the case of self interest, it means understanding the full effects of one’s actions.   By contrast, simple greed means acting without any regard to the harm done to others by one’s actions.  Let’s try a simple example:

Imagine I own a company that makes a medicine that all people must have in order to say alive.  I have a monopoly on this medicine so  I can expect a huge market.  And, this fits well with my self interest which is to sell as much of my miracle drug as possible, to feed my own profits.  There are a couple of ways I might approach my captive marketplace.

First, let’s use the simple greed approach.  I charge whatever I can, without regard to the economic damage it does to those who can ill afford my prices, without regard to the many of will die because they simply cannot come up with the money to pay me.  What will be the likely result?  First, I will get very rich, at least for a while – as will those who invested in my company.  Second, I will do obvious damage to the society I am part of.  So much that my “customers” are likely to rebel, most likely turning to government to regulate my prices, possibly nationalize my business.  In other words, my own greed is very likely to severely limit my business, ergo limiting the income I can make from it and causing my investors to lose part or all of their investments.

Then, lets use the enlightened self interest approach.  I charge a price that will cover my development and manufacturing costs and leave me a nice profit.  I make arrangements to use some of those profits to help those who can’t really afford my product.  What will be the likely result?  First, I will get rich, as will those who invested in my company.  Those whose lives are extended by my product will be helped — and, because of this extended life, will be around to buy from me for an extended time.  Because of the good citizenship my company demonstrates, it is likely to have a long life, continuing to enrich me and my investors while delivering something essential to my customers.

I could have framed my simplistic example any number of ways, but the point would still be the same.  The point being that it is the process, the “game” if you prefer, that is important.  To have a definite winner or loser means that the “game” has ended.  Yet, when the game ends, we are all worse off.  Me because of lost income, you because of loss of access to something you want or need.  Clearly, it is in all our interests that the “game” go on forever.  For this to happen means we all must be motivated to continue the “game”.  This happens only when all of the “players” perceive themselves better off for playing the “game” than they would otherwise be.  Put in even simpler terms, it means we all stay in the “game” for the simple reason that we want to.  That is, that we are free people, exercising our freedom to choose, in a free marketplace.

Which brings us to the definition of enlightened self interest (from Wikipedia):

“Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest.”

“In contrast to enlightened self-interest is simple greed or the concept of “unenlightened self-interest”, in which it is argued that when most or all persons act according to their own myopic selfishness, that the group suffers loss as a result of conflict, decreased efficiency because of lack of cooperation, and the increased expense each individual pays for the protection of their own interests. If a typical individual in such a group is selected at random, it is not likely that this person will profit from such a group ethic.

Some individuals might profit, in a material sense, from a philosophy of greed, but it is believed by proponents of enlightened self-interest that these individuals constitute a small minority and that the large majority of persons can expect to experience a net personal loss from a philosophy of simple unenlightened selfishness.

Unenlightened self-interest can result in the tragedy of the commons.”

Well, that was enlightening, was it not?  Is it not true that each of us sees examples of both kinds of self interest/greed all around us?  And, it is not too extreme to suggest that, for the moment, the greed crowd is winning.  But, as discussed above, when the greed crowd starts “winning” this means the “game” is nearing its end.

So, you ask, why is there not more of this enlightened self interest?  Because it requires the ability to reason — to take in information and process it with critical thought to come up with rational answers.  The celebrated “dumbing down” of America works for just the opposite.  Can it be a real surprise that simple greed is becoming the norm?  Especially when you stop to consider that your own government is, by far, the greatest practitioner of simple greed the world has ever seen.  No, it was not meant to be that way, but that is the way it has become.  Because we let it.  Us, we the people, we sat on our hind ends, watching meaningless sports and mindless TV shows, while our government was perverted into the atrocity it has become.

I ask again, why is it that a CEO, who genuinely earns say $10 million, a CEO who is instrumental in providing thousands of jobs, is demagogued as a greedy, evil person while a sports star, who can barely sign his/her own name, is paid the same for delivering nothing whatever of value to civilization, squanders it all on drugs, and “bling”, and nobody complains?

I say, get mad, then get educated.   (Yes – you.  Sure you attended a major university but does that make you actually educated?  Think again.)

Tweet This Post 

Like many Americans, my first introduction to the concept of rights was in the 60’s, when the word, and the notion, seemed to dominate everything.  Indeed, the notion of rights, in my opinion, has been taken far beyond reason, such that rights can now be “created”, seemingly out of thin air, causing me to wonder if we even know what a “right” really is.  Let’s analyze a bit…

For my own purposes, I divide “rights” into two broad groups.  The first I call natural rights, the other I call artificial rights.

Natural rights, I consider the real thing.  These are the rights that Mr Jefferson called “unalienable” and “endowed by (our) creator”.  Not being in the creator business, I see them as rights each person has, simply due to the fact of their existence as a living creature.  Everyone has these rights, has always had them, and will always have them.  For sure, there are human forces that interfere, in varying degrees, with our ability to exercise these rights, but the rights themselves are still there.

A key thing to remember is that natural rights do not come from government.  In fact, I contend that no government has ever had, or will ever have, the power to grant true rights to anyone.  If we are diligent, governments can be constructed to help us protect and preserve our natural rights.  What is far more likely is that governments will intrude on our natural rights – even those governments originally constructed to do just the opposite.  In my thinking, a primary difference between good government and bad government is the degree to which a government intrudes on, or curtails, the natural rights of its citizens.

So, what are these natural rights?  Mr Jefferson listed 3 examples:  “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.  There are myriad others that one might add, including the right to to the fruits of one’s own labor, the right of self determination, etc.  I will go so far as to suggest that one’s natural rights include the right to do whatever one wishes to do, so long as what we do does not impede others in the exercise of their own natural rights.

It is true that most of us voluntarily limit or curtail certain of our natural rights because the perceived value of the order, safety, or other advantage gained by curtailing the right is greater than not doing so.  A good example is that most of us gladly curtail our right to drive wherever and however we might choose, in return for the safety and convenience that comes from sensible traffic rules.  Likewise we curtail our freedom of speech such that it does not include yelling fire in a crowded building, we curtail our right to keep and bear arms such that we forgo the right to fire a gun without regard to who or what the bullet might hit.

But, if we are wise, there are very definite limits to our willingness to curtail our rights.  In all cases, the benefits to ourselves from the curtailment should clearly outweigh the benefits to ourselves of keeping the right intact.  In other words, I should only agree to curtailment of a right because it makes rational sense to me that it is in my own best interest to do so, not because someone else “feels” it might be a good idea.

I think it goes without saying that many of us have become lax in this regard as so many of our natural rights have been curtailed, to varying degrees, without needed protest from “we the people”.  And, I fear we will soon discover that is is much easier to guard a right that to recover its free exercise once it has been curtailed.

So, what about those artificial rights?  First, let me suggest that they are not rights at all.  Usually, they are privileges, advantages, or silly notions created through the exercise of power.  Most often governmental power.  A good example is the so-called  “right to vote”.  Clearly, this is a privilege.  A privilege that exists only because some governmental structure exists (else, what would there be to vote about?).  Another example is the so-called “right to a living wage”.   While it is very noble to want that everyone could earn a living wage, to pretend there is such a “right” is the sort of silliness that could only come from a pandering government.

Then there are those “artificial rights” that pose a real danger to our freedom.  One timely example is the so-called “right to health care”.  Since health care is a commodity that must be paid for, and, since some users of the health care system choose to be too poor to pay, this so-called “right” is actually a license for the government to confiscate the fruits of one person’s productive labor, to be used to make up for another person’s failure to be productive enough to pay for the health care they use.  By what leap of fantastical thinking can the  willful violation of one person’s natural rights, by the implied use of force, in order to provide an advantage to another, be called a “right”?  If I seriously called a cat a dog, you might accurately think I was deluded.  Yet we allow our government to conduct plunder, in the name of “rights” and too few of us even question it.  Does this mean I want to withhold health care from the poor?  No it does not.  I think the American people are, for the most part, very generous and would take care of such situations willingly and voluntarily, without the imposition of government force or plunder.

Lastly, how can one reasonably separate natural rights from artificial rights?  Simple.  If a supposed right exists only because of government, it is artificial, ergo, not a right at all.  Natural rights are like the universe itself — they simply exist without apparent cause.  Governments can interfere with your exercise of your natural rights, but, no government can create a right any more than a government can create wealth.  To believe otherwise is dangerous to your continued freedom.

Tweet This Post 

I think it is a healthy exercise, especially in times like the present, to stop and think about how much we trust each other.

It is quite easy to be aware of who you don’t trust.  After all, they no doubt earned your mistrust through some act of word of deed which left a sensitive spot on our psyche.  For instance, it is very easy to mistrust our government, given the lies we have been told, the treasure they have plundered, and the freedoms they have curtailed.

Likewise, some businesses earn our mistrust by failing to deliver the goods and services you were led to expect — or by failing to stand behind them when something goes wrong.  Or, worst of all, luring us into outright scams.

We mistrust specific individuals with whom we have personal contact, for any number of reasons, real or imagined.

If we dwell on examples like those above, we could think of ourselves as not very trusting at all.

Until, that is, we stop to think about the number of people, many of them total strangers, we trust with our money, with our health, with our very lives.  And, we extend this trust constantly, hardly, if ever, even thinking about it.  In fact, it is hard to imagine life in a crowded world without it.  How few of us has the time, energy, or resources to perform “due diligence” on everyone we conduct business with.

We take it for granted that other drivers will stay on their side of the road and stop at stop signs and lights.  We take it for granted that the food we buy – at the grocery or in restaurants, is safe to eat.  We assume the professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.) are qualified in their respective professions.

I submit that trust, like friendliness and respect, are the lubricants that make our most of our transactions with others go smoothly and pleasantly for all involved.  Indeed, we are by nature a trusting people.  And, most of us prefer that it stay that way.  Yet, trust is another character virtue that, like decency, honor, dignity, honesty, and self restraint, will soon be on the endangered list if things continue on their current course.

I grew up in a different America — one I’m afraid my descendants may never know.

In the America I grew up in, a “contract” was two people looking each other in the eye and shaking hands on whatever they were agreeing to.  Nothing else was needed, because to default on that unwritten contract mean a blow to one’s dignity and honor, and that, to most people, was far more important than whatever monetary or other value inherent in the contract.  As an aside, let me remind you that the signers of our Declaration of Independence pledged “their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor”.  Only honor being sacred, ergo of higher importance to them than even life and fortune.

As a child, my friends and I wandered about, pretty much anywhere we liked, at most any time of day, without the slightest notion that any person, of any ethnic or religious group, might want to intentionally harm us.

I remember when those neighbors who were “wealthy” enough to afford a home telephone would go off on vacation, leaving their homes unlocked in case a neighbor might need to use the their telephone while they were away.

As a teenager, we carried guns in our cars – the same cars we parked on the school grounds.  The guns were for hunting and nobody gave a thought to the notion that one of us might see fit to bring one into the school building and start blazing away.  Such things were just not done.

I can’t even imagine what might have happened had one or more of us decided to beat up a teacher or bus driver.  I can only assure you that we would have ended up far worse off than the person we set out to beat up.  Such things were simply not tolerated.

Yes my friends, we have come a long way from the levels of trust we once had in each other.  And, what is left continues to slip into oblivion.  What do we do then?  Do we simply cease to conduct business with each other?  Does not seem practical to me.  Do we somehow vet every person we presume to deal with, via some gigantic database that sees all, knows all, and, for a price, tells all?  Does this sound like a world we want to live in?  Not to me.

Then why are we letting this happen to us?  Have we become so dumbed down that we don’t realize that a free society cannot exist without trust?  I really do not think so.  Instead, I think we all know better.  And I think we all really do want to be able to trust each other.

Well, my friends, I have good news.  Unlike many of the things that are going wrong with America, this is one that we can fix all by ourselves.  Us.  You and me and millions of others just like us.  And it is the simplest thing one could ever hope for.

And, it is this:  If you want to help restore trust to America, all you have to do is be totally trustworthy yourself.

Well, that and shun those who prove themselves untrustworthy.

Just think of it – the power for change, right there in your own hands.

Tweet This Post 

In many of my rants, I have justified distasteful actions based on the notion that we are headed directly toward a form of socialist dictatorship.  Now I must ask, do we all really know what that means?  Indeed, do I even know what it means?  You decide.

I suspect that, when most of us think of dictatorship, we envision a Hitler, Stalin or Mao, giving arbitrary orders and destroying whoever and whatever raises their ire at any given moment.  While there is no doubt that Germany, the USSR and China were under dictatorships when these monsters ruled, is this a true picture of dictatorship?  I suggest they were more than that – that, each of these examples, and many others like them, are examples of the combination of dictatorship and “strong-man rule”.

I submit that, while dictatorship often paves to way toward “strong-man rule”, it can exist without it.  So, what exactly do we mean when we talk of dictatorship?

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines dictatorship as a “form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations“.

I offer an even simpler definition – it is nothing more than government without the consent of the governed.

Imagine a form of government intended to be a constitutional republic.  Except that those who govern have decided to ignore the rules and constraints of the constitution.  And, where those who govern have decided to ignore the expressed will of the citizens they were elected -and vowed- to represent.  Would not such a government come pretty close to the notion of “a form of government in which (…) a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations”?  Does this not come frighteningly close to describing the government that sits in Washington DC as I write this?

Well, you might try to tell me that it does not fit this description because our current government was duly elected by the people.  Was it really?  Does a government that exists due to a combination of corruption, the nearly insurmountable power of incumbency and a majority vote from semi-literate people who are dependent on government handouts really represent the will of the people?  That is, of the people who work hard to keep the country running only to have the results of their labor confiscated to support this evil circus?  Before any of you answers “yes”, please think this over and be really honest with yourself.  If, after having done so, you still answer “yes” then you should not be reading this blog – it will only upset you.  Plus, I will try my best to say insulting things about your inability to think rationally.

For the rest of you, those who are capable of rational thought, those who are watching what is going on, is the above not essentially true?  If it is not, then please comment and point out my mistakes.

If it is essentially true, then I can only conclude that we are already partway into a state of dictatorship.  For sure, we do not yet have our “strong man” and the brutality common to the regimes listed in the opening.  But, neither did they, at first.  In fact, all of those governments started out with good intentions – from their point of view.  They really thought they were there to improve the lot of their people.  It was only after they became addicted to their own power that power itself became the object of their rule.  In a fashion, and with the irrational behavior much like addiction to opiates.

Has it not always been the case that as power becomes more concentrated, by being placed in the hands of fewer and fewer people, that it becomes ever more addictive?  Did we not already witness this with FDR and his henchmen?  In that case, human frailty (pure luck – he weakened then died) saved us, short of falling fully into the abyss.  Will we always be that lucky?

We have a political “perfect storm” brewing right now.  We have a “leader” who attracts an irrational, almost worshipful following, much the same as Hitler, Mussolini, and FDR.  We have an economic situation that is being made into a crisis meant to frighten people so that they are easier to herd.  We already have passive acceptance, on the part of the “sheeple” of a total departure from constitutional government – by all 3 branches of our government.  If we compare the current situation to the advent of the significant dictatorships of the 2oth century, the only enabling element we are missing is a major war.  How hard can that be to start?

Don’t get scared, don’t get discouraged – but do get angry!  Damned angry!  Then do what you must to stop this travesty while it can still be stopped.

Tweet This Post 

If all else fails, my suggested approach of last resort is armed resistance.  Note the focus on “resistance”.  I do not advocate citizens initiating an armed attack on the government for several reasons.  The main one being that it could appear to put the government in a favorable light.  Instead, the government should be made to appear the clear aggressor with the people only protecting their rights.  Lets look at it:

PRO:

1. It is the way people have won and protected their freedom and their property for centuries.
2. It is justified.  All people have the right to defend themselves against enslavement and plunder.   Our government’s fiscal policies certainly do both.
3. Many of us would rather go down fighting than to meekly submit to tyranny.

CON:

1. Obviously, armed conflict means wounds and death.
2. There is no guarantee the right people get shot.  The guilty are the office holders and the bureaucrats who do their bidding, yet the police and military are the ones most likely to make themselves targets.
3. It is not clear whether a sufficient number of citizens would join the freedom fighters.
4. Armed resistance to government tyranny often leads to an ongoing state of guerrilla warfare, bringing endless death and destruction without settling anything.

ISSUES:

1. It is impossible to determine in advance how the US military would react.  I suspect a number of citizens would be killed or wounded at the beginning of hostilities, simply because the military is trained to do battle.  However, some number of them would become sickened by the sight of their fellow countrymen being slaughtered.  How many of them would come over to the side of freedom?
2. If such action must be taken, it must be in response to the attempt to confiscate of our weapons.  If such confiscation is allowed to succeed, then there is no way to form an effective force for resistance.

ASSESSMENT:

Not a desirable approach and probably not viable.  Should be tried only as a last resort.  However, should the situation get to the point where there is no other option, it MUST be attempted.  Rational people hope it never comes to this.  Yet rational people also know that freedom is worth defending and worth bleeding for.  Force and violence may well be the only thing tyrants really understand.

Tweet This Post 

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