In ongoing posts I want to talk about specific issues such as taxes, military spending, privacy, elections. I am most troubled, however, by the overall role of the federal government.
So few people have read our Constitution. The last article specifically states the powers not enumerated in the above articles are reserved for the several states. That is a very broad statement, and was meant to be. The fear of our founders was of a strong central government, of one that could take freedom from individuals. Even after crafting a Constitution with three branches, separate electoral procedures for house, senate and president, and judicial appointees for life, the founders specifically wanted to reserve all other unenumerated powers for the states. And even with that, the Constitution would not have passed without the Bill of Rights attached to it, further guaranteeing the personal liberties of citizens.
It is prima facie obvious that our federal government has long since stepped beyond the bounds given it by its construction. How has this happened? The answer is in a series of steps by which tyranny usually occurs- citizens confer power to the government in time of crisis, only to see their freedoms permanently taken away. And here 'tyranny' means a government that takes freedoms from individuals and arrogates them to itself, whether granted by the citizenry or taken by force.
One interesting part of tyranny is that it occurs almost always with the consent of the governed. In this sense it is only a social outrage we perpetrate upon ourselves, as the worst social outrages have always taken place with the full approval of the society. Russians, Poles and Germans have all cheered pogroms, many of them absolutely horrific even before the Holocaust. Racism was codified by laws approved of by most. In the case of tyranny, it is uncommon that it begins with soldiers and weapons, although it may ultimately be maintained by them. Consider the tyrants of Greece, who served at the request of the citizens. Augustus, the first Roman emperor, solidified his position by claiming to 'restore' the Republic, and did so with the overwhelming support of Romans. Castro was brought to power popularly, albeit through revolution, as were the communist leaders of Russia. Only after obtaining power did they abolish other parties, decline to relinquish power and oppress freedoms of speech and assembly.
In our democracy, tyranny occurs by vote. No one has held a gun to our heads and taken away our freedom; we have done it ourselves. We are so far down this road that I am commonly asked what freedoms we have relinquished. That question is itself soaked in the assumption of an interventional government. Here I quote from Michael Newton, author of 'Tyranny'-
"Because the various forms of collectivism are no longer popular (meaning communism and socialism), the collectivists instead advocate public welfare, social justice, government compassion, consumer protection, environmentalism and a whole host of other pleasant sounding programs. Nevertheless, this use of government power to direct or coordinate society s a form of tyranny, because there can be no greater form of tyranny than an individual or group controlling the lives of an entire population, even if popularly elected."
"Today, politicians promise the right to high quality education, the right to free or affordable health care and housing, and many other so-called rights. They are BENEFITS AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS (my emphasis)."
The Federalist Papers and the writers whose work formed the conceptual basis for the American government all make thoughtful and upsetting reading in regard to personal freedom and government. In considering the accretion of federal power, it took place in several steps. The first effort to extend federal power was the Alien and Sedition Acts, which attempted to make a crime speech in favor of an enemy or dissent against policy of the US. In response both Jefferson and Madison, intimately involved in the very framing of the Constitution, argued that states have the right to impose themselves between the federal government and their own citizens and to nullify federal laws within their own borders.
The tariffs of 1828 are an example of the power balance produced by this argument. South Carolina felt the tariffs were punitive, and declined to enforce them, threatening secession. Ultimately a lower tariff had to be created. And this was not about slavery. The first efforts at secession over disagreement of policy were by the New England states during the War of 1812, when the war was costing those states a great deal of trade. The rights of the states were called nullification, interposition, and secession.
Of course these were famously put to the test by the Civil War. The issue of states' rights is obscured by the repugnance of slavery. In essence of course the southern states asserted their state sovereignty to continue slavery in the face of abolitionist efforts. They asserted their rights by secession. Lincoln asserted the southern states could not do this, and went to war to enforce federal values upon the states. During the war Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, a usurpation of power only later granted by congress. After the war, an 1869 legal decision articulated the position of the states with respect to the federal government ever since. The Union is indissoluble, states can not secede, and states may not nullify or refuse to obey federal law in their borders. By these decisions, no matter how noble the end, slavery of people was ended, but political independence of the states was also lost. We ceased to be a federated republic.
The next major loss of power was the 16th amendment allowing the federal government to enact a tax NOT based on the census, in effect, the income tax. This gave the federal government the ability to take from individuals the fruits of their labor, and by complex tax law to make choices about who pays tax, and how much. This intern gives enormous leverage over employment and every other economic function and sector, since by tax policy one man or business may be encouraged over another. Taxes, first enacted for war purposes in 1863 and then ended, have been a permanent part of our government for 100 years, so much so that it seems 'wrong' to us to not tax people, especially the wealthy. This is distressingly reminiscent of every other tyranny. Powers initially conferred for war are ultimately made permanent, with the taking of citizens' wealth and freedom. The declaration of an essentially permanent state of war makes it easier to keep power, whether cold war, war on drugs, or war on terror.
Lastly, our government has used the broad terms 'common welfare' and 'interstate commerce' to regulate and tax many things well outside these realms, This has justified Medicare, Social Security, airwave regulation, pollutant regulation and many other items. As a result the federal government now teas 16% of all earned income.
There is a disturbing comparison between the Bill of Rights and the 'Four Freedoms' speech of Roosevelt. The Bill of Rights guarantees the personal liberties of individuals with respect to the government. The Four Freedoms- of speech, religion, want and fear, are in part guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (the first two). The others are impossible for government to guarantee, and are the individual's business. Even further, Roosevelt proposed an 'Economic Bill of Rights' which included the 'right' to a living wage, freedom from unfair competition (what is that?), the right to a decent home, to medical care, and freedom from fear of old age, sickness accident and a good education (!).
Pardon me, but how the hell can government ensure ANY of these so-called rights? NONE of these 'rights' have anything to do with the individual's true freedoms, especially freedom from government. Instead, they are simply reworded promises FROM the government, of what government will guarantee for them. Per Friedrich Hayek, "The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for an equal distribution of wealth".
That demand has been made by people for 3000 years, from Persia to Israel to Athens and Rome, the Soviet Union and Cuba. And it never works. Every time, collectivization leads to decreased production and increased hardships. It is the free man, truly responsible for his own outcomes, who works hardest and values his work most highly. Government can not guarantee freedom from anything. That is a perversion of the concept of guaranteeing people freedom from government, and it has been by our own hands that this perversion has occurred. It can only be by our own hands that it is reversed.
But I doubt that. We are in a tyranny. Already just half the citizens labor through taxes to pay for the 'freedoms' of the other half. We are not free. We are serfs with cars and running water.
Ted
So few people have read our Constitution. The last article specifically states the powers not enumerated in the above articles are reserved for the several states. That is a very broad statement, and was meant to be. The fear of our founders was of a strong central government, of one that could take freedom from individuals. Even after crafting a Constitution with three branches, separate electoral procedures for house, senate and president, and judicial appointees for life, the founders specifically wanted to reserve all other unenumerated powers for the states. And even with that, the Constitution would not have passed without the Bill of Rights attached to it, further guaranteeing the personal liberties of citizens.
It is prima facie obvious that our federal government has long since stepped beyond the bounds given it by its construction. How has this happened? The answer is in a series of steps by which tyranny usually occurs- citizens confer power to the government in time of crisis, only to see their freedoms permanently taken away. And here 'tyranny' means a government that takes freedoms from individuals and arrogates them to itself, whether granted by the citizenry or taken by force.
One interesting part of tyranny is that it occurs almost always with the consent of the governed. In this sense it is only a social outrage we perpetrate upon ourselves, as the worst social outrages have always taken place with the full approval of the society. Russians, Poles and Germans have all cheered pogroms, many of them absolutely horrific even before the Holocaust. Racism was codified by laws approved of by most. In the case of tyranny, it is uncommon that it begins with soldiers and weapons, although it may ultimately be maintained by them. Consider the tyrants of Greece, who served at the request of the citizens. Augustus, the first Roman emperor, solidified his position by claiming to 'restore' the Republic, and did so with the overwhelming support of Romans. Castro was brought to power popularly, albeit through revolution, as were the communist leaders of Russia. Only after obtaining power did they abolish other parties, decline to relinquish power and oppress freedoms of speech and assembly.
In our democracy, tyranny occurs by vote. No one has held a gun to our heads and taken away our freedom; we have done it ourselves. We are so far down this road that I am commonly asked what freedoms we have relinquished. That question is itself soaked in the assumption of an interventional government. Here I quote from Michael Newton, author of 'Tyranny'-
"Because the various forms of collectivism are no longer popular (meaning communism and socialism), the collectivists instead advocate public welfare, social justice, government compassion, consumer protection, environmentalism and a whole host of other pleasant sounding programs. Nevertheless, this use of government power to direct or coordinate society s a form of tyranny, because there can be no greater form of tyranny than an individual or group controlling the lives of an entire population, even if popularly elected."
"Today, politicians promise the right to high quality education, the right to free or affordable health care and housing, and many other so-called rights. They are BENEFITS AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS (my emphasis)."
The Federalist Papers and the writers whose work formed the conceptual basis for the American government all make thoughtful and upsetting reading in regard to personal freedom and government. In considering the accretion of federal power, it took place in several steps. The first effort to extend federal power was the Alien and Sedition Acts, which attempted to make a crime speech in favor of an enemy or dissent against policy of the US. In response both Jefferson and Madison, intimately involved in the very framing of the Constitution, argued that states have the right to impose themselves between the federal government and their own citizens and to nullify federal laws within their own borders.
The tariffs of 1828 are an example of the power balance produced by this argument. South Carolina felt the tariffs were punitive, and declined to enforce them, threatening secession. Ultimately a lower tariff had to be created. And this was not about slavery. The first efforts at secession over disagreement of policy were by the New England states during the War of 1812, when the war was costing those states a great deal of trade. The rights of the states were called nullification, interposition, and secession.
Of course these were famously put to the test by the Civil War. The issue of states' rights is obscured by the repugnance of slavery. In essence of course the southern states asserted their state sovereignty to continue slavery in the face of abolitionist efforts. They asserted their rights by secession. Lincoln asserted the southern states could not do this, and went to war to enforce federal values upon the states. During the war Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, a usurpation of power only later granted by congress. After the war, an 1869 legal decision articulated the position of the states with respect to the federal government ever since. The Union is indissoluble, states can not secede, and states may not nullify or refuse to obey federal law in their borders. By these decisions, no matter how noble the end, slavery of people was ended, but political independence of the states was also lost. We ceased to be a federated republic.
The next major loss of power was the 16th amendment allowing the federal government to enact a tax NOT based on the census, in effect, the income tax. This gave the federal government the ability to take from individuals the fruits of their labor, and by complex tax law to make choices about who pays tax, and how much. This intern gives enormous leverage over employment and every other economic function and sector, since by tax policy one man or business may be encouraged over another. Taxes, first enacted for war purposes in 1863 and then ended, have been a permanent part of our government for 100 years, so much so that it seems 'wrong' to us to not tax people, especially the wealthy. This is distressingly reminiscent of every other tyranny. Powers initially conferred for war are ultimately made permanent, with the taking of citizens' wealth and freedom. The declaration of an essentially permanent state of war makes it easier to keep power, whether cold war, war on drugs, or war on terror.
Lastly, our government has used the broad terms 'common welfare' and 'interstate commerce' to regulate and tax many things well outside these realms, This has justified Medicare, Social Security, airwave regulation, pollutant regulation and many other items. As a result the federal government now teas 16% of all earned income.
There is a disturbing comparison between the Bill of Rights and the 'Four Freedoms' speech of Roosevelt. The Bill of Rights guarantees the personal liberties of individuals with respect to the government. The Four Freedoms- of speech, religion, want and fear, are in part guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (the first two). The others are impossible for government to guarantee, and are the individual's business. Even further, Roosevelt proposed an 'Economic Bill of Rights' which included the 'right' to a living wage, freedom from unfair competition (what is that?), the right to a decent home, to medical care, and freedom from fear of old age, sickness accident and a good education (!).
Pardon me, but how the hell can government ensure ANY of these so-called rights? NONE of these 'rights' have anything to do with the individual's true freedoms, especially freedom from government. Instead, they are simply reworded promises FROM the government, of what government will guarantee for them. Per Friedrich Hayek, "The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for an equal distribution of wealth".
That demand has been made by people for 3000 years, from Persia to Israel to Athens and Rome, the Soviet Union and Cuba. And it never works. Every time, collectivization leads to decreased production and increased hardships. It is the free man, truly responsible for his own outcomes, who works hardest and values his work most highly. Government can not guarantee freedom from anything. That is a perversion of the concept of guaranteeing people freedom from government, and it has been by our own hands that this perversion has occurred. It can only be by our own hands that it is reversed.
But I doubt that. We are in a tyranny. Already just half the citizens labor through taxes to pay for the 'freedoms' of the other half. We are not free. We are serfs with cars and running water.
Ted
I liked that last line.
ReplyDeleteNot "Ted," but rather, "We are serfs with cars and running water."
This sounds terrible, but I've been reading Gone With the Wind and it's centered around the civil war, and I honestly have come to think that the war was unnecessary. Maybe it's just the way the south is portrayed in the book, but it seems like they were doing pretty well...I never really thought about states rights because I'm so used to the federal government, but now that I've read this it totally sucks that they've been put on the back burner...
Anyway this is a really long comment, but whatever. haha love you!