Have you read much of the book Doug? Do you recommend it to fellow libertarians and those interested in American history?

Comment by Ben — May 13, 2008 @ 11:33 am

Ben,

My copy of the book is on it’s way from Amazon, but I did read the Reason excerpt and it seems really good.

I’ve also read other things Healy has written and I like those.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — May 13, 2008 @ 12:13 pm

we’ve only got ourselves to blame for the way things have turned out.

I’m pretty sure I don’t share any blame.

Comment by Joshua Holmes — May 14, 2008 @ 9:38 pm

“The Courts have no business overturning laws against prostitution as this is clearly something that has traditionally fallen within the police power of the state.”

You’re joking, right? Are you suggesting that Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided?

Comment by KipEsquire — March 13, 2008 @ 1:52 pm

I’m suggesting that when Court’s start acting like legislatures they begin overstepping their bounds.

Do you really think that a credible Constitutional case can be made for striking down laws against prostitution ? Incest ? Polygamy ?

And, more importantly, if the Court did do such a thing what do you think the political firestorm would be like ?

And, no, I’m not saying Lawrence was wrongly decided.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 13, 2008 @ 1:57 pm

What is “legalizaing”? Is that a process by which something is legalizaited? :)

Comment by UCrawford — March 13, 2008 @ 2:18 pm

Damn lack of a spellchecker :)

Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 13, 2008 @ 2:46 pm

Excellent point about the role of the Courts. I still contend that if abortion had been legalized state by state by the respective legislatures it would be no more controversial today, politically, than legalized gambling.

Comment by Tony Iovino — March 14, 2008 @ 5:52 am

Outstanding post.

Comment by UCrawford — March 6, 2008 @ 9:04 am

Ditto what UCrawford said.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 6, 2008 @ 9:05 am

Excellent post & a terrific counter to the brewing frustration with the left regarding a possible “armed” revolution. The GRU reference is also excellent; I for one always found Russian history particularly intriguing.

Comment by Nitroadict — March 6, 2008 @ 9:05 am

Konkin/Agorist Counter-Economics…

Comment by Kaligula — March 6, 2008 @ 9:50 am

Sorry, i just noticed Brad’s thursday’s open thread…

Comment by Kaligula — March 6, 2008 @ 10:03 am

Well said, and I think the Sun-Tzu and John Adams quotes you included have incredible force.

If the revolution is won before it is fought, it may never be “fought” at all.

Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 6, 2008 @ 10:16 am

You state that there is no legitimate government. I happen to agree; in fact I made this point in my philosophy of law class the other night when I asked why it was justifiable in the first place for a third party to carry out retribution on behalf of another (one of the basic functions of even a minimal state). My inquiry went unanswered.

Comment by David Wilson — March 6, 2008 @ 10:24 am

And yes, I do agree, this is a valuable post!

Comment by David Wilson — March 6, 2008 @ 10:27 am

Tarran,

Tremendous piece of writing. Well done!

Comment by Quincy — March 6, 2008 @ 10:30 am

Great post. And what a jackass quote from Bill Clinton.

Comment by Ben — March 6, 2008 @ 10:53 am

Great post, and I second the jackass quote from Comrade Clinton.

I remember, after the OK city bombing when all thoughs sweeping laws were being passed.I had a sticker on my car that said “I love my country but fear my Government”. And I still hold to that belief. I had a few people question me about that sticker and calling me “Un-American”. It’s moronic that the sheep will celebrat the 4th of July, but not understand what happened to get to that celebration.

But to answer your question, “When is Armed Rebellion Appropriate?”..First and foremost, you would have to “win the hearts and minds” with atleast a quarter of the people. Secondly, the State would have to do something truly alarming to the beer drinking, nascar watching moron, so atleast we have the people waking up. And last but not least, be armed to the teeth and to be prepared for a lasting Rebellion. Cause it couldn’t be just a few days.

A side note…I do watch Nascar. Was not meant to take offense.

Comment by RegularRon — March 6, 2008 @ 11:16 am

I would caution anyone who would want to begin or support an armed revolution against the government to study the French Revolution. There is always a chance that such actions can make matters worse, even if the revolution is successful. The French Revolution did not have the same success as the American Revolution. I would say that the outcome of the American Revolution is the exception, not the rule.

Even as bad as our government is at times (which we write about here on nearly a daily basis), we are still very free relative to most of the world. Freedom always yields to tyranny; it’s only a question of how rapidly it is allowed to happen. As a practical matter, we can only hope to slow this creeping tyranny to a level where we can work within the system. Armed revolution should always be the very last resort.

Great post Tarran!

Comment by Stephen Littau — March 6, 2008 @ 11:31 am

Stephen,

I would caution anyone who would want to begin or support an armed revolution against the government to study the French Revolution. There is always a chance that such actions can make matters worse, even if the revolution is successful. The French Revolution did not have the same success as the American Revolution. I would say that the outcome of the American Revolution is the exception, not the rule.

Excellent point. I’ve often wondered what it was that made the American Revolution different from the French Revolution, the Revolutions of 1848, the Russian Revolution, or any of the countless number of third-world revolts against colonialism after World War II.

It’s more, I think than just the fact that the American Colonies in the 18th Century were blessed with some incredibly wise men, though they clearly were. I think it comes down to the philosophical basis that they were working from.

The American revolutionaries had Smith and Locke and the writers that followed them. The French had who ? Voltaire ? In 1848 it was Marx. In Russia it was Marx and Lenin. And, in the third-world it was Marx, Lenin, and Ho Chi Minh.

When you build your revolution on a foundation of sand, it’s bound to fail in the end.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 6, 2008 @ 11:35 am

Doug,
I just finished with Atlas Shrugged the other day (what an excellent book!). I can’t help but wonder if the non-violent tactics John Galt and his fellow “men of the mind” used to change the system would work? Imagine if a large number of entrepreneurs, industrialists, investors, inventers, etc. went on strike in hopes that the entire economy went to hell? If such a thing could be organized, I think that it would not take very long before we would see sweeping changes in attitudes toward achievement, free markets, individualism, and wealth distribution/creation.

Comment by Stephen Littau — March 6, 2008 @ 11:44 am

Actually, RP did mention The Remnant in one of his videos, and further mentioned people being left behind that would be able to rebuild, although beyond that he didn’t mention anything specific. But yes, I also think it’s an interesting and potentially effective idea; I’d imagine it would definitely rally up the agorists.

I sadly have yet to read the book, but have read summaries of it. I still have an immense back log of books piled up on my desk as it is, although as of late, some of her quotations are convincing me to possibly put the fountainhead & AS higher up in the queue…

Comment by Nitroadict — March 6, 2008 @ 11:55 am

Nitroadict, 2 words: audio book :)

I listened to Atlas Shrugged about 1 hour a day at work on audio book (the abridged edition; 10 1/2 hours on 10 discs).

If you can listen at work or if you are taking a long road trip, this is the ideal time to listen. I simply do not have much spare time to read otherwise.

Comment by Stephen Littau — March 6, 2008 @ 11:59 am

Indeed, I recently decided to take the plunge with Rothbard via audio-book (For A New Liberty), and while I think reading would allow for more retention, it definitely is a time saver.

I’m thinking I might read The Fountainhead before reading AS, though. If there is an audio-book version of it, what version would you recommend?

Comment by Nitroadict — March 6, 2008 @ 12:04 pm

[…] Tarran at The Liberty Papers had a very insightful post regarding the appropriateness of armed rebellion. Tarran does address the improbability of an armed rebellion actually achieving its aims; my qualm with his argument is the contention that there would actually be a fight to begin with. This contention might be more applicable to the times when the gun barrels of oppressors were not that much bigger than those of the oppressed. […]

Pingback by Why nonviolence is not a choice | The Libertarium — March 6, 2008 @ 12:56 pm

[…] a comment to tarran’s post about the morality of armed rebellion, co-contributor Stephen Littau makes this point: I would caution anyone who would want to begin or […]

Pingback by The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » Friday Open Thread — Why America ? — March 7, 2008 @ 5:43 am

Stephen Littau,

You should check ot The Free State Project:

http://freestateproject.org

Comment by dean — March 9, 2008 @ 4:30 pm

Some folks are beginning to speculate that the delegate deadlock may lead to Al Gore being brought in on the second ballot to “save” the Party. Now THAT would be interesting politics. And spell disaster for the Democrats too.

Comment by Adam Selene — February 18, 2008 @ 5:43 am

Good post. But I imagine that if Obama is significantly ahead after the last primary (or even some time before that) the superdelegates will see that it would be in the interests of the party to support him. It would be extremely hard to argue that the interests of the party would be served by overturning a significant lead in delegates, states and votes. What they shouldn’t do, of course, is feel obliged to vote for Clinton because of her husband’s standing in the party (he’s not the candidate after all), or because of the fear of retribution. I have a feeling they’re going to make the right choice (earlier than we think), if only to head off Hillary’s threat to fight to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, which would really tear the party apart.

Comment by Mike O — February 18, 2008 @ 5:44 am

Some folks are beginning to speculate that the delegate deadlock may lead to Al Gore being brought in on the second ballot to “save” the Party. Now THAT would be interesting politics. And spell disaster for the Democrats too.

Comment by Flingcom — February 18, 2008 @ 7:33 am

If the Obama wins the primary and populous vote and the super delegates award it to Hillary then they will have assured McCain the victory. The young, independant and African-Americans will probably stay home and there aren’t enough women to elect Hillary or who would support such a theft. Even Sen. Obama could not convince them to turn out for Hillary.

Comment by gij718 — February 18, 2008 @ 2:29 pm

Good article, Brad. A month ago I was cynical enough that my comment here would be to amend something you said: The superdelegates should view such things as the preferences revealed by the popular vote as only one aspect in their decision. Other crucial aspects to consider would be…
…pork, pork, and favors granted, such as Bill’s promise to bring in a million dollars at a fundraiser when that superdelegate is up for reelection back home.

But now, I agree entirely with what gij718 says. The Democrats are the closest thing America has to a Populist Party, which means that yes, for the health of the party, they really do have to abide by the popular vote. To overturn that would be devastating to the future of the party. The young vote and the black vote would be gone. Superdelegates would have “selected not elected” banners following them for years.

It would be healthier to let Obama lose to McCain in November than to have him lose to Clinton in August.

Comment by Wulf — February 18, 2008 @ 6:42 pm

it must always be remembered that the message must be about freedom, not about federalism. Federalism is a potential means to the end, but it is not the end in itself.

But how do you sell freedom to people who think they’re already free? Or to people who honestly believe freedoms aren’t absolute?

I can sell federalism; that’s easy. I just point out that one-size-fits-all solutions are guaranteed to piss off 49% of the country (and they’re liable to be in that group 50% of the time) and then invite them to stake out their own little no-smoking enclave so long as tolerate the neighboring smoking enclave.

But freedom? That word has been so mangled that I don’t know how to sell it to anyone that doesn’t already agree with me.

Comment by Jeff Molby — November 30, 2007 @ 4:31 am

The only way I can think of to sell freedom is to set a good example and win the war on ideas.

Comment by uhm — November 30, 2007 @ 5:25 am

If people choose to believe in hypotheses — adopt them as working beliefs in conjunction with others who share those beliefs on their own TERRITORY — it cannot be the business of a free society to oppose them. If the 13th and 14th Amendment are consistent with a free society then their interpretation must be limited to providing equal access to such territorial freedom of association for all citizens.

This means Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is — and any other so-called “anti-discrimination” laws that violate territorial freedom of association for all citizens — are simply a way for one group of people to impose their beliefs on others providing “no place”, ie: TERRITORY, to put opposing beliefs to the test by freely associating adults and their families.

You do not have a right to impose your religious beliefs on others if others are not imposing their religious beliefs on you. The moment you do, you lose your rights and self-defense justifies any action against you.

Comment by James Bowery — November 30, 2007 @ 5:41 am

The big positive to Federalism, the way I see it, is that if you live in an area or state that limits too many of your freedoms, then you can at least consider a move to a state which is more in line with your personal views. While that may or may not be practicable for most people, it is one of the few ways to effect change when your views are outnumbered.

Comment by Kay — November 30, 2007 @ 5:58 am

“Well, the ideal government would be a single world government that was only powerful enough to protect freedom but disciplined enough not to infringe on individual freedom for the “common good”. However, such a government has never existed, will never exist, and with the incentives inherent in government, can never exist. So looking at the ideal government is not a useful way to answer this question.”

I’ve been kicking a somewhat similar concept around in my head for awhile. Ultimately, I think the ideal government is more realistic and achievable than you’d think, albeit extremely far off.

My feeling is that the concept of federalism really does come close to an ideal since it attempts to create something resembling a free market in government. A real global federalism would thus be something equivalent to an ideal. The biggest problem is with the high costs of moving, but a properly run system of federalism at least can prevent local governments from imposing additional costs to moving.

Federalism’s greatest advantage is its ability to limit the effects of “tyranny of the majority” to smaller geographic areas. Properly instituted, the preemptive power of the central government can also be used to protect minority rights in areas where the “tyranny of the majority” has relegated the minority to the status of being powerless. The trouble of course is the phrase “properly instituted.”

Comment by Mark — November 30, 2007 @ 7:26 am

Jeff,

I can sell federalism; that’s easy. I just point out that one-size-fits-all solutions are guaranteed to piss off 49% of the country (and they’re liable to be in that group 50% of the time) and then invite them to stake out their own little no-smoking enclave so long as tolerate the neighboring smoking enclave.

The problem with that is that the best you can offer them is that they’re going to be pissed off 20-30% of the time, not 50% of the time. And it doesn’t get to the root of the problem, because they then believe it is moral to vote away the freedoms of the 30% that are unlike them.

It’s a pragmatic answer, but not a really effective sale (more on that in a moment).

But freedom? That word has been so mangled that I don’t know how to sell it to anyone that doesn’t already agree with me.

Again, if you’re looking to sell, let me give an example. I work in the technology industry, in a commodity market. But our product is differentiated from the commodity suppliers by our technology and our business model. I can go into a customer and try as hard as I can to sell on price, but my sale is only as effective as long as I can remain the low price guy. If I sell the technology, though, and make the customer believe in what we’re doing, not only are they willing to pay a higher price but they know that they’re receiving value for that price. The sale is permanent, as long as I live up to the promises made.

It’s the same way with freedom vs. federalism. Federalism is an easy sell: “Go live with people who believe what you believe, and you’ll be generally happy.” Sure, that works, but it doesn’t necessarily enhance freedom. All it does is create pockets where different aspects of life are more or less free, and allows individuals to choose a mix of freedom vs. regulation. That’s an improvement, but it’s not changing hearts and minds. Freedom is a much harder sell. Especially when you’re selling something that runs contrary to someone’s personal preferences (such as the smoking ban). After all, most people don’t like being around smoke, so to get them to understand that they still don’t have the right to stop people from smoking on a business owner’s private property runs contrary to their personal wishes. But if you make the sale, it’s a permanent sale. Once someone “gets it”, they get it for good.

I understand where you’re coming from. You’re selling federalism, i.e. find people who you can live with that will give you the freedoms most important to you. I’m selling freedom, i.e. it is wrong for you to take away others’ freedom and it is wrong for them to take that freedom away from you, and BOTH should stop. You’re selling a pragmatic compromise, I’m selling a value system of right vs. wrong. It’s a lot harder to do the latter, but when it works, it’s much more effective.

Comment by Brad Warbiany — November 30, 2007 @ 8:14 am

I am a libertarian not only because I would enjoy my life more if the government weren’t involved, but because I think freedom actually WORKS and is practically better (Socially, economically, whatever). More prosperity, more freedom, higher standard of living for the most people.

In the case of federalism there very well may be instances on a state scale or smaller where individual freedom is infringed for the “greater good” or some other dreamt up viture. I believe those schemes will fail , and a situation very similiar to the free market will occur where states and local governments compete for the best policies (if your state is failing, and a neigboring state is prospering, you’re going to want to change to be like them). This is how we got to have the municipal services that we like (public roads, schools, police, etc.) they were tried on a small scale, they worked, the idea spread to other localities.

Based on that philosophy I think the more localized govt the better. By contrast the stronger centralized govt is worse.

Comment by mike — November 30, 2007 @ 8:37 am

It is also important to keep in mind that the original 1789 Constitution, even before the Fourteenth Amendment and even before the Bill of Rights, still placed individual liberty above states powers. See Article I, Section 10 and especially Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.

Comment by KipEsquire — November 30, 2007 @ 9:09 am

This is an excellent article. By citing federalism and what it is capable of, you have correctly pointed out the possibilities of freedom.

I will have to disagree, however, that federalism does not equal complete liberty and has a negative side regarding anything that does not equate to small government.

A concept that enjoys remaining elusive is that true freedom is the freedom to not be free just as much as it is to be free. Choosing big government is just as related to freedom as choosing small government.

That’s because freedom is about choice. And the fact of the matter is that many people WANT to have big government in their lives. Forcing small government on everyone is just as tyrannical as forcing big government on everyone, simply because it’s an ideal being forced against many people’s choice. It’s no different than forcing any other ideal. Force is force.

What might be your preference for freedom is not going to be someone else’s preference. This is why we are so divided as a nation. This is why we have politics to begin with, because we keep trying to force only one preference on everyone.

Confederations and federations provide the only answers we have yet to come up with that provide true freedom, by allowing multiple states to be “experiments in freedom”, as you said.

Those experiments are going to represent a range of ideals, whether socialist high-tax states, to libertarian low-tax states, to blue law religious doctrine states, to moderate states that include an even mix of everything, and all in-between. And there’s nothing wrong with that. That’s freedom.

The freedom to choose any of those things is true freedom. Federalism provides that freedom.

Comment by DK — November 30, 2007 @ 9:12 am

As a libertarian its hard to find a good compromise without giving up too much of the core belief in freedom. I think federalism still offers the best chance at pragmatically increasing the ability for like-minded libertarians to find a place in the American system. There is also the simple matter of economic efficiency - that is, sending taxes halfway across the country in hopes that they will make it back to you in the form of public services is like begging for a lower return on your dollar. I don’t mind spending tax money on schools and hospitals, but it only makes financial sense to do so at the local/state level.

Comment by underground — November 30, 2007 @ 9:13 am

Well, technically, the only “services” that you should be provided at the federal level by your taxes are things like national defense, national justice system, commerce regulation, and things of that nature.

The more the federal government becomes involved, the less chance federalism and the ability for states to create their own levels/forms of government has to work.

Schools and hospitals, as you said, should be paid for at the local and/or state level in any manner that each local or state sees fit, whether through a high-tax socialist state, or a low-tax libertarian state, or whatever.

Comment by DK — November 30, 2007 @ 9:34 am

“The Founding Fathers envisioned a nation of individual States, each with its own quirks and ideas, and each with wide latitudes to set its own internal laws and policies as it saw fit. The central government was tasked only with foreign affairs and acting as arbiter of inter-state matters. The individual States had nearly full sovereignty with most other affairs. In many ways, the United States was set up with a roughly similar mix between central authority and State sovereignty as the current EU.”

Is this really a good thing? After all, the Founding Fathers promoted this system because the Southerners didn’t want a strong national government threatening slavery and I’m sure that some Northerners didn’t like the idea of a national government threatening their system of state-sponsored religion.

Comment by FreedomDemocrat — November 30, 2007 @ 12:50 pm

Wrong. The whole idea of going to a stronger central government than that provided by the Articles of Confederation was due to the the slave-owning founding fathers wanting a stronger central government with which to suppress Shay’s Rebellion, which arose because the Yeomen farmers who had fought the Revolutionary War were being put in a position of paying off war debts which endangered their subsistence.

It was slave owning that resulted in a strong central government.

Proof of this is even found in the Civil War where slavery of individuals was replaced by slavery of all States — even those which had never participated in slavery in a major way.

Proof of this is the fact that if New Hampshire were to try to secede, for example, they would find themselves subject to armed invasion by the Feds.

Comment by James Bowery — November 30, 2007 @ 3:48 pm

individual states should know better how to tax themselves and take care of their affairs. “should.” states with high %minorities would actually be more represented in this era. “would.”

i think irl in this era, your average citizen is both much more apathetic to any democratic process, as well as much stupider. much, much stupider. so given the deterioration of the populace, federalism will be the only choice in the future.

Comment by oilnwater — December 2, 2007 @ 11:13 am

^^^ d’oh! i meant central govt, not federalism, is the only choice in the future ^^

Comment by oilnwater — December 2, 2007 @ 2:43 pm

oilnwater,

Funny thing. As the Department of Education in Washington spends more and more money, our populace becomes ever “stupider”…

Maybe if we broke the government’s monopoly on education (with a voucher system) we might see a better-informed populace?

Comment by Brad Warbiany — December 3, 2007 @ 8:25 am

Brad,

People tend to become as dumb as they can get away with. If they can’t get away with being really stupid about their decision, they’ll learn quickly and smarten up.

That’s why protecting the consumer from themselves is the worst thing you can do for the intelligence of the American population. Whereas before regulations, we only had a subset of people that made unwise decisions, under the new regulations, everyone can afford to be stupid and thus become that stupid.

Government’s monopoly on education merely destroys the quality of education. At least people still crave better education. They’ll try to figure out ways around it (homeschooling!). Against the dumbing effects of regulation, there is no such motivation and there is no such desire to be smarter.

Comment by TanGeng — December 3, 2007 @ 8:46 am

“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”–James Madison

Indeed that is exactly what we have seen in this country is a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. Because of the use of such arbitrary interpretation and therefore application, I think we should not be surprised when someone like Bush overtly trespasses against the Constitution. The Constitution’s standing in this country has been neutralized by a variety of political philosophies, the least of these are those who advocate original intent based upon a Christianized view of the founding of this country. Others have simply sought to render it so flexible that it no longer retains the viability of protection that they claim to support. These factions fail to see the meanings behind the principles, those both philosophical and practical. The principles, upon which the Constitution was structured, in a real sense, are neither totally static nor dynamic, but both and are essential to good government and to the pursuit of happiness by the people.

This country has not seen such a critical a time in our political concerns as we now face and it is primarily due to the fact that we have allowed various political ideologies to arbitrarily interpret the Constitution to fit their particular ideological points of view. Today, our country not only stands before a period of extremes, but dangerous extremes that could, with ease, erase what we have always considered as particularly and essentially the American guarantee of the individual’s claim to Liberty. Instead of a country filled with free people, who assert their dignity through Liberty, we have become subjected to the will of a government that sets its own parameters of its reach and authority through the arbitrary interpretation and application of law. Principles are no longer considered inviolate, but are subject to the political whims of the day, whether those whims are Liberal, Conservative, Neo-Conservative or any other political ideology. Today we happen to be witness to the “living Constitution” as the Neo-Conservatives view it; tomorrow we might be witness to another group and their interpretation. Therein is the danger of such an arbitrary interpretation.

When any political ideology or philosophy extends an arbitrary utility over a Constitutional principle, it does so at its own peril. I say that because, as we see with the Bush Administration, it is then easy for any group to take liberties with those principles and thus affect one or more sections of an opposing party or interest. Once the door is open to accept and approve the arbitrary interpretation and application of the Constitution, and then it becomes much easier for abuse to ensue. If the principles found within the Constitution are not foundational to both government and the People, then those principles will always be usurped, abused or denied. When the principles of the Constitution are no longer viewed as essential and therefore open to any interpretation, then they provide no protection from potential abuse by those of any political agenda.

One amazing fact is that the various political ideologies always seem to support some degree of Constitutional stretch when it follows their own particular political agenda, but when an opposing agenda stretches beyond the bounds of the Constitution there is an uproar and condemnation. It was easy for the Republicans; for instance, to condemn the Clinton Administration over its Constitutional abuses but not its own abuses now that Bush is in office. Likewise, the cry from the Democrats is equally as adamant when a Republican abuses those powers and reaches beyond the Constitution in one way or another when those breaches are contrary to their own agenda. The government seeks the ease of power and yet the Constitution was created to make it cumbersome to govern, thereby removing the potential for both consolidation of powers and the abuse of such powers. Checks and balances are extremely cumbersome, viewed as outdated and inapplicable in our day and age, is it any wonder that the view of foundational and inviolate principles is looked upon with such disdain? It is symptomatic of all centralized governments to seek power for it eases its ability to rule, a fact that history bears out to be true.

When we allow a very relative interpretation and application of Constitutional principles to prevail then not only will power seek the level of its own expression, but, in every case, the People will end up being the ones to eventually suffer the consequences of such relativity. Government bureaucrat’s prize relativity, for it removes restraints regarding the application of government statute over the principles designed to constrain such powers.

This government cannot do anything unless we cede it the power to do so, that includes the abridgement of our Rights. The Bush Administration is only following a path that was already well beaten when it came to power. Granted, it has extended its power beyond anything seen since the Wilson Administration, but never the less, it is far from being an action beyond precedent.

Political decentralization, a key structure found within the Constitution, is interwoven with the ideals of Individual Liberty. While it is the responsibility of the individual to place demands upon government for the appropriate execution of the Rights that foster such Liberty, it is not without precedent for any government, limited or not, to usurp and consolidate power to the bereft of the individual. Today we are witness to a vast number of powerful interests, both social and economic, manipulating government to the benefit of their particular agendas, all done, of course, under the carefully crafted guise of democratic freedom. People have always clamored over the promises of politics rather than the reality of politics and politicians are all too eager to oblige such inclinations of the People thus gaining their allegiance and support. The political reality of the day however, is far too disturbing to be spoken by the majority of politicians today; it is simply not palatable to the electorate.

Currently we are asked to “voluntarily” relinquish a great many of our Rights, in one degree or another, for the sake of security. It is not the first time the government has made such requests, doubtless it will not be the last, but we must remember what we do when we allow such license to government. When extra-Constitutional license is ceded to government, the government will always willingly accept for it is in the nature of government to govern more by force than by consent.

It is easy to see that the decline of Classical Liberalism in our society is mirrored by an increased power and centralization of The State as it takes advantage of the decline of citizen action and influence. The philosophy of Classical Liberalism that once prevailed in this country has been silent for far too long and thankfully it is experiencing a revival of sorts, partly out of necessity and partly out of the utter disgust with the quandary that passes as government in this country.

Until the People openly oppose all attempts to evade Constitutional Order then we will all continue to be in jeopardy from those who have shown no qualms at its usurpation at the expense of the People. Unless we oppose all efforts to abridge our Rights and Liberties by any government, political party or ideology then we will continue down the road where our Rights are totally contingent upon the winds of political expediency.

If the People take those vital principles for granted or if we continue to excuse them as outdated or ineffectual for our time, even though they were specifically designed to protect all of us, then why should we be surprised when the government takes advantage of our own complacency as we readily cede such power and grant such license to those are only too willing to accept a power with far less restraint then is ordered by the Constitution.

Once again I want to bring up the superior system of the Republic in respects to the equal application of the Rights of all Citizens. The erosion of this extremely important principle from the governance of this country has been devastating to the cause of the individual, no matter what race, creed or gender.

Those who seek majoritarian rule have transformed us into a national society and that fact has, in essence, crippled the proper and equitable functions of the Republic. The Constitution was not given by the assent of individuals that composed a nation, but as individuals that composed the independent and very distinct States in which they held citizenship. The States, based upon the authority of the People, then assented to the ratification of the Constitution as being federal in nature and not national. There is a very distinct and important difference that directly effects the not only the legislative process, but the application of law relating to the Right of the People and how the government functions.

It is rare that we refer to ourselves as citizens of the individual State Republics; it was once the only reference to citizenship within this country. The reason for that was that this country was not viewed as a nation state, but a nation of States united under a federal system and not a national one. The thought of being a national citizen was contrary to the entire Republican ideal and for good reason; the federal government was only a reflection of the States and the authority the citizens invested, through the States, to the federal government. The People always acted as citizens of their respective States and not as citizens under the auspices of an aggregate national government.

The Founders, well aware of the tendency of majoritarianism, intentionally placed walls of separation within this Republican system and for a very good reason. They knew that if the Constitutional transaction were to work properly, it would not, could not be regarded as forming one nation, but a federal union of States. They knew that if such a national system were to be placed above that of the federal union of States then the will of the majority would gradually bind the minority within society.

Yes, I am aware that there will be those who will relate this to the catch phrase “States Rights”, and will dutifully denigrate any suggestion that we return to a system that allowed the States such authority and powers, yet there is nothing more Constitutional then doing just that. I make no apologies whatsoever for such a stance, for I know that it is one of the primary factors in saving this country from the terminal illness it now faces under the increasingly dangerous usurpations of the so-called federal government. While the Founders instituted attributes to the government that are national in nature, such as those relating to foreign relations, treaties, and interstate commerce; those attributes were extremely limited and were delegated to the federal government but not innately expressed.

The Founders never adopted principles that remotely resemble the system that we now allow ourselves to be subjected to in this country. It was clear that the Framers of the Constitution always considered each State to be a sovereign body, composed of sovereign individuals, independent of all other States and bound only by the voluntary act of a reflective union of States. The Constitution established this union of States federally, not nationally. I will not, at this time, delve into the various actions and acts that have transformed this federal union of States into a National Union, but suffice to say, it has had the exact effects foreseen by Our Founders. They pegged the results of such a transition exactly and indeed their fears have become a reality in this country.

The Founders were extremely wise in their delegation of powers, the system of elections that provided for the House of Representatives severed a national attribute because the their powers are derived directly from the People who are proportionally represented. On the other hand, the Senate [although no longer due to the 17th Amendment], served a federal attribute because it derives its powers from the State Republics and indirectly from the People. It was an incredible system that functioned to protect the People not only against the possible abuse of powers by the government, but from the possible threat of majoritarianism.

Federal powers were limited to a defined sphere of influence because the Founders realized the propensity of power to corrupt those who hold power. It is readily easy to see that they were correct in their assumptions and had this country remained a Republic, such corruption would find a rather difficult expression due to all the checks and balances embedded within the system. At the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution, the Founders placed the dependency of the federal government on the States rather than the States being dependent upon the federal government. Ultimately however, both the federal and the State governments were to be dependent on the People and their consent to be governed.

While the federal government was fitted with a multiple layer of checks and balances, so too the States were placed under an equally powerful system of checks and balances. The interconnectivity of the system balanced the system and kept the respective powers and authorities in check. As the federal government was to reflect the States, so too was the States to reflect the districts, counties and local governments. Each layer of governmental processes reflected the consent and will of the People and in that reflection there was a high degree of restraint placed on each level of government. Those facts are extremely important if the application of law is meted out with justice and equality.

The possibility of ambitious encroachments by either the States or the federal governments would be inhibited by the opposition of either level of government, not to mention the possibility of the vocal opposition of the People. The Constitution did not combine powers in a way that would lead to an accumulation powers that would pose a danger to the Liberty and Rights of the People. They were very precise in purpose to decrease, although not eliminate, the possibility of such consolidation.

The Founders took particular note of the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de la Brede et de Montesquieu in the formation of this system of government. Indeed, the Baron stated: “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body there can be no liberty because apprehensions may arise lest the same monarch or senate enact tyrannical laws to execute them in a tyrannical manner. Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor.” He was, of course, right in his assumptions and we see such combined powers in play today as the various branches of our government either relinquish powers or their powers are usurped by another branch. Likewise, the powers and authorities of the States have been trumped by the increased powers of the federal government.

I will refrain from going into the various delegations of powers found within the Constitution, but suffice to say that the Founders thought of just about everything regarding the proper uses of powers and authorities within the system. Perhaps it is once again time to place our trust in a system that proved far wiser then the fading credibility of our present government; once again we should hearken to the voice of wisdom when it comes to the proper role of government in this country.

Comment by Republicae — December 19, 2007 @ 1:37 pm

[…] Cross posted at The Liberty Papers. […]

Pingback by Reason interviews Andrew Napolitano « THE “G” BLOG @WordPress.com — November 15, 2007 @ 6:40 pm

Do any of you reading this for the first time understand what is happening to our constitution and our liberty? If you don’t you need to wake up fast.

The only candidate i have seen fighting for your liberty is RON PAUL.

Look him up RONPAUL2008.COM OR GOOGLE HIM ON YOUTUBE.

He has my vote and he should have your too if you value our constitution and our liberty.

Comment by steve — November 15, 2007 @ 6:45 pm

Andrew Napolitano makes all the sense in the world. Our Organization of 100,000 is definitely voting for Dr. Ron Paul, they even have a website in Spanish for him. http://www.latinoronpaul.com
Thanks for reading,
AXJ http://www.action4justice.com

Comment by AXJ — November 15, 2007 @ 6:52 pm

The soundbite where Napolitano refers to Paul as “The Thomas Jefferson of our time” is truley inspiring.

Comment by Ian — November 15, 2007 @ 7:11 pm

“GOOGLE HIM ON YOUTUBE”

Come on now, Ron Paul supporters are supposed to uber web geeks. We know what a caps lock key is and we know the difference between google and using the search on youtube. So stop attempting to debunk the myth. People might think his supporters consists of everyday people sick of all the political bullshit, not just a loner somewhere in a basement with a broadband connection. ;)

Ron Paul will be our next President.

Comment by Rich — November 15, 2007 @ 7:43 pm

If our rights come from government, then the Patriot Act is lawful and constitutional because the government that gives freedom can take it away just by having the president sign a bill into a law.

This is incorrect. Even if our rights come from government, it is possible for the government to act unlawfully in restricting rights. Here, the PATRIOT Act doesn’t follow the very rules that the government is based on. Ergo, it is not lawful, regardless of the source of rights.

Comment by Joshua Holmes — November 16, 2007 @ 8:51 am

Joshua, while you have made a good legalistic argument, you have simultaneously missed the the larger philosophical argument that Napolitano is tackling.

Comment by Eric — November 16, 2007 @ 9:32 am

[…] at The Liberty Papers, I make my case that the answer to that question is yes.   […]

Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » The Case Against An Activist Vice-Presidency — November 13, 2007 @ 2:45 pm

Which is exactly what we don’t need. It’s time to bring back the days of the Do-Nothing Vice-President.

Hear, hear!

First question that should be asked of every candidate upon announcement of a running mate: What, if any, role with your veep have in daily affairs?

Comment by Jeff Molby — November 13, 2007 @ 8:49 pm

Hmm, Will makes an excellent point. It adds weight to my growing suspicion that the central failure of our political system is the inability of Congress to address our problems forthrightly. I’m still mulling over the precise nature of the problem, but I’m sure it has something to do with the role of money in politics, and probably something to do with the increasing power of the national parties.

At another blog I learned of an interesting concept for elections: approval voting. In this scheme, each voter can vote for as many candidates as he wishes; the winner is the candidate with the most votes. The result is that you aren’t forced to choose between the lesser of two evil extremes; the centrist candidate will always win. Now, we could argue that centrists aren’t desirable, but I think you’d agree that they’re a damn sight better than George W. Bush if you’re a liberal and Hillary Clinton if you’re a conservative. It might also put an end to negative campaigning. What’s the point of smearing another candidate if in the process you end up with some of the mud on yourself?

Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 21, 2007 @ 10:51 am

It adds weight to my growing suspicion that the central failure of our political system is the inability of Congress to address our problems forthrightly.

It adds weight to my growing suspicion that the central failure of our political system is the inability of the public to realize that a national congress is inherently unable to address our problems forthrightly.

I propose we pass the following amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

Comment by Jeff Molby — October 21, 2007 @ 11:46 am

[…] Here is an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAs for those who are currently playing in the NFL, if they are concerned with health issues which inevitably will continue long after retirement, they need to address these issues within their organizations and within the NFL. … […]

Pingback by Health Tips Blog » Mike Ditka, Former Players Ask the US Senate to “Fix” the NFL — September 20, 2007 @ 1:57 pm

Just because there are issues on the board such as wars and VA benefits doesn’t mean that other aspects of our society should ignored. This is why we have certain branches of governments on different levels.

Perhaps if the NFL players knew what they were getting into and don’t deserve long term care, maybe folks that work construction should get anything when a steel beem falls on them. They obviously know it’s dangerous or they wouldn’t wear helmets like football players.

Comment by J — September 20, 2007 @ 3:24 pm

Just because there are issues on the board such as wars and VA benefits doesn’t mean that other aspects of our society should ignored. This is why we have certain branches of governments on different levels.

Perhaps if the NFL players knew what they were getting into and don’t deserve long term care, maybe folks that work construction shouldn’t get anything when a steel beam falls on them. They obviously know it’s dangerous