Nations are living organisms: biological – with an emphasis on logical – made up, obviously, of living, breathing people who share basic concepts of right, wrong, love, family, economics and social status. The health of the nation connects to the health of its members, physically, but also to the health of its beliefs, religious and otherwise. Some nations started because of religious beliefs, but most are or were tribal. Weaving through hundreds or thousands of years of history – perhaps “progress” – nations either progress evenly enough that its members accept, over time, their relationships to political power-holders, elected or otherwise. It is a function of “social status” noted earlier.
Wars change nations, usually by a form of cruel, expensive, bloody separation or segregation: almost purification. If there were some semblance of justice in the origins and results of war, stronger nations, healthier nations, will result. Former amalgamations of nations are distilled apart leaving nations comprised of people who more evenly – fairly – share the basic concepts of life and cooperation listed at the beginning of this observation.
Historians, of course, amidst their natural biases, justify or castigate wars along a spectrum of perceived fairness or righteousness in their origins. However, time reveals the health of nations following the wrenching of war, and the correctness of the new or modified nation’s composition. Is the society healthy? Do its members accept, if not reinforce one another? Is there a path for the divisions of social status to soften or encourage improvement of the economic and social status of its members? If so, that nation will retain its shared identity and ethical agreements.
The advent of writing and written “history” of nations and wars, began a process that has left “modern” peoples with an image, at least, often biased and one-sided justifications of conflicts over the past 5,000 years or so. The use of writing, long, long ago, was a tool of kings or emperors: ruling classes, certainly. The recorded story would automatically be told from the outlook of “rulers,” and then, only of the victorious rulers. As writing and reading spread through greater fractions of societies, somewhat truer, more accurate pictures of the how’s and why’s of wars have been “painted.” Throughout, the tendency for dominant elements of societies – governors – to control what those dominated know or believe about the nature of the world around them and, more specifically, about the workings and intentions/philosophies of their “governors,” themselves.
Occasionally – very infrequently, actually – only once, in fact, a nation is (was) formed based on the best of the philosophies and histories that human history had delivered to that point and place in time. To define that nation, the philosophies of individual sovereignty, responsibility, liberty and from-the-people authority to govern, and the reasons for employing those ideas, were written into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights of 1789. Underlying all of them is the tradition of Judeo-Christianity: 5,000 years of learning what are rights and wrongs and how honesty and honor can and should dissolve lies and hatred and disrespect.
Through it all the Bible has made clear that the most powerful relationship with God is an individual one. Fellowship and congregation are wonderful reinforcements for the individual’s ability to internalize the concepts of God and His rules for life and ascension. Without religious freedom the evolution of souls and the growth of individuals would be impossible. Without the lessons religion provides, the model for 2-parent families and effective fathering of sons and daughters, including economic security, would slip away. There are those, today, who think the government will take better care of children than will their parents. God forbid.
The Constitution is both a covenant and a unique, exceptional, partnership with the people – citizens – of the United States. Unique among nations and history, the CITIZENS of the United States formed the government of the United States. The founding had flaws, primarily slavery and slaves, themselves. The problem that the founders hoped would fade away became the gut-wrenching lever that separated the states. The Civil War became the awful medicine that commenced the cure of slavery fairly quickly, and the cure of racism that has progressed for decades afterwards. But, in both the forming and preservation of the Union, God blessed our nation with the wisdom and fortitude to earn the right of national identity.
Our identity depends upon our general grasp of the IDEAS, the philosophies that underlie our founding and why the Constitutional model is designed the way it is. As we select our representatives, governors and President, we should be looking for each of their understanding of our Constitutional Republic being a PARTNERSHIP that makes possible the success of every U. S. citizen. U. S. citizenship is the “Gold Standard” of all citizenships around the world. One of the prime tests of the right to lead Americans is whether the person seeking that power/status is prepared to defend the unique value of U. S. citizenship. Anyone who would dilute, or threaten that value, by definition is unqualified to lead us. Only U. S. citizens live under the protections and guarantees of the U. S. Constitution and those comprise the most valuable possession – personal property – of every citizen.
An example of PARTNERSHIP would be careful defense of our borders on behalf of every state and every citizen, with proper and strict control over non-citizens allowed to enter our nation. An example of TYRANNY would be loose or virtual non-control over illegal entrants. An example of PARTNERSHIP would be careful, balanced budgeting and management of the people’s money, taxes and banking/investment regulations. An example of TYRANNY would be $35Trillion in national debt and $1Trillion owed in interest every year. An example of PARTNERSHIP would be honest law enforcement and equal application/protection of the laws. An example of TYRANNY would be use of law enforcement agencies and even courts, to persecute people because of their beliefs or politics.
An example of PARTNERSHIP would be telling U. S. citizens the truth about government actions and legislation. An example of TYRANNY would be for the government or its agencies to lie to Americans… or to bring up for a vote legislation with more than the number of words than are in our amended Constitution.
We are obsessed with “RIGHTS” in the United States. This isn’t to deny God-given, or “natural” rights, like Life, Liberty, self-defense, or Independence… or the right to one’s beliefs – about anything. But it should raise questions in wise people’s minds about so-called “rights” that amount to immorality and other licenses to destroy. It should make a person, especially a citizen of the United States, demand that TRUTH be part of every law and, therefore, every right that is protected by the Constitution of the United States of America. This, of course, must mean TRUTH that is empirical and based on a structure of reality that is, itself, based on evidence. Rights should never be based on popularity or “fad.”
To maintain a culture and a country based on empirical truths requires that the basis of truth, itself, must be controlled by the citizenry, not the government, and this requires several components and LIMITS, which we call, responsibility. The system relies upon clear-thinking by each citizen and the ability to obtain knowledge, not just opinion, from available heritage-media, as Prudence defines it. Heritage media is written history of both success and failure, and a wide gamut of opinion and philosophy about historic TRUTH or that serves to illuminate the shadows of historic truth. Honesty, therefore, is essential in that culture’s economics, law and governance, and in ALL contracts, public and private.
In the imperfect processes of human civilization, society and family, mechanisms must be provided and defended that allow for correction of dishonest trends and tendencies. The failure of course-correction in society, governance and education must, itself, be corrected as frequently as necessary in order to return to a path built on TRUTH and HONESTY. The human tendency to take advantage of power, whether political or economic, must be correctable and, as automatically as possible, removable, so that the vast majority of citizens retain its opportunities for advancement, comfort and safety.
That is, any legitimate form of government, must deal with citizens as individuals, and, where possible, partner with each to assure individual “success” as a free and honest individual. Both government and citizens must be acting honestly for this effect to be in balance and to manifest. Language, therefore, must be rigidly defined as to meaning and understanding, a function of honesty that educational methods and content must be based upon.
The greatest opportunity for tyranny exists in government, no matter how benignly formed and constituted. Police power resides in government and its only limits are a judicial system and politics. We like to think that written law protects us as individuals, but the judicial system must agree with those writings, which requires purity of honesty. Citizens attempt, through politics, to limit judicial power to honest jurists, but the system is imperfect. The means to correct the course of judicial dishonesty are few and awkward to employ and, in fact, arcane on purpose. Under the Constitution we hope that imperfect, if not dishonest, politicians will magically elevate the most honest individuals to our “Supreme” court. It is a hope that, historically, has proven only partially fulfilled, but to a somewhat better degree than all judicial positions as a whole. Still, the placing of power in the hands of a small number of jurists to decide Constitutional matters for thousands of others and for millions of individual citizens, is imperfect, at best, and mechanisms for correcting course even there, should be in place.
The natural limitations of foresight, to which all the crafters of the Constitution were subject, prevented planning for today’s advanced communications and democratized pollution of thought, and of honesty. Those who took the risks of responsibility to found this nation against nearly all odds, could not conceive of an America where unskilled, unmotivated and unproductive individuals could claim the “right” to be supported by not just “the government,” but by the dishonest power of government to borrow from generations into the future for the comfort of the relatively useless today.
Nor could they have imagined a political engine that runs not on the honesty that the competition built into a democratic republic ought to ensure, but on the ability to manipulate truth and re-election bribery schemes to limit the number of citizens that might ever hold elected power. There are serious weaknesses in our Constitutional system – not because it can’t work, but because it relies too heavily upon honesty and integrity of those to whom we relinquish power. In other words, it fails to protect the citizens from the worst tendencies of human nature. We can correct for these weaknesses of our Constitutional republic.
Clearly there is too great a concentration of power, political and financial, in the administrative state. This is pleasing to leftists/Communists. Their basic approach to life is that “experts” should be making decisions for, well, everyone who is not an oligarch. For the wealthy, decisions are made that favor and protect them, much as we have observed during the COVID years. Unfortunately, the political “class” is also happy with most responsibility being held by the deep state. It removes that responsibility – and accountability – from the political personas they need to gain re-election. Relying on elected “representatives” to reform the decades-long shift to un-representative administration of power, is a fool’s errand. Things are too comfortable for too many of our “public servants.”
We need a Constitutional amendment that sets term limits for virtually all federal employees – elected and appointed/hired. The “people’s business” has been subverted by an essentially communist administrative behemoth that no longer answers to the will of voters. The American system was created to place and keep power in the hearts, heads and hands of American citizens. To that purpose it is a failure. Much heat is generated trying to find people to blame for this epic slippage of mission.
Naturally, everyone is practiced at denying his or her role in the change. It’s societal, starting with a lack of education of the average voter. Coincidentally, the education establishment is firmly controlled by leftists. States have played a role in the shift, as they sought out innovative ways to shift financial and other responsibilities to the federal government. Leftists have led the efforts to shift welfare and other financial loads onto Washington, but, to their shame, conservatives have found it handy to duck those responsibilities, as well. Nor will any state deny largesse that others are receiving… it would be unfair to their citizens, and so it has proceeded: shifting freedom, power and financial responsibility to the federal government. Over 150 years increasingly socialist forces have transformed the basic relationships of the federal government to its citizens. As often as it has been interpreted to protect citizens’ rights, the Constitution is as likely to defend socialist shifts of rights and responsibilities to government. It’s obscene.
The money controlled by bureaucrats, more than three quarters of whom are leftists, easily sways corporate policies, creating a nearly irresistible force of control over 330 million citizens. It doesn’t seem to matter who they are convinced to elect. The direction of government tends to continue toward the left, which is globalist, now. The independence of individuals and even of the entire nation, is no longer a national goal, nor is it likely, although possible, that citizens can reverse the course away from liberty and free enterprise, and even Constitutionalism. The only option to reverse the course of global Communism is to amend the Constitution by adding tools and limits that the administrative (and elective) states would never permit, if that amending were in their hands. Our Founders anticipated this.
Article Five of our Constitution provides for adding Amendments via two different processes. The only one that has been employed to date is what may be called the Congressional process. A two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate can propose an Amendment that may – or may not – be approved by the legislatures or popular votes of three-fourths of the States. This has been done, starting with the Bill of Rights, 27 times. It is not a perfect process, having included some glaring errors like the eighteenth and twenty-fifth amendments. The process is totally political and responds to democratic whims. [See: https://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2021/06/27/boneheaded-25th/ ]
The alternate process is referred to as “Convention of the States” and requires that two-thirds of the States’ legislatures approve of an application to hold a convention for the purpose of proposing Amendments. It states that “the Congress” … “shall call a Convention for proposing amendments…” It is not clear that that “call” would require a two-thirds vote in both houses as the first process does. But it definitely says, “…shall call…” and there is no stipulation that a “law” must be passed, so, it seems Prudent to say, a majority of the two houses should call the convention. There are risks.
One is that the Left, Fascists and Communists, NEVER retreat from their mission: the destruction of individual sovereignty, liberty and responsibility. We have seen that laws are meaningless in their view of history – RULES are the coin of their realm. LAWS imply shared values of morality like, well, the Ten Commandments and their ilk. Rules are made by rulers… and they will tell everyone what is right, wrong and moral when necessary. Rules evolve, in their view, as do morals, including the number one, most-moral Rule of all: evolution must serve the State (which often means, One Party) and if it does then that is what is moral.
Great vitriol will spew forth if the magic number of 34 is reached. Congress and the rest of the power establishment has no intention of relinquishing any of what they hold dear. A Convention of the States could, if carefully managed, redress many imbalances in what should be a federal system of governance. Most people don’t know what that term means. The alternative is a “national” government – not what the Constitution created… and LIMITED.
One of the worst consequences of the national administrative, unelected “state,” is our astronomical debt. Congresses since the Johnson Administration and the nationalization of welfare, have buried the American nation and people in, now, over 32 Trillions of dollars of debt. Over this period of decline, every problem leftists could give a name to became a “crisis” or a “war” on this or that social ill. Where is the honesty? One wonders.
Arguments over “raising the debt ceiling” are annually fruitless. Those who live their best lives amidst the swamp of Washington are always so deeply concerned about “defaulting on the debt,” something the United States of America, for Heaven’s sake, would never allow! Oh, the horror! Of course, there is interest to be paid for the privilege of never repaying the debt, itself, now in the range of $500 BILLION every year, which is a lot of Meals on Wheels. It’s a lot of drug and other mental health treatment; it’s a lot of policing and incarceration of rabid criminals; it’s a lot of a lot of things. Janet Yellen now wants to rate the INTEREST on the debt in terms of its fraction of Gross Domestic Product. She had to go some to find a comparator that makes the interest bomb look small. Where’s the honesty?
A Convention of the States could bring about amendments that would limit spending to actual revenues of the previous year. What a concept. Any revenue – and that means every penny – in excess of that figure would pay down the debt: another concept, hard for Washington to grasp. How does YOUR Congressman or woman propose to pay down the debt? Eliminate “wasteful” spending and “fraud?” When the Defense Department fails to account for multiple billions of dollars, is that wasteful or fraudulent? When Medicare is defrauded of billions every year, is that wasteful? When States use Medicaid funds to pay other expenses, is that wasteful? Or fraudulent? If everyone from Congress on up is in on the game, it can’t be fraud, can it?
How about everything from health care to the National Institutes of Health, the CDC and Fauci’s NIAID be returned to the States, free from federal politics? Do you think the pharmaceutical industry would have more or less influence over actual health… as opposed to lifetime drug consumption? Maybe land-use policies could be returned to the States, as well. Is federal binding-up of nearly 30% of the country, disallowing joint use for profit, national security and recreation… is that wasteful? Maybe the “work” of the energy Department could return to the States. Who would miss that agency except those who garner money in their pockets by dealing with a handful of bureaucrats instead of elected officials?
Maybe an amendment could remove politics from the FBI and restore it to investigating and fighting federal-law offenses while coordinating States’ cooperation for additional crime-fighting. Policing should be a State matter, anyway. It’s none of Congress’ business how States control crime and incarceration unless Constitutional rights are abused.
Fully HALF of Federal Agencies, Departments, offices could be eliminated, gone, kaput. Few would miss them, again except for those who line their pockets by interacting with them. If they are actually partnering in the success of American citizens, then keep them. Otherwise, put every one on a separate line-item to be voted up or down every other year. Perhaps the Congress could actually serve citizens instead of itself. It might mean some hard work, though.
And let’s put limits on consecutive terms for every elected official who is paid more than an expense stipend, universally, but let States decide what they should be in their State. These might include how many terms a previously elected office-holder must stay out of the process of running again. But EVERY elected official should have to prosper in the private sector and live under the laws he or she helped pass. Being in Congress or States’ legislatures or elected executive office is NOT a profession – it’s a sacrifice of service to neighbors, communities and country. I guarantee we’d have different kinds of people in office – and different offices bound by different laws – which are the points.
When tyranny threatens, elections are months away.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL MILITIA
The evolution of American constitutionalism responded no more to the several theories of rights and representation of the late 18th Century, as much as to the necessity of freeing ourselves from the shackles imposed by the British Crown and a non-representative Parliament. That freedom would not have been won without “Militias” – home-grown assemblages of armed citizens, by definition, non-governmental organizations. Our Constitution references these quasi-military, self-selected groups of passionate defenders of farm, family and business, in the Second Amendment.
The potency of the Second Amendment is rarely mentioned. Everyone argues over the “… right to keep and bear Arms…” Opponents of gun ownership point to the first phrase, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, …” as if it referenced what we now call the State Police, or even “State Militia” which are controlled and limited by our friendly and benign state governments. Some liken the term to the National Guard, which is even further off the mark. “Militia,” in the Second Amendment, refers to self-declared and assembled, armed, private-citizen organizations. It is not clear that such organizations are legally tolerated today.
In fact, there are a number of such groups around the country: legal gun bearers who come together like clubs, perhaps including some militaristic training. They tend strongly toward white-guys, exclusively, sometimes religious, generally anti-federal government. Unfortunately, there is a parallel tendency toward racism, but the number of incidents in which members of such “clubs” attack blacks or others is very, very small… no way comparable to the numbers of blacks who attack everyone else, although never being charged with “racism.”
Militias have a bad name. Still, they are a part of the patriotic front that challenged and stopped the British in the 1770’s, and which became part of the “official” Continental Army under general George Washington. They were tough people, supported by equally tough wives and relatives, both farmers and merchants. How would they fit in to today’s social fabric and political landscape? They are referenced and promoted in our Constitution, but universally denigrated as, mainly, racist crackpots playing with guns.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State…” What “state” were the framers talking about?
At the time of the fight for independence, the “states” were colonies: 13 separate entities with separate civil authorities appointed by the King or by his governors. To become sovereign states they had to both rid themselves of British governors and soldiers, who were the “police,” as it were, and then establish their own authorities with elections, appointments, codified laws and relatively independent courts. They had, also, to defend themselves. Automatically it became obvious that the colonies had to stand against the British together, else they’d be militarily quashed separately. Without much debate, they formed the Continental Congress and a sense of “nation” was established across fairly diverse colonies. A common enemy will do that.
Militias, essentially, were folded in to the individual colonies’ “Minutemen” forces and ultimately into the Continental Army, but not all of them. Many Militia fighters served key roles in interfering with British supplies and cavalry, harassing them like guerilla fighters, sometimes providing a flanking force when standing ranks faced off on battlefields. However, by the time of the war of 1812, militias were relatively unheard of. Citizens were still armed, but the U. S. Army and Navy then formed the military wherewithal of the new nation, calling up fighters from the states, each of whom represented their states as much as they did the United States.
The Constitution acknowledged and stipulated the importance of “militias,” and stipulated the right to keep and bear arms, but militias, themselves, faded from prominence.
By the end of the Civil War there was no question that the military forces were U. S. forces, and the federal government took on the costs and administration of veterans’ disabilities and welfare. States had police forces, but no longer raised their own “regulars” or trained or equipped them. Militias, if such can be identified at all, devolved into chapters of the Ku Klux Klan, constantly ginning up anger against negroes – a most despicable era of American history. Roughly speaking, the “Union” army and victorious states were “Republicans;” the former confederacy and the Ku Klux Klan itself, were “Democrats.” Democrats supported gun control laws, among other segregationist restrictions, to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. To maintain power and influence, the Klan, like revolutionary militias, had to constantly exaggerate the presence of a common enemy: free negroes.
“Militias,” now, are perceived as kooks. Any concept of forming armed forces to overthrow “the government,” is inherently illegal, and only a tiny fraction of Americans in either party think it’s either practical or legitimate. Yet the concept of non-governmental militias is Constitutional! Where could “militias” fit in? First, they’d have to meet standards. Their fellow citizens would have to trust them in terms of public safety and support of the Constitution, itself. Then what?
Somehow, some way, militias would have to coexist with police forces, both municipal and state. Participation in “Guardian” training and functions is a good place to start.
The Guardian Program, yet to be adopted anywhere, is designed to “legitimize” concealed carry, in a sense. The Constitution already protects the right to keep and bear arms – carry them around, in other words: to be individually armed. As a Guardian, the person who is willing to carry a firearm would also be trained in handling, safety and safe reaction in the presence of a crime or imminent criminal act. That person would also wear a “9-1-1” transponder that would identify and locate the individual and alert police forces to a possible active-shooter situation. Meanwhile, the guardian would take such action as practical to defuse a conflict or stop criminal action until police arrived.
Finally, the guardian would be shielded by special indemnification for legitimate and proper actions taken to stop criminal actions, whether on his or her own property or in public. “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” The truth of that observation is timeless. Establishing “Guardian” legislation enables the multiplication of police power and effectiveness at very low cost. It also provides vectors for evaluating gun owners and their family environments. If such gun owners formed the core of “militias,” governments and citizens could have confidence in their judgment and rationality.
Militias could also be held to ethical standards. Non-guardians who “joined up” would have to swear to certain behaviors and practices concerning gun ownership, handling and safety inside and outside of their homes. Militia organizations would be subject to fines for failing to adhere to ethical standards or for failing to reject or eject members who fail to do so. Such information would have to be shared with law-enforcement and become part of the unacceptable persons’ records. Most Militias would form through “Rod and Gun” clubs or hunting clubs or “Sportsmens’ Clubs.” Whether they could remain associated with those clubs would be a decision of the club, not of any government. How would a Militia function politically? How would the majority opinions of a Militia or dozens of Militias, enter into public policy or political power? Who would their “common enemy” be?
By definition, the “common enemy” would be our own federal, central government at the moment it is perceived as tyrannical. We have major political forces who are enthralled with government by experts – the bureaucratic state. Decision-making by and for individuals is anathema to these leftist “Progressives.” They are also anti-religious, increasingly opposed to free speech, virulently opposed to the second Amendment as written, and socialist in economics and social organization. Many members of a militia organized to monitor and resist – if not remove – tyranny in our central government, would count “Progressives” among the tyrants. A militia formed by progressives, for such there could be, though unlikely, would see themselves as saviors and conservatives as the common enemy.
Obviously, those most attracted to “militias” would be vilified and hated to greater degrees as members than they are, if at all, as relatively quiet, unobtrusive neighbors and co-workers.
Militias would tend to be somewhat secretive in their meetings and deliberations. Using common social media communications would leave them open to attack and interference. They will want to network – and perhaps coordinate – with other militias through a modern version of “Committees of Correspondence” as was done in Revolutionary times, when their discovery would have resulted in arrest and torture. If not actual secrecy, strict confidentiality would be essential to operation and growth of militias. But, how, short of taking up arms in fact, would constitutional militias influence political, governmental actions and direction?
Clearly they would have to be financially independent of government support or tax abatement or tax-free status on any places of meeting or practice / training. They would be subject to continuous hate from leftists and racists, for they would not be able to control militias from the inside. They would have to be scrupulous about opening membership to anyone who met their standards of behavior and ethics, which standards would include legal gun ownership, by definition. But, again, how would a militia influence political power? Could a militia sway the votes of others?
Communications, communications, communications. As with the Committees of Correspondence, militias would have to present factual and documented positions on the actions of government(s) and of elected or appointed officials. They would have to lay bare the nature of tyrannies large and small that made clear the un-representative nature of those in power including, most specifically, the expenditures of public monies. To do so would mean operating publishing businesses in both print and digital formats. Since a militia would not be a political “party” or be attempting to run candidates of its own, its publications would have to be both historical and current, and easily comprehensible as to how an issue/ topic either resisted tyranny of the state (or municipality) or fit into a tyrannical or potentially tyrannical action that threatened Constitutionally guaranteed rights or the freedoms of individuals.
Would anyone care if they did this work? Would citizens listen? Militias, like those that deposed tyranny at the inception of our country, have an obligation to pursue wisdom and to act upon it. The first militias had the wisdom of recognizing tyranny and of how to multiply their effectiveness in fighting it. It led them to wonderous courage and sacrifice. To fulfill that legacy, Constitutional militias must form with that same sort of commitment. Membership would not be a sport or part-time interest. Just as “the Left” maintains decades, if not centuries, of commitment to upending Biblical truths and models of behavior and governance based on individual freedom and responsibility, Militias must maintain a singular purpose to inform other Americans of the lies and evil of Socialism and Communism, backed up by the ability to risk everything to overthrow tyranny in defense of the American Way.
The creation of one militia, independent and uncorrupted, will bring forth many others, and their creation still more. We have learned after dozens of congresses and hundreds of representatives and senators, that the election of readily corruptible men and women who enter office with pathways of personal wealth and influence providing them all too many comforts and excuses for failure, has not – and will not – bring about the change needed to save and preserve our nation, our Constitution and our integrity. A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
Our recent – and continuing – experiment with executive, unconstitutional tyranny in the name of public health, ought to wake up a nation that has been doing a poor job of conveying America’s exceptionalism and founding ideas. At least two generations have matriculated with limited and essentially non-philosophical education about our own country’s history. The unique responsibility that is part of and the foundation of United States citizenship is barely mentioned, if not derogated, in government-monopoly “public” schools.
Being shut-down, locked-down, and pushed-around by a variety of state governments brings to mind the importance of our Constitution and our individual sovereignty as U.S. citizens – sovereignty that does NOT extend to non-citizens. We are exceptional precisely because our form of government, and the IDEAS that define it are an exception to commonplace tyrannies that defined governance prior to the American Revolution. Our nation is not an outgrowth of ethnicity or tribal history, but of a rare, exceptional set of ideas and philosophies. One of these is that citizens are sovereign and the federal government is formed by their consent, limited by the Constitution that We the people created, ratified and (should) hold sacred. If we only understood it!
It is hard to explain to Obama types who perceive the Constitution as flawed since it doesn’t list all the free stuff the federal government is obligated to give to people. Those are they who bristle at the description, “free stuff.” People will be paying taxes out the wazzoo for all the federal gifties, they note.
Still, as any veteran can tell us, there is a price to pay for freedom; we just don’t contemplate what that statement actually means. A young-to-middlin’ man whom Prudence has known for his entire life, has grown to be a good observer of political fallacy, and he pointed out a good one regarding coronavirus tyranny: our freedom… our sovereign independence is not a gift from any government. It is God-given, or, if you can’t stomach those concepts, it is a birthright if born under the Constitution, and precious. Yet we wiil happily share it(!) with anyone who wishes to become a U. S. citizen. That’s a gift that isn’t even offered anywhere else in the world, except somewhat in Canada and a couple other former dominions.
Freedom belongs to the individual; it is personal, private property. Unless we hurt others by committing crimes, no one can CONSTITUTIONALLY take our freedoms away. Free citizens installed the constitution to limit the powers that the federal government THAT WE CREATED, could exercise on OUR behalf. WE delineated the limits to government, not the government – not the congress – not any president except in the rare instances when the survival of the nation was threatened, war was declared by our supposed representatives, or when internal uprising threatened the nation. Nowhere in its clarity and brevity is there a power granted by the people to restrict our inalienable rights in the event of really bad influenza. These bedrock concepts may sound quaint, but THEY ARE THE FUNDAMENTS of the United States of America.
So, since freedom of movement, assembly, religion, the redress of grievances, of speech and from unreasonable search and seizure belong to US, along with freedom from excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishments, from being forced to quarter soldiers in our homes unless provided by law in times of war, from frivolous criminal charges except by a grand jury, from deprivation of life, liberty or property except by due process of law, and from having our property taken for public use without just compensation, they are OUR PROPERTY. We also have the right to a speedy trial, and to confront witnesses against us and to have the assistance of counsel. We may demand a trial by jury. The enumeration of rights (protected by the Constitution) shall not be taken to mean that other rights not enumerated are not still retained by the people. Do you grasp the enormity of those words and others in the Constitution? WE are the top of the heap: NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
The Fifth Amendment enumerates our right to JUST COMPENSATION when our properties are TAKEN from us. Where does this leave our small-g governors when they attempt to force us to stay home, to stop working, to stop going out without a face-mask, to stop assembling with whom we please, or to stop earning our lawful livings? How can we be restricted from buying any lawful product from any lawful seller thereof? Our RIGHTS are our PROPERTIES… inalienable except in the most dire circumstances. Over the years courts and even the Supreme Court have established that there must exist some overarching PUBLIC PURPOSE for ANY restriction of citizens’ rights.
There are 1,000 definitions of “public purpose” for every 100 instances of the exercise of police power. Since the government, AND THEREFORE THE POLICE, exists to serve and protect US, our property , our rights, our citizenship, in fact our sovereignty, public gatherings, riots, parades and demonstrations and other incidents that block commerce and free access to public works like streets and sidewalks which WE PAID FOR AND OWN, legally and only appropriately, may be restricted to serve a public purpose (that purpose being the defense of good order so that private rights and properties may be legally enjoyed), including commercial properties. Public safety in terms of free and safe flow of traffic and commerce, is also a public purpose.
So where is the government when the “public purpose” umbrella has evaporated in the presence of new information, scientific and otherwise? It is in the increasingly comfortable position of tyrant, decreeing and attempting to enforce restrictions on the sovereign rights of citizens for NO GOOD PUBLIC PURPOSE. And here is where we are regarding restrictions on movement, assembly, commerce, travel and personal hygiene in the guise of imaginary “Law” that says no one may exit his or her domicile without wearing a face covering. We need not get in to keeping 6 feet away from other people. These restrictions on rights actually form an offer to take with just compensation, our personal properties: things we own without restriction.
So WE THE PEOPLE should issue letters of conditional acceptance to our governors and Mayors and selectmen and Aldermen and police officials if necessary, stating our CHARGE for the loss of freedoms and rights. That is, “just compensation” is not a price set by government who desires to take these properties for NO compensation; no, it is a price that seems “just” to each of us based on our own free judgment of the importance and therefore value of specific ones of our rights. It seems Prudent that wearing a silly mask that has neither medical nor public value, should cost $80.00 per day, no terms: payable upon receipt. Restriction to one’s home is worth at least $336 per day, unless one has school-age children, which adds $121.77 per child. Staying 6 feet away from others is worth $2.25 per foot, per hour times the number of people so distanced. The federal magicians have already tried to pay us for our inherent right to work. Freedom of Religion is worth a lot more than these tiny sums.
It’s a whole lot less costly than days in court with juries, which cases the state and municipalities will lose.
Every one of us is a “capitalist.” This, in the sense that we all strive to obtain as much safety, comfort, material goods and security for old age, as we possibly can for the least amount of effort necessary. It doesn’t matter for whom we vote. Many of us simply want to be free TO acquire what we need; others wish to be free OF the need to acquire. In both philosophies we are attempting to gain with minimum effort.
But that’s not the whole story, is it?
Every person is motivated to act differently. We all have our own “profits” that cause us to expend MORE than minimal effort necessary to take care of ourselves and our family. Some are motivated to gain as much as possible in terms of material goods and “wealth.” Some want to be charitable and will work more than necessary so as to give to others. Some are motivated by artistic expression, drama, music or writing. Some by the gaining of power over others, one way or the other. Many profits.
The invention of money both simplified and complicated capitalism. For some, in twisted ways, the accumulation of money, itself, became their “profit.” Such people are able to “buy” the necessities for which others strive, but they are also consumed by numbers and the quantities of money they represent. They have different fears and joys than “regular” people. Unfortunately, they come to realize that they can also “buy” power – influencing government-types to protect their accumulated wealth.
Government types come from those for whom “profit” means power over others, over “public policy” and over taxation and, unfortunately, over “public” budgeting. Tapping into the “profits” of others, familial, financial and charitable, provides the most ways to acquire at minimal effort for those so motivated. They concentrate in governments. Almost inevitably and partly because much of their effort is arcane, they come to believe in their own mental superiority over “regular” people whose concerns are familial, local and unobtrusive.
Meanwhile, capitalism, which in the U. S., OUGHT TO MEAN the right to own private property, and by extension, the right to own the fruits of one’s labors, carries on, inherent in every person. It is human nature.
Some aspects of human nature can, if unchecked by society and hence by government, cause damage and destruction to that society. Many control-worthy human aspects are checked by “agreement.” That is, members of society “agree” that murder, rape, theft, fraud and other forms of false witness, greed, sloth and envy, are to be controlled through various codified sanctions. Lately the list has grown to include littering of various degrees, like pollution, and, in an extraordinary reversal, discrimination against sexual oddities, a change that has led to “intolerance” becoming a worse social transgression than some actual crimes. Western societies must now “tolerate,” if not celebrate, anti-capitalist “lifestyles” that include essentially welfare careers. These things actually threaten the social order and every other right protected by the Constitution, our fundamental social agreement.
A tremendous strength in American capitalism has been the high integrity of our contracts, both with one another and with our governments. This phenomenon makes modern trade possible as well as the millions of debt contracts that describe modern economics. But today, we ignorantly embrace a new form of socialism based on twisted concepts of “social justice,” which intends, fundamentally, to cause guilt-ridden government types to alter the underlying concepts of private property, and to discard natural human capitalism. This need not be an inevitable slide toward the only economic future possible.
It is a slide the basis of which is ignorance, willful and otherwise. It is a slide that attempts, as all socialist plans inevitably do, to replace human nature with a government-directed one. While there may exist the technical possibility of directing every person’s life and economic decisions, governance based thereon cannot prevail. It devolves into tyranny or revolution, perhaps to a new tyranny or, once in a great, great while, into a new form of governance based on self-discipline and personal sovereignty, one in which the governed grant their governors limited powers, and where the tyranny of the majority is carefully sanctioned and where tyranny of the minority is unheard of.
Inherent in a government based on individual freedom and personal responsibility are the concepts of private property and ownership of the fruits of one’s labor: essential free-enterprise.
Capitalism gets fully mucked up when it is politicized, which is to say when limited governments attempt to create economic “fairness.” It seems that no “free” economic and democratic system can refrain from favoring certain industries in return for maintaining power for those who are already “in” government. Much of the favoring is done to “make things fair” or to “level the playing field,” but almost without exception, the net effects are to limit competition for those industries and to limit competition for those in power. These are tendencies that a wise and educated citizenry would create institutions in society and government to carefully limit, if not make impossible. In our growing ignorance we are failing at this essential part of citizenship.
A great strength of capitalism is that it doesn’t reward failure… it replaces it with something that can succeed, success measured in profitability and ability to destroy debt. In this is a lesson for all with eyes to see and ears to hear. Among our people, however, those who get the message are now considered hateful while those who refuse to see or hear are empowered, or re-elected. Ours is fast becoming a system hobbled by the removal of the pillars of individual freedom and personal responsibility. We are rewarding failure.
Immediately this statement will be attacked with charges of cruelty, but this stems from ignorance, which is to say, it’s a charge leveled by those who, for whatever personal profit, IGNORE the distinction between those who are capable and willfully refusing to take responsibility for themselves, and those who are incapable and needful of charity and public support.
The greatest value of capitalist profitability is the creation of surplus – productive surplus – of which a portion may be used to care for those who cannot care for themselves. The greatest flaw in capitalism’s opponents is their creation of and acceptance of a thousand reasons why individuals may be grouped among those who cannot care for themselves. They unfortunately become codified and form a malevolent inhibitor of success. And here we are.
Everyone decided to chide President Trump for privately describing New Hampshire as a “drug-infested den.” Oh, the horror! Why, there are genuinely nice people living in New Hampshire; how could he say such a derogatory thing about them?
Well, he didn’t, of course, and the release of the content of that conversation was a crime, but who cares if discomfiting Trump is the possible result. Let’s use our brains, now, and realize that the point Trump made was that even in New Hampshire, for more than 200 years the veritable definition of good, clean living, based on religious morals and flinty work ethic, the corruption of drugs had penetrated every town and city, and was destroying the heritage of “New-Hampshire-ness” with little to stop it.
It is no wonder that closing the southern border is taken so seriously by Trump and many others. The worst flow of drugs into our nation – and into New Hampshire – begins in Mexico and points further south. Making it harder to get drugs into the country is a good thing. I’m pretty sure of that, but why?
First, let’s stipulate that human beings are remarkable products of evolution and more. The “more” is best described as a foundation of religiously sourced and codified morals. Whether you choose to accept any religious “truths” or are an affirmed atheist, it is clear that the hundreds of religious histories and traditions on Earth have brought us to a fairly honest and moral civilization, capable of correcting and perfecting itself. One of our greatest mores is that we call “freedom.”
We may think freedom is inherent, but it really is intensely fragile, is it not? Historically, since the organization of city-states, freedom has been merely forms of servitude, some quite oppressive. In fact, the age of kingdoms, kings and subjects, or warlords and serf-protectees, was marked by various forms of tyranny. Granted, some was less benign than others, and the basis of great folk-tales. Robin of Locksley and his Merry Men describes the battle for freedom from oppressive taxation and government incompetence – I didn’t invent that irony.
Anyway, back to drugs. None of our heroes in the perpetual fight for freedom, is also described as drug-addled. Indeed, much effort today is described as helping addicts to achieve freedom FROM drugs. So, it seems logical, a free people, ever jealous of their freedom from tyranny, must, by definition, be drug-free as well. Keeping drugs out of America is the logical path to follow IF, and only IF, a leader of Americans is attempting to keep them free. Now we need to look at the headlong rush by various governments within America to actually PROFIT from the cultivation and sale of drugs to their free citizens.
A large element of states’ argument FOR drug legalization, is that it costs too much to enforce laws against marijuana and, besides, isn’t the use of drugs an exercise of the very freedoms governments are supposed to protect? Well, no, not at all, but we seem to have talked ourselves into this twist of “freedom.”
Free people are also responsible for the defense of freedom. This is called citizenship. That is, as we grant powers to an organizing and defensive government, limited by a Constitution that we the people approved of, we also assume an obligation to ourselves, our children and all of future history, to defend those freedoms that government was constituted to PROTECT. That is, by all logic, we are FREE to be FREE, but not free to enslave ourselves, as we do in the grip of drugs.
Oh, come on, you say, pot is no worse than alcohol! Well, perhaps not, that’s arguable, what with alcohol being metabolize-able and being only ingestible and not smoke-able. Too-heavy ingestion of alcohol will kill liver and other cells and disrupt neural communications for some time, until naturally removed from the body. The same could be said about marijuana, except that the danger is directly to the lungs, about 20 times that of tobacco cigarettes. The body does expel a lot of the elements of marijuana smoke, but does a poor job of removing THC, tetra-hydra-cannabinol. THC has the friendly quality of being easily absorbed into fat cells.
Fat cells are found all over the body but one of the greatest concentrations is the brain. This is good because fat cells are hardy and relatively long-lived, but it’s also a liability when exposed to certain toxins like… well, THC. THC tends to store in fat cells – not only brain cells – which is why it’s a risk for lactating mothers to smoke pot, but it is a “freedom,” right? Back to brain cells.
THC stores in brain cells and surreptitiously clogs up the intricate, microscopically tiny connections that enable complex thoughts and memory. “Maybe for real pot-heads, but not me,” you say, “I hold down a job and have no problems smoking pot for relaxation on weekends and once in a while other times. No problem at all… did I say that already?”
From the standpoint of defending freedom, however, the softening and dulling of voters’ intellects is perfect ground for planting illogical political distinctions, thereby guiding voting patterns in the direction most beneficial for those in power. Faced with a population clamoring for “freedom” from pot-related criminal records, all the Sheriff of Nottingham had to do was come out in favor of legalizing pot and his hold on POWER would have been unshakable. Populist “Robin Hoods” could dash themselves against that rock to no avail. Look around us – it’s what we have, now.
Even better than political strength, our state budgets are overspent and there are “revenue short-falls.” Actually, there are “spending long-rises,” but the important thing is that potheads will buy the stuff and pay the taxes so that we, your most-benevolent governors can take care of the children. You wouldn’t deny us that heartfelt mission, would you? You right-wing fascist bastard? After all, taxes on tobacco have declined dangerously and we have so many vital needs that only government can take care of – you see that don’t you?
And we bought into this. We accepted, first, that medical marijuana was medical. That’s a good one. You could get it at CVS if that were true, but, if they’ll buy that they’ll buy anything. They’ll even accept that the pay of legislators is somehow related to the incomes of corporate giants. Let’s test that by voting ourselves 60% raises and see what happens…
This in no way belies the fact that there are medical values to some marijuana components. There are medical values to lots of plants and thank God we have discovered those we have. It doesn’t mean that addling our intellects is a goal of a free people, does it? And so we argue about how high the taxes should be now that legalization has been voted-for, with the murder by a pot-stupefied driver with a medical marijuana prescription, of a State Trooper, a mere hiccup in the process. Pot is so benign, in fact, we should recommend it to heroin addicts to help them get off of the “real” drugs.
It has been a big, long-term sale, and we bought it.
Maybe if Trump simply tried a few tokes he could stop hassling druggies, damned right-wing fascist bastard.
Voting for pot legalization is a lot like voting for socialism, the other lie of non-responsibility. “Hey, man, it’s like, a free country, man, and health care is a right, not a privilege, man.” And not a responsibility? Next you’ll be telling us that you’re entitled to your freedoms and the government better make sure you keep ‘em, man. If it doesn’t then you’re voting for whoever is in favor of legalizing pot everywhere. Did you know that George Washington made rope out of hemp?
