One reality that simply can't be escaped or ignored is that in all the "remedies" being floated for how to "fix" America, people are promoting a specific agenda.
A few of the primary agendas are the Constitionalist, the Secessionist, the Anarchist (often closely allied with the Secessionist) Not to mention the Communists.
Communists deserve one simple solution - one upon which most of us can agree, except a few secessionists. And face realities - the Communist/Constitutionalist struggle is the only one on the table that means anything right now. Anarchists and Secessionists are fleas in this fight, compared to the 2 800-pound giants. They only become relevant in the case of Balkanization, in which NEITHER secessionists nor Anarchists will win, but the Communists will own the planet.
The Anarchist, by definition, wants no government. Many are willing to work for a minimalist .gov that they can reach at any time with a pistol.
The Secessionist wants smaller geographical regions to become sovereign and independent.
The Constitutionalist, as relate to our blogs, want a return to a state in which politicians and populace abide by the words and intent of the DoI, USC and BoR.
Anarchists and Secessionists do not, and will not, get much popular traction in today's world. They need the world to change dramatically before they will find popular support. Indeed, every act that weakens the process of Restoration to the Constitution is a net gain for Anarchists and every act that brings Restoration a step closer to reality is seen as a defeat for the average Anarchist and Secessionist. Remember the Agenda.
I am a Constitutionalist. I contend that in an America that abides the words and intent of the Constitution we will be living in a world with sufficient Liberty that most Anarchists and Secessionists will drop their words and deeds to overthrow the legitimate Government of America.
Constitutionalists know there is a tremendous amount of work to do to wrestle DoI/USC/BoR back from the revolutionaries who hijacked the republic. The Communist fucks.
Where we will not go is to restore legitimate adherence to DoI/USC/BoR simply to give Secessionists and Anarchists free reign to tear it all down. If you want Anarchy or Secession -- go take part of Somalia and declare it yours. Americans will fight you harder than Somalis.
Kerodin
III
Speaking as an anarchist- and I can only speak for myself- I am perfectly willing to work with Constitutionalists for more liberty. No, I don't believe a right to rule others ever exists. Not according to a constitution or "laws" or anything else. However, I do see that a strictly constitutional America would be orders of magnitude better than what exists now. Could I live in a Constitutional America? Of course... I've been living in an unconstitutional one and doing OK all my life so far.
ReplyDeleteJust don't ask me to pretend any political office or "law" contrary to rightful liberty is legitimate- and don't try to stop me from working for more liberty when you have enough- and we'll be fine.
I want to see the Citadel and III Arms (and all the rest of these liberty-enhancing projects) succeed beyond the wildest dreams.
Well said.
ReplyDeleteGotta win a war first.
Gotta make some corrections too.
"Could I live in a Constitutional America? Of course... I've been living in an unconstitutional one and doing OK all my life so far."
ReplyDeleteHa...great line! The confusion arises from a failure to see basic principles. The collectivist mentality is so ingrained, that very few can even understand what the individualist is saying. It's always about "the cause" and the cause is always collective. In such a mindset, it's nearly impossible to conceive of the individual as the focus, and not the attributes of the organization, or collective dream or whatever.
This is particularly ironic because originally, that's what America was all about...the sanctity of the individual and the desire to protect that individual from ANY incursion by ANY collective. In this sense, one could almost say that the strongest Constitutionalists are the ones going gangbusters AGAINST its principles. But at this end-stage of collectivism, that's a point that just can't be seen by most, including some who are named Alan.
So-called Restorationists often fail to see that they're NOT "restoring the Constitution." They're just using its framework to carry on more of the same, differing only in the details. This is not a restoration in any meaningful way. Indeed, as it stands now, it's the more "anarchy-leaning" of the freedom movement who are actually arguing for a restoration of the PRINCIPLES of the Founding.
Lots of people don't understand you or me, Kent, because they're not able to put it in a context of the individual being the supreme focal entity. And even when they can, they've been taught their entire lives that this is the very definition of "immoral." That's a very strong force to go against. As we see. That's why I personally find it so important to show that it ISN'T immoral, and in fact is the whole of positive morality.
Not a great way to win friends who don't themselves understand the point. Oh well. So it shall be, until it isn't.
I am probably further to the right on the "political" spectrum than even T Jefferson. I can see no reason that those who believe in the extremely limited .gov as penned in the DOI and Constitution would have any problems with anarchists, The parchments were provided to us as "blue prints" in the never ending journey towards liberty. The Founders merely provided us a starting point towards that goal.
ReplyDeleteIMHO, their knowledge and understanding of the true nature of human beings are what guided them. With very few exceptions, I do not believe power over others had a damn thing to do with what they penned. Maybe anarchy and true voluntary action between individuals were the goal at the end of the path they laid.
Kent has the right attitude. I would have no problem at all with any anarchist or anyone who adheres to Rightful Liberty.
You are both right, in my mind. No Anarchist would likely have a problem living under the DoI/USC/BoR if it were implemented as intended. The USC does not provide any mechanism to directly lay hands upon any citizen - it is only through perversions and unconstitutional amendments that this has come to pass.
ReplyDeleteMy bigger point with the post is that in order for anarchists (absence of Government) and Secessionists (smaller sovereign geographical footprints) both need the same event to happen in order for their dream to be realized: They NEED the US to Balkanize so they can seize on the chaos and impose their will. This is exactly the same goal as the Communists - they want Balkanization for divide and conquer reasons.
Therefore, even though their ideologies are absolutely incompatible - Commies, Secessionists and Anarchists all seek the same destruction of FedGov (not merely rollback to 1791) in order for their version of utopia to have a chance at rising to power.
I can deal with the Anarchist because his true goal is Liberty, usually by any means necessary. And, as I said before, I think most Anarchists will be content to stop there - with a USA that governs as intended in 1791.
Secessionists - not so much. If Balkanization occurs, they will rush to power and while they talk a good game of mutual defense agreements, daisys and kittens, the result will be warfare just as we had before the USC was put in place. Border skirmishes, taxes between tribes/states, et cetera.
Failure to recognize the realities on the ground will get you dead - as I mentioned long ago, a secessionist will only be in a Constitutionalist foxhole so you can do the heavy lifting and help him Balkanize - then one of you needs to put a knife in the others neck...
I don't believe secessionists would, in fact, wish to secede if the Constitution was administered as ratified, for the same reason that anarchists would not have a problem living in the US: It is in their self-interest to remain. And, if Restoration occurs, that means the intrusive fed-gov would not be; and the BoR would again have sway over the affairs of Americans.
DeleteThe border wars and skirmishes in the years leading to the War Between the States were over whether territories would become slave states or not. When the South did secede, the Union did not Balkanize; it split. Further, until Lincoln pushed the matter, the two nations were fine, for about 9 months while the North was deeply divided over what the South had done (not attempted, but actually did).
Point being that the States, if left to themselves per the Constitutional limitations placed upon fed.gov, would find that secession would be to their socio-political and economic detriment.
And currently, a case could be made that the country has become politically balkanized due to fed.gov's refusal to adhere to the compact. That said, our objective is to provide a method with which trust can be rebuilt by re-establishing limited government, by consent of the governed.
My .02
"I don't believe secessionists would, in fact, wish to secede if the Constitution was administered as ratified, for the same reason that anarchists would not have a problem living in the US: It is in their self-interest to remain."
DeleteI think that's right, but I also think it doesn't matter. FedGov is an existing institution...a machine that does what it does very "well," with effectively unlimited resources.
That doesn't mean it can't be stopped, but it likely does mean that it can't be rebuilt from the ground up. It would be like a great web-design company trying to take over Google; ain't gonna happen.
Better the web company makes its own future and beats 'em that way IMO. Plus, there's the not-trivial issue of whether or not that web company really WANTS to be Google. No doubt some of its members would (ahem) but my guess is that cooler minds would prevail.
The Constitution is a tool, a means. It's not that I'm against the Constitution, the arguments against it notwithstanding; it's that one of the biggest mistakes a human can make is switching the means for the end. Ask the commies.
In my mind, Jefferson's rightful liberty is just about the perfect definition of anarchy- it leaves no room for anyone to rule another person. That being said, if a person wants to "seize on the chaos and impose their will", they are not anarchists, they just want the Rulers to be "their guy" or themselves. In other words, they are advocating some form of "-archy", so, by definition, they can't be "anarchists". Maybe they are like those Molotov cocktail-throwing socialists in Europe who get called "anarchists" by themselves and the lamestream media. Calling a termite a bison doesn't make it so, but if no one really knows what a bison looks like, who's to object? I'm one of a rare breed, I think.
ReplyDelete