Fifth question: Envision the state of freedom in your world (or your children’s world) 25 years from now.
Some possible things to consider: What will have improved? What gotten worse? Will people be happier with their lot or more miserable? More prosperous or poorer? Will government be more dominant or will it have been forced to retreat? Will people be in a numb, controlled, frightened, surveilled condition, or will they have declared overt or covert independence? What key events will have led to whatever state of freedom you envision?
Define “your world” any way you like. It could be the world, your country, your state, your community … whatever you think most relevant or find most interesting to speculate about.
25 years from now? I’ll be dead. Probably shot by a thug in a uniform, when I refuse to kowtow. But dead of old age if not. “A job for two who are now of job age, the police.” — A Clockwork Orange
25 Years? The economic collapse is over and the violence that it begat has subsided. There is still someviolence but mostly by roving gangs, that don’t normally last long if they come upon a community that is prepared. Recovery is along the lines of small communities, often isolated working together to rebuild networks of trade. Technology didn’t disappear it just decentralized and is slowly expanding again and improving lives.
The Govt is still there. Much reduced in size and scope. When the collapse was at it’s height they tried a little to hard to shape the country in ways the citizens didn’t agree with. The Govt hat is left is mostly ignored and confines itself to defense from external threats and keeping the post roads open. The states are now in relations that look much like America in pre-revolutionary days (the orignal revolution). Individuals mostly ignore the govt and the govt mostly leaves them alone. There isn’t much money for thugs and probably won’t be since there is no electronic money to be had it it is hard to run a government on livestock and produce. The gold standard was returned to out of neccessity, not by a request of the bankers. The bankers and most of their lawyers are gone too.
A lot of population was lost those first few years, famine, pestilence, violence and despair was the culprit. There are still people that wish for the govt to supply their needs, they generally congregate around the big cities. The big cities only exist around the major ports or rail hubs. Big is a matter of perspective. Most cities reduced in size and scope and are accessed by traversing through miles of rubble and wreckage. Detroit in the ’10s was a good portent of what would befall the cities.
Those that love freedom are surviving and thriving. They are driving the rebuild, one farm, mine and small factory at a time. They work together to build a future largely unfettered by arbtrary rules and regulation.
The future is looking brigher every year, the United States are gone, instead of 50 the numbers have been reduced to about 15. Mostly organized along economic and regional lines, although some are still ethnic and culture driven. Of course they are the poorest and least organized by mostly they are ignored by the rest of the country. We still see ourselves as citizens, but our individual Sovereignity has been restored through our sacrifices. We just call ourselves Americans now, the country America.
25 years times XXXXXX number of new “laws”. Do the math.
Where I live now, I can step to one side and be in Chicago where I’m surveiled, frisked, ticketed, wrung thru metal detectors to no end and probably walk around looking a bit like a frightened barn cat dropped into the center of the county fair. I don’t know how every one else can turn a blind eye and be so at ease with it.
Or I can step to the other side and be in some of the more rural parts of Illinois (or Wisconsin) where life IS different. Doors are unlocked. The honor system is used far and wide. Folks wave and act courteously. The usual banter at gas stations is more akin to living room conversation.
In some ways, the rural places just lag the urban by ten or twenty years. In other ways its a whole ‘nuther planet.
For me, in twenty five years, I’m fixin to be a part of the more rural life someplace far away from shitholes like Chicago. Preferably with some sort of impenetrable border between us. Them Chicago people aint changin, life will not be better there – ever – and I don’t want to live among that type there or anywhere else. That’s my future freedom horizon, compartmentalization away from whats become known as ‘mainstream’ America.
One of the great things to look forward to the next 25 years is that the Baby Boomers will be mostly dead. If not dead than generally they won’t have the political or economic influence they have now. It might give our kids a decent chance to straighten things our and keep society viable.
25 years…
I expect I’ll be dead. But what passes for society (I’ll limit this to America)?
Most likely: Anthem, without the happy ending. A slow slide into it, but accelerating. With a privileged class that lives well because they can run things like us and http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAMC-D-12-0110.1 for the UN. Damn near everyone else will be slave labor in the wind gennie factories to keep stupid shit like that running. Kind of a Gaia theocracy.
Next likely:
1. Major blacklash against the liberals/greens/Islamics resulting in something closely approaching a fundamentalist Christian theocracy with lip service (and nothing more) paid to the Constitution, ‘cuz everyone knows America was founded as “Christian nation” and those occasional vague references to “creator” obviously meant “Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as envisioned by Falwell, Baker, Robertson et al”. Expect… interesting constitutional amendments.
2. About as equally likely could be the Republicans getting their shit together in time to ride the backlash, but going for an all out mercantile syndicate/official police state. We’ve been riding on the edge of that for a long time. Think about the background society implied by “Running Man” and you’ll be on the right track. Kind of a “Republican Anthem”, but possibly with a higher material standard of living.
Least likely:
A backlash ending in something like a real, limited, classically liberal Constitutional republic respecting rights is just about as likely as a significant number of freedomistas escaping to outer space/Minerva Landfill Libertopia/what-have-you to establish a viable colony.
A Smithian “North American Confederacy” ain’t happening unless the entire planet is bombed back into the Stone Age. In which case, the survivors whose descendants piece together the next major culture might remember how they got in that mess to begin with, and take steps to eradicate anyone who tries it again. But that’s asking a lot from folks who couldn’t remember from one House election to the next who screwed them.
No happy endings.
“The Future Will Be A Totalitarian Government Dystopia”
vs
“The Future Will Be A Privatized Corporate Dystopia”.
The Onion. May 17, 2000
Well Claire, you’ve already read my fictionalized vision of the future. Mine takes place about 30 years into the future.
After the big false flag events that affect the entire world, and the inevitable chaotic aftermath, people beg for safety and order. So, the PTB fires the UN for incompetence, and forms a global government. Neo-feudalism begins. People are happy to be told where to go and what to do to feel safe and well-fed, and everyone is mad at “the enemy” who killed all those innocent folks.
So, Orwell’s vision of the future imagines a boot stomping on a person’s face forever. Mine is the same, except that the people ask for another stomp. And another.
Fortunately, there will be some who want to change things, but it will take a while.
To add:
I really don’t see any one religious denominations monopolizing a government. The PTB are too smart for that. When they implement their plan, they’ll unite people of all faiths by intertwining each religion with worship of the government. The only folks that will be in trouble are the ones who don’t go for that, and they’ll practice their faith quietly away from prying eyes.
I think that eventually after the totalitarian government is around for a while, the freedom folks will rise up, but as soon as they gain a certain amount of support, the PTB will probably execute another huge global event and eliminate a good bit of the population.
These things come in cycles. I like this one:
History of Man:
From bondage to spiritual faith
From spiritual faith to great courage
From courage to liberty
From liberty to abundance
From abundance to selfishness
From selfishness to complacency
From complacency to apathy
From apathy to dependency
From dependency back to bondage
In trying to answer the question I came across this:
“In Spanish they don’t say “in the future,” as we do in English, which implies a definite outcome. Instead they say “en un futuro” – in a future – which implies many possible outcomes. It’s a better way of assessing reality, I think. …
thinking too far in the future is perhaps pointless. So what should you do now?” – Our Economic Future: From Best to Worst Case, by Doug Casey.
Also, water lily, RE: “they’ll unite people of all faiths by intertwining each religion with worship of the government.”
After reading this next link, I think it’s clear they’ve already accomplished that long ago:
http://www.hiddenmeanings.com/christ.htm
At any rate, I do tend to think The Fourth Turning will result in:
Your Kids Will Have It Better Than You Do
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1144.html
Matt’s version is the best-case scenario; I only hope that it turns out that well. (Heck, I’d even settle for Bear’s fundamentalist Christian theocracy, even thought I’m an athiest). But I suspect that what will actually transpire is more along the lines of what Water Lily proposes: more and more oppressive government controlled by/answerign to an oligarchy. Russia, here we come.
Utter abject suckitude. Life like it is now, but poorer, more class warfare/economic divide, few haves and lots of have nots, bread and circuses to keep the masses happy when possible, and armies of enforcers to deal with the masses when they’re not happy.
The European Middle ages, but with TV and food stamps.
I won’t assign odds to this, but –
How about… in 25 years we have people – whatever their numbers – who have survived. Who have new heros – people who said – no further past me – and who are remembered in song and word.
People who believe in freedom. Who respect others – even as those others differ from them. And all live in peace.
Just for something different.
With the exception of technology, I suspect the future will be much the same as today.
Some places will be freer than today, some places less so.
Fundamentally people are people, some want to control others, some want to be controlled (and want everyone else to be controlled as well) and some want to be free. Those of us who want to be free are in the minority and will continue to be.
Those of us who want to be free will adapt to the changing circumstances and maximize our freedom within the constraints that present themselves.
Some of us will leave places they consider to be lacking in an important freedom, some will stay and try to change things, some will stay and try to live quietly. The paths are as numerous as the number of people and their circumstances.
While an economic collapse is certainly possible, it is not the only possible scenario. A long, slow drift downward ala Japan is very possible. It has been going on in Japan for +20 years now and it could go on for a lot longer.
With regard to the US I have been negative on the prospects for liberty there for a very long time. I think freedom will continue to decline, but will do so slowly, incrementally, as it has been doing since at least as long as I have been aware (late 1970s, early 1980s). The prison population will continue to grow. More and more people will find themselves on lists of one sort or another. Through a variety of mechanisms, the freedom of speech will be more and more restricted. The RTKABA will be chipped away slowly. The growing of food, even for private consumption, will be more regulated.
Every once in a while freedom will get a little win, like feds saying they do not have the right to order drone strikes on US soil against US citizens, but the trend will be in the wrong direction.
Other countries, not so clear. Some will go in the wrong direction, I think others will move in the right one.
25 years? Well, one things for certain — the fiat dollar can’t last that long (and 25 weeks may be a better estimate, mathematically 😉 and what follows looks ugly by any measure.
I know that many here aren’t “Scripturally-inclined” – but Claire, one of the very best when it comes to tolerance of alternative worldviews, has acknowledged a certain ‘relevance’ of at least a couple of things from the Bibles last Book — of Revelation.
So, I suggest this bit of “food for thought”, when it comes to one scenario.
(I’ll post a link below – separately – to my site, where the full article resides, but will leave this part independent so that moderation won’t be an immediate issue.)
Have you noticed all the WasteStream Propaganda about “universal background checks” and how the “gun show loophole” just HASTA be closed? Isn’t there a certain incredible irony in the idea of requiring permission for a “private” sale of something so many erstwhile slaves actually once THOUGHT they owned?
So ask yourself this:
If they can require PERMISSION to “buy or sell” the single category of property that is SPECIFICALLY and unequivocally enumerated in the Bill of Rights that “shall not be infringed” —
is there ANYTHING that such a slave CANNOT be prohibited from “buying or selling” without some kind of “Mark” – denoting permission from that clearly “evil” system?
You could almost call it a “Beast” – or whatever. Something you might expect to find in the Greater Babylon Metro Area of the NWO…
If there is a better “proof text” for what is happening, and likely WILL happen, than the things Chuckie Skummer, Di FineSwine, and their ilk from the Other Wing of that same Bird of Prey are planning, I’m anxious to hear it.
(It’s from the end of Revelation, chapter 13. My own response, frequently outlined in that “MarkNiwot” website, and on my radio shows at Hebrew Nation Radio, focus on the recommended response, from Rev. 18:4.)
Anyway, all of that is why I intend to continue working to “come out of” the Whole Stinkin’ System. Whatever “the world”, and those who so clearly run it now, becomes, it is clear to me that I want to serve a very different Master, in a whole ‘nuther Kingdom.
That link to my own website, generally known as “Come out of her, My people” is:
http://www.markniwot.com
and the article I referenced above is currently at the top of that page.
And the issue is something I haven’t seen discussed — ESPECIALLY by the WSM, and not even among the ‘Patriot Community’ — since it bears directly on “where we are headed”, and what might happen over the next few years.
Some parts of the former US will suck, others will be wonderful to live in. People will move where it suits their tendencies. “Panarchy” will be in, giant centralized states will be out.
Ha! In 25 years perhaps they won’t require sandwich makers to submit to a drug test.
… The current state of things simply astounds me.
I want to have an opinion about this, but I’ve been thinking all day and the only thought I can come up with is that the future is balanced on a knife edge. It could fall either direction- toward something wonderful, or something worse than I can imagine. And I don’t know what will make it fall, or which direction that fall will take. I can just do all I can to try to put my weight (such that it is) on the side that favors falling toward wonderful.
The quality of American beer will continue to improve, conferring ever greater blessings on the downtrodden masses.
I think the state of freedom 25 years from now will be the same as it has always been. You will be free to do everything you are told to do and free not to do everything you are told not to do.
However, if you are a scofflaw, you can do any damn thing you want. And, if they catch you, you will be free to go to jail and be free to obey the jailers.
Logic always holds. Matt’s got the principles exactly right in his first comment, except that “government” is so trivialized that it’s not recognizable as “government” any more. That, and they weren’t “sacrifices” that made it right; they were the opposite of sacrifices.
If not 25 years, then 50 or 75…whatever. It’s that or extinction, period. Logic always holds…creatures that depend on their minds for survival, either turn to their minds or die.
For every loss of freedom recounted on message boards like this their are equal gains in freedom, some obvious and won through government intervention, and others through advances in technology and living standards.
As recently as the 1950’s a whole segment of our “land of the free” was consigned to 2nd class citizenship. They couldn’t drink out of the same public fountain, be served in many restaurants, sit in the front of the bus, or attend the same schools, or marry a person of another race. That has changed. A win for freedom, by government action through the courts and later legislation.
Over 50% of our country, women, were unable to even vote until WW1. They were very much 2nd class citizens. Jobs and education were unavailable to most. My grandmother was allowed to only complete the 5th grade before her father pulled her out of school to milk cows. Getting up at 4:00AM to trudge out into the barns, then back to the house to help her mother prepare breakfast, then a day full of cleaning and sterilizing pans, and then back to the barns for the 2nd milking. What a wonderful life for a young girl. Women were looked on as little more than work horses and child breeders. There have been giant advances for women in this country, the most recent being a court decision recognizing that women own their own bodies, not their husband, or father, or the preacher. Yes, the right to have an abortion is a great advance for freedom.
There are many other freedom gains such as the Supreme Court outlawing discrimination against gays in the landmark Lawrence vs. Texas decision, passed by the way because of a libertarian leaning Justice from Arizona. The recent referendum in Colorado and Washington legalizing pot, and Washington’s vote to uphold same-sex marriage are other push backs against statism. You can count on the same for gun rights should the feds and states overreach.
Looking into the future, I have hope the current generation is more libertarian by nature than the last. They show signs of it. So my feeling, and it is only a feeling, is that 25 years from now freedom will be advancing, not retreating. Personal liberty will be the key. We should concentrate on getting people to recognize their loss of privacy and individual choice. Make it personal and you will win.
Sorry for the misplaced “their”. I’m not illiterate, only careless.
In 25 years I’ll be 83, and some child not yet born will have to kill and eat me… Or, maybe in 25 years humanity will have come to realize that freedom and liberty are worth the effort (who am I trying to kid?)… But then again, maybe in 25 years Our Beloved Leader, after setting a record of seven Presidential Terms will finally be laid to rest, along with his entire motorcade and golf clubs, in a glass sarcophagus the size of the Great Pyramid of Giza (and the bereaved millions will file past in reverent silence)… Twenty-five years from now the Middle Kingdom will flourish, and I will finally have picked up enough Mandarin to order a pizza and a beer… Re-education camps will be converted to “Happiness Villages”… In 25 years I will have finished “The Discrete Theory of Time” and by uniting philosophy and quantum mechanics the world will recognize me as the great philosopher that I actually am (see mom, not a wasted education!)… Maybe in 25 years the publisher will actually owe ME money and I can park this damned truck… In 2038 (I’m stealing this from John Prine) We’ll all be driving rocket ships and talking with our minds/ wearing turquoise jewelry and standing in soup lines… After the pandemic the survivors will finish each other off in a final Holy War- Mennonites vs. Muslims (a time when an exposed female head, or ankle, just drove men wild)… Intravenous Vodka will have been perfected; effectively killing the Kool-Aid brand… Through the miracle of compound interest and hyper-inflation the $100 you invest today will still buy a candy bar, but not a cup of what was once known as “coffee”… Aliens will come to lead humanity to peace and understanding, and to vivisect cattle. The team of Putin and Obama will win the Gold Medal in Senior Beach Volley Ball at the Sacramento Olympiad… And just maybe, in 25 years this year’s vintage of my dandelion wine will be AWESOME!!!
Sorry, Old Printer, but I can’t agree with your conclusions.
It wasn’t a law that kept your grandmother out of school and on the farm, it was her father.
Re abortion: Roe vs Wade didn’t “allow” women to have an abortion, it was supposed to give them a choice (without social repercussions). Most anti-abortion attitudes before R vs W were centered around social mores, with teenagers, adulterers and other out-of-wedlockers bearing the brunt of censorship. IOW, it wasn’t abortion _per se_ that was the issue, it was having unapproved-by-the-community sex.
Now I don’t happen to agree with R vs W being passed – government and politicos at all levels should stay out of the abortion issue entirely! – but R vs W was actually a feminist coup for the “freedom” (the only freedom involved) to have sex without being censored. It ultimately led to Planned Parenthood, abortion and sterilization clinics, and fertility clinics – which is all well and good *as long as they don’t involve tax money.*
The Civil Rights laws, including Title IX, have brought on reverse discrimination, political correctness, a redefining of sexual harrassment to the point of ludicrousness, an over-emphasis on women’s rights to the detriment of men’s rights (where do “human rights” fit in?), the social services’ atrocious greedy attitude toward men _and_ children – and god knows what else, I can’t think of it all right now.
Yes, the Jim Crow laws were bad, _bad_, BAD. But that doesn’t excuse the over-reaction and bad laws and attitudes that have followed them… and that the heretofore downtrodden have taken advantage of. Two wrongs don’t make a right! And the government has been in the thick of it, emphasizing the need for social change to speed up its socialistic timetable.
Re the gay issue: government should stay out of that too. It has no right to dictate who, when, why, or how people should socialize or live together. While ‘coming out of the closet’ should not harm the gay (and coming out should be a choice also), they need to evaluate the good, the bad, and the ugly before demanding laws written for them.
Nothing against you personally, Old Printer – I just don’t agree with your assessment. Many of those laws precipitated what we have today.
Hi Pat, I read your post and appreciate your opinions, but Roe V Wade was settled constitutionally by the Supreme Court as a PRIVACY issue (which they had to do to remove the abortion question from the State’s Rights category- much like the recent Affordable Care Act ruling which ignored the obvious non-constitutional issues and ruled ACA a “Tax”). You can think of the Roe V Wade ruling as three people go into a room, but only two come out, and nobody knows a thing. It’s popular to spin Roe V Wade as a birth control “choice” issue, but that was NOT the Court’s ruling. BTW, approx 40 million human beings have been terminated by “legal” abortion since Roe V Wade was decided. The problem is that when you expand “rights” beyond the concept of “endowed by their Creator” and give mankind the ability to declare what is, and is not a “right” you end up removing true rights from someone (it is not just a slogan when people campaign for the “Right to Life”). The Americans with Disabilities Act is an excellent example (among oh so many) of citizens losing rights so that another group can be awarded extra rights. One of the great erosions of liberty is the idea that consequences for an individual’s actions (both good and bad) can be legislated away.
Oh oh, I can feel the vibes of a comment thread shut down.
The opposing sides at the end of this thread are quite the reflection of something that has yet to be decided ? …By force of arms?
“give mankind the ability to declare what is, and is not a “right””
When did that not apply? When did mankind ever Not have the ability to declare what is, and is not right? Not that that is right.
That is the nature of the struggle, isn’t it?
My clarity is fading at the moment, pardon the interruption.
Do you suppose that in 25 years from now we will have at our disposal all the information we ever wanted to know about geo-engenerring and chemtrails?
Do you suppose those who are responsible for geo-engenerring and chemtrails today will be viewed the same way we view those who were members of the Nazi party way back when?
Do you suppose those involved will have the same level of remorse and regret as did those who were a part of atrocities on both sides in WWII?
“Hey, grandpa, what was it like to operate those chemtrail drones?”… Followed by silence and a blank stare.
Do you suppose those who said nothing while there was still time to change things in the 1930’s will be looked at the same as those who ignored the issue of geo-engenerring and chemtrails today?
The world in 25 years will be pretty much whatever we make it… as individuals. There will be 9 billion (or however many) different manifestations and realities.
There is no “we” with any substance. “Society” is never going to be anything but local groups of people with individual needs, wants and ways of doing things, doing their best to live it out.
The idea that there is some uniform, predictable future is self defeating. It’s up to each of us to create our own future… it always was.
MamaLiberty, the Founding Fathers thought that there WAS a predictable future, and they tried very hard to protect against it. Perhaps the most misunderstood phrase from the Founders was “…and the pursuit of happiness.” They could have prevented a lot of heartache by saying “… and the Right to be the best that you can be”, which is closer to what was meant. I think humanity sinks to the lowest common denominator. What disappoints me is that we’ve managed to find that lowest common denominator so quickly. I happen to think that the constitutional experiment has been terminally ill since FDR, and now it’s in its death throes. People survived East Germany, people will survive this (maybe not all of ’em, though). This Republic was a noteworthy and noble experiment that just couldn’t survive the weight of greed and stupidity (and career politicians). So, just as it is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all, it’s a valuable effort that was made to bring the idea of inalienable rights out from under the jack-booted heel of domination and into practice (we have definitely forgotten just how unique that idea has been in human history). The heavy lifting was done for us, we just got a little too comfortable, (maybe).
Thanks Claire, for this great week, I wish that I could have read each new ? everyday. But, by catching up at the end of the week I had the chance to read so many great posts, and appreciate the fact that I’m not alone. I’ve enjoyed all of the links provided, so thanks to all of you, too. I’m going to tighten up the chin strap on my tin foil hat and get back out there! pup <;-)
Some food for thought for those who still think the “constitution” is relevant.
HOLOGRAM OF LIBERTY
http://www.javelinpress.com/hologram_of_liberty.html
Civic Belief #1: The Congress was given few specific powers. All else was left to the States and to the people under the 10th Amendment. Ample checks and balances protect the Republic from federal tyranny.
Civic Belief #2: The Federal Government has become so powerful only because despotic officials have overstepped their strict, constitutional bounds.
If #1 is true, then how did #2 happen?
“The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it”. Lysander Spooner, No Treason (1870)
This is how I see our America in 25 plus years…
Thirty six years was all it took for America to really hit the skids and turn to shit. It started earlier really, just after 9-11 and Bush junior’s personal holy war against Islamic terrorism. Then came the democratic controlled congress and Berry, you had the mouth pieces for both sides telling us we either needed or did not need Universal health care and higher taxes on the rich. It was one or the other’s fault for failing banks, double dip recession etc etc. Then there was the war, the war that continued for 15 years. Fifteen years; against a backwoods broke down country barely out of the Stone Age. The politicians’ want you to think we won it, but in all reality we left!
The most powerful nation in the world and we couldn’t beat a bunch of illiterate terrorists. Sad it was real sad. With all of the taxing, screaming and finger pointing, it was the little guy on the totem pole that got hammered, the hard working man and woman trying to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. And it just kept getting worse, pretty soon other countries were going bankrupt and unemployment began rocketing skyward. America followed at a slower pace but followed none the less. By 2044, the unemployment rate was at nearly 35 percent and if you were lucky to have a job, 68 percent of your income went to Uncle Sam.
Population decreases made it hard for social security to keep up with demand of the ever increasing population of baby boomers. Then despite the governments assurances that social security was and would always be solvent. It went tits up and died a horrible agonizing death. That is when the entitlement state that was now known as the United States had had enough and it was open season on politicians. The streets ran red with their blood and body parts, Americans tried to halt the damage. It was way past being too late, Government fought back against john q public and the founding fathers cried in their graves.
In the end it always seems to come back to “the strong survive.” And those who were not strong now were prayed upon by everyone else. Just like it has been since the beginning of time. In the world of 2044 it was a place of have and have not’s, you survived by being tuff and watching your back. Why you may have some moral’s or ethics, many time you are a true neutral. That is, you do whatever the situation dictated.
Either the US government will be borderline irrelevant or the world will be my gulch.
MamaLiberty, thanks for the link. I guess I appreciate the effort that went into the American Revolution. Sure, we failed to maintain it, we abused it, we used it, and we ignored it. But, for me, the idea that humans would dare such an experiment in Liberty, Freedom, and self governance is pretty freakin’ cool (not to mention audacious and courageous). I’ve been fortunate enough to live through part of the American Experiment, a true and rare privilege. Where else, and when else, has a country achieved what the USA has? Sure, there have been empires, huge territories subjugated, but here we’ve experienced individual freedom to succeed unlike any other time or place in Human History. There’s a lot not to like here, but I’d still rather have been born and live here than just about any where else. Oh, and that idea that Human Rights come from something other than man; brilliant!
Yes indeed, puptent… and maybe now it’s about time for the NEXT American experiment. Self ownership and self responsibility. 🙂
The “American Experiment” (which became “The USA”) and the Constitution failed (to do as advertised) because they were based on a false premise: that it is OK to govern other people. When you start with such an absurd lie you will always fail.
Here’s another bit showing how religion has already been inter-mingled and walks hand in hand with goberment while loving war, perhaps in 25 years most of the Janus Christians will realize what they did and have a change of heart?:
“Although there are some exceptions, most Christian warmongers are Janus Christians.” …
http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance325.html
MamaLiberty Says:
March 10th, 2013
Some food for thought for those who still think the “constitution” is relevant.
HOLOGRAM OF LIBERTY
http://www.javelinpress.com/hologram_of_liberty.html
Civic Belief #1: The Congress was given few specific powers. All else was left to the States and to the people under the 10th Amendment. Ample checks and balances protect the Republic from federal tyranny.
Civic Belief #2: The Federal Government has become so powerful only because despotic officials have overstepped their strict, constitutional bounds.
If #1 is true, then how did #2 happen?
“The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it”. Lysander Spooner, No Treason (1870)
I grow tired of this spurious argument.
The premise I hear being expounded here is that the piece of parchment itself is being blamed for a lack of restriction on the excesses of government.
When have you ever seen an inanimate object act on its own?
[visions of shotguns crawling out of closets and loading themselves …]
The Constitution is meant to be a manual for the operation of the government by the “officers” of the government who were to be the guardians of the Liberty they [our ancestors] had engendered and enshrined.
The problem comes when the general populace is led to believe that they can trust the humans who are supposed to be guarding that Liberty. The general populace then quits being actively involved in the day to day activities of “their government”.
Those humans [the so called guardians] soon discovered/found that, without the constant participation, and oversight, of the general populace, they could “vote” themselves presents out of the general treasury and from that point on the game was lost.
A Republic requires active voluntary participation by all of its members or it will fail. [Obviously]
I paraphrase another quote: “A democracy will always fail when the majority discovers that they can vote themselves presents from the general treasury.”
The idea, of a Republican government, is sound. IF one must have any kind of government at all. [I think not but I digress …] The concept is sound. Even the Constitution itself, though flawed, is workable.
The truly faulty part is the humans involved. And therein lies the basis of the statement that [I paraphrase again] this form of governance is only fit for a moral society.
We [those ancestors of ours who were supposed to be guarding the Liberty] individually and as a group lost our [their] moral compass, dropped the ball and the game was lost.
The ball was dropped the first time when Congress did not rise up in moral outrage when Washington used the united States Army against the Pennsylvania moonshiners, American citizens all. [The Whiskey Rebellion]
And every generation that followed has also “dropped the ball” when it came their turn to carry the ball for not halting the juggernaut and returning to the original plans in the “playbook”.
That was NOT the fault of an inanimate parchment that wasn’t even dried properly yet.
If there is a failure to follow the “playbook” on the football field and the team loses … is it the fault of the “playbook” or of the team members who did not follow the plays within it?
The Constitution has not failed us WE failed it.
Quit blaming inanimate objects for OUR failure to live up to the demands of a Republican form of governance.
“The Constitution did it. Or didn’t prevent it.”
A piece of dried sheep skin, an inanimate object is at fault?
RIGHT.
Good point, gooch, and thanks for saying it.
While I understand what they’re saying, and am not impressed by the Constitution as it stands (or even as it stood originally – but then, the Articles of Confederation wasn’t perfect either), still it didn’t write itself, and it won’t “work” by itself. As you say, it requires men to work at it constantly.
What bothers me most about Constitution-bashing is that it was supposed to be our Rule of Law; without it, there is *no* Rule of Law, only Rule by Men – and that’s what we have today. But without some ‘rule of law’ in place, what will ANY society (community or nation) become? Even the most minimal law (e.g. the Golden Rule, ZAP, or Sovereign Individualist) puts some law of sorts in operation for the people living in that society to follow.
Re a Republic http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm : The fact is America has become too big to govern; maybe the States themselves (even the Thirteen Original Colonies at that time) are too big to ‘govern’. Maybe a Republic should be no bigger than a city-state in order to function properly and be held in check.
I don’t know the answer to this, but a significant quote from the link above states, “Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).”
Maybe this is where the weakness began; our Founding Fathers didn’t fully understand how to implement a Republic.
I don’t think anyone is confused about the “piece of paper” being the operative entity.
Here’s the thing in a nutshell, as far as I’m concerned. Each individual has natural and exclusive power/authority over their own lives and property. Self ownership by any other name. Any kind of “constitution” requires that some group of people be given at least some of that “authority” in order to perform certain functions. This is not a problem in a voluntary society, of course. People can bind themselves to any arrangement they wish.
The rub is when this “constitution” is used to abrogate individual authority – regardless of extent – by force. Everyone is forced to live, one way or another, under that “authority” whether they agree to it or not. And that would be just as true if the “constitution” was being followed today exactly as supposedly intended!
It is assumed that a contract made by people long dead is binding on those of us alive today – even if we refuse to abdicate any part of our self ownership.
THAT is my problem with your “constituion.” I didn’t sign it. I want no part of it, but that is simply not an option in your world. Why? If freedom – individual liberty – is the goal…
“What bothers me most about Constitution-bashing is that it was supposed to be our Rule of Law; without it, there is *no* Rule of Law, only Rule by Men – and that’s what we have today.”
If you get nothing else, get this. It is ALWAYS Rule of Men, and NEVER Rule of Law. As everyone (including you) has pointed out, words can’t rule anything. Only the CHOICE to abide the principles of the words, can do that.
Both gooch and you, Pat, are projecting. Spooner’s point isn’t that the parchment caused any of this; it’s that no parchment can prevent it…and you both AGREE with that claim!
So agree with it forthrightly, that’s all. There are only men (humans) out there, so whatever “Rule” there shall be, shall ALWAYS be Rule of Men, and NOT Rule of Law.
Jim Klein said: “Both gooch and you, Pat, are projecting. Spooner’s point isn’t that the parchment caused any of this; it’s that no parchment can prevent it…and you both AGREE with that claim!
So agree with it forthrightly, that’s all. There are only men (humans) out there, so whatever “Rule” there shall be, shall ALWAYS be Rule of Men, and NOT Rule of Law.”
I realize this, pragmatically speaking. (Though again, you make it sound so simple. :-))
But then… what the hell do we talk about Rule of Law for?! If men make the law and few abide by it, no society will *ever* be free. It’s not enough to talk of individual sovereignty – WE STILL LIVE IN THIS WORLD, among men of many stripes. If no ‘piece of paper’ (or whatever) is respected enough to follow its guidelines (OK, respected enough to “obey” it) … if no men will respect it, what purpose is society? Why not just give up and give in? (That’s a rhetorical question, in spite of my frustration.)
If one can’t be a sovereign individual within a given society, we shouldn’t be living with other people. Yet we ARE social animals, for the most part. There’s something wrong with human nature when the right to be free and sovereign conflicts with the desire to control others. Where did this disparity come from?
I was buoyed by the Five Questions until I realized that most of the conclusions were negative – there’s no way out of this quagmire. Yes, we can live our individual lives in our own way, I’m not disputing that. But to live with others requires not just self-control, but some “control” over the bad guys as well. That’s where the Rule of Law comes in.
I don’t want a “government” with President, Congress, etc. A Republic isn’t necessary either, though it’s probably the best that men have tried so far, at least in modern times. But to take that next step forward to freedom (of the individual) and liberty (throughout a given society) still requires a statement of intent and “rules to live by” if every man is to know how to deal with every other man. We are not born knowing this; even though the concepts of (e.g.) ‘natural rights’, self-defense, and private property are “felt” by children, they do not know why, or under what circumstances, or how to handle issues arising from conflicts of these rights. And adults do not understand them either, if they’ve not been taught to respect others. The “piece of paper” puts limits on actions and explains how to deal with conflicts that challenge one’s rights. The fact that men make the rules does not negate the need for rules, in my view.
“The ‘piece of paper’ puts limits on actions…”
No, it doesn’t, and that was the one thing we all agreed about. At best, it codifies how people ought to put limits on their actions. Big difference. I’m not trying to pick nits; I’m trying to show what happens when we’re not careful with our verbiage.
“But to take that next step forward to freedom (of the individual) and liberty (throughout a given society) still requires a statement of intent and ‘rules to live by’ if every man is to know how to deal with every other man. We are not born knowing this…”
First, we’re not born knowing anything, so that’s irrelevant.
Statements of intent can come only from individuals, and they can either be abided or not. Sure, we can have common ones among us; that’s the whole point of Rule of Law, after all. But as we see, it’s the INTENT ITSELF, and not the codification of it, that counts.
As to every man knowing how to deal with every other man, I’m not sure what that means. I doubt it’ll ever be the case, under any scenario, that every man will be “dealable” with, so that strikes me as an unachievable goal. Personally, I always reject unachievable goals out of hand.
But the funny part is that in all relevant respects, we DO know how to deal with every other (rational, dealable, whatever) man. This is the point of the NAP or ZAP. For any set of people, from two to seven billion, if they agree to the NAP, AND ABIDE IT, then all parties get to live as they wish, and produce and thrive and trade amongst each other as they wish, all gaining benefit from it.
If some party doesn’t abide it, then he’s got to go. If failure to abide it becomes systemic and institutionalized, then you have the societal breakdown that we’re now witnessing.
I suspect every person here knows how to deal with every other one, at least in fundamental principle. “Live. Let live.”
Yeah, I know…too simplistic. It takes geniuses like Cass Sunstein and Paul Ryan to figure this stuff out.
Claire, I apologize in advance for this comment on your blog.
~~~
Jim Klein: Actually none of what you said is ‘simplistic’; the entire subject (and my previous comment) is too complex to dismiss in such a grandiose manner. You ARE nit-picking…
I have a number of questions about what constitutes the Rule of Law, where and how it can be applied, and what a libertarian society really is on the political scale. (I TEND to believe that libertarianism, especially by ZAP definition, is more ethical than political. At least I hope it is.) And I have real questions about how an anarchical (non-Rule of Law-type) society would last over the long haul. This doesn’t mean I don’t think it will work; it does mean I want better answers than just being told I’m wrong.
Until I resolve those issues, I will continue to question and throw out ideas and thoughts in hopes that someone [less pompous] will engage in a constructive conversation.
Sorry, Pat…I always try to address the principles and to me, it’s (almost!) coincidental that the principles are necessarily forwarded by a single person.
I think it’s good to have questions, and even better to have answers. So if you think I’ve got any of those wrong, please do point them out and I’ll be very grateful.
But as a tip…if you’re sincerely looking for answers to questions, you should judge them as such, and pay much less attention to where they’re coming from…and even less attention to how they’re said. The Fallacy of Ad Hominem is the hallmark of our time, and has caused an awful lot of people to overlook an awful lot of facts.
Obviously I know nothing about you and wouldn’t mean to imply that I do…beyond, of course, that you read and comment on this blog, which could only be taken as a good thing. Also, I think you’ll find that those who do actually have the answers to your questions, will tend to sound arrogant in their knowledge of those answers, so don’t let that chase you off to meek-sounding people who don’t have the answers. That’s assuming you’re really looking for the answers, of course.
It’s sort of like if you ever need surgery, use a surgeon who’s filthy rich…he or she got that way for a reason.
First of all it is not MY constitution. Nor do I blindly support it.
Until the thing is made moot with a “final confrontation” I will attempt to restore it as the lesser choice over outright violent revolution.
Second I seem to hear folks talking as though the Constitution is a set of rules for us, the average person, to live by or under. In Fact, it is a set of rules for Government to have to obey.
Government is here being defined as humans in positions of responsibility within an organization referred to as “Government”.
The fact that those humans were and still are flawed enough to not follow or not correctly follow the directions in their “Operators Manual” [the Constitution] is the real culprit here.
How does one restore the original setup to begin anew? [as in a Reset of a computer program]
Unfortunately I don’t think we can [do a reset] because the mistakes have compounded upon each other to the point where this version would require a blank slate to even approximate a restart.
The folks [and groups] in power today would not relinquish their grasp of power without an intense struggle.
I just get tired of hearing folks blaming inanimate objects for our human faults, fallacies and foibles.
We made this mess and we need to either clean it up or start over.
Neither of which is going to be easy or painless.
Sad to say that even as much as I would like to see a no ruler option available I am pretty certain that the average person wouldn’t even try it in spite of the fact that they use the “no-ruler” premise daily in many ways.
The Collectivists have so corrupted the word that I hesitate to even use it.
So … What will the future look like?
I have no Idea.
I do hope and will do whatever I can to see that my children and grand children do survive and live in Peace.
Past that I really don’t care anymore.
Obviously we’re all looking at this from different directions. My take is this (and I’m not talking about what is _ideal_ here, but rather my approach is from what we have been for many years, which is “Americans”):
America was founded on the basis of the Constitution, which is to say, without the Constitution we wouldn’t have become a “nation”, we would have remained 13 (plus presumably 37 more) States. So it is essentially the only “law” America has that makes it a nation. That’s why, if we are “Americans”, it is indeed *OUR* Constitution. (And I suspect this is the rationale that Constitutionalists operate from – but I don’t know this.)
Another point: libertarians say that if a person accepts any part of the Bill of Rights (such as the First – or Fourth, or Tenth, etc. – Amendment), he must accept the Second Amendment also. And I would agree with that.
But you can’t have it both ways.
The Constitution would not have been passed without the Bill of Rights. So if you accept the Bill of Rights, you have to accept the rest of the Constitution as well – it came part and parcel together. If you opt out of the Constitution, you must also opt out of the Bill of Rights – unless you choose to write your own ‘Constitution’ or its equivalent.
If you choose to write your own Constitution, you should be prepared to spell out all contingencies. A one-liner such as ZAP (much as I respect it) will not cover every situation that arises – though it can be explained as Kent has done in “Problem? Solved!” https://www.createspace.com/3474361 in such a way that it serves as a _backup_ to a one-liner ‘Constitution’. (And I do think the Bill of Rights should be added as further clarification in such a way to limit _interpretation_ from future Hamiltonians.)
Of course the Constitution was supposed to limit the government (but can’t do that job well, thanks to the machinations of Hamilton, etc., plus Wilson and Roosevelt among others); and yes, the Bill of Rights was supposed to limit the government further (but couldn’t do its job well either, because the built-in ‘federalization’ of the Constitution was overwhelming, but – that’s not the point when determining whose Constitution it is.
As “Americans”…as a nation – we have no other law to establish a foundation for our being. We complain that Obama, e.g., wants to ignore the Constitution and Bill of Rights while citing parts of it for his own purposes. It seems to me that we shouldn’t do that either.
Just my two cents. I realize I’m refining all this to the point of technicality, but it seems I must dot the I’s and cross the T’s to be understood here. None of this tells you what *I* “believe” – only how I view the Constitution.
Well done, gooch; good points all. Pat, IMO you just need a good dose of objective epistemology, but this isn’t the place for it. Feel free to post any questions or comments at the zerogov forum; there’s a philosophy section, but I think you gotta register.
Personally I think air, water, good food and especially clear thinking make the best “foundation for our being.” But that’s me.
Oops, sorry…just a clarification of fact for Pat. The United States of America was NOT officially founded with the Constitution. It’s a rather important story, and Boston T. Party gave a wonderful recap of the history in last year’s speech at New Hampshire’s Porcfest.