Drafting Exercise: Implementing Rightful Liberty


Start with this comment:

What is your mechanism for enabling, that is making functional or operational, your concept of Rightful Liberty?

How, in this grossly bureaucratized, no longer the “a government-of-laws, not-of-men” society that we find ourselves in, do you accomplish this?

I am not being trite; I really want a thoughtful, practical response.

I have posited two things: one, that the Constitution of 1787 – for all its flaws – was a good model for our federal republic, if the body politic had adhered to the moral and cultural heritage required to exercise it; we have lost our way – but the constitutional system didn’t cause that, other factors did.

And two, that civil war is the likely result of our present discontents — if we do not somehow find a way to re-educate a significant portion of the body politic in the necessary attributes of what is required to live free, in a small-government, constitutional republic. I am not sanguine as to the probability of success in that attempt, but I do not see a peaceful alternative if we want our liberty back. Bickering over the form of the constitutional system is senseless; we had a perfectly usable constitution, we ought to return to using it.

The Wretched Dog

List the key elements of the new political structure (e.g., national defense, sanctity of private property, individual freedom of speech/assembly/worship, KABA, etc.).

Articulate the governmental structures to achieve (or preserve) those ends.

Describe how the people are to review/amend/approve the resulting document.

Explain, in detail, how we move from today’s political infrastructure to the replacement you have created.

Show your work.

135 responses to “Drafting Exercise: Implementing Rightful Liberty

  1. Mike Bishop

    Cue the mouth-breathing anarchists in 3…2…1.

    Jokes aside…

    Wretched Dog said it best when he stated, “Bickering over the form of the constitutional system is senseless; we had a perfectly usable constitution, we ought to return to using it.”

    I speak for no one other than myself, but it is pretty hard to argue with the BOR. The key to Freedom, interspersed with a dash of order, is simply in a return to the rule of law, at this point in time. Trying to talk the “man on the street” into rolling back the clock to March 3, 1789 would be like trying to explain algebra to a rat, again, *at this point in time*.

    The constitution worked; the problem contained was it was insufficient in preemptively addressing the constant assault to its supremacy. The myopia contained within its limiting authority can not be faulted on its drafters, as no system of restrain is perfect, and for every advancement in armor, there is an equal, and opposite advancement in armaments…

    That being said, a return to orderly, lawful operation from a FEDGOV gone completely amok, is pretty much off-the-table; the entire system of governance will have to be re-shaped post-implosion.

    The FEDGOV is not going to reinstate the amendments from the BOR that it has wholesale eviscerated. Power, once possessed, isn’t easily relinquished. And, with a population whose answer to every issue is “the government needs to…” we have an uphill battle convincing folks that more government is not the answer. If enough folks can be convinced, through 5GW, that Freedomphobia is a real problem, and we can help them understand that Liberty is nothing to fear, we might be able to get enough of a stink raised that there is a reinstatement of the BOR. Sadly, too many folks want a *free* chicken-in-every-pot, and a “PROPERTY OF US GOV’T” stamped on the chicken.

    We can argue in favor of the Articles of Confederation as superior system of governance for affable States; however, that is an experiment at this point in time. It may eventually work itself to that point, if enough States are willing to flip the FEDGOV the bird, and a system of mutual dispute-settlement, defense, and cooperation is needed (and it will be). This, I believe, will be the solution, once the system’s scaffolding has fully imploded under the weight of the great glut.

    If there was a government-wish-granting Fairy, my cleanest, simplest solution would be for the Socialist-States to withdraw from the union in a peaceable manner, and carry out their Utopian-Marxist dumbshittery on their own dime, not mine or my State’s. Then, the remaining states can agree to roll-back the monster that the FEDGOV has become, and return to constitutional-restraint.

    Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.

    The AOC is the ultimate answer. How we get there? If I knew, I’d say so…

    • The failure is the Constitution itself. It in a narrow instance, impeachment, identifies the process for dealing with usurpers. The problem with that is, what if the usurpers are the ones that are to implement the impeachment? Mainly the members of Congress. That is the crux of the matter.

      There is also the issue of ‘standing’ to put the legal point on it. As a taxpayer you don’t have standing according to the courts in issues related to budget, finance, expense related to cost of government. But you are expected to pay. That should be abolished so that a taxpayer does have standing when fraud or malfeasance is evident.

      Finally, the ruling in Wickard v Filburn should be eliminated either by it being overturned or being legislatively terminated. That 1942 ruling is the head spring for 80% of the administrative state we have today. It would go a long way to killing off any commerce targeted actions by both Congress and the Courts.

      • This is the main point of an assassination clause, as the op much more clearly described. It places the initiative for review of government action on the citizenry–it can be in no other place. The review of the review is also placed outside of the government in the jury.

        Alternatively, a proper jury based judiciary would have grand jury power–there would be no prosecutor pressing charges, one of the Grand jury would be selected for that role. Ideally you’d try to get them to investigate before you shot anyone.

  2. Mike Bishop

    For Clarity’s sake:

    The Constitution is one of the most wonderful documents in all of makind’s history; it, in and of itself, is not a failure.

    The failure lies within the lack of repercussions for violating what still ultimately is: The Supreme Law of the Land.

    • With respect, the USC was a man-made compromise document that among other things gave institutional approval to chattel slavery.

      Man makey, man breaky, man fixy.

      A listing of the “Great” and “needs work” sections would help.

      • Either it failed to prevent what we have or it allowed it. Either way it is unfit.

        It was a coup, and it was done in secret.

        • Of course it failed to prevent it. It is words on paper. Without an enforcement mechanism, it’s the take-out menu for a closed Szechuan restaurant.

          Even our Lord Jehovah’s Decalogue is feckless in the absence of a Hell.

        • It was a coup, and it was done in secret.
          You know I used to think that. But thanks to this website posting the entire Confederation I have come to realize Madison did nothing but a rewrite. At best he was the ‘StepChild’ to the USC and not its ‘Father’. The essential sections to the USC were matters related to executive and development of a supreme court. AoC sections seem to have morphed right into the USC will but minor mods.

          My general observation is we maybe a nation of laws, but those laws are administered by men. Evil men can administer evil law. That, and people get the government they vote for. Which of late appears to be bad.

          • “… Madison did nothing but a rewrite. … AoC sections seem to have morphed right into the USC will but minor mods.”

            Well, that and the surrender of national sovereignty by the “States” to a central government.

            Where the Articles governed a confederation of sovereign nations (i.e. a treaty organization or mutual defense pact), the Constitution created a single central government for a single nation, subsuming the party nations and eliminating their sovereignty.

            Having rules for membership is not the same as having rules for mandated membership (mandated by law and force of arms*). Intentionally joining a union is not the same as being forced by law to join a union in order to work in a particular industry. Of course, if you choose to leave the industry or the State that mandates union membership, no one shoots at you or drags you kicking and screaming to be the union’s slave. Likewise a confederation vs. a (national) Union.

            * One benefit of surrendering to a central government was to be the avoidance of squabbles and wars between the States. How’d that work out in 1861?

      • Mike Bishop

        Astute point. And the key lies in the word, “compromise.”


        A document formed with the intent to limit the powers of a centralized governing body.

        A document which directly enumerates what the drafters felt were fundamental human rights.


        Needs Work:

        Executive branch possesses too many options for circumventing the legislative process. My understanding of the Executive branch is that the original intent was for it to be nothing more than a bookkeeper.

        Political Partisanship in the Judicial Branch; overreach of function, zero, and I do mean ZERO accountability. It is, effectively, its own little tyrannical enclave.

        Theatrics, In-Fighting, Absenteeism, Grandstanding, Activism, etc. in the Legislature. Failure to hold Judicial and Executive branches accountable.


        I sincerely feel that these individuals (the framers) were making every effort to have an effective governing body, for the common welfare of all the citizenry, whilst maintaining a means for limitations to dominance, and creating an apparatus to prevent subsections of said body from running wild, and seizing too much power.

        By placing the emphasis, and the balance of power towards a centralized system, the “sum total” is “greater” than the individual…in theory.

        As an example, Illinois’ pension problems may become a financial burden upon the other States. By balancing the scales towards a powerful central government, the risks posed by one State actor can be papered over, further encouraging a lack of accountability, more State recklessness, malfeasance, and pandering. The alternative to this, as in the times of the AOC, is State non-participation/contribution. Massachusetts can simply let Illinois hang itself. And one by one, the dominoes fall, until we end up with the Balkanized States of America…

        Regarding defense, if Michigan can only afford to provide F-4 Phantoms to the Continental Air Force, while Georgia and Texas are providing F-35 Lightnings, we have a contributory disparity, reducing the effectiveness of air capability, and disenfranchising the productive States.

        …Catch-22 again.

        These are not simple problems, and there aren’t any simple solutions.

        It is an extremely difficult balancing act, of maintaining a functioning system of financing collective interests, defense, assistance, etc, while fundamentally protecting individual sovereignty and Liberty.

      • Largely, I concur.

        It outlines and authorizes the formation of government.

        Supposedly, a highly restricted, almost toothless and morally-centered one, but we’ve seen how that has not been the case on a long enough time line.

        The biggest fixin’ to be made, really, is in the moron-on-the-street.

        • “It outlines and authorizes the formation of government.”

          Category error. A piece of paper can’t authorize. The very very most it can do is record an authorization. More troublesome for those who don’t wish to look inward, an authorization can only be done by a single human mind.

          That’s not to you, but it’s an extraordiinarily important identification.

    • It cannot be enforced with a bunch of pussies and cowards for citizens.

      • Jimmy the Saint

        Cowards and pussies aren’t the problem. It can’t be enforced with a big section of the population doing everything it possibly can to subvert it. That’s the problem.

  3. outlawpatriot

    Ooo. I really wish I had the time. I’m bettin’ I could do a 20-30 page paper on the subject at the moment. But still holding my day job and beginning a new career as a college professor leaves no time for such an endeavor.

    Frankly, everything one would need to know already exists in the literature. Our history, the good and the bad, has been extensively recorded. And there are many fine historians that can shorten up study time with well researched and footnoted books. Freling for instance.

    Not sure that this would be the best forum for such a discussion though. It would probably be best to have a blog dedicated to just that so it could be controlled to keep it on track. I would suspect that such a discussion here would quickly degenerate and die with little being accomplished.

    But a damn good idea it is. Good luck!

    • Y’know, your saving grace is that you really don’t understand that you’re seeking the impossible. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen. We’re here because people WANT to be here.

      The argument against Pragmatism isn’t an argument against the practical. Only implementation counts; Pragmatism is about switching the means for the ends.

      There is only ONE practical way to Rightful Liberty, and this is because there is only ONE moral way to it. For that matter, there’s only one physical way to it. A person has to CHOOSE it. That’s a simple existential fact and all the arguments in the world, good or bad, can’t change that fact.

      What’s the way to Rightful Liberty and a world where people deal consensually and not as thugs? Too easy—choose it and live it. Easy to figure out, I mean, not so easy to do. Tough shit…that’s the way it is and that’s the way it’s always going to be. It’s our nature.

      What about those (few) who don’t choose it and seek instead to loot from others? Gee, that’s a toughie. The fundamental error going on here is the mistake in believing that someone else can save us from that…a piece of paper, even more absurd. Gotta face the facts and somehow derive the courage, that’s all. Easier said than done, sure, but that doesn’t matter either. Tough shit; we either do it or don’t.

      “Choose life. Choose liberty. Choose happiness.” Absolutely, positively nothing else gets it done. End of story. WIN!

      • Hi Jim – been a while since we last exchanged ideas

        You are correct that we must elect to live in Rightful Liberty. We must also be willing to enforce that decision when required.

        My land meets the formal definition of property. It has been acquired without coercion or encumberance. Improvements have been made to perfect my claim of ownership. The perimeter is fenced and posted as a warning to tresspassers.

        Finally, the following message is prominantly attached to the post at the primary entrance gate (a bit prettier than the plain text that follows):


        Guests by invitation or appointment only.
        RIGHTFUL LIBERTY is practiced Within

        “Rightful Liberty is unubstructed action … (truncated)

        “I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

        ~ Thomas Jefferson
        Entry constitutes express consent to live by the Maxims of Common-Law.

        Herein all privileges and immunities granted by Positive Legislation are null and void.

        A life of Rightful Liberty requires conscious desire and specific actions.

        In Liberty,
        Hans … in the NC woods

        • That was great, Hans. No doubt most wanna know, “What else, what else?” It’s the whole key IMO…there is nothing else. The “specific actions” will create whatever is needed, driven by the “conscious desire.” Human action.

          Everyone’s going after the rest of it. No wonder they always come up empty-handed.

      • True story. There simply is no way progressives can be lead to see the error of their ways. They don’t care what is right or true, they only know what they want and insist upon.

        Helen Keller _wanted_ to be able to hear and see. The progs will resist it with all of their might.

        • I grew up in Wrentham,Massachusetts. Helen Keller lived in Wrentham. You can gauge a society and it’s health, by how well it takes care of it’s most vulnerable. We, as a people, are doing a horrible job. If all goes according to our master plan we will all someday be old. We will all become vulnerable. Our Constitutional health has many barometers available to monitor it. I submit that we are failing and/or failed most of the available monitors. A re-commitment to ,”actions have consequences”. Fear of God. Fear of the just and righteous man. There is nothing wrong with getting your ass handed to you when you are out of line. Some people need their ass handed to them. I think we should start from there.

  4. Alfred E. Neuman

    Reblogged this on The Lynler Report.

  5. I sent a while back a Google doc that outlined a few things.

    The current system was wretched by force from the control of the crown. That will need to be done again, but even then there was mild consensus on the abuses to be countered and how to build the government.

    The two big things, which are both related to removal of the government as its own watcher:
    Fully informed jury as first defense. You don’t have “due process” until you have been judged by true peers.

    “New Texas” accountability. Per the novelette, defending rights is a positive defense for killing a politician or bureaucrat.

    I’ll have to work on the outline some more, need some other inputs on it too.

    • Please provide a link to the “New Texas” novelette you mention. I did a search, but didn’t find anything.

      • The book is actually called “A Planet for Texans.”


        It’d be a legal thriller if it wasn’t so short. Premise is that it’s more or less legal to kill politicians.

        Part of the problem is the isolation–a politician or bureaucrat can rely on protection from the courts and the rest of the government. If there is a constitutionaI defense for killing a gov man you believe is harming you, that protection goes away.

        The enumerated right to take direct action and the protection of a fully informed jury deciding if it was right eliminates that protection.

        • Thank you for that citation.

          It is the basis for the assassination clause.

          The AC is nothing more than a new affirmative defense (adding to existing ones such as self-defense).

          Affirmative defenses work as follows:

          The state must as always prove the defendant guilty by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

          An affirmative defense, if raised by the defense, must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence (50.1% more likely than not). If achieved, the defendant is acquitted.


          Upon election, politician Joe Dokes swears an oath to uphold the existing ruleset between government and citizenry. One such provision of the ruleset is an unlimited right by the citizenry to KABA. Politician Dokes plots to require gun registration while in office. Citizen Sally learns of the plot and pops Dokes in the head one fine evening. Sally is arrested and charged with murder. At trial, Sally produces the authentic internal memo by Dokes in which he states not only the intent to violate the ruleset but the rationale (prevent future school shootings).

          There is no question that Sally shot Dokes (think film of Ruby shooting Oswald).

          Ergo, she would hang but for the AC.

          Having proven by a preponderance of the evidence (> 50%) that her shoot of Dokes was justified by his intent to violate the ruleset between government and citizenry, she is acquitted.

          Pretty simple, and beats the crap out of impeachment or de-election (the existing ‘remedies’ for bad politician behavior under the existing ruleset known as the USC).

          Dokes is specifically deterred, and other pols are generally deterred.

          • “The state must as always prove the defendant guilty by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

            The complainant must, and that’s whether there’s a state or not. It still remains, “To whom.” The an-caps have their dreams, Constitutionalists theirs and Alan his.

            Even in the USA now, the state has no business proving anything; at most it would be the best system through which guilt is proven. As it happens, reality tells us it’s about the worst.

  6. There seem to be two points of view here on the Articles of Confederation: one for, one against. With reservations, I adhere to the former. For those who believe that “[f]or many reasons, not the least of which was the lack of enforcement powers and money, the Articles of Confederation were a failure,” I have to ask: Is the same true of NATO? Of the U.N.?

    And what, exactly, did the AoC fail at? That is, other than turning a treaty organization for mutual defense into an central government to rule over the thirteen nascent nations party to the original defense treaty?

    If transforming a mutual defense agreement into an a plan for a single centralized, all-powerful government was justified by the debts of some parties to other parties, … what does this bode for the state of debts among nations in today’s geopolitics? Do current debts inherently justify a single, central, sovereign GLOBAL government? If not, why not? Isn’t our current problem simply that NATO, or the U.N., is not yet sovereign over the U.S.?

    After all, if a central global government had sovereignty, there would be no more petty squabbling among nation-states. One nation’s debts would become the debts of all unified nations. The global government would have all necessary enforcement powers, too. See. Lack of enforcement powers and money are why the current geopolitical structure of nation-states is a failure. A failure at being unified under a single central government.


    As for recommendations, there are plenty to make either the AoC or the Constitution a better protection against infringements upon liberty. Each potential improvement will have its own down-side and create new or different opportunities for corruption. No earthly government is perfect or perfectible. There are ways to improve upon the republican form; but presently they are all untenable. Mike Bishop (above) has the quote of the new century as far as I’m concerned:

    “Trying to talk the “man on the street” into rolling back the clock to March 3, 1789 would be like trying to explain algebra to a rat”

    And, I would say that this discussion/debate is taking place about a decade too late. It was the first thing that should have been resolved (even if it created a split among supporters of liberty) before adopting the moniker of the “Liberty Movement”. It’s a “movement” alright, but more like the “movement” of hippies at a Grateful Dead concert than a coherent, purposeful association. Getting on the same page and endeavoring to fix the problem identified by Mike Bishop as the first order of business might have been a good idea 5 to 7 years ago. Everyone (the Liberty Movement and everybody else) is pretty much behind the eight-ball now.

    • We are here.

      We can’t go back.

      Dying in place seems imprudent.


      • “If you want war, treat the idea of borders casually.” – BGM

        Since I don’t want war this below is policy.

        “Immigration” to the USA.

        “What are the main problems of immigration to the US economy?”
        Since the average IQ of Americans is about 100,
        any the (supposedly) average IQ of immigrants
        is lower, any immigration lowers the average IQ of
        the American population.

        Which will promote and support a seriously
        defective political structure in the USA.

        If one cares about liberty and prosperity.

        Does that answer your question?

        ——- ——- ——–

        A official policy statement.

        The USA-Mexico border.

        Cheap guard towers, no fence.

        Continual permission to shoot
        from a small caliber rifle,
        into Mexican territory, 20 shots
        to miss and warn, then shots to
        wound or kill, no head shots or
        upper chest shots allowed.

        Timed 20 seconds between shots.

        Out of respect for the lives
        ended, ZERO legal immigration
        to the USA, not even political

        • WhaT he said. From there we could move forward to language and culture after sending a few million folks packing. Yes that is what I would propose, mass deportations. Don’t want to go? Not optional. Family? Take them with you. Anchors? Overboard with you. Buh bye. All folks employing illegals subject large fines on first offense and then to deportation as well for a subsequent offense. Loss of citizenship for employing illegal aliens.

      • Mike Bishop


        We know that:

        The Federal System has failed us.

        The Federal System will continue to gnaw Liberty to the marrow.

        The most import problem no one is working towards is: What is it to be reformed by?

        Most in the Liberty movement are focused on the trees and not the forest.

        Pete, you’ve made me painfully aware of my lack of looking at the forest.

      • Agreed, hence the League of the South which is for the future of the southern nation. It is not for a pan-southern government, but a government of and by the states as separate republics.

        • Detroit the True 3%

          The LotS is a joke. They sit around while ghouls and grave – robbers desecrate their dead.

          Be quiet for once.

    • “Trying to talk the “man on the street” into rolling back the clock to March 3, 1789 would be like trying to explain algebra to a rat”
      I would suggest you may need only roll back to 1948 to get little over half of what is being discussed here. Example: US Supreme Court rules in McCollum v. Board of Education that relgious instruction in public schools is unconstitutional occurred on that date. Even with FDR’s meddling much of American life was untouched by central authority.

  7. Beginning with a flawed premise “I have posited two things: one, that the Constitution of 1787 – for all its flaws – was a good model for our federal republic,” then requesting statements in support of same seems, well a bit of intellectual dishonesty.

    How about, you begin with the Declaration of Independence and work forward from there, comparing/contrasting with the CONstitution?

  8. Progressives and Conservatives share the same essential belief.

    It goes like this.

    “I want something … which means I now have the “right” to forcefully take your stuff.”

    The Progressive might “want” Socialised Healthcare.
    The Conservative might “want” a Socialised Military force.

    But, there, the differences end. That’s why nothing changes, whomever gets voted into power. You are voting for the same people with ever-so-slightly-different priorities.

    The arguments from both sides of the political spectrum boil down to this … “But, how can I get the things that I want, if I’m not allowed to use force against you?” And, you can see that they are genuinely puzzled by this dilemma.

    By remarkable coincidence, every common criminal shares that same dilemma … “But, how can I get the things that I want, if I’m not allowed to use force against you?”

    Contrive any document that you like. It’ll be worthless in the face of criminals.

  9. There is no government that will ever defend/preserve your rights. Any “solution” anybody comes up with here that involves a government of some kind is doomed to failure. You can’t have rightful liberty if you have a government, as its very existence demands violating your rights.

    The only answer is no government. A pure free market and individuals taking responsibility for themselves and their families will do a more effective and efficient job at bringing peace and prosperity to this country than any government.

    Decentralized, local, voluntary contractural agreements are a necessity. One-size-fits-all decrees from on high are proven failures.

    How do we get there? A catastrophic reset (financial collapse, civil war, etc.) will have to happen, as statists will never voluntarily loosen their grip. Then maybe a society like I’ve described can carve out a place for itself. In the meantime, we have to educate more people to try and wake them up so they’ll make the right decision when the time comes.

    As for national defense, I like the “every citizen a soldier” concept, only less “RevWar1 civilian militia” and more “ancient Sparta.”

    • Ala “And Then There Were None” (Link:http: //www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php ) but with arms…

    • The Spartans were bad ass warriors because they were full time warriors. They could be full time warriors (weapons training, PT, tactics, etc.) because they had slaves to farm for them. I’m not into owning humans. (I’ll happily sew Spartan helmet patches onto my gear, though.)

      Also, “every citizen a Spartan bad-ass gunslinger”, does not cover all the bases in a nuclear, biological, chemical world.

  10. Rightful liberty cannot exist within a strong central state, period. The US constitution creates a strong central state. For rightful liberty to exist there must be free flow of commerce and travel and the ability for communities of whatever size to self determination. Mutual protection agreements are also beneficial. Mutually agreed upon contracts are the glue of society and not monopoly of force. Central states always use force( George Washington and Western Pennsylvania come to mind).

  11. The Compact of Confederation appears to be the most viable, and attainable recourse considering the circumstances.
    All the structural mechanisms are in place, an historical precedence exists, and for its time, it actually existed and functioned.
    Whether the will and plurality to create a movement towards that basic goal is possible is a question which must be answered first.
    The C. of C. has built into it the natural ability to be modified and adapted to the time it exists in, by the people who constitute it. It has the nature to suit many different goals and will of the people who populate each independent nation, to do with as they see fit on the local level, which the constitutional republic system of administrative law makes impossible for all practical intent.
    Each little nation has a vested interest in its contribution monetarily, culturally, and politically to the confederation as a whole.
    It is home rule by will of the people unfettered by a leviathan entity.
    It is far more flexible and malleable form of government accountable directly to and by the people who populate its territory.
    It is a much more attune system of determination by a moral plurality of people. Though each state is free to become whatever form of government it chooses by will of its people for better or worse.
    If a particular state becomes tyrannical and imposes its will upon the other states, the other states can bind together and defend themselves. A deterrent in itself due to safety in numbers.
    The C. of C. can cooperate collectively in many ways to the benefit of all, as they see fit, unfettered by a leviathan power.
    They can also combine their resources in time of need of defense, becoming stronger than the sum of their individual resources.
    Likewise in pursuit of prosperity and production of wealth and happiness.

    I think the advantages of The Compact of Confederation are limitless. The down sides manageable and of not detracting value in pursuit of this remedy.
    I also view this remedy as a viable form of secession and abolition, making the leviathan state in North America and its slavery extinct.

  12. I think the single most important characteristic to embody in any future government is the principle of decentralization. I think this principle should be not only institutional, but also physical. Have the legislative, executive, and judicial parts of government in different cities, well separated from one another. It would reinforce the sense of each being a separate check against the others, and discourage the formation of a “Beltway” echo chamber.

    I also think the local or regional entities (i.e. some equivalent to the states) should have direct checks against government at the federal/confederate level. Why not have the supreme judiciary formed from a subset of the states, and reinstated on a periodic and rotating basis? For example if we had 9 justices, each justice would be appointed by one of the states selected in a lottery, and the entire court would be repopulated in this fashion on a regular schedule. The same method could be used to populate bureaucratic agencies, to the extent that such are genuinely needed.

    Alas, nothing is fool proof. The best you can hope to achieve is to setup as many institutional speed bumps as possible. Man’s fallen nature inevitably asserts itself.

  13. I suggest we just have at each other, and the victor can write both the history of what happened, and the rules. Which is what is about to happen anyway. Any program of rules written will be violated and trashed by evil men and women because that is their nature, no matter intentions, ideas, or morals. So, you can write and decree with the best of ideas, morals, and intentions, and some people will eventually do evil to it and wreck it because that’s what some of them do, and have always done. It’s just time for a reset, and a lot of people, property, and other things are going to be lost. I wouldn’t bother writing anything down now, because we don’t know what things will look like later, or how it will pan out. What bogbeagle said. Besides, if you write it down now, the criminals whom bogbeagle is talking about will see it, salivate over it, and have a head start fucking things up.

    • Less paperwork is good. 🙂

    • The problem is support. If you have the support, you win. Thus the battle starts for hearts and minds in explaining what you intend to give them. This happens through debates like this one, which also forces you to articulate your arguments.

      A working system with have processes to counter those who wish to bleep it up, one of the problems with the current system–the constitution cannot deal with evil men intent on misinterpreting it for gain.

      Nihilism will loose out to well said happiness, so you’re gonna get many on your team.

    • “Which is what is about to happen anyway.”

      As usual, the truth. I very much don’t want to see it, but I even more don’t want to die without seeing it.

    • I’m in. 🙂

  14. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YaRvmE15cII1FmkoGXTRyVG3FXPheJGmIC5-xFYPb5k/edit?usp=docslist_api

    Gonna go ahead and throw this out. Be nice. And post your own? Let’s get people commenting on a dozen or so.

  15. outlawpatriot

    Like I said, this isn’t the right forum. 🙂

  16. The constitution – any constitution – is neither the problem nor the solution. The problem is how to get people to stand up and offer to do violence in defence of liberty, as at the Bundy ranch, without degenerating into mere anarchy.

    Any system of rules is no better than its enforcement. The more power a government is allowed to exercise, the more money will be bid to corrupt that power. The solution to limit corruption is to limit power, and that requires that regular folks, who aren’t in government, take power into their own hands as necessary to limit the power of government.

    Any solution requires a moral and religious people, with a common understanding of liberty. That common understanding requirement really undermines all the arguments for diversity. Any solution will also require that moral and religious people to occasionally risk their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. That requirement is why we usually don’t see government’s power being limited: there are few moral and religious people period, let alone ones willing to take risks.

    So, it all hinges on us being willing to stand up to the government, a considerable personal risk, and yet submit to government where ever possible. That’s going to be less confusing if our state and county governments are generally moral and pro-liberty, and if we mostly find ourselves standing up to the federal government. We would do well to get our local governments in order, and train our children to be moral, religious risk takers, with a clear, common idea of liberty.

  17. My native state, South Carolina, has no need for any sort of national government that forces us into association with others. We already have a government, in Columbia, South Carolina.

    We have all that we need to be self sufficient, with petroleum resources from other, southern states, icing our cake. We don’t like the Yankee, never have. They don’t like us, either.

    Sending the US government on its way and replacing it with nothing suits us just fine.

  18. The rot started with the Whiskey Rebellion and the Alien and Sedition Acts. Had George Washington, John Adams, and all congress critters who voted for the Whiskey Tax or the Alien and Sedition Acts been tried for treason and hanged, Constitutional government may have had a chance. But they weren’t, and it went rapidly downhill from there.

  19. Better than most of the proposals.

  20. whack-a-mole

    Interesting we become the politicians(as a group)we despise. These various and sundry contributions to the conversation display individual political dispositition(or bias) with limited information and/or understanding of the complexities part and parcel of men governing themselves. For me, co-ordinating the competing interests expressed by men of varying talents, energy, and commitment is a uniquely political endeavor. No one wants to compromise their point of view at least willingly. Big dogs want a larger part of the spoils and assert by God, I’m gonna get mine and the rest of you losers can kiss my ass. Those may not be the exact words a politician might use, at least publicly, but as we all know, it is not what you say, it is what you do. So whether or not you believe Social Darwinism is a viable interpretation of political behavior, if the ends justifies the means, and I get mine, I owe no one an apology. But I might just get a bullet for my trouble.

    We really need to think through what competition for resourses, as individuals and as a country, really entails and how noble our aspirations for life as an existential verity, for liberty, as an unique expression of the life we live, and the resulting pursuit of happiness. We need each other to recognize the life of our brother, his right to liberty, and welcoming his right to pursue happiness as HE defines his own happiness. Isn’t liberty really to live ones own life in the pursuit of happiness however its defined which is never static. Isn’t that liberty what we would defend for all men of good will?

    I realize words mean things and definitions are part of scribing boundaries of understanding that is they describe as much what we don’t know as much as what we do know. So life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, fall into that category of abstractions which hardly allow common agreement. But one thing is clear by consensus, that those abstractions are rights as opposed to privileges. For me, and perhaps for some others, the logical regression in causation for those rights, are God given the implication of which is a moral base upon which we build our common lives as men. Ok, so that’s debatable.
    I don’t need no stinkin’ God to tell me how to live my life. One Golden Rule is, he who has the gold rules the world or another, Do unto others before they do unto you. If those cynical sayings reflect the moral base upon which the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are based, we are well and truly fucked.

    BTW..I will be the first to say I don’t know shit about anything.


  21. Let’s start with the Confederate Constitution. It has several improvements over the original. Before some mouth breather bloviates about slavery, read the two constitutions.

    Recommend this too: The Constitutions of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis: A Historical and Biographical Study in Contrasts, (Quinn, 1959)

  22. ghostsniper

    “What is your mechanism for enabling, that is making functional or operational, your concept of Rightful Liberty?”

    Simple, leave my ass alone and I’ll do the same.
    Yea, I tend to breathe out of my mouth too at times when working real hard at something.

    Most people have been programmed to believe they need to have a giant force of criminals to protect them, when it is usually them and the giant force of criminals that the rest of us need to be protected from.

    They call this hypnotic trance, government.
    Sounds soothing doesn’t it?

  23. ghostsniper

    “And what, exactly, did the AoC fail at?”
    It, and the constitution, failed right from the beginning when it presumed to speak for me. I’m quite capable of speaking for myself.

    Another man’s laziness is none of my business nor responsibility.

  24. ghostsniper

    “….lowers the average IQ of the American population.”

    There is no such thing. Knock it off.

    If you don’t want people coming onto your land, prevent it.

    If I want people coming onto my land, you have no say about it.

    Responsibility and irresponsibility can only be assigned to individuals.

    When you ignore the fact that people are individuals and clump them together as you did above then no responsibility can be held and irresponsibility will prevail.

    This is where the situation is right now and more of the same will not change it.

  25. U.S. is not racially homogenous. Freakin Star Wars bar scene nowadays. Most Americans could care less about God or the bible and the current constitution can only work with a generally righteous homogenous people. There is no possible constitution that will work with this type of motley crew living here now. So put away your Ben Franklin glasses and powdered wigs and just forget about a united nation under some written agreement. Ain’t happenin.

  26. There is a certain three-letter word that is grossly conspicuous by its absence in this discussion (38 comments as I write). It occurs ONCE, and none of its derivative words appear at all. Oh, well. I guess only us mouth-breathing anarchists care about stuff like that.

  27. As I previously stated at http://iiipercent.blogspot.com/2015/05/political-reality-is-reality.html

    You need a group of people who are willing to work together and not let their fucking egos get in the way. You also need lots of money. Think RNC or DNC level funds.

    Then you need to establish a political platform. And not a single issue platform like gun control. You need to have a platform for every fucking little namby-pamby thing that Joe Average cares about. And you have to have simple emotional explanations for everything.

    Once you do that, you have to accept that you’re just another minority special interest group and start acting like one. Infiltrate and influence the existing political infrastructure, start getting your people elected, and start shifting public perception of your particular minority towards tolerance and acceptance. Engage in psychological attacks and character assassinations against political opposition. Bail your people out of jail when they get arrested and engage in high-power legal battles aimed at getting laws changed. Purchase media outlets and use them to advance your agenda. Just like other minority special interest groups.

    What few 3%ers realize is that the endgame of what they are advocating means the replacement of the current sociopolitical establishment of this country, and that they will have to become the future sociopolitical establishment if they wish to succeed. That is non-negotiable. Otherwise someone else will come along and do it. The other thing they fail to realize is that this is going to take a few decades to do. The “Civil Rights” movements had their start in the mid 1950s and 1960s. Look how long it took them to get to where they are now.

    People are going to get jailed. Their families will need to be taken care of. Whistleblowers will need assistance when they lose their jobs. Political contributions will have to be made to swing neutrals in your direction. Large-scale protests will have to be conducted sans permission and free-speech zones. People are going to get their heads busted in. Look at what happened during the 1960s.

    And you’re going to have to do it all with an active opposition against you that controls 99% of the mass media.

    With that said, I personally advocate the Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged approach because I don’t believe anyone in the 3% is capable of it.

    – Sparks31
    Isher, Wyoming

    • Mike Bishop

      Sparks’ post got me thinking on the dark money aspects of a 501(c)(4) “FREEFOR Super PAC.”

      Confidential donors? Check.


    • ghostsniper

      “Otherwise someone else will come along and do it.”

      Here’s that fear/threat part again.
      It’s like, people will grasp anything at all to justify the presence of an overwhelming body to kick people’s asses just because.

      You know what my biggest fear is?
      That a hired thug is gonna come lurking around my country (an area of this earth defined as belonging solely to me) and make me put a whole bunch of holes all the way through him. Which will then release the hounds of hell and probably make me die for my cause.

      I don’t like living this way, but according to non-thinkers that is just the way it is and I have to go along with it. I have to abandon my sense of self, my sense of pride, my very lifestyle in order to support yours.

      Your idea of *freedom* is for both of us to live in fear everyday for all of our lives, and quite frankly, I just don’t get it.

      Nobody wants to wear the big-boy pants anymore, everybody wants to cling to the imaginary mama that will save us all, but never does.

      • But…but….anarchy!

        No roads!

        No Social Security!


      • Nothing about fear. Nature abhors a vacuum. It’s that simple.
        The fact is that the 3% scene wants to see this country fixed, but no one wants to take on the difficult and unenviable job of diagnoses and repair. “Restore the Constitution” is not enough. It went into failure mode. That is the simple reality. We need to do better than that, or we will repeat that failure mode. If we do nothing, than someone else will come along, someone we won’t like probably, and do something we won’t like.

        • Cannot restore a dead thing.

          I have said it for years here and elsewhere.

          The FUSA is dead and will not be returning.

          What replaces the US? THAT is a conversation worth having.

          AOC with stronger language and a CONCRETE BOR along with CA’s treason clause is a good start.

        • ghostsniper

          First he says this:
          “Nothing about fear.”

          Then he says this:
          “If we do nothing, than someone else will come along, someone we won’t like probably, and do something we won’t like.”

          Never mind that that *someone* is already here and has been all along.

          “The beatings will continue until the screaming stops.”

          • Or until you figure out how to stop getting beaten.
            I’ve posited some possible solutions and stumbling blocks. Where are yours?

    • Sparks31:
      “. . . I don’t believe anyone in the 3% is capable of it.” Neither do I. And it’s to their great credit. They have lives, and the only thing they want from the “sociopolitical establishment” (SE) is for it to leave them alone to live them. Those who seek to become the SE have Causes, and their lives, such as they are, consist of shoving those Causes down everyone else’s throat. Fighting by the SE’s rules is a mug’s game. As Rand put it, in a not entirely dissimilar context: “You couldn’t use the methods required and you wouldn’t want the results.” The only viable option is to stand aside; to be in a position, when the SE finally burns to the ground, to replace it with something radically different. On the order of: “Mind your own fucking business, or we kill you.”

      100 percent damn straight, and well said, as always.

      BTW: I still haven’t seen any discussion of how any of these glorious systems get financed.

    • Lost Patrol

      Work local, think global. Affecting things on the national stage is not going to happen at this time. Too many lost children in most places. But work on ones local government. Work with and within local groups first. Community intelligence is much more necessary than knowing what some political Gremlin or Troll is doing a 1,000 miles away. Build with what you have locally. As that will probably be where one makes their stand. And to all of this, there are always exceptions. I.E. Bundy ranch is an example that almost became an exception. But the basics is still … take care of your own neighborhood first.

  28. Cold War Gunner

    It has been time for a correction for a number of years,,

    I like the comment about a citizen army, which in my way of thinking should be from the age of 16, and continue until you are no longer physically or mentally able to be a productive member..Might just keep a ton of us old farts in shape, whether we want to or not..

    The only contribution that I can think of is what I have been chewing on for some time..So here I go.

    All citizens must take an annual civic/citizenship test yearly to be qualified to vote, or hold office..the test would be 100 questions, and a passing grade would be 90 correct..The test would be on all aspects of citizenship, and responsibilities that the person would encounter..The test would be changed annually from a list of 10000 questions that would be computer generated so as to prevent against cheating..

    From the list of qualified persons above the age of 25, a number of citizens would be drawn to hold public office..If you did not wish to be considered for office, you have the right to decline..All local, state, and federal officeholders would serve a (2) two year term of public service, for which you would be compensated at the rate of an E-5 w/20yrs seniority..You would be required to use the V.A. for all medical, for yourself only, that would be your only benefit.. At the completion of your public service, you would return to your status as private citizen, with no additional compensation or benefits..If you were employed, your employer must hold your civilian position for you, and seniority continues to grow..

    If during your term of public service, you were found to be working with anyone representing a company/corporation that was attempting to influence legislation, and you did not report them within 24hrs of 1st contact, then you would be removed from office immediately, and never allowed to ever hold office again..The lobbyists would be charged with attempting to peddle influence, tried and if convicted sentenced to 20 years..Said company/corporation would be placed on a “do not work with list”, and never be allowed to hold contracts to provide services to the government..

    About all I can think of right now..

  29. Does anyone else see the benefit in balkanization?

    I haven’t read every word of every comment, but it seems like most want a re-set or a revised government for the same single large country.

    Just to see where it goes, I theoretically proffer the option of total balkanization — 50 separate sovereign nations with 50 different constitutions. OR, some number between 2 and 100. Some number other than 1.

    And no, at the moment I’m not interested in the practical difficulties. Merely the hypothetical benefit of having more than one government or type of government to live under. Including no government at all; just not everywhere coast to coast. Let the anarchists live with anarchists in anarchyland; let the statists deal with other statists in Statistan; etc, etc. (again, practical problems of divvying-up put aside for the time being).

    I don’t get the presumption of the need, by at least some commenters, for a single nation or a single government. Maybe I’m reading things wrong.

    • I don’t get the presumption of the need, by at least some commenters, for a single nation or a single government.

      Nor do I.

      • Consider that should the restraints on government be restored to their intended level and various states wish to secede, they would, by virtue of removing their consent to the contact, be able to leave. Remember, we’re executing the contract as intended. There would still be commerce, mutual defense agreements, and familial relations, there would only be no shooting this time because it would not be in the self interest of the states remaining to do so (economically or ideologically speaking because we are executing the contract as designed).

        Jefferson faced the same argument before the Louisiana Purchase…he believed then what is summarized above. It’s very workable.

        • The explicit right to secession must be one of the new amendments.

          If there is any lesson to be drawn from the 1791-2015 experience, it is that reliance on even the written record (Federalist papers, etc.) of the framers’ intent will be insufficient.

          In a world where the “perpetual union” phrase in the AoC is used to justify Mr. Lincoln’s 1861-65 butchery, explicit words backed with deadly resolve are the only rational path forward.

          Of course, as OP likes to say, there’s a war to be won first.

  30. I propose the following “skeleton” assuming CA wanted some detail to his question.

    It all starts with private property rights. Then comes natural rights… and then our own Bill of Rights and maybe even some of the rights submitted by the states that didn’t make it into the final 10. Strong wording in order to protect these rights is paramount in any new “document”. No property taxes and no income taxes period. No taxes on food or water… ever. The government does NOT own any real property. If needed, all commerce agreements are at the state and local level. No central bank. Defense budget is capped at 15% of gross federal tax receipts. Declaration of war required by legislative branch no exceptions for ALL use of armed forces. In order to support State and other militias all men above the age of 16 are required to own a handgun and rifle and be proficient with those firearms. No Welfare programs.

    Three branches of gov seems right. All legislation must be publicly shown for 1 year BEFORE a vote and must be written in plain language. No implementation of any law for 5 years to allow for legal challenges. ALL govt politicians at all levels are subject to recall AND/OR impeachment… including the President and all judges at all levels of govt. Politician pay is minimal… absolutely NO benefits. No lobbyists. No politician can stay for more than 8 yrs total and all election cycles are two years. Only voters from the politicians district can give money to reelection with some small amount being the max. No corporate donations allowed.

    Authorized voters must be real property (land) owners, no exceptions. If you don’t own property you don’t get to vote to steal my wealth.

    Finally, crime. What constitutes a crime? Physical aggression in all forms (murder, assault, battery, rape, etc.), stealing, trespass, and probably a few more I can’t recall just right now. What is NOT a crime? Using a racial epithet, no such thing as a hate crime, drug use, basically if I am not hurting anyone else by my actions and not infringing on their property then it’s not a crime.

    IMHO, get that written up and you’ve got a starting point… maybe.


    Grey Ghost

  31. I have posited two things: one, that the Constitution of 1787 – for all its flaws – was a good model for our federal republic, if the body politic had adhered to the moral and cultural heritage required to exercise it; we have lost our way – but the constitutional system didn’t cause that, other factors did.

    I have a plan to colonize the moon: I will grow a tree a quarter million miles tall. Don’t tell me that trees don’t grow that high; my plan works. If your species of tree fails my plan, then I will look for another species of tree. It is the tree that is the problem here, not my plan.

    The constitution worked; the problem contained was it was insufficient in preemptively addressing the constant assault to its supremacy.

    The core thing the Constitution was claimed to do was preemptively address the constant assault to its supremacy. I have for sale some bulletproof armor chest plates made out of cardboard. It works at least as well as the Constitution.

    Human nature/human psychology is one of the building materials you are stuck with. Strength of character has factual limits which aren’t increased by wishing. There aren’t any better humans around somewhere else for you to build with.

    AoC sections seem to have morphed right into the USC will but minor mods.

    The important addition was the ability to TAX, and that the collecting side rather than the taxpaying side gets to decide to lay the taxes.

  32. Whenever I discuss conservative politics, I will eventually be asked, “Well then, what is YOUR solution?”

    The following is my collection of thoughts on how I believe we can turn the country around. I will add, subtract, or expand on them as each idea stands or falls on its own merits.

    1) The constitution needs to be restored back to the Founder’s original intent. Any amendment that doesn’t pass that test should be nullified and removed.

    (Example: the 17th amendment being repealed to return Senators to being elected by the States and not direct election, which will restore their loyalty to their state, instead of corporate interests)

    2) The majority of Federal laws on the books need to be scrapped.

    Most laws shall be applied at the state level. The remaining Federal laws (example: treason) must be written in language understandable at a High School reading level.

    3) All Federal and State political offices will have a term limit of 12 years, including the Supreme Court.

    Congressmen – two 6 year terms/
    Senators – three 4 year terms/
    Supreme Court – one 12 year term
    This will get rid of the majority of “career politicians” while allowing continuity of government to function.

    4) All Federal departments should have a sunset clause.

    Any agency, program, or fiscal policy that is not expressly renewed by a two-thirds vote of congress will close. That sunset clause should happen in a term of no more than 6 years.
    These reviews must happen on the year immediately prior to a congressional election year cycle.

    5) The 4th estate of bureaucratic agencies with no constitutional charter will be abolished.

    This includes, but is not limited to: DHS, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Education, DEA, EPA, IRS, and others. States may create individual state or regional agencies to address these needs as decided by the voters of each state. Any regulations recommended by these new agencies will require a vote of both the house and senate before having force of law. NO agency may create regulations without this process.
    These regulatory laws are also accountable to the 6 year sunset law review period.

    6) An audit of the gold repository at Fort Knox must happen every 12 years.

    Assuming that we have any gold in that vault, the process shall begin to dissolve the Federal Reserve System. We then return the United States to a bi-metallic currency based on, and redeemable for, the value of the currency in Gold and/or Silver. This will bring an end to our current fiat currency.

    7) The States need to individually co-operate to control our borders.

    We will do this by using the National Guard of each state as the primary enforcers. Each State may approve cooperation between the National Guard units of their own state with the National Guard units of each state with contiguous borders. This will apply to both land and sea borders.

    8) The majority of our troops should be recalled.

    Future troop deployments will only be sent out:
    A) Upon a constitutionally correct Declaration of War.
    B) To staff and maintain security of our embassies.
    C) To escort and protect our national leaders and dignitaries during international travel.
    D) To protect US citizens operating in foreign lands during times of political unrest.
    National Guard units may NEVER be deployed to foreign soil.

    9) Our National Guard should be returned to the states and put to work within that State’s borders.

    This work may include public works projects such as road or bridge construction and repair, border patrol, and so forth, as each state so chooses.

    10) The United Nations should be closed and all of their members sent home.

    The United States will offer to participate in debates with the UN, but will neither host, nor fund their endeavors. (The US currently supplies over twenty percent of the entire UN budget)

    11) All funds to foreign nations should be stopped.

    The only exceptions will be for the nations of Israel and Taiwan, and those should be phased out within 10 years. However, military support will be doubled for that same time period.

    12) All funds collected at the Federal level must come in the form of a simple, fixed-percentage tax.

    These taxes will be on purchases of new retail goods, excluding food. This percentage will be fixed by implementing the tax as a constitutional amendment, thereby requiring the constitutional amendment process to change the tax rate.

    13) All funds to entitlement programs must be phased out over a maximum of 30 years.

    This time span is to protect citizens who are invested into the current systems. All non-citizens will lose access to Federal and State programs immediately. Some programs will be phased out in less time, based on lack of need due to projected economic recovery. Removal of all Federal Income Taxes other than specified above will allow people to make better use of their own money, causing both social and faith-based charities to receive amazing growth opportunities (because, after all, Americans are among the most generous people in the world!).

    14) The US border will closed to all new immigration for a period of 12 years.

    This will begin a boom in our construction and security industries, as we build the infrastructure to truly close our physical borders. This will also allow us to complete the process for those people who have currently begun the legal process of immigration. During that same time, ALL persons found in this country illegally will be forcibly removed from the U.S. regardless of circumstance, or location of birth. (In other words, if a child’s parents were here illegally when the child was born, then the child is considered to be here illegally as well.)

    While we realize that there will be some people who illegally immigrate due to extreme hardships, or even the possibility of death, we have been told over and over that the world doesn’t want the U.S. as a global police force. We the citizens of these United States agree!

    After repatriation, and the 12 year hiatus, please feel free to apply for legal entry into OUR country

    Now the real question becomes, can any of these changes be implemented without a sweep of existing government – that is, a revolution?

  33. Catalan independence update:


    “Already there are calls in Madrid from certain quarters to use all means available to stop Catalonia becoming independent. Some retired military officers have pointed out the “indissoluble unity of Spain” in the constitution, and the constitutional mission of the armed forces “to guarantee the independence and sovereignty of Spain”, including “defending its integrity”.

    Perhaps we should not pay too much attention to ultranationalistic rhetoric from old retired colonels. Nevertheless, the fact is that the average Spanish person is appalled at the prospect of Catalonia breaking away from Spain, and would, if it came to it, approve of direct action to retain national unity. There is no sympathy in “mainland” Spain for an independent Catalonia, and nor are there any votes in it.”

  34. The “one nation” concept is essential to the discussion. Many proceed on the assumption that the USA will ineviteably continue as it is for an indefinite period. We’ve got a number of factors that are either directly or subtley working against that. First and probably (but arguably) foremost is the deep antipathy between right and the left. Alternatively you can view the developing sides as Statists or Individualists. Either way, it seems that day by day, law by law, court decision court decision, we are getting further apart in our views of what is “right” and what will be tolerated. The Progressives are edging ever closer to using the big hammer of government to force their version of “right” onto us, like it or not. We’re not far from where the old USSR was on the freedom of speech. Don’t think so, write an op-Ed blasting homosexual rights and marriage… Hell, the term Homosexual will get you blasted. Don’t make a cake to celebrate a homosexual joining ceremony? Get sued and receive a $135,000 fine from an appointed, non-judicial arm of the State Government. AKA, the thought police. How far will this lunacy go and how much will we tolerate? What’s the tipping point?

    I wish I could say, but I really don’t know. I do believe that the Federal Government is, through its spending and economic magic show, setting us (and the rest of the world) up for an economic reset of a large degree. In other words, an economic crash. That sort of event may be the shock necessary to lead State Governments to begin to act more independently and begin the process of distancing from the Medusa in DC.

    Essentially, I don’t think the population of the current United States can live together harmoniously for the indefinite future. Either one group rises to the top and subjects the rest to its version of right of we disintegrate (Balkanize) into Regional Associations. Think about living in Iraq with Sadaam if you were not a Baathist. Think about living in Syria with Assad Jr. if you were not an Alawite. IMO, you best get used to supporting, encouraging and preaching every idea and concept that undermines Federal Government and the efforts of the Statists.

  35. I have been reading this site for a long time, but this is my first comment so hopefully I do it right.

    I think one of the biggest flaws in our system is that it leads to short term thinking. People like to argue for term limits, but I think that would be a mistake. We already have a government that plays checkers against opponents who are playing chess. This may have been brought up already and I missed it, but most of our representatives rotate in and out of government and only stay a short period of time. They dont have to face the long term consequences of their poor decisions. They come from a corporation, serve a term or two where they feed special interests, then they go back into that corporation or another like it and let someone else deal with the fallout. Obamacare is set up this very way, he is going to be gone by the time the full impact is felt. Where is Bush to clean up the ISIS mess that his policies indirectly created? The idea of self government is attractive, but honestly, the average do-gooder serving a couple years in a position doesn’t know WTF they are doing. I see this playout frequently in the small town where I live and serve (as the very do-gooder wannabe I am complaining about!). I think that the Federal beaurocracy that has sprung up is a natural response to having so many people who may mean well, but dont know $hit rotating in and out. Our system breeds politicians who cannot see past their own nose, not statesmen. I think the USC is a generally good document, but we need people who will spend their lives working it and looking out for the big picture in our country. I just havent figured out how to keep them accountable and honest, maybe the “New Texas” model would work? I dont know how in our current system a guy (or party) who doesnt know anything is going to come in learn the ropes and fight for 2 (or 4 or 6 years) against an entrenched beaurocracy (while also working a full time job at least at the local level) and shadow government of lobbyist, thinktanks, and rich guys. It simply isnt enough time and the entrenched guys are just going to ignore you or misdirect you while funding an opponent until your term is up and they just continue on after you’re gone. Until we find a system that brings about statesmen that are smart enough and strong enough to fight the entrenched shadow government, it really doesnt matter how we arrange the deck chairs. I just haven’t thought of a logical check against if our statemen (or really aristocracy) gets all uppity.

  36. clangunndaddy

    So far grey ghosts skeleton is the closest thing to practical and workable a solution that I would sign on to after a reset.

  37. Okay, for those who do not want a “constitution” in any shape or form. In order to get to anarchy, you have to eliminate government… at the very least, shoot every government employee you come into contact with who threatens you with the probability of State sanctioned violence, whether that physical violence occurs or not… all that is required is that functionary demands that you fulfill a government mandate. Of course, you will have to shoot the proponents of restoring the constitution and those who want another “better” constitution.

    Of course, the same can be said of the current constitution, if that is your thing. If you can keep it. If you want to keep it, then do what what is necessary to keep it. Every time some government functionary demands upon you, a unconstitutional edict… shoot him. And of course, you will have to shoot the anarchists and those who want another type of constitution… can’t have them getting in the way.

    And, if you want to change the constitution, into another form, well, you can’t get there from here, while staying here. You are going to have to shoot the usurpers of our current constitution, the proponents of restoring our current constitution, and the anarchists… to then create your new constitution.

    Let’s just face it down to the finer detail. Some want to “if you can keep it” current constitution. Some want to create another constitution to replace the one they didn’t want to keep, or, couldn’t keep. And some just want anarchy.

    Rather than talk about it, again… why not just get on with it. At best, the 50 States can be conquered and assembled into 3 separate countries. Keeping the current constitution and keeping it, creating another constitution, and anarchy. Then, the 3 competing parties can fight over territory.

    Maybe we should all be talking about, and coming to an agreement, what those boundaries will be beforehand, that way, when the competing parties finally, some day, if ever, finish off the current government, ya’ll can get on with creating your new countries and won’t be fighting each other over territory and style of government.

    Of course, one problem I do see, is that there may be proponents of a thousand or more different types of new constitutions. So that will have to be worked in as well. And then there is the idea of what our current constitution is… is. That will have to be worked as well. And… well, that definition of what anarchy is… is.

    Finally, getting down to the reality of it all, since everyone agrees that they hate the current government, everyone agrees to put aside their ideologies of what type of government they want, make a pack to “stick together or hang together”, remove the current government “by any means necessary”… a conglomerate of competing ideologies of a new revolution, then… when that is accomplished, the pack becomes null and void, then we can get moving on to having a Civil War.

    And… well, here we are.

    • “Chaos” – yes.

      “Anarchy” – no.

      A major part of the problem is people who want to become (and will stop at little or nothing to become) bosses.

      The other part is the very large group of people who are fine with being slaves.

      For the apparently very few who wish neither fate for themselves or anyone else, there’s work to be done.

      Or is your premise that the USC/BoR is functioning as (supposedly) intended as a check to excessive government and related abuses?

      Follow-up question: if the claim is that “the USC/BoR did not fail – the people did”, how much of a good-faith effort was exerted by the drafters in providing a viable dispute mechanism for use by the people? Or is de-election the absolute no-fooling best that human minds can devise so as to prevent servants from becoming masters?

      • I think you missed my point. I am neither defending one, or the other.

        But okay, I’ll bite on the last paragraph. Let’s take it from that T. Jefferson rightful liberty guy.

        Dear Sir, I am now to acknoledge the receipt of your favors of October the 4th, 8th, & 26th. In the last you apologise for your letters of introduction to Americans coming here. It is so far from needing apology on your part, that it calls for thanks on mine. I endeavor to show civilities to all the Americans who come here, & will give me opportunities of doing it: and it is a matter of comfort to know from a good quarter what they are, & how far I may go in my attentions to them. Can you send me Woodmason’s bills for the two copying presses for the M. de la Fayette, & the M. de Chastellux? The latter makes one article in a considerable account, of old standing, and which I cannot present for want of this article. — I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: & very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: & what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent & persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted. — You ask me if any thing transpires here on the subject of S. America? Not a word. I know that there are combustible materials there, and that they wait the torch only. But this country probably will join the extinguishers. — The want of facts worth communicating to you has occasioned me to give a little loose to dissertation. We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot inform.

        Or are we just going to sit around and squabble about what KIND of government… or no government… we are to have, just in case we all decide, if ever, to get to the part where we jail and/or hang our jailers?

        Ya’ll might as well discuss carving up these un-united states into separate countries/political ideology zones, to accommodate the 3, 4, 5, 6… whatever different consteetootions, or no consteetootions, ya’ll decide on.

        And seriously, back to this? …how much of a good-faith effort was exerted by the drafters in providing a viable dispute mechanism for use by the people?

        How about………………………… okay: And it is hereby decreed that if anyone usurps the delegated authority and/or restrictions, or applies colorful pretext anywhere from Article 0 to Article 1 million, herein this consteetootion, they shall be flogged 40 stripes, and hanged from an Oak tree… naked. With their pecker in their mouth. And their mothers, fathers, wives, children, and babies too. And neighbors. And Uncle Sam, if they have a Uncle Sam.

        There is absolutely nothing, not a frikkin thing, that you can put on a piece of paper that will compel those who are prone to piss on it, from pissing on it… EXCEPT all your asses. You know, like… if you can keep it? And how about that new consteetootion whatever IT is? What magic words are you going to put in it to prevent usurpation by anywhere from one, to 360,000.000 plus? NOTHING… but you “freedom” fighters. Where are you all at? Squabbling over whether we keep what we got. Squabbling over a newer one, ones, or another. And anarchy and its several interpretations.

        Like I said: Finally, getting down to the reality of it all, since everyone agrees that they hate the current government, everyone agrees to put aside their ideologies of what type of government they want, make a pact to “stick together or hang together”, remove the current government “by any means necessary”… a conglomerate of competing ideologies of a new revolution, then… when that is accomplished, the pact becomes null and void, then we can get moving on to having a Civil War and separating ourselves in… crap, what… ideology zones/countries.

        Now, people might not like that, but there it is. Because the fact is… if – If – IF… ya’ll get to the big yuck nasty thing, someday, when it is all said and done, ya’ll will be sitting at a table, with your Bowie knives on the table, still wearing your plates, squabbling. And you all frikkin know it. Because… how many times have we done this? And we haven’t even done the yuck nasty.

        By the time this gets all hashed out, hell… you’ll all be on your death-beds and your children will be saying… dumb-asses. Not only are our hands shackled, but our feet and lips.

        And don’t mistake me for being a smart-ass.

        • Curtis:

          Either I slept and my mind is clearer or the piece above is clearer.

          In either event, I appreciate and understand your point now.

          The ONLY utility is running the “make it better” traps is that someone here (or someone reading what is here) might be around the table when the fighting is done. Hopefully, that person will understand that an agreement without serious provisions for breach (and neither de-election nor impeachment are serious breach provisions) is a farce from the start.

          But first, there is a war to be staffed, supplied, and won.

          Thanks for your response.

          • Meh. I’m not mocking your efforts Pete. There are just to many fracturing competing ideas. Funny… if you are a communist, well… you are a damn communist. It is easy to point out a communist. If you are a advocate of liberty… well, then there comes the rub. What IS an advocate of liberty? Get a bunch of different people together, who call themselves advocates of liberty, and you’re going to get different answers of what liberty IS and how IT is to be administered in a geographical area. It is to damn easy to sling that “Rightful Liberty” quote. But it is pretty damn obvious, that to too many, there are competing ideas, again, how that “Rightful Liberty” is to be administered and how IT is to be defined.

            Some people believe that the constitutional convention was a big bad grand conspiracy to f*ck future generations. I don’t. I think it was exactly as I have said immediately above. A contentious group of men who meant well (and you can see it in their post revolution/constitution writings) that made competing compromises.

            And again, like I said, some people want to keep the current constitution and restore it to what ever they think IT is. Some people want a complete re-do and another constitution but no one can agree on what IT will be, so we’ll just have anywhere from 1 to a million new constitutions. And then there are those who do not want any constitution, but anarchy… which means, competing definitions of what IS anarchy. And all this in the BIG scheme of what IS liberty. But then, some will say, but… but… but…

            “Liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of it’s extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”

            Well, if it was as easy as that, why the squabbling? If it was as easy as that, why… we could put together another better newer constitution in a jiffy. If it was a easy as that, hell… who needs a constitution… why, all we need is that quote and live happily ever after.

            I am afraid to say, that in the current condition, intellectually, and morally, of American men in this country, that the best we can hope for, in the event IT happens, is the Balkinization of the then former united States of America. And, I am afraid to say, if IT ever happens, it will NOT be a counter-revolution of 2 opposing sides, but one big giant mass cluster-fuck civil war of multiple competing interests.

            And that is sad. But, reality.

            • You got it all right, except the conclusion. YOU have determined that this is bad, but it needn’t be. Big deal, everyone’s different and thugs gotta be stopped. Nothing new there. Reality. What can be different is how we deal with it.

              • Define “except for the conclusion”.

                Then define, “how we deal with it”.

                • By the way, I have already defined how we deal it… if we can get passed it.

                • It struck me that you think it’s a bad thing that people think so much differently and have such different values. That’s no hindrance at all to Liberty; the ONLY hindrance to Liberty is thuggery. That’s so obvious it’s nearly definitional. If I was wrong about your view, then sorry.

                  As far as dealing with it, I was taking the “it” to be thuggery. If there’s one thing which is finally clear to every semi-conscious person, it’s that there’s only one way to oppose thuggery. I doubt we have any dispute about that.

                  • There it is. It struck me that you think it’s a bad thing that people think so much differently and have such different values.

                    As I always say, here we are. Imagine where we will be.

                    Because… just as long as we only think differently and keep our values to ourselves, why… there would be liberty! Because… every man is a bubble! Just don’t touch me or my stuff! Just don’t legislate me and my stuff!

                    Think + values = action… Jim. Hate to break that to you. Bit there it is.

                    Once you step out of your bubble Jim, and step out into the REAL world, you’ll see more clearly.

                    NOW… you can imagine the need to oppose thuggery.

                    I know… but imagine… right?

                    • Yep, there it is; that’s our difference. Seems to me, though, that you intend to somehow “break” the truth of, “Think + values = action.”

                      That can only be done by one person and for one person. Do you deny? Sure, you can try to make it happen in others. And there’s only one way to do that, duh, I mean MAKE it happen.

                      Hopefully I’m misreading you again, but it appears you believe something outside of the individual is necessary to make a world where that happens. It’s an egregious error every which way, but it’s still nothing but a choice…in this case yours.

                      So the only question that remains if that if you–not you personally, but anyone–choose to make the choice that yes, the initiation and imposition of force is necessary for humans to survive at all…then the only question that remains is why none of you will simply stand forth and say so. One might say it belies the position.

                      My real hunch is that you live your life peacefully and heavily in consensual exchange with others. It’s a pretty safe bet with anyone, as long as one is always ready for the very few exceptions.

                    • Ohhhhhh, gawd. Carry on Jim.

            • Mike Bishop


              We can debate the merits of one way or another, or discuss the minutia of when the line is crossed between Liberty/Lawlessness, but where the rubber meets the road is how to immediately handle the feudal shit-show that will descend upon us like locusts once the balloon goes up.

              Political governance is going to be the last thing on my mind while I’m sleeping with a knife between my teeth and one eye open, wondering if the cartels are going to annex my AO and demand tribute before the New Democratic People’s Front Militia cuts my head off for being one of those “Bitter Clinging Microaggressing Capitalist White Oppressor Types”; assuming the Cannibalistic San Franciscans don’t have me rotisserie’d on a spit before any of the above.

              For the lovers of anarchy, be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

              • Yecch, more fear. There’s only one cartel likely to demand tribute in the near future, and maybe a few relatively insignificant ones after that. What’s the diff anyway…it’s a lousy excuse to become one in any event.

  38. Pingback: So you say you want a new consteetootion… or not, but anarchy. | The Sun Also Rises

  39. Where is went wrong was the inculcation of political parties into government. If the 12A was not there, Mitt Romney would now be the vice President.

    Eliminate any state support for political parties because they are private organizations and have no role in government. Without the mu team, your team mentality, there would be the possibility of more impeachments (the founders thought that would be a common occurrence) and coalition building to increase government and divide the spoils would decrease because there would not a built in coalition formed around political parties that would have difficulty of obtaining a substantial number of seats absent the built in advantage of having the government conduct party primaries and automatic ballot access.

  40. Monopoly is when government says only this group shall be allowed to do an activity. Monopoly produces high prices and bad service, while competition produces low prices and good service. There is no exception to this rule for the activity of criminal control. Normal people should want to encourage competition. Darwinian competition means majority vote is the final rule which determines what lives and dies, and humans can’t make this law of nature vanish. “Self-defense” and “government” are the opposing sides of the same violent interaction. I want to shift the balance of military power towards self-defense, with new military technology. I want to make it riskier to vote, by encouraging cheaper and easier means of military competition usable by the individual. Drones with pistols are interesting. Consider what happens if every vote risks starting a family feud: when Thief attacks Homeowner, it is worth the risk for Homeowner to kill Thief, but too risky for Neighbor to attack Homeowner to complain about Thief being killed. The solution to limiting government is to top off the magazines in your drones and spend your day limiting government. Properly limited government is named anarchy.

  41. 1. All laws come with an automatic expiration date. Laws can be passed with a simple majority but renewal requires a 2/3 majority from both houses.

    2. All citizens must register for Office Holder selective service after age 40. Office holders are then drafted. After being drafted, the office holder candidate must go through Constitutional boot camp.

    3. Term limits.

    4. All federal employees and office holders are held to higher standards than the general public. Any office holder or federal employee caught breaking the law is stood against a wall and shot after a trial.

    5. Deficit spending is not allowed. See above, #4.

    6, Banks are completely privatized. Any insurance carried by a bank is through a private insurance company.

    7.Government is not allowed to guarantee loans of any sort to the private sector. See above, #4.

    (only slightly tongue-in-cheek)

  42. My previous post was wiped out by a security certificate. I will try to re-write.
    The problem with the corruption in our Federal Government is career politicians and political parties. Political parties should be disbanded after an election and not re-instated until campaign time begins.
    Elected officials seeking another office should be required to return to the private sector for an equal number of years of that newer office they are seeking. A Congressman wanting to become a Senator should return to the private sector for six years.
    Unelected authorities such as Directors, Assistant Directors, etc. should only hold those “appointed” posts for 4-5 years and then return to the private sector. This would also eliminate those career bureaucrats jumping to different departments to avoid accountability and prosecution. Any Appointed Authority should be required to have 15 years of government service before assuming that appointed post. (20 year letter and retirement).
    This would exempt the military for logical reasons.
    End pensions for elected posts and offices in the Federal Government. Congressmen, Senators and Presidents don’t need pensions. Federal Magistrates do.
    With the elimination of political parties, the “D” and “R” the tribal ethnic warfare of the 1881 Hyphen American immigrants would no longer enable them to deny fair and equal representation of the constituency.
    TERM LIMITS for every elected civil post!

  43. There is no compromising with people, or saving this corrupted system.

    Sean said it best…

    “I suggest we just have at each other, and the victor can write both the history of what happened, and the rules. ”

    When it is fashionable to do so, I would relish the opportunity to repair some corrupted files and deliver a dose of much needed re-programming to the matrix. The cretins who I observe zombie walking when I am out and about – as far as I can tell, have no reason to exist other than to consume, destroy, pollute, and re-produce multiples of the same slothful mindless blobs of human waste… It sickens me to breathe the same air. This cleansing must necessarily take place before a healthy normalcy can be restored to this foul, putrid, rotting carcass that was once the U.S.A. If God sees fit to incinerate this land and everyone in it, I’m at peace with that decision. It’s that bad…

  44. “There’s a flaw in the original paperwork” theory. I’ll have to remember that one for the next time I talk to my ex-wife:

    “Guess what I’ve discovered concerning our divorce? It wasn’t your fault, and it wasn’t my fault; our marriage went to hell because there was a flaw in the original paperwork!”

    I feel so much better now.

    • If the marriage paperwork provided that the only penalty for breach was sour looks and denial of connubial bliss, I’d argue that there IS a defect in the paperwork.

  45. See this http://stardrivenovel.com/Constitution.pdf for a rough draft of a new constitution based on basic principles of individual freedom. I’m interested in reasoned suggestions for improvement. May use them in my next novel (if I ever write it).

    • Once we get to item 4, the rest is superfluous, I think.

      The stuff about “intellectual property” is a can of worms, unless I misunderstand you.

      What is the point of having Govt officials “pay tax”?

      More importantly, why would anyone agree to be bound by this Document? What do I get, in return for this taxation?

      What happens to me if I don’t want to play by your rules … if I just want to do my own thing?

      • Not the reasoned objections I was hoping for, but about what I expected. The point of this hypothetical constitution is that it is based on principles, not rules. No laws or statutes or regulations, just simple principles that every citizen can understand and must agree to as a condition of citizenship. If you “don’t want to play by the rules (there aren’t any), and do your own thing”, that’s fine as long as you don’t violate the basic principles defined by the constitution. Which in essence means you don’t violate the rights of others. If you do violate those rights then that’s what the citizens who have signed the contract are paying for: mutual defense against internal and external use of fraud or force, without surrendering the right to use defensive force themselves.
        The current web of laws, rules, and regulations is strangling the country. The legislative law system and the existing legal system based on “precedents” is a magnet for collectivist “monkeys” (Google Starving The Monkeys) and guarantees the eventual outcome of our current form of government. Read Leoni’s “Freedom and The Law” to get some information on the relatively recent development of “legislative law” and the inevitable problems it creates. And read David Kelley’s article on “A Short Course on Rule Breaking”, an essay on a life governed by principles instead of rules”. You could also read Spooner’s “No Treason” for a lengthy argument of why the existing Constitution is not binding. The proposed constitution is a binding contract that defines a state of citizenship among those who have voluntarily signed. Those who do not sign do not pay taxes, but they also cannot vote and cannot own property and have no legal rights as defined by the constitution.
        As I see it the only valid purpose of government is create a mutual aid association to protect individual rights and property. It is not to create a Utopia or to magically prevent all injustice or to insure a wonderful life for everyone. Being a free individual is difficult. But not as difficult as being a slave to the whims of others.

        • I didn’t read the whole comment or the link, but if you’re looking for principles by which to interact socially, the NAP (ZAP, don’t initiate force, don’t obstruct will, don’t abridge ownership, etc., etc.) is quite sufficient in ANY social context. There’s consent and there’s thuggery; that’s a complete and exhaustive list for every instance of any social interaction.

          Even a three year old can call thuggery, consent. So yes, we have that ability, but it never changes reality.

        • Just to pick one point from your reply.

          You say that a man may own no Property UNLESS he agrees to abide by your Constitution.

          I’ll just cogitate upon the implications of that.

  46. Mike Bishop

    A stateless society would be glorious…until it wasn’t.

    Such a thing would require folks of a higher moral, responsible character than is possessed by contemporary man.

    If it didn’t devolve into the law of the jungle, it would be Crimea’d in the blink of an eye.

    • I am very glad we are avoiding the law of the jungle (genteel version) at present.


      • Mike Bishop

        I see what you did there.

        ; )


        I would argue that it is symptomatic of my previous statement on moral, responsible people.

        We could conjure up a utopia, and collectivist/statist man would find a way to fuck it up, just as they did with a Constitutional Republic.

    • I am sure it is the mighty armies of Singapore that keeps it from being invaded and conquered by it’s neighbors. Or could it be that Singapore’s neighbors don’t want to kick it’s door in, rape the women and children, and slit the men’s throats. Maybe some peoples view of the world is just wrong.

  47. “What Must Be Done” – Hans Hermann Hoppe. For those who have not read it the link is below. It’s longer than blog post and less than a novel. Takes 15-20 minutes maybe a little more depending on your reading speed, but it’s well worth your time. For all you “pursuit of happiness” folks you may want to just skip it. Nothing about pursuit of happiness in this tome.


    Of course, if our Democrat/Republican collectivist leaders decide it’s time to generate even more gun control or or even worse … gun confiscation, then all bets are off. The natural right of self defense kicks in. Then the only answer is to say let them and their “brown shirts” enforce whatever illegality they choose!

    • Excellent review of what is wrong with our current (or any) form of democratic government. A little weak in the how-to-do-it section. Without a central contract (constitution) defining basic principles, what he is describing is a feudalistic system with little or no guarantees of individual freedom. What I suggested in another comment is a constitution (contract) based on specific principles that prohibit any monopoly of force or control by the government. Implementing such a constitution would require a new settlement on another planet (as in my fictional scenario) or a rebuilding after a complete collapse of our current civilization. Since current conditions make the rebuilding after a complete collapse a very likely possibility, some planning ahead seems to be in order.

    • Take it as you will – Re: Gun Control: http://www.stevequayle.com/index.php?s=33&d=1573

  48. Thank you for taking the concept seriously, now let’s hang more numbers on that framework. All governments are tax-and-spend protection rackets. All governments in the last thousand years collapse their currency from government overspending in about 220 years. The danger of being conquered from without is that a 100 year old nation can conquer a 200 year old nation. The chart of national debt and deficit is the chart of potential national war logistics. Look at the chart of national finances worldwide. There is no technologically and size similar potential enemies at the peak of its powers at the 100 year mark. Consider the supposed enemies: China, a major part of whose supposed assets are US bonds funded by tax collection? Russia? Japan same as China? India? Brazil? Any combination of the Middle East? Watch the opening screen of Saving Private Ryan, who today can build hundreds of large ships to make a coastal beachhead attack? Nobody.

    So US government will fall down and nobody big will get up. Bubba will puts up a checkpoint on the county road to only allow the white god-fearing past. Bubba will get sniped that night, because he has no defense in depth to threaten the snipers with a chase and a prosecution. The urban crime gang pirate sanctuaries will burn their neighborhoods, then be trapped within those neighborhood boundaries by overwhelming numbers. Maybe the women will be let through in a trickle if they have an outside immigration and employment sponsor for whom they offer to scrub toilets. Maybe they will send money home to baby daddies. Maybe they won’t.

    It makes the conversation shorter if you start with the war logistics plan up front, rather than the wishlist. You’ve stated some policy goals. How are you going to pay to make other people do that?

  49. Fascinating conversation and I’ve written plenty on why the Constitution was designed a s blueprint for big government, no use pummeling the dead equine here.

    Very few have mentioned the two central issues that neutralize all this “better government” ambition even though bogbeagle pointed it out earlier with aplomb.

    First, any government must employ initiated violence, theft and terrorism to exist otherwise it couldn’t ahem…survive for a single day. They MUST hit and steal; no matter how one twists the language to accommodate this barbarism.

    Second, slavery must be codified by whatever legal misdirection and legerdemain the PTB (presumptive) devise in their documents. ALL government documents are simply deed and title formalities for the tax denizens on the statist feedlot.. This is because once a government allows any Helots to opt out of any or all of the system, Katy, bar the door. Only an approved nomenklatura of apparatchiks above the law (police, for example) are permitted extra “rights”. There is a reason coproaches in America are rarely held to account for their mayhem and murder.

    And, of course, the ancillary notions that limited government is impossible as history proves out and “rule of law” a comforting chimera with no basis in human reality.


    Unlike some observer here, I happen to think that rightful liberty can never be married to any form of a “state”. It’s an impossible equation because immoral means never yield moral ends.

    I remain convinced that abolition of all slavery may be idealistic but it is the sole moral alternative to all the Rube Goldberg variations on better cage systems for humans by ambitious administrative zookeepers with the more convincing construct of the better “business plan”.

    Individual freedom is to government what the crucifix is to the vampire.


    Bill Buppert