Have the Seeds of Revolution Been Sown?

I’m certain the word “revolution” has not the same meaning it used to. In many regards is is like the word “racism.” Overuse and misuse has moved both of these terms from having the impact of a record-breaking 8-inch hailstone to one of those pea-sized ones that don’t even sting when they hit.

With that said, Ernest Christian and Gary Robbins at Investors Business Daily are taking the possibility of revolution very seriously:

The Internet is a large-scale version of the “Committees of Correspondence” that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington’s failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.

People are asking, “Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?”

One of the reasons that governments that wish to perpetuate themselves more than they wish to preserve and protect the citizenry is that the very discussion of grievances is wont to move people to do something about those grievances. King George would have been quite happy could he have prevented any of those rabble-rousing colonists from understanding that they were far from alone with respect to their treatment by the Crown.

Barack Obama [. . .is] diminishing America from within — so far, successfully.

He may soon bankrupt us and replace our big merit-based capitalist economy with a small government-directed one of his own design.

He is undermining our constitutional traditions: The rule of law and our Anglo-Saxon concepts of private property hang in the balance. Obama may be the most “consequential” president ever.

One cannot spend what one does not have without consequences. Governments may wish to create currency out of nothing, but people realize that such systems are faith-backed–and faith in fellow humans is easily shaken and even destroyed when it becomes apparent that those self-same humans are not in control of highly complex economic systems. At the same time, property and the private ownership (and control) thereof is bedrock to a free society.

Obama is building an imperium of public debt and crushing taxes, contrary to George Washington’s wise farewell admonition: “cherish public credit … use it as sparingly as possible … avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt … bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not … inconvenient and unpleasant … .”

As I have stated many times, I understand the need for taxation. It is, after all, how one supports a government. I do, however, with many of my fellow legal insurrectionists, believe that taxation without accountability is not so different from taxation without representation.

There is more, so you may wish to read the entire article. I understand that some of you may object to even raising this topic, considering it “fringe” or “extreme” or even “incendiary.” Before we go there, do you believe that our current federal government is constrained by the Constitution (which is still the stated law of the land) and providing its citizens with the internal and external protection essential for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?

Power corrupts . . . and you know the rest of that statement. The federal government was never intended (if one reads those old dead white guys) to become the ultimate authority over these United States. For one example, we can consider the words of James Madison in Federalist 45:

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.

Sounds as though there was a partnership between the states and the federal government. Then there is this bit from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a judge in 1823:

The States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore… never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market.

What a concept. States address their affairs and the federal government addresses its affairs. We have most definitely seen very many of our “offices transferred to Washington” with the attendant issues of which Mr. Jefferson speaks. One does not need to say much about the “most ethical congress ever” to understand that.

One more quote, if you please. This one is from Alexander Hamilton who was explaining the Constitution to a group of New Yorkers before its ratification:

This balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will  both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by a certain rivalship, which will ever subsist between them.

It sounds very like the states and federal government were to be able to check each others excesses to the end that the citizens would be protected from overreaching on the part of any government entity. One must go no further than Arizona’s current struggle with the federal government’s lack of immigration law enforcement to see that such checking is not being permitted.

Confederate Yankee adds this to the discussion:

While we are a relatively young nation, our government is the oldest on the planet. Since our founders met in Philadelphia, the French have gone through five republics. Every nation in Europe, Africa, Asia, South America and North America has seen governments rise and fall, but our resilient democratic republic, the “Great Experiment,” has soldiered on.

All cultures and governments, however, rot. This inevitably comes from inside, as a cancer. Our politicians view the people as rubes and subjects, and treat them as such. They imagine themselves a ruling class that exists for their own edification, at the expense of the nation as a whole.

When nations reach this point, they either collapse, or the people reform or replace their governments.

We have arrived at that time. Reform increasingly seems to be a fleeting option. Republicans and Democrats differ only in how they plan to loot the public coffers. Our present Congress and Administration are merely more transparent in their corruption and disdain than their predecessors.

Our would-be ruling class has abandoned the principles that founded this nation. They are attempting to establish a state of affairs where the people serve the government and the government determines your success or failure. Corruption no longer matters. Sovereignty no longer matters. The rule of law no longer matters.

If the federal government will no longer follow the rule of law, if its elected and unelected officials justify behavior in contravention to duly established laws as being justified because they are for the greater good (or simply because they know they will not be held accountable) then who shall hold the government accountable if not the states and if not the people?

4 thoughts on “Have the Seeds of Revolution Been Sown?

  1. First time I’ve visited, but judging by the lack of comments, very few are interested.

    You present an article from IBD, well-known as a joke in legit journalistic and scholarly circles. IDB attracts readers like manure attracts flies. However, I’m sure the general philosophies espoused in IDB reflect your own … way out there on the flat edge of the earth.

    “The Internet is a large-scale version of the “Committees of Correspondence” that led to the first American Revolution …”

    Could be, except that 99% of the “correspondence” is garbage not worthy of comparison with the original, and yours falls into that category The internet is also a “large-scale” outlet for people like you; conspiracy freaks who have little connect with reality, and think that putting up a little vanity site like this makes you a deep thinker and leader of men.

    There are hundreds of millions worldwide who access the internet every day. How many hits do you get?

    1. Ryan,

      Thank you for taking some of your important time to drop by and share your wisdom. I’m glad that I’m not the only one who reads my site.

  2. At Ryan:
    In Michael’s defense, I’m a reader of the blog albeit with some different political leanings. Michael’s views are representative of many Americans, especially here in the midwest where I live and therefore I find it important to take note of the sentiments he shares on this website. You do yourself a disservice trying to belittle the opinions expressed here. Take up your argument against the points made or remain silent.

    At Michael:
    It will be interesting to see what November brings. It is quite likely that Republicans will gain seats in Congress and, very likely, a majority from which to begin to present alternative policy ideas. What affect do you think that will have on the tone of political discourse, especially from the standpoint of those who feel the American experience at present is one of “revolution?”

    One other thing of note: I’m curious about how you would contrast deficit spending at present versus that of previous administrations, most notably that of Reagan who is something of an ideal in conservative circles. I’m not an economist but from what I understand Reagan believed that growing the economy would make deficits less relevent because deficits relative to GDP would become less significant (not to mention he believed things like defense spending were investments to win the cold war). I don’t know that the current deficit spending is based on a different understanding of macroeconomics except that in Keynesian economic models, spending that is used to stimulate the economy possible with management of surpluses generated in peak economic cycles. Those surpluses are, of course, nonexistent since they were the basis of the George W. Bush tax cuts.

    1. David,

      I don’t know quite what to make of a likely Republican majority in Congress. I’m an independent in part because the party of R have left their traditional moorings and wallowed about in the big government pool with the Democrats for most of my lifetime. There was a time when party membership stood for something. Now it would seem there is little difference. My personal hope is not so much that we see enough Republicans win to change the balance of (party) power, but that we see enough conservatives win to turn this boat around. Repealing some of the recent bills (such as health care reform) would be an excellent start.

      With reference to Reagan, I will confess to not liking the expansion of government which occurred under his watch. He did understand that business expand faster if taxes are fewer. His problem lay in cutting taxes while continuing to expand government spending. His administration’s financial legacy is lasting and damaging–in part because it taught a generation that nothing bad happens right away with large deficits.

      Perhaps growing the economy would make deficits less with regard to GDP–if the actual economy were growing faster than inflation and other negatives. The difference with the current administration over previous ones is that the amount of deficit spending is staggering. Adding over a trillion dollars in this fiscal year’s budget (if I remember the numbers correctly) is mind-blowing. And, the promise to cut the federal deficit in half by 2013 is a bit misleading. That is somewhat analogous to slowing arterial bleeding by 50%. The patient will still bleed out, just a bit more slowly. If the President were interested in getting us back on a more stable financial footing, he would be talking about cutting the national debt.

      In my opinion, the question (which the current federal administration believes it has already answered) is whether you and I as wealth creators know how to do our jobs better than the government or whether we should simply turn larger and larger amounts of our earnings over to the experts who know how to use that wealth for the greatest benefit. I believe that I am the best person to spend what I’ve earned–considering that I am the only one who truly appreciates what it has cost me in time, in effort, in opportunity costs, etc.

      In short, we need tax cuts at the federal level (or a continuation of the GWB cuts)–but if we cannot cut corresponding amounts of spending then we have won a Pyrrhic victory, at best.

Comments are closed.