I was working on a massively long post that breaks down the whole litany of election issues we face next year until I had an epiphany. Everybody has heard enough on these issues already, so I can replace that post with this sentence. We’re all wasting precious time.

We can spar all day long about who is the best candidate. Makes no difference what your party affiliation is or your political ideology either. We simply aren’t asking the right question. It isn’t how to beat Obama. It isn’t about taxes or spending or some combination thereof. It isn’t about any of the very important issues that have been debated seemingly endlessly. The question we should be asking ourselves is this. What are we going to do about saving our liberty?

No question you can raise as an American is more important. Those are the stakes if we continue down the path we’re on. The worst part of it is that we’re doing so willingly. More and more Americans are buying into the notion that government is the solution to what ails us. Democrat or Republican, makes no difference. Our Federal Government is entirely too powerful. What is your candidate going to do about it? Do they have a plan? Not just a plan to cut spending, a comprehensive set of reforms to restore the Federal Government to its enumerated powers. This is the key issue of this election, yet you’ll never hear that from either major party.

My logic isn’t at all complex. Generally, we’re concerned with maintaining a clear balance of power amongst the three branches of the Federal Government. That balance is dynamic and fluctuates as a result of the election process. What has become dangerously skewed is the balance of power between the Federal Government and the States, and ultimately, the people. The enumerated powers had intended to ensure that we the people wouldn’t become enslaved to a master. Thomas Jefferson had the foresight long ago to see what would befall us.

The natural order of things is for Liberty to yield and government to gain ground – Thomas Jefferson

A study of free societies of the past reveals the accuracy of Jefferson’s quote. The two greatest examples are the Greek and Roman Empires. Greece in particular is regarded as the cradle of western civilization and the birthplace of democracy. On the other hand, the Roman State began as a republic rather than a democracy with elected officials serving in a Senate. They both succumbed to this natural order of progression and traded away liberty for the security of the state. If it is true that history is the greatest teacher, America is ignoring the lesson.

It has been reasoned that if we overwhelm the masses with education, this natural order of things can be halted. To be sure, the volume of education is unparalleled today. The age of the internet is not without redeeming qualities, and the widespread availability of previous societies struggles to maintain liberty is priceless. However, even a limitless resource of information has no value if it isn’t utilized. This is the ultimate test we face today as Americans in our effort to stay free and restore the liberty we’ve already relinquished to the state.

Sadly, this is not the narrative in our national conversation over the upcoming election. All three branches have failed to be good stewards of our liberty. It is an impediment to the driving factor of their term in office. Power. They say that money is at the root of all evil. Debatable as I see the lust for power being the ultimate intoxicant. Money is merely a tool in the process.

Back to my contention that we are wasting precious time. We have allowed our government to put us in hock for $15 trillion. They have gone over 900 days unable to even pass a budget due to the political fallout for doing so. All the while, they continue to pass legislation that negates our liberties piece by piece. It is shameful at best, treasonous at worst, and we should be at the point that Jefferson also foretold.

I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical … It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government

So what is meant by “a little rebellion, now and then”? I’m not so void of clear thinking that I would advocate a violent rebellion. That is an uncontrollable situation with an unpredictable outcome and would surely result in more casualties than we may be able to justify. That’s not even on the table. Not that it won’t ever come to that someday, but it would be in response to an untenable situation. We aren’t there today. Where we are is still in a position to dictate the course of events. The will of the people cannot be denied if the consensus is large enough.

To be effective, a rebellion needs clearly defined goals. Goal number one has to be reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government. Nothing we can do will have a greater effect in solving our nations problems. Yet this point lies at the very heart of the debate. A significant number of Americans have seen the light and come to realize that an over-bearing central government can only be detrimental and has enabled the vast majority of our problems.

On the other hand, a number of Americans buy into the notion that we need the central government in order to prosper. Furthermore, a large number have come to become dependent on government for their basic needs. Even beyond that, decades of progressive influence on academia have spawned a youth ingrained with the belief that they are granted birthrights to other people’s private property with the Occupy Movement being the perfect example.

So I pose the question to you again. Does your candidate have a concise plan in order to check the power of the Federal Government and do it in such a way so that an election cycle or two won’t see it reversed? I’ll answer for you, no they don’t. Not even Ron Paul. Should he win, he will face tremendous adversity and pushback by attempting to constrain the behemoth that is the Federal Government. He faces a stacked deck. You simply aren’t allowed to reform a broken system from with-in. Even Paul hasn’t presented the plan we need.

I will put forth my ideas on how we need to get there in the future. It revolves around a proposal I have put forth previously in that we need to fund the Federal Government through the States, which is ultimately the people. You may think that my ideas are just pie-in-the-sky, but I would contend that wasting any more time on elections that are guaranteed to fail is worse. We have reached the point where we must do something about it or soon we will no longer have the ability to enact those changes.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “It’s time for a Jeffersonian rebellion

  1. Excellent post, Spellchekker, and well said. I hate the whole primary/vetting process, b/c it feels like we’re losing sight of the forest, for the trees.

    “Goal number one has to be reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government.”

    Well, yes, but:

    “On the other hand, a number of Americans buy into the notion that we need the central government in order to prosper. . . . decades of progressive influence on academia have spawned a youth ingrained with the belief that they are granted birthrights to other people’s private property.”

    This is why goal number one for me is education. Not “education” in the collectivist “throw more money into the propagnda-spewing bureaucratic hole that is Public School, but real learning of the basic principles upon which this nation was founded: hard work, economic and religious liberty, civic duty and charity, etc.

    Election cycles will not dictate the future of our country. Generational cycles will. If enough of this generation will just properly educate its children, then things will turn around.

    Merry Christmas to you, and Happy New Year.

    Lin

  2. You’re dead on that education will be key. The only reason I don’t rank it higher is it’s a long-term goal and we need action sooner than that IMHO. I guess I would say that the activists amongst us that recognize the problem will have to be the ones to take charge now and that education will lead to a sustainable future when our youth will decide the course of our country. At any rate, I’m glad to hear we think alike.

    Hope your holidays are great. Merry Christmas to you and your family.

  3. Great posting on ED.
    What we need to “Change” are diapers and politicians. One term and yer out, all laws apply equally to everyone, no ‘bills’ attached to others and no retirement benefits.
    Can you imagine if you could pay one bill a month and tell your other creditors it applied to their bills, too!

  4. I look forward to your idea on funding the feds through the states. It has a ring of common sense to me. I also believe education is the key, and part of that is allowing for a freedom of choice in education.

  5. [N]o constitution could restrain the state. Once its monopoly of force was granted legitimacy, constitutional limits became mere fictions it could disregard; nobody could have the legal standing to enforce those limits. The state itself would decide, by force, what the constitution “meant,” steadily ruling in its own favor and increasing its own power. This was true a priori, and American history bore it out.

    What if the Federal Government grossly violated the Constitution? Could states withdraw from the Union? Lincoln said no. The Union was “indissoluble” unless all the states agreed to dissolve it. As a practical matter, the Civil War settled that. The United States, plural, were really a single enormous state, as witness the new habit of speaking of “it” rather than “them.”

    So the people are bound to obey the government even when the rulers betray their oath to uphold the Constitution. The door to escape is barred. Lincoln in effect claimed that it is not our rights but the state that is “unalienable.” And he made it stick by force of arms. No transgression of the Constitution can impair the Union’s inherited legitimacy. Once established on specific and limited terms, the U.S. Government is forever, even if it refuses to abide by those terms.

    [T]his is the flaw in thinking the state can be controlled by a constitution. Once granted, state power naturally becomes absolute. Obedience is a one-way street. Notionally, “We the People” create a government and specify the powers it is allowed to exercise over us; our rulers swear before God that they will respect the limits we impose on them; but when they trample down those limits, our duty to obey them remains.

    In short, the U.S. Constitution is a dead letter.

    For me this is anything but a happy conclusion. I miss the serenity of believing I lived under a good government, wisely designed and benevolent in its operation. But, as St. Paul says, there comes a time to put away childish things.

    — Joseph Sobran

    The only real solution I can come up with is to end the Fed and abolish the federal government. Since I’ll never be king for a day to do so, I’ll continue to support Ron Paul for president, right up to the bitter end. Why? Not because a President Paul represents a panacea, but because it is the best way to inject liberty back into the American political conversation.

    I hold no hope for the left to let go of their childish notions of good government, but I continue to hope (seemingly in vain) that the right will rediscover its roots, when it declared “Our Enemy, the State.” Without that glimmer of hope, I’d be forced to build a bunker and stockpile weapons. This country is so screwed.

  6. You haven’t built that bunker yet? Time is of the essense, my good man.

    Where exactly do you get this ‘glimmer’ from? The right establishment is just as ingrained as the left, there is no room left for hope. Haven’t you read your own blog posts lately? You know as well as any that at the end of the day right or left serve the same master. I have to put my ‘glimmer of hope’ in the people. My idea is to severly limit the FedGov and you wish to eliminate it (we both want the Federal Reserve gone). Either way takes the people themselves, not the left or right suddenly getting religion and rediscovering their roots. No way and any surrogates that start to feel their oats a little bit will be quickly checked by the elites in power.

    But all is not lost, the Lions are in the playoffs!

  7. Either way takes the people themselves, not the left or right suddenly getting religion and rediscovering their roots.

    When I discuss the right or the left, it is the people I’m talking about, not the ruling class.

    A major problem in our country is that the people decide their politics based on the, uh, “news,” then argue points of minutia accordingly. A President Paul would force the mainstream media and pundits to discuss ideas of liberty, even if in a negative way. So at the very least, liberty would enter the minds of the public once again.

    will be quickly checked by the elites in power.

    Well, yes. However, Paul has detailed what he can and cannot do on his own as president. He can greatly curtail the power of the executive branch and appoint someone like Jim Grant as chairman of the federal reserve (and possibly put someone like Andrew Napalitano on the Supreme Court). Not a complete solution, that’s for sure, but it would take the ruling class a decade or two to get back the power they lost and hopefully create a public more hostile to those powers too.

    There is no one-stop solution. But outside another revolution, electing people like Paul (and Johnson, Amash, etc.) is at least step in the right direction.

Comments are now closed.