PDA

View Full Version : Putting Our Decentralization Principles Into Practice: A Serious Discussion




RPgrassrootsactivist
09-09-2010, 10:50 PM
As of right now, a poll at http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=259520 with 51 votes cast shows an interesting result: when comparing congressional races to state legislative races (though the poll itself broke all of the choices down by chamber), 24 voters (47.06%) believe that congressional races are more important, while 27 voters (52.94%) believe that state legislative races are more important.

While this poll is not a scientific analysis of what the entire Ron Paul movement believes, and the vote is very close, these results do raise a significant question: why do we spend most of our time and efforts on federal races?

I am often disappointed to see so many people in the Ron Paul movement make federal candidates and federal legislation their top priority. As those who profess to believe in decentralization, why do we keep pursuing the failed path of working to change the federal government from the inside? There is almost no realistic chance of taking over the federal government with Ron Paul Republicans.

Even if Dr. Paul becomes president, the amount of actual reform he would be able to implement would be extremely limited. He could bring the troops home and end the wars...these wars. He could pardon federal prisoners...these prisoners. He could repeal executive orders...these executive orders. But what happens when a tyrannical president comes to power again in the future? And do you really think that Congress is going to shut down DHS, or Energy, or Agriculture, or Education, or HHS, or HUD, or Labor, or Transportation? Do you think they're going to abolish the EPA, FCC or the Fed? Do you think they're going to roll back the police state?

It's probably not going to happen. Audit the Fed can't even get passed! In order to bring about the kind of long-term federal reform that is actually necessary, we would probably need a significant majority of Americans to become serious, dedicated adherents to a Ron Paul-type philosophy; this is extremely unlikely.

I don't trust Glenn Beck, anyway, but apparently he proposed some kind of 100 year plan; that's absolutely ridiculous. We don't have 100 years. We may not even have 5 years before the dollar completely collapses and the globalists try to force us into a unified currency and global government. Gerald Celente, who is often correct in his predictions, has been saying that something big is coming within the next few years. It's not about some vague conspiracy; the evidence is all around us. Even Paul Craig Roberts has been insinuating that unless major changes are made, the United States may collapse in the very near future.

To put it simply, if we keep making federal candidates and federal legislation our primary focus, the practical/policy aspect of our movement is very likely to ultimately fail. The only real solution left is to focus on the states.

Winning a supermajority with Ron Paul Republicans in both chambers of a state legislature will allow for major pieces of nullification legislation to be passed, far more bold and sweeping than the mostly-minor forms of nullification we've seen recently. Once this starts happening, it will become major news and the ideas will begin to spread to other states. Remember the phrase that "All politics is local." If we truly focus locally, it will spread.

To digress for a moment, I ultimately believe that secession is necessary. I used to be a big fan of the Constitution, but I've come to realize that Lysander Spooner (though I may disagree with him on a number of other issues) was right when he said that the Constitution is unfit to exist; clearly it has failed to keep government limited. We would have been much better off had we stayed under the Articles of Confederation. Even if there is some widespread political awakening throughout the country and the original intent of the Constitution is restored (which is extremely unlikely), due to serious weaknesses in the document there's nothing substantive to stop this kind of tyranny from coming back again in the future. People must be made aware of the right of secession not only as a constitutional principle, but more importantly, as a natural law principle.

But even if you don't want to see secession take place, I certainly hope that everyone who is serious about the Ron Paul movement is also serious about state sovereignty and political decentralization, and we aren't going to win that fight in Washington D.C. If we're going to win, it will be in the state capitols.

The point is this: we need to make state legislatures our top priority. This means that instead of spending so much time and energy lobbying our corrupt Congress to vote for liberty, which they rarely do (e.g., even with well over 90% public opposition, they still passed TARP), we need to largely ignore what's going on in Washington D.C. and instead spend our time and energy on lobbying the state legislatures, where the members are often far more accountable and responsive to the people.

Instead of donating millions of dollars (collectively) to federal races in 2012, people in the Ron Paul movement should be donating millions of dollars to state legislative candidates across the country who believe in state sovereignty and nullification. Millions of dollars to federal races may get a few more 'no' votes in Congress, but what does this accomplish? A few more votes in Congress won't change much, if anything. But that same few million dollars could make a huge impact in taking over state legislative chambers and changing the course of American history.

I sincerely hope that the major grassroots leaders in the Ron Paul movement realize this in the very near future. If we don't put our decentralization principles into practice and make state legislatures our top priority, we're likely going to fail to actually enact the types of decentralization many (or most) of us profess to desire.


CLARIFICATION: I want to emphasize that I am supportive of a Ron Paul 2012 presidential run, which may be the only federal race worthwhile in 2012. However, if we look at electing Ron as our #1 goal or the answer to all of our political problems, we're probably going to be disappointed in the end. Our top priority should be to be promote decentralization and state sovereignty, and revitalize those things in the public consciousness; that is what will be the greatest weapon against federal tyranny.

tangent4ronpaul
09-10-2010, 07:38 AM
While this poll is not a scientific analysis of what the entire Ron Paul movement believes, and the vote is very close, these results do raise a significant question: why do we spend most of our time and efforts on federal races?


To put it bluntly, because the states have become the feds bitch. Because while the states can make you miserable, it takes the fud guv to really screw you!

-t

Elwar
09-10-2010, 08:12 AM
We don't like centralized power. That's work to get people at the highest level of power so that they can get rid of that centralized power and return it to the locals.

We could spend all of our money and have libertarian mayors all across the country. That doesn't do jack shit when the president can triple our taxes with the wave of a hand.

BrendenR
09-10-2010, 09:03 AM
If we can organize ourselves around state races we have the potential to be much more influential in those races than at the federal level, purely due to the amount of money involved.

Elwar
09-10-2010, 11:50 AM
If we can organize ourselves around state races we have the potential to be much more influential in those races than at the federal level, purely due to the amount of money involved.

Each of my county commissioners have gathered over 100k so far for their campaigns.

There are like 5,000 counties in the US.

If we wanted to match the spending at that level we'd have to come up with $5 billion to win.

Or just spend a couple million on a presidential campaign that could end up with our money having value, our income taxes going away, threats of attack from other countries going down.

I think I'd rather have that than every city in the US having lower property taxes and private fire stations.

silverhandorder
09-10-2010, 11:58 AM
It is because federal races are more exciting and effect more people. Ideally you would want to take over locally. But I will take what I can get.

Travlyr
09-10-2010, 12:05 PM
Until we take the power to counterfeit money away from the central banking cabal, it doesn't matter who gets elected.
The focus should not be on electing liberty candidates... our time and money should be spent like Ron Paul wrote, "End the FED."

Inkblots
09-10-2010, 12:27 PM
RPgrassrootsactivist, you have produced a good and thoughtful post here. It's valuable for us as a movement to step back from time to time and critically evaluate our priorities and strategies for advancing the cause of Liberty, and I commend you for working to get such a conversation started as the 2012 election cycle steadily heaves into view.

I think you're largely correct that the Liberty movement cherishes the principle of subsidiarity and the dispersal of power - that our Republic is strongest and our democracy is most accountable when decisions are taken as close as possible to those whom they affect. If we're really serious about this, of course you're right that we need to pay attention to state and local, and not merely national races.

That being said, it seems to me that your proposal makes the assumption that fighting more state-level elections will be a more efficient use of our resources, and result in more freedom for our buck. However, I think you may be wrong about that: while fighting for a state legislative seat costs far less than a Federal seat, there are far more such seats that we'd need to win across the country to have the same level of impact on policy, and inevitably the neglect shown by the media and voters to state seats ensures that even quite eloquent advocates for liberty at the state level won't reach as many people with the message of limited, Constitutional government.

You would no doubt counter this by pointing out that if we could elect majorities in both chambers of just one State House who believe in and are willing to use the tool of nullification to defend freedom, as well as a state governor who would sign such a resolution, it would rock the nation and fundamentally reshape the political landscape. But even if the entire Liberty movement were to agree to focus on just one state (which seems unlikely), this is actually far more difficult to achieve than the incremental progress we're targeting on the Federal level. While a broad swath of a-political independents and mainline conservative voters have proven willing to line up behind a Liberty candidate, especially if they play down the more controversial aspects of the platform and focus on spending restraint and deregulation, a hot-button, easily demagogued issue like nullification is far more difficult to build a majority for. It comes freighted with a lot of false and negative connotations in the popular consciousness, and will strike most voters as extreme or frightening. Even if we focus full-bore on education on the topic, speaking of its patriotic pedigree and past good uses, it will take years to move the needle on the subject. All the while Federal power will be growing while we wait and hope for the silver bullet to be eventually loaded. That seems risky and likely to fail to my mind.

So this is an important discussion to have, and I welcome it. However, to my feeling is we ought to stay the course at this time.

reardenstone
09-10-2010, 12:36 PM
Why can't we take a moderate approach to do both? Both are important. We need federal races for the press, the Presidency is the most visible obviously, and we need state runs to build our party influence at the local level. The LP should run candidates for state senate and congressional seats. There are a couple of seats in GA that are running unopposed; a wasted opportunity for us.

wizardwatson
09-10-2010, 12:42 PM
OP,

Ron Paul and Rand Paul are federal candidates. I think you'll find it hard to get people off that wagon. While I get your secessionist motivated focus on State elections, that's really what C4L is and we see how well that's doing as a grass roots platform.

This movement is in need of "something", the problem is that everyone seems to think they "know" what it is, or that its already going in the right direction. I'm of the opinion that neither is the case and we aren't looking at ourselves as a movement hard enough to see what the real problem is.

GunnyFreedom
09-10-2010, 12:42 PM
RPgrassrootsactivist, you have produced a good and thoughtful post here. It's valuable for us as a movement to step back from time to time and critically evaluate our priorities and strategies for advancing the cause of Liberty, and I commend you for working to get such a conversation started as the 2012 election cycle steadily heaves into view.

I think you're largely correct that the Liberty movement cherishes the principle of subsidiarity and the dispersal of power - that our Republic is strongest and our democracy is most accountable when decisions are taken as close as possible to those whom they affect. If we're really serious about this, of course you're right that we need to pay attention to state and local, and not merely national races.

That being said, it seems to me that your proposal makes the assumption that fighting more state-level elections will be a more efficient use of our resources, and result in more freedom for our buck. However, I think you may be wrong about that: while fighting for a state legislative seat costs far less than a Federal seat, there are far more such seats that we'd need to win across the country to have the same level of impact on policy, and inevitably the neglect shown by the media and voters to state seats ensures that even quite eloquent advocates for liberty at the state level won't reach as many people with the message of limited, Constitutional government.

That's actually not true. State legislature level races not only cost less overall, they cost less per-capita than Federal level races. At 50,000 voters, the average "win" for a State House Rep is $75,000 to $100,000. Let's use the higher number and call it $2 per voter. At 800,000 voters, the average "win" for a US Congressman is $3,000,000, or $3.75 per voter. That means that one could fund every single State House race in an entire State, for just over HALF of what it would cost to fund every US Congress race from the same state. In North Carolina, that means you could capture a solid majority in the Legislature ($12 Million) for roughly over half of what it would cost to elect maybe 10 congressmen ($39 Million) by funding all 13 races.

And the Founders provided for the method of enforcement of the US Constitution to the State Legislatures rather than Congress in any case...


You would no doubt counter this by pointing out that if we could elect majorities in both chambers of just one State House who believe in and are willing to use the tool of nullification to defend freedom, as well as a state governor who would sign such a resolution, it would rock the nation and fundamentally reshape the political landscape. But even if the entire Liberty movement were to agree to focus on just one state (which seems unlikely), this is actually far more difficult to achieve than the incremental progress we're targeting on the Federal level. While a broad swath of a-political independents and mainline conservative voters have proved willing to line up behind a Liberty candidate, especially if they play down the more controversial aspects of the platform and focus on spending restraint and deregulation, a hot-button, easily demagogued issue like nullification is far more difficult to build a majority for. It comes freighted with a lot of false and negative connotations in the popular consciousness, and will strike most voters as extreme or frightening. Even if we focus full-bore on education on the topic, speaking of its patriotic pedigree and past good uses, it will take years to move the needle on the subject, and all the while Federal power will be growing while we wait and hope for the eventual silver bullet to be loaded. That seems risky and likely to fail to my mind.

So this is an important discussion to have, and I welcome it. However, to my mind we ought to stay the course at this time.

evilfunnystuff
09-10-2010, 03:42 PM
Quick, evrybody decentralize, and follow my instructions.

Fail

RPgrassrootsactivist
09-10-2010, 05:32 PM
We don't like centralized power. That's work to get people at the highest level of power so that they can get rid of that centralized power and return it to the locals.

That approach is flawed; it's pursuing a centralized takeover in order to decentralize. It hasn't worked in recent times, and it's probably not going to work in the foreseeable future.


We could spend all of our money and have libertarian mayors all across the country. That doesn't do jack **** when the president can triple our taxes with the wave of a hand.

I'm talking primarily about state offices, not city offices. State legislatures can interpose and nullify. For example, the federal tax escrow bill which has been proposed in certain states; see the "Follow the Money" section at http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/18/resistdc-the-federal-tax-funds-act/

RPgrassrootsactivist
09-10-2010, 05:43 PM
Each of my county commissioners have gathered over 100k so far for their campaigns.

There are like 5,000 counties in the US.

If we wanted to match the spending at that level we'd have to come up with $5 billion to win.

You seriously missed the point of my post. We would only need to get a supermajority in one or two state legislatures in order to enact major nullification and demonstrate to the entire country that decentralization works and federal tyranny can be stopped by the states.


Or just spend a couple million on a presidential campaign that could end up with our money having value, our income taxes going away, threats of attack from other countries going down.

The income tax is probably not going away if Ron Paul becomes president, and the Fed almost certainly isn't going to be abolished (therefore inflation will continue). At best Ron could order the IRS to suspend the collection of income taxes for the duration of his term, but the law will still be there, ready for some future president to start enforcing yet again.

If the income tax were replaced by a Republican Congress, it would probably be with the FairTax, which is just another way for Congress to loot people.

No matter how much good Ron can do, that trend can be reversed by a future president. The states must start using their sovereignty. Nullification has to become part of our public consciousness once again.

RPgrassrootsactivist
09-10-2010, 05:54 PM
Until we take the power to counterfeit money away from the central banking cabal, it doesn't matter who gets elected.
The focus should not be on electing liberty candidates... our time and money should be spent like Ron Paul wrote, "End the FED."

Our corrupt Congress is not going to abolish the central banking cartel. However, the Fed can be resisted by state legislatures. There is model legislation at the Tenth Amendment Center to help establish sound currency state by state: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/constitutional-tender/

Southron
09-10-2010, 05:57 PM
Many of the the US Representatives and Senate members were former state congressmen and senators.

There is something to be said for the experience and connections that you make in these state offices.

RPgrassrootsactivist
09-10-2010, 06:02 PM
OP,

Ron Paul and Rand Paul are federal candidates. I think you'll find it hard to get people off that wagon.

I won't comment on Rand.

As for Ron, I have been a very big supporter of a Ron Paul 2012 run. That may be the one federal race I believe to be worthwhile. But the primary benefit of that race will be that if Ron wins, he will be able to use his position to educate the public. And the #1 subject President Paul should should be educating people about is decentralization/state sovereignty.


While I get your secessionist motivated focus on State elections, that's really what C4L is and we see how well that's doing as a grass roots platform.

From what I've observed, most of C4L's focus is on federal policy issues. Go onto their website as of now and look at the right side of the page. "End the Mandate" (federal policy). "Audit the Fed" (federal policy). "Operation Health Freedom" (federal policy).


This movement is in need of "something", the problem is that everyone seems to think they "know" what it is, or that its already going in the right direction. I'm of the opinion that neither is the case and we aren't looking at ourselves as a movement hard enough to see what the real problem is.

I certainly don't claim to have all the answers. But if we keep focusing a majority of our efforts on federal races and legislation, we're likely setting ourselves up for long-term failure.

RPgrassrootsactivist
09-10-2010, 06:05 PM
Quick, evrybody decentralize, and follow my instructions.

Fail

I'm discussing strategy to foster the growth of the movement and the furtherance of liberty, not laying out some specific, comprehensive plan that I expect everyone to follow.

RPgrassrootsactivist
09-11-2010, 01:37 PM
State legislature level races not only cost less overall, they cost less per-capita than Federal level races. At 50,000 voters, the average "win" for a State House Rep is $75,000 to $100,000. Let's use the higher number and call it $2 per voter. At 800,000 voters, the average "win" for a US Congressman is $3,000,000, or $3.75 per voter. That means that one could fund every single State House race in an entire State, for just over HALF of what it would cost to fund every US Congress race from the same state. In North Carolina, that means you could capture a solid majority in the Legislature ($12 Million) for roughly over half of what it would cost to elect maybe 10 congressmen ($39 Million) by funding all 13 races.

Thank you for posting this information.

RPgrassrootsactivist
09-12-2010, 11:03 AM
Many of the the US Representatives and Senate members were former state congressmen and senators.

There is something to be said for the experience and connections that you make in these state offices.

It would be better if our pro-state sovereignty state reps stayed in their state legislatures rather than ran for Congress.

For example, Justin Amash. Yes, that will be one more "no" vote in the federal House, but he would have been much more effective and powerful for freedom if he eventually became the speaker or a leader in the state house.