Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 84 of 84

Thread: Throw the Farce of July in the woods.

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    IMO, the DOI was the first socialist manifesto, and unleashed that monster on the world.
    Hmm... I can't get there. I mean, as I said it's a political document, to be sure, and I'm not given to politics... but therein contains in my view the best case made in such a political document of individual sovereignty... "we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness..."

    From there, I digress. But I can't find it's equal in political documents of which I'm aware.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    IMO, the DOI was the first socialist manifesto, and unleashed that monster on the world.
    OK...defend...I'm curious to hear this.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    OK...defend...I'm curious to hear this.
    Indeed - in my view, this statement:

    "we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness..."
    Is the foundation of the libertarian movement, full stop. I'm open to the argument, but I'm awfully curious to see how it is constructed...

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Hmm... I can't get there. I mean, as I said it's a political document, to be sure, and I'm not given to politics... but therein contains in my view the best case made in such a political document of individual sovereignty... "we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness..."

    From there, I digress. But I can't find it's equal in political documents of which I'm aware.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    OK...defend...I'm curious to hear this.
    The purpose of the document was to challenge the Divine Right of Kings, claiming that The People(tm) are sovereign. This shifted power from a Monarch, to a fanciful collective. It is this collective that is sovereign, whether by mob democracy or supposed representation. As it is The People who are purportedly in charge, revolt becomes difficult, if not impossible. Nowhere in the text is the individual given self-determination, except as part of the collective. It is the father of the French Revolution, and all subsequent socialist revolutions. Again, IMO.
    Last edited by otherone; 07-05-2018 at 04:26 AM. Reason: typos
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Indeed - in my view, this statement:

    "we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness..."
    Is the foundation of the libertarian movement, full stop. I'm open to the argument, but I'm awfully curious to see how it is constructed...
    That Men are created equal means that no one is born to rule. We look at the Constitution as being a betrayal of the DOI, when it is an extension of it. Everything we have today is an extension of it. 'Cause, The People.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    The purpose of the document was to challenge the Divine Right of Kings, claiming that The People(tm) our sovereign. This shifted power from a Monarch, to a fanciful collective. It is this collective that is sovereign, whether by mob democracy or supposed representation. As it is The People who are purportedly in charge, revolt becomes difficult, if not possible. Nowhere in the text is the individual given self-determination, except as part of the collective. It is the father of the French Revolution, and all subsequent socialist revolutions. Again, IMO.
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    That Men are created equal means that no one is born to rule. We look at the Constitution as being a betrayal of the DOI, when it is an extension of it. Everything we have today is an extension of it. 'Cause, The People.
    Are you becoming a monarchist?

    Usually anarchists like you would consider the declaration to have been a step in the right direction even if they thought it didn't go far enough.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Are you becoming a monarchist?

    Usually anarchists like you would consider the declaration to have been a step in the right direction even if they thought it didn't go far enough.
    Labels are often straw men.
    The DOI proclaimed the Collective sovereign. Freedom and Liberty are slogans.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    The purpose of the document was to challenge the Divine Right of Kings, claiming that The People(tm) our sovereign. This shifted power from a Monarch, to a fanciful collective. It is this collective that is sovereign, whether by mob democracy or supposed representation. As it is The People who are purportedly in charge, revolt becomes difficult, if not possible. Nowhere in the text is the individual given self-determination, except as part of the collective. It is the father of the French Revolution, and all subsequent socialist revolutions. Again, IMO.
    Interesting way to look at it. DoI (like TJ) is heavily influenced by Locke. If you read Locke, he was way more into Commonwealth than radical individualism/self-determinism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    That Men are created equal means that no one is born to rule. We look at the Constitution as being a betrayal of the DOI, when it is an extension of it. Everything we have today is an extension of it. 'Cause, The People.
    Disagree. (And please know that I hold great respect for you.)

    I think that the Declaration is THE most important American document and signifies true liberty.

    The all men are created equal is, for me, a statement that means that we are each individuals and can personally control our own lives. That people can, if they wish & agree, have a government that follows natural law & the will of the people. That the government serves the people, not vs/vs.

    Here's a great article by the Judge on this very thing.

    ]The Values Underlying Independence Day
    By Andrew P. Napolitano

    July 5, 2018

    The Declaration of Independence — which was signed on July 3, 1776, for public release on July 4 — was Thomas Jefferson’s masterpiece. Jefferson himself wrote much about the declaration in the 50 years that followed.

    Not the least of what he wrote offered his view that the declaration and the values that it articulated were truly radical — meaning they reflected 180-degree changes at the very core of societal attitudes in America. The idea that farmers and merchants and lawyers could secede from a kingdom and fight and win a war against the king’s army was the end result of the multigenerational movement that was articulated in the declaration.

    The two central values of the declaration are the origins of human liberty and the legitimacy of popular government.

    When Jefferson wrote that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, he was referring to the natural law. The natural law teaches that right and wrong can be discerned and truth discovered by the exercise of human reason, independent of any commands from the government. The natural law also teaches that our rights come from our humanity — not from the government — and our humanity is a gift from our Creator.

    Even those who question or reject the existence of the Creator — was Jefferson himself among them? — can embrace natural rights, because they can accept that our exercise of human reason leads us all to make similar claims. These claims — free speech, free association, free exercise or non-exercise of religion, self-defense, privacy, and fairness, to name a few — are rights that we all exercise without giving a second thought to the fact that they are natural and come from within us.
    The view of the individual as the repository of natural rights was not accepted by any governments in 1776. In fact, all rejected it and used violence to suppress it. To the minds of those in government in the mid-18th century, the king was divine and could do no wrong, and parliament existed not as the people’s representatives but to help the king raise money and to give him a read on the pulse of landowners and nobility.

    Jefferson and his colleagues had no difficulty breaking from this type of ancient regime. Unlike the French, who destroyed their monarchy, the American colonists seceded from theirs — and they did so embracing natural rights. Regrettably, they did not recognize natural rights for African slaves or for women. We all know and profoundly lament the sorry history of those errors.

    The idea that each human being possesses inherent natural rights by virtue of one’s humanity is not just an academic argument. It has real-life consequences, which Jefferson recognized. Those consequences are implicated when government seeks to curtail rights for what it claims is the protection of another’s individual rights, the common good or the good of the government itself.

    Jefferson recognized that you can consent to the curtailment of your rights but you cannot consent to the curtailment of mine. To Jefferson, government can take away your rights without your consent only if you have violated someone else’s rights.

    Surrendering rights is also implicated in the second radical idea that underscores the Declaration of Independence. It is the concept that no government is valid unless it enjoys the consent of the governed. This, too, was unheard of in 1776, because British kings did not claim consent of the governed as the basis for legitimacy.

    Yet consent of the governed is perfectly consistent with natural law. Under natural law, what is yours is yours and what is mine is mine. If I attempt to take your land or car or cellphone, you can stop me, either directly or through the government we have both consented to. If one of us has not consented to the government’s existence, it can still enforce natural rights as the agent of the person whose rights are being violated — just as it does for bank depositors when it captures a bank robber.

    This idea of consent of the governed was a serious issue in the days and years following July 4, 1776, because about one-third of the adults living in the United States in the last quarter of the 18th century remained loyal to the king of England after the Revolution, and they did not consent to the new popular form of government that took the British government’s place. The new government was thrust upon them without their consent.

    The last letter Jefferson wrote was to his enemy-turned-friend John Adams, in anticipation of the 50th anniversary of the declaration — a day on which both Jefferson and Adams would die. In that letter, Jefferson argued that the greatest achievement of the declaration was its arousing men to burst free from the chains imposed upon them by superstition and myth by bringing about a recognition of their individual rights and an embrace of self-government.
    Today the Jeffersonian ideals of individual natural rights and government’s legitimacy’s being conditioned upon the individual consent of the governed have themselves become myths.

    In Jefferson’s day, the voters knew all that the government did, and it knew nothing about them. Today government operates largely in secrecy, and it knows our every move and captures our every communication.

    In Jefferson’s day, the government needed the people’s permission to tax and regulate them. Today the people need the government’s permission to do nearly everything.

    Do you know anyone who has consented to the government? Do you know anyone who could avoid the government by not giving consent? Do you consent to the government by voting? Do you consent to the government if it is run by those you voted against? Did you consent to a government that steals liberty and property and prosperity and gives them away?

    Happy Fourth of July.
    Last edited by Ender; 07-04-2018 at 10:45 PM.
    There is no spoon.

  12. #70
    Today the Jeffersonian ideals of individual natural rights and government’s legitimacy’s being conditioned upon the individual consent of the governed have themselves become myths.

    In Jefferson’s day, the voters knew all that the government did, and it knew nothing about them. Today government operates largely in secrecy, and it knows our every move and captures our every communication.

    In Jefferson’s day, the government needed the people’s permission to tax and regulate them. Today the people need the government’s permission to do nearly everything.

    Do you know anyone who has consented to the government? Do you know anyone who could avoid the government by not giving consent? Do you consent to the government by voting? Do you consent to the government if it is run by those you voted against? Did you consent to a government that steals liberty and property and prosperity and gives them away?
    This.

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Interesting way to look at it. DoI (like TJ) is heavily influenced by Locke. If you read Locke, he was way more into Commonwealth than radical individualism/self-determinism.
    The purpose of the DOI becomes clear when it's hypocrisy is discovered. The founders did not believe in individual liberty. As Spooner points out, the Declaration, based on it's claim of "self-evident truths", freed the slaves. Apparently, some truths are more self-evident than others.
    I see the DOI as an argument for regional self-governance, which is often confused with liberty. Local oligarchs defying a monarch.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    In Jefferson’s day, the government needed the people’s permission to tax and regulate them.
    In Jefferson's day, The Whiskey Tax caused a revolt, even though it was enacted with The People's permission.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    In Jefferson's day, The Whiskey Tax caused a revolt, even though it was enacted with The People's permission.
    The Whiskey Tax was pushed by Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, in 1790- after the Constitution was made the law of the land.

    My POV is that the Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup that gave elites control of a strong central gov.
    There is no spoon.

  17. #74
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Read Federalist #28 and it may revise the opinion on Hamilton.

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Labels are often straw men.
    The DOI proclaimed the Collective sovereign. Freedom and Liberty are slogans.
    And now that collective voluntarily works for corporations known as the "United States" and subsidiaries called "State Of XXXXXXXX", "County of XXXXX" and "City of XXXXXX", after having voluntarily traded what freedom and liberty did exist for permissions and privileges.

    Every time we sign something we are trading natural rights for privileges by creating a contract with various corporations posing as governments (municipal corporations) and agents of those corporations (police). So in a legal sense, it is all voluntary even if based in ignorance.
    Last edited by devil21; 07-05-2018 at 10:47 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    The purpose of the DOI becomes clear when it's hypocrisy is discovered. The founders did not believe in individual liberty. As Spooner points out, the Declaration, based on it's claim of "self-evident truths", freed the slaves. Apparently, some truths are more self-evident than others.
    I see the DOI as an argument for regional self-governance, which is often confused with liberty. Local oligarchs defying a monarch.
    Again, the slavery issue.

    What a cluster $#@! that has been, right up to today, over a century and a half after the fact...what I wouldn't give to go back in time with the power to absolutely prohibit any truck with chattel slavery in North America.

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Again, the slavery issue.

    What a cluster $#@! that has been, right up to today, over a century and a half after the fact...what I wouldn't give to go back in time with the power to absolutely prohibit any truck with chattel slavery in North America.
    It's not simply slavery. They also didn't care about those who wished to remain loyal to the crown, allied savages, and the hoi-poloi with the Whiskey Tax, and have done so and worse, to this day. The Revolution was a coup. The bumper sticker was Freedom.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    The Whiskey Tax was pushed by Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, in 1790- after the Constitution was made the law of the land.
    My POV is that the Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup that gave elites control of a strong central gov.
    Coup? But it was done with the permission of "The People". Worse offenses have happened along the way, and "The People" don't bat an eye. Because Democracy. Because we're Free. Because we have the "right" to vote. Don't be Mr. Contrarian . Go have a Bud and watch the game.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    It's not simply slavery. They also didn't care about those who wished to remain loyal to the crown, allied savages, and the hoi-poloi with the Whiskey Tax, and have done so and worse, to this day. The Revolution was a coup. The bumper sticker was Freedom.
    Anarchists don't know what they want, now your anarchism demands that those who wished to be loyal to the crown be allowed to?
    There either is a government in control of an area or there isn't, that government is either more or less respectful of the local people's rights than another, even if we don't go into the point that an area without a government won't stay that way it has to be pointed out that more than one government can't exist in the area at a time.

    Of course the revolution was a coup, it was a coup by those who intended to recognize the rights of the individual to a greater extent than those they took over from, to some extent they failed because we came to where we are but they also succeeded because we are better off than anywhere else.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Anarchists don't know what they want, now your anarchism demands that those who wished to be loyal to the crown be allowed to?
    There either is a government in control of an area or there isn't, that government is either more or less respectful of the local people's rights than another, even if we don't go into the point that an area without a government won't stay that way it has to be pointed out that more than one government can't exist in the area at a time.

    Of course the revolution was a coup, it was a coup by those who intended to recognize the rights of the individual to a greater extent than those they took over from, to some extent they failed because we came to where we are but they also succeeded because we are better off than anywhere else.
    What is with you and the labels?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    The Anti Federalists were right (again).

    America Needs a New Independence Day

    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...dence_day.html

    By Brandon J. Weichert
    The Fourth of July weekend is a time when Americans celebrate the anniversary of the United States' independence. But, in the 242 years since achieving our liberty from the British Empire, our government has slowly become what it beheld. You see, while many erroneously claim that our move for independence from the British Empire was "revolutionary," it was, in fact, far from revolutionary (in the sense of other famous revolutions, such as those that befell France and Russia – or even the "Cultural Revolution" that swept across campuses and major cities in the United States in 1968).

    At its core, America's war for independence was predicated upon the understandable desire for Americans to have equal and fair representation in Parliament. Initially, the colonists were generally opposed to separating from the Mother Country. But, as Andrew O'Shaughnessy documents in The Men Who Lost America: British Leadership, the American Revolution, and the Fate of Empire, King George III – far from the mad tyrant he's depicted as in popular history – began as sympathetic to the American calls for greater representation in Parliament.

    Yet the Boston Tea Party was viewed by King George as a terrible waste of tea (and a clear sign of disloyalty), so his opinion on the situation in the American colonies changed from that of reluctant participant in the matter to the leading war hawk. Naturally, the more intractable the king's position became, the farther the Americans were pushed into full independence.

    As the Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

    What began as a serious – though entirely rectifiable – complaint rapidly devolved into what we (erroneously) call the Revolutionary War. It's a great tale we tell ourselves (and the world). To be sure, I would not have opted to remain a part of the British Empire. The values and beliefs that the Founding Fathers based this country upon, I believe, are superior to all other notions in the world.

    Unfortunately for us, the story doesn't end there.

    Writing in his 2013 magnum opus, The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government in America, F.H. Buckley makes the controversial (though accurate) argument that the United States has mostly come full circle in its great experiment with democracy. (For the record, the United States is, technically, a constitutional republic, which is classified by most political scientists as a representative form of democracy.) While the country did start out as a relatively free system, it rapidly devolved into what George Mason famously called an "elective monarchy."

    Buckley (evoking Mason's fears) believes that the United States revolted against crown rule only to revert back to crown rule in the form of an all-powerful executive branch that supersedes all other aspects of American life and government. Sure, we change presidents every four to eight years, but the drift into elective monarchy continues unabated. There are nearly 2.5 million federal employees (excluding military personnel) that serve in the executive branch, and the federal register of regulations numbers in the many thousands of pages. Meanwhile, thanks to a series of bipartisan spending bills over the years, the power and scope of the "elective monarchy" has only increased.


    This was not what our Founders fought the British for!

    The idea behind the American system of government was to diffuse as much power as possible away from Washington and into the hands of the local and state authorities. Within the federal government, while all three branches (the executive, legislative, and judicial) were equal, the authors of the American Constitution were obsessed with the potential for an "elective monarchy." James Madison wrote in Federalist no. 51 of the concept that having co-equal branches of government would counteract the ability of any one branch to supersede the other.

    Yet, as Buckley rightly points out, "the legislature is composed of many people, and the executive of only one," and "it is more difficult for a group of people to coordinate on a course of action than it is for a single person."

    The Framers believed that the Congress was the best antidote to the evils of an "elective monarchy" in the executive branch. The same holds true today.

    Ever since the rise of the Progressive movement at the turn of the twentieth century, the American presidency has become increasingly imperial in its disposition. By the middle of the last century, the president's power was so great that he could effectively take the country into a ruinous war (Vietnam) with little congressional oversight. As the president's power has reached epic new levels, congressional power has faded. Thus, we have begun to look more like the British Empire of yesteryear than the liberty-loving republic of our Founders.

    Just as the Continental Congress guided us through the last Independence Day, today's Congress will have to chart a course away from the monarchical presidency. God help us all. Yet it is a fight worth waging – if only because we risk embodying the tyranny that our Founders bled to free us from.

    A new Independence Day is needed – not one delivered by force of arms, but one heralded by enlightened legislation. Otherwise, the republic will be lost forever, and a new sort of empire – an incoherent one that preaches liberty but tyrannizes its citizenry – will be unleashed upon the world.

  26. #82
    A new Independence Day is needed – not one delivered by force of arms, but one heralded by enlightened legislation. Otherwise, the republic will be lost forever, and a new sort of empire – an incoherent one that preaches liberty but tyrannizes its citizenry – will be unleashed upon the world.

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    The purpose of the DOI becomes clear when it's hypocrisy is discovered. The founders did not believe in individual liberty. As Spooner points out, the Declaration, based on it's claim of "self-evident truths", freed the slaves. Apparently, some truths are more self-evident than others.
    I see the DOI as an argument for regional self-governance, which is often confused with liberty. Local oligarchs defying a monarch.
    Mafia's code of honor?

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    The Anti Federalists were right (again).

    America Needs a New Independence Day

    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...dence_day.html

    By Brandon J. Weichert
    The Fourth of July weekend is a time when Americans celebrate the anniversary of the United States' independence. But, in the 242 years since achieving our liberty from the British Empire, our government has slowly become what it beheld. You see, while many erroneously claim that our move for independence from the British Empire was "revolutionary," it was, in fact, far from revolutionary (in the sense of other famous revolutions, such as those that befell France and Russia – or even the "Cultural Revolution" that swept across campuses and major cities in the United States in 1968).

    At its core, America's war for independence was predicated upon the understandable desire for Americans to have equal and fair representation in Parliament. Initially, the colonists were generally opposed to separating from the Mother Country. But, as Andrew O'Shaughnessy documents in The Men Who Lost America: British Leadership, the American Revolution, and the Fate of Empire, King George III – far from the mad tyrant he's depicted as in popular history – began as sympathetic to the American calls for greater representation in Parliament.

    Yet the Boston Tea Party was viewed by King George as a terrible waste of tea (and a clear sign of disloyalty), so his opinion on the situation in the American colonies changed from that of reluctant participant in the matter to the leading war hawk. Naturally, the more intractable the king's position became, the farther the Americans were pushed into full independence.

    As the Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

    What began as a serious – though entirely rectifiable – complaint rapidly devolved into what we (erroneously) call the Revolutionary War. It's a great tale we tell ourselves (and the world). To be sure, I would not have opted to remain a part of the British Empire. The values and beliefs that the Founding Fathers based this country upon, I believe, are superior to all other notions in the world.

    Unfortunately for us, the story doesn't end there.

    Writing in his 2013 magnum opus, The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government in America, F.H. Buckley makes the controversial (though accurate) argument that the United States has mostly come full circle in its great experiment with democracy. (For the record, the United States is, technically, a constitutional republic, which is classified by most political scientists as a representative form of democracy.) While the country did start out as a relatively free system, it rapidly devolved into what George Mason famously called an "elective monarchy."

    Buckley (evoking Mason's fears) believes that the United States revolted against crown rule only to revert back to crown rule in the form of an all-powerful executive branch that supersedes all other aspects of American life and government. Sure, we change presidents every four to eight years, but the drift into elective monarchy continues unabated. There are nearly 2.5 million federal employees (excluding military personnel) that serve in the executive branch, and the federal register of regulations numbers in the many thousands of pages. Meanwhile, thanks to a series of bipartisan spending bills over the years, the power and scope of the "elective monarchy" has only increased.


    This was not what our Founders fought the British for!

    The idea behind the American system of government was to diffuse as much power as possible away from Washington and into the hands of the local and state authorities. Within the federal government, while all three branches (the executive, legislative, and judicial) were equal, the authors of the American Constitution were obsessed with the potential for an "elective monarchy." James Madison wrote in Federalist no. 51 of the concept that having co-equal branches of government would counteract the ability of any one branch to supersede the other.

    Yet, as Buckley rightly points out, "the legislature is composed of many people, and the executive of only one," and "it is more difficult for a group of people to coordinate on a course of action than it is for a single person."

    The Framers believed that the Congress was the best antidote to the evils of an "elective monarchy" in the executive branch. The same holds true today.

    Ever since the rise of the Progressive movement at the turn of the twentieth century, the American presidency has become increasingly imperial in its disposition. By the middle of the last century, the president's power was so great that he could effectively take the country into a ruinous war (Vietnam) with little congressional oversight. As the president's power has reached epic new levels, congressional power has faded. Thus, we have begun to look more like the British Empire of yesteryear than the liberty-loving republic of our Founders.

    Just as the Continental Congress guided us through the last Independence Day, today's Congress will have to chart a course away from the monarchical presidency. God help us all. Yet it is a fight worth waging – if only because we risk embodying the tyranny that our Founders bled to free us from.

    A new Independence Day is needed – not one delivered by force of arms, but one heralded by enlightened legislation. Otherwise, the republic will be lost forever, and a new sort of empire – an incoherent one that preaches liberty but tyrannizes its citizenry – will be unleashed upon the world.
    Actually an "elective monarchy" would be superior to what we have, it is all the protections given to the bureaucracy against executive power that create the deepstate, it is the independence of the judiciary that makes us submit to the rule of 9 dictators who can't be voted out of office, it is the size and red tape of the legislative branch that allows them to ignore the will of the people and end up with everyone hating congress but loving their congresscritter because "it isn't his fault".
    Everyone in government has hundreds of other people to blame and most of them are protected from being thrown out of office if they do get stuck with the blame for something.
    In an "elective monarchy" as this author chooses to call it the buck stops with the "king" (or whatever title he is given), if someone else is actually to blame it is still his fault for not firing them and reversing whatever they did, if he fails to deal with too many problems or with one big problem he can be replaced with somebody who will.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Similar Threads

  1. DON'T throw it in the woods.
    By Anti Federalist in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-23-2013, 03:27 PM
  2. Don't let Google throw it in the woods.
    By Anti Federalist in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-20-2013, 06:00 PM
  3. Support The Troops? Throw it in the woods...
    By Anti Federalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-13-2012, 02:50 PM
  4. Throw Football in the Woods!
    By Anti Federalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 11-10-2012, 11:59 PM
  5. New Cop Cars - Throw them in the woods.
    By Anti Federalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-23-2012, 01:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •