Last week, Mises Institute President Jeff Deist released a podcast featuring a discussion about the political future of libertarianism, advising libertarian activists to embrace decentralization and de-federalization as a foundational strategic goal.Details
The confusion that arises due to not following the Constitution is confusion over the most basic idea in society: what is the role of government? Some believe it is to keep us safe. Some believe it is financial stability, both in the form of welfare and in central banks controlling the money supply.Details
“When you use violence to change the system, you are not really changing the system. Violence is THE primary component of the system.”
A Texas football team recently beat an opponent 91-0 and the mother of one of the opposing players filed a bullying report with the school system.
According to ESPN.com, “Buchanan spent an hour in the superintendent’s office this week and the school is currently investigating, as mandated by the state. The Aledo principal told Buchanan that a written report is expected in the next day or so, something required by state law. Buchanan — who is in his 21st season as head coach at Aledo and said he has never been accused of bullying — said he has the support of the Aledo administration.”Details
Cross Posted from the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center.
Bear with me. We need some background before I get to my point.
In the article, “On Violence, Government, and Self-Deception”, I offered three possible philosophical stances on violence. Those were,
1.) Pacifism: No violence under any circumstances; 2.) Non-Aggression: Defensive violence is allowed, aggressive violence is not; 3.) The end justifies the means. Aggressive use of violence is allowed, “for the right reasons”.
I also noted that,
In order to develop a personal philosophy about government, one of the first requirements is to come to an understanding of one’s beliefs about violence. When is it OK to use violence and when is it not? This understanding is necessary because at it’s core, all of government is violence.
At the time, I described my own personal philosophy towards violence as “non-aggression”. My understanding of that phrase is similar to how it is stated by Tom Woods, here, “nobody should initiate aggression against anybody else“. Alternatively, wikipedia describes it, thusly, “In contrast to nonviolence, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others“.
Of course, taken to its conclusion, strict adherence to the non-aggression principle requires elimination of the state because taxation is a form of aggression. Knowing that, I have been aware of the contradiction between my actions and my beliefs when I promote state level legislation and adherence to the US Constitution at the same time as believing in the principle of non-aggression. I don’t like it when there is inconsistency between my beliefs and actions, so the attempt to resolve this conflict has been a frequent area of thought for me during the last few years.
Eventually, I came up with this simple thought experiment:Details
On June 27-28, 1787, for over three hours, Luther Martin, Maryland’s Attorney General and delegate, objected vehemently on the floor of the Constitutional Convention. Transcripts of Mr. Martin’s remarks were recorded into history by Robert Yates (NY) and James Madison (VA). Madison was author of the Virginia plan, which Mr. Martin vigorously debated at regular intervals throughout the Convention.
Upon his arrival at the Philadelphia Convention, Luther Martin pondered possible remedies, as was his charge, to amend the Articles of Confederation, ratified and adopted March 1, 1781. An air of mystery presided over the statehouse, as the founders and framers conducted the work of the Grand Convention.
Mr. Martin reflected on his arrival to the Convention, on June 9, 1787, in a speech given to the Maryland Delegation on November 29 of that same year.
When I joined the Convention I found that Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, had laid before the Body certain propositions (the Virginia Plan) for their consideration, and that the Convention had entered into many Resolutions, respecting the manner of conducting Business, one of which was that seven states might proceed to Business, and therefore four states composing a Majority of seven, might eventually give the Law to the whole Union.
Different instructions were given to Members of different states – The delegates from Delaware were instructed not to infringe on their Local Constitution – others were prohibited their assent to any duty in Commerce: the Convention enjoined all to secrecy; so that we had no opportunity of gaining information by a Correspondence with others; and what was still more inconvenient, extracts from their own Journals were prohibited even for our own information.
One of the critical issues debated after the introduction of the Virginia Plan was the distinction between the differing types of general governments, particularly a federation and a national government. A federation exists by a compact, or contract, resting upon the good faith of the states, contrasted with a national government exercising complete control over the operation of the states. The nationalist position of the Virginia Plan was repulsive to many delegates, including Mr. Martin, who opposed the prospect of a central government. He argued it would consume the sovereignty of the states.
Beginning his remarks on the floor of the Constitutional Convention, Mr. Martin addressed the function of a general government.Details
At a gathering of TEA Party and Liberty groups leaders this past weekend I repeatedly heard them refer to our constitutional rights in questions put forth to a candidate running for political office. At any other setting, I would have corrected them, but I felt it was not my place to correct them since it wasn’t my event and I was a guest.
I was wrong; I should have.
We DO NOT have constitutional rights; we don’t even have constitutionally protected rights.
We have inalienable rights, or if you prefer – unchallengeable, absolute, immutable, unassailable, incontrovertible, undisputable, indisputable, undeniable, natural or as prefer to call them God given rights.
These rights existed before the Constitution and they existed even before government.Details
In the time I have spent in the field of public policy, I’ve noticed people like to post on social media platforms, talk about, or blog about how their representatives do not represent them, or do not wish to hear their concerns and suggestions. It also seems many people generally treat public policy with great distaste. They make it their objective to deter people from voting, from “working within the system”, and from attempting to “change things from within.”
These folks are understandably angry because of a perceived lack of representation and diminishing faith in the constitutional system.
They may have a point. But how many times do you think those individuals have actually gone out of their way to communicate with their local or state representatives? How many people actually spend time working to direct change? How many people, out of the millions in our republic, actually spend time talking about solutions with their representatives?
Maybe part of the problem is that we aren’t proactive enough.
Our elected officials pack their days with committee hearings, floor sessions, speaking engagements, radio/television interviews, and press conferences. It’s reasonable to assume that their time is at a premium. So, if you want good representation, you need take the time to schedule a meeting. Then show up prepared with an objective, a solution, and a positive attitude. This will go a long way toward developing a strong two-way relationship with your representative. They aren’t used to this kind of effort, and it WILL have an impact.Details