Archive | History RSS feed for this section

Nullification: Jefferson’s Remedy

By on July 28, 2010 in History, Media, Nullification

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

“Nullification is Jefferson’s remedy for a government that acts as if it has no limits. It’s an answer to the question – what do you do when the federal government exceeds its constitutional powers.”

See Tom in person in Ft Worth and Orlando. See Jack in person in Chattanooga – reserve your seats today!

Tom Woods on Wisconsin Public Radio, July 27, 2010. From the show website:

According to Joy Cardin’s guest, after seven, state governments should be more willing to use their Tenth Amendment rights to nullify unconstitutional federal laws. He describes how the federal government is too over-reaching, not leaving enough room for states to decide on matters like healthcare and immigration. Guest: Thomas Woods, Jr., Senior fellow, Ludwig von Mises Institute. Author, “Nullification: How To Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.”

Comments { 1 }

The burden of Northern history

By on July 18, 2010 in History

There has been a spate of books on America’s presumed decline in recent days. Most now and ever before compare with the rise and fall of Rome. I’ve always thought we should be compared with two empires, Rome and Athens. Or better yet, Rome and Constantinople, equal and opposite cultural counter-forces for at least 1,000 years. But ours are red and blue and their capitals are New York City and Dallas.

This division was identified by Henry James in the late 1800s. “The Bostonians,” which might be seen as visionary today, contrasted the radical feminist and reformer, Olive, with the Southern cousin Basil, who dines with “a six-shooter and a bowie knife.” When asked, “Don’t you care for human progress?” he answers, “I don’t know — I never saw any.” Continue Reading →

Comments { 3 }

The Equality of Reason

By on June 18, 2010 in History, Liberty

In medieval society the king was much more than a supreme magistrate but was seen as a divine being sent from heaven to establish its laws within the kingdom. When the king was not present the divine law established by the king’s will was gone so the people lost all sense of restraint from which anarchy would occur until a new king was crowned.

The people living in this society accepted the king’s judgment in all affairs because they believed that he was a kind of deity who possessed special knowledge and wisdom that could best guide the people. The king then used that special wisdom to choose advisors, magistrates, and other government officials who knew what was best for the people. The people did not question the government because they believe the king was more endowed to make decisions over their lives than they were. This created a class of thinking elites who decided how other people were going to live and a subservient peasant class who did not believe they had the same right to reason as the king’s government had.

It may seem strange as to why anyone would accept this degraded status for themselves but since we were cavemen we always sought out a source of divine knowledge that can guide us in this world. This enlightened knowledge completely removes the possibility of human error which gives us a feeling of security in this world and the belief in this enlightened knowledge can be thought of as faith.

The idea that a leader who possesses special knowledge sent from heaven might give us great courage to overcome impossible odds such as Moses leading his people out of Egypt simply because God told him where the land of milk and honey was. A society’s faith in divine leadership might give it courage to overcome impossible odds but it is not reason nor is it freedom.

In order to illustrate this point think of a dog owner who teaches the dog how to fetch. The dog has no ability to think beyond its instinctive impulses so it can’t comprehend why it is chasing after the ball. This has allowed the dog owner to manipulate the dog’s very existence because the dog owner has the ability to reason which is something the dog can’t do.

This is why every domesticated animal will be subservient to human will. Our ability to reason has allowed us to manipulate their instinctive desires for food, water, and shelter to the point where we control every aspect of their existence. These animals will never wonder why it is complying with our demands simply because they are incapable of knowing anything beyond their primitive and instinctive impulses.

The only thing we have in common with animals is that we both receive information through our senses but what separates us from them is our ability to process that information and create new information from that process. What animals and man knew about the earth from their senses alone was that it is flat but what separated us was the fact that man was able to realize the world was round by our intellect. That intellect allowed us to analyze the information we receive through our senses and come to different conclusions that our senses alone could not tell us. The concept of our existence is shaped by our ability to reason which separates us from animals because their existence is shaped by their senses.

We may speculate from where mankind gets this ability but the mere fact that we are using that ability to debate where it comes from proves that it exist for each of us. A creationist may believe man was created in seven days so it was God who given him the ability to reason while an atheist may believe that that same ability was the byproduct of man’s evolution. No matter what you believe is responsible for your existence it is impossible to believe that any member of the same species would not have the same ability that every other member of that species has.

Individualism is the byproduct of our ability to reason because the beliefs people have about what is the truth are developed by their ability to reason but because every person reasons independently of the other they will establish diffrent conclusions about what is correct. Those conclusions might change but only because of their own internal reasoning process and not because of any force or coercion on the part of another.

This establishes a state of equality of rank among all being capable of reasoning since no force or coercion can by used to alter what one reasonable being thinks is correct or about what they should do with their own lives. This makes it impossible for any reasonable being to be subservient to another reasonable being wishes without any internal comprehension as to why those wishes are correct.

From our ability to reason we establish an equality of rank with all other people and since each person was born with this ability then each person was born with an equal authority over their own lives. This means that no person has a natural birthright to determine the actions of another which means that each person was born in a natural state of freedom since no person has any natural authority over any other.

A person that possesses twice the intelligence of the average human would still have the same equality as any other member of the same species simply because the degree to which we can reason only changes the pace at which we will discover truth and not if we will discover the same truth. Even a reasonable mind capable of infinite intelligence would be equal in rank with all other reasonable lesser minds simply because all reasonable minds will discover the same truth.

This mind capable of infinite intelligence can be thought of as God by some philosophers and religions but regardless of what we believe a mind capable of infinite intelligence is that being is incapable of having any authority over us simply because any degree of reason makes us all equal in authority with one another. The state of equality and freedom does not end at our species but extends to all beings capable of reason which would include the mind capable of infinite intelligence.

This does not say that man is equal in abilities to this infinite intelligence (ROFLMAO) but only equal in authority which means man can not tell this infinite intelligence how it is to use its powers and it can’t tell man how to use his infinitely weaker abilities. The time it takes for the infinite intelligence to discover what the truth is is instant which makes truth and the infinite intelligence identical. The ability of unequal minds to use reason to discover the same identical truth makes all things equal in authority with each other since all things will eventually know the same reality.

Truth is like the anchor for our reasoning and without it their would only be insantiy. Reason can’t exist without truth and without reason their would be no equlity from witch we would have no basis to derive our freedom from.

All intellects capable of the power to reason will always be subject to truth because they will never be able to discover anything but truth itself. This makes truth the great equalizer among all beings capable of reason because no matter how great or small the intellect is it will always reach the same conclusion because truth is like a tree in a forest and reason is the path to that tree of which there could be many but every single one of them will always lead to the same tree.

It may seem this is a contradiction of what we know of examples of the infinite mind because most religions teaches us that it punishes us for doing certain actions that are known as evil but those actions could not manifest themselves without the thought to do them first. It would make more sense to believe that if the infinite mind wanted people not to do those actions it would deny us the ability to think them thus eliminating the ability to perform the evil action. God values freedom and equality as much as he values morality because he never denies people the freedom of thought which is the basis of our equality and freedom.

The ability to reason will lead us to the same truth that the infinite mind has already discovered and this makes truth the great equalizer among beings capable of reason but possessing the ability to reason does not mean we possess the default right to truth. That is discovered by our inherent ability to reason that was given to us by whatever was responsible for our creation. The ability to reason allows us to discover truth and all reasoning minds, of any degree, are subject to its authority.

This is why all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…

Comments { 1 }

Can We Learn from History?

By on June 16, 2010 in Big Government, History

There really is nothing new under the sun…

The Promise

The Reality

Have we forgotten?  Already?  This — is what freedom looks like.  Do we really have to learn this lesson again?  The hard way?  Not if we renew the Tenth Amendment.

cross-posted from the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center

Comments { 1 }

Nullification and how the GOP lost its way

By on May 11, 2010 in History, Nullification

Lawsuits aren’t an act of nullification. To nullify federal law – a state acts to protect liberty with or without “permission” from the federal government. All in all, not a bad set of viewpoints here.

Comments { 1 }

Taxes in American History

By on April 15, 2010 in History, Taxation

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Thomas DiLorenzo discusses Taxes in American History at the The Trouble with Taxation Seminar in January 2005.

Comments { 1 }

From the “Left Out of the Textbook” Dept.

By on March 30, 2010 in History, Nullification

From a handbill that circulated in Milwaukee in the 1850s, in reference to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (emphasis in original):

All the People of this State, who are opposed to being made SLAVES or SLAVE-CATCHERS, and to having the Free Soil of Wisconsin made the hunting-ground for Human Kidnappers, and all who are willing to unite in a STATE LEAGUE, to defend our State Sovereignty, our State Courts, and our State and National Constitutions, against the flagrant usurpations of U.S. Judges, Commissioners, and Marshals, and their Attorneys; and to maintain inviolate those great Constitutional Safeguards of Freedom – the WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS and the RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY – as old and sacred as Constitutional Liberty itself; and all who are willing to sustain the cause of those who are prosecuted, and to be prosecuted in Wisconsin, by the agents and executors of the Kidnapping Act of 1850, for the alleged crime of rescuing a human being from the hands of kidnappers, and restoring him to himself and to Freedom, are invited to meet at YOUNGS’ HALL, IN THIS CITY, THURSDAY, APRIL 13TH, at 11 o’clock A.M., to counsel together, and take such action as the exigencies of the times, and the cause of imperiled Liberty demand.

More where this came from in Nullification, my forthcoming (June 29) book.

cross-posted from the LewRockwell.com blog

Comments { 0 }

‘Resisting’ Is Defined as Violence. Not the ‘Taking’

By on February 28, 2010 in History, Terrorism

Newsweek has put together a “Tax Attacks” propaganda piece. The gist of this piece is that Joseph Stack was one of many violent protesters who “believed taxes are unjustified,” and thus reacted with violent actions. Of course, anyone who believes that taxes are unjustified necessarily gets lumped in with all of the mad bombers, shooters, and so-called right-wing extremists from America’s past. From Newsweek:

Though Stack’s actions were extreme, the United States has seen a quiet but violent antitaxation movement grow since the middle of the 20th century. Having little in common with the Revolutionary War-era Boston Tea Partiers, these protesters believe taxes are unjustified, with or without representation, and they may have ties to other antigovernment groups, including the militia movement, the Sovereign Citizen movement, and white-supremacist groups. Mark Pitcavage, a historian of extreme-right-wing movements and the director of investigative research at the Anti-Defamation League, and the Southern Poverty Law Center have researched the history of violent attacks carried out by members of the tax-protest movement.

Look at the hyperlink in the story (bold is my emphasis): http://photo.newsweek.com/2010/recent-history-of-anti-tax-violence-in-the-us/tax-attacks.html. Isn’t it somewhat twisted that taxation — the act of taking personal property and earnings by force, under the threat of violence, further theft, life destruction, and/or going to the hoosegow — is considered to be the law-abiding action, while the act of resisting the threats of theft and personal destruction is considered to be the “violence?” How many people — outside of radical libertarians and other anti-staters — will ever see what should be so completely obvious to anyone who can understand simple definitions?

Here is a print of our violent, anti-tax ancestors protesting the Stamp Act in 1765.

Comments { 0 }

John Dickinson: The Penman of the Revolution

By on February 17, 2010 in Founding Fathers, History

The Townshend Acts were a series of acts passed beginning in 1767 by the Parliament of Great Britain relating to the British colonies in North America. They centered primarily on the raising of revenue for the crown and asserting central authority over governors and judges in the colonies. They were widely hated and met with resistance in the colonies, prompting the occupation of Boston by British troops in 1768, which eventually resulted in the Boston Massacre of 1770.

The last of the acts, the New York Restraining Act, was punishment for the Assembly of New York, suspending its legislative powers for failing to fully comply with orders from the crown.

letters-from-a-farmerLetters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania was a series of essays written by John Dickinson. The twelve letters were widely read and reprinted throughout the thirteen colonies, and were important in uniting the colonists against the Townshend Acts. The success of his letters earned Dickinson considerable fame.

Dickinson went on to be a militia officer during the American Revolution, a Continental Congressman from Pennsylvania and Delaware, a delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787, President of Delaware and President of Pennsylvania. He’s often remembered as the “penman of the Revolution.”

This week, in remembrance of the anniversary of his death, February 14, 1808, we present to you the first of his famous Letters from a Farmer. In reading them, one can see how the issues faced at the time are similar to those of today – the right of the people to local self-government vs a far-off government asserting supremacy in all matters.

In many ways, today’s federal government has suspended the legislative power of state assemblies by assuming control over powers not delegated to it by the Constitution. Of course, one is also reminded that the American tradition is a tradition of resistance to tyranny.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Comments { 1 }

Nullification, Secession, and the Human Scale of Political Order

By on February 8, 2010 in Big Government, Federalism, History

Logo of the Abbeville Institute

Logo of the Abbeville Institute

For three days last week, on the third floor of the Francis Marion Hotel in downtown Charleston, SC, a group of scholars have been meeting to discuss the history of nullification and secession in American law and politics, and the continued relevance of those concepts today.

I had the privilege of joining them for the weekend-long event, hosted by the Abbeville Institute, entitled Nullification, Secession, and the Human Scale of Political Order, and it has been an amazing learning experience.

Accomplished scholars such as Abbeville founder Donald Livingston, Thomas DiLorenzo, Thomas Naylor, Marshall DeRosa, Kirkpatrick Sale, Yuri Maltsev, and Kent Masterson Brown all addressed the gathering of well over 100 attendees during the course of the weekend.

We learned that, in politics at least, size does matter, and smaller is better. Fifty percent of countries have populations of less than 5.5 million people, including nine of the top ten in terms of wealth per capita, and nine of the fourteen freest states on the planet.

Which would come as no surprise to political philosophers throughout history, from Aristotle to David Hume, who have long argued that, like a metastasizing cancer cell, there is a point at which (republican pretensions notwithstanding) a centralized nation’s growth can render it dangerous and ungovernable.

The Soviet Union learned this fact in the latter half of the Twentieth Century, as Yuri Maltsev, a former adviser to Boris Yeltsin and senior scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, reminded the group. Though the Soviet leaders had no interest in republican pretensions, to stay in power, they were forced to control the lives of hundreds of millions of people spread across eleven time zones and one sixth of the Earth’s surface. Unfortunately, Yuri noted, the only way to do this was through mass murder, and even that eventually failed when the regime literally ran out of bullets.

Which is largely why those in America who understand history’s lessons, and value individual rights as they were enshrined by our Declaration of Independence, have begun to look seriously for ways to reestablish a society that values rights over might. The founder of the Second Vermont Republic, Thomas Naylor, believes his state can serve as the model for such a society one day.

First though, we have to convince fellow Americans that our nation has in fact transitioned from republic to empire, and that the only way to regain our prosperity and moral standing as a nation of free men and women is to resist the illegal and unconstitutional activities of our government.

Which is where the Tenth Amendment comes in. By pursuing a strategic decentralization of power through the vehicle of state and local nullification and interposition, we as Americans have the power to withdraw our consent peacefully and permanently from a federal government that no longer respects the rule of law.

The agents of that government may or may not then choose to recognize our right to make such a determination for ourselves. That is up to them.

But understanding that self-government is by definition the right of all free people, and then acting on that knowledge, is up to us.

Comments { 9 }