One of the aspects of our national and cultural institutions that troubles me is the shallowness of our shared social compact. The DOI principles elicited are not adequate to define the unique nature of our political and governing institutions which combine a multi-tiered republican social compact, the principles of British constitutionalism and the underpinnings of Natural Law (“Ordained by their Creator…”).Mike Vanderboegh has more thought-provoking commentary springing from these correspondences.
The fundamental problem in our country today is that no-one has a common [shared] sense of what undergirds the DOI principles, therefore, everyone is free to ‘interpret’ them as they see fit – including justification for the tyranny of simple majority rule (direct or representative). County counsel shut down your business - it is legal. State seize your property for failure to pay ever-increasing property taxes – it is legal. Federal BLM administrative rules change such that you cannot ranch on land you’ve held for three generations – times have changed. Your property needed for a World Biosphere or new city greenway or that big supporter property developer’s new project – oh well, should have thought of that when you voted for the losers last election.
There are limits; limits prescribed by natural law.
This idea is missing…
Else, our adherence to the tired shibboleths of the 2nd Amendment, in the face of massive public opposition and “reasonable restrictions and compromises” becomes nothing but outworn obstinacy in the face of manifest, majority “consent of the governed”…
Saturday, March 07, 2009
"Principles" Essential but Insufficient
The following is an email from "WD," a contributor to a small group I correspond with. He has given me permission to post it here. It is a constructive critique of the "Oath Keepers principles" we linked to the other day.
DOI?
ReplyDeleteI included a "Principles" link...
ReplyDeleteDeclaration of Independence
ReplyDelete"The fundamental problem in our country today is that no-one has a common [shared] sense of what undergirds the DOI principles, therefore, everyone is free to ‘interpret’ them as they see fit – including justification for the tyranny of simple majority rule (direct or representative)."
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ . . . some of us actually DO hold to those principles. Moreover, do hold that they are "common" principles that ought to be understood by everyone, and have a common, shared sense about them.
The Declaration of Independence has only minor variances in principle with the Scripture. That argument being:
The crown broke the law, who then enforces the law the crown broke?
It is the question of the hour.
Then these men assembled unto the king, and said unto the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, That no decree nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed. Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee. (Daniel 6:15-16)
There are principles herein that apply to both the DoI and our situation of the moment:
Can man change higher law? By simple decree? By any decree?
Moreover, do hold that they are "common" principles that ought to be understood by everyone, and have a common, shared sense about them.
ReplyDeleteyet this is potentially a subtle form of coercion: what will you do when i say no, i ought not to, in fact?
in the end, if we live as friendly neighbors, your principles are completely irrelevant to me, and mine to you. our actions have fallen into accordance with each others' expectations -- despite principles, or documents, or governments.
further, this happy circumstance cannot be assured by holding conventions and drafting documents and instituting governments. i think this is quite plain to see that here and now.
in fact, it cannot be assured at all. that is why you and i have guns. we are self-governing entities. we secure our own rights.
should you devise a perfectly free form of society, you lose it the moment you coerce others into its influence.
the founders were able to demonstrate this within their own lifetimes. rhode island (originally rogue's land) was forced to ratify the constitution. the whiskey and shays rebellions were put down with force for the purposes of tax.
these acts violated from the beginning the spirit of the revolution: liberty. and the DOI stood by as a helpless document while these fallen acts were done in the name of liberty, and the masses ignored or cheered it on.
thomas paine said that time would make more converts than reason. when the only remaining factions are socialism and anarchy, time will be up.
The problem here is that some do not recognize that there MUST be laws, and once those laws are agreed to — all parties in agreement MUST abide by them.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem we have today is that our fathers agreed to certain laws and principles, and their children (us — collectively and individually) have chosen not to honor the agreement of our fathers.
There are some who think that no law applies to them — save their own "set of rules," regardless of who it hurts.
The Founders arrived at our government through wisdom and long experience with history. We are TOTALLY unwise to cast their work off. To do so is to forge shackles of slavery for ourselves.
BTW, guns will not "secure" either liberty or rights. Respect and adherence to the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence is a far more successful option.
Without proper principles, all the guns will do is substitute tyranny by government with tyranny by armed warlords and gangs.
Paul W. Davis - all governments are armed warlords and gangs. That's what a government is.
ReplyDeleteYou're just arguing that we ought to prefer your warlords. That's all.
Your "laws" are nothing more than edicts enforced at gunpoint by whoever runs the gang.
IF you accept that the government that governs best governs least, THEN you accept no form of government whatsoever.
Any and all alternatives are socialism, plain and simple. The differences between Left-Socialist (D-Connecticut) and Right-Socialist (R-Texas) are purely academic. In fact, they're laughable. They don't disagree on the subversion of the rights of the individual or the domination of man by "armed warlords and gangs," they disagree only on what those warlords and gangs should do.
I agree on principles, I DISAGREE on enforcing them. I have never met a law or a tax that I have liked. Not once, at all. That statement is absolute. I believe any tax for any purpose is a textbook case of robbery and should be dealt with as such. In fact I'll go so far as to lay down one of my essential principles:
All tax collectors should be publicly beheaded.
I'll stop hogging David's bandwidth and write more on my own blog.
Sine regibus, sine dominis,
John H.
"Federal BLM administrative rules change such that you cannot ranch on land you’ve held for three generations". Federal land (i.e. owned by all the citizens) that your family has leased for three generations with no guarantee that your lease would ever be renewed, usually because it is land that no one else wanted for any other purpose than grazing livestock.
ReplyDeleteLet everyone else have an opportunity to bid on the use of this grazing land to maximize the return on the land. However, there is then no incentive to ensure that the land will retain its value to support livestock for future generations. So instead, we will turn it all into one big national park where we can all watch the weeds grow.
Well Mr. Higgins, anyone who takes the position you have obviously hasn't read much history, and obviously doesn't honor their agreements or their father's agreements.
ReplyDeleteIn short, you are both ignorant and dishonorable.
Golly, just how many angels CAN dance on a pin-head?
ReplyDeleteGo read this:
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/02/anarchy-breaking-out-all-over-on-sipsey.html
"Do you mind if we get this guy to quit stomping us with his boot before we argue how to run the shoestore afterward?"
"Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?
Reg: F-ck off! We're the People's Front of Judea. -- The Life of Brian."
Rinse and repeat.
Here's the point, FWIW, of the angels on a pin exercise re principles:
ReplyDelete1) For what will you die?
2) For what will you kill?
3) Assuming you have survived all of the dying and killing, how do you prevent this $#@%! from happening again?
I agree that the discussions run the risk of becoming an end unto themselves.
But without a sound reason to kill your opponents, how can one claim to be a moral actor?
Phrased another way, if the desired end-state is living as micro-sovereigns in friendly neighborliness, how does one deal with those who won't play by those rules, and how do those consequences lead to anything but a future of warlords?
I honor my agreements. I do not honor my father's agreements.
ReplyDeleteThat recommendation lacks logic, and I'm not going to do anything so out of line with reason.
Build a logical proof for your argument and it will be reconsidered. Thank you.
Concerned American:
Big fan of your work. I wish you posted more often, I can read your blog for hours.
It depends on what one means by playing by those rules. If they're looking for a ruler, so what? That's their right. They can be ruled as they see fit.
If they're looking to rule me, simple. Kill them. I like Bob LeFevre, but he was wrong about a few things. Nonviolence is one of them.
Warlords are an outgrowth of certain technological and social constructs no longer relevant.
There was a day when it took just about every able-bodied male in a territory to provide food for the people of that territory. On the brink of starvation, the possibility of subjecting others so that they may work the field instead of you is attractive. All it took was a charismatic persuader to make people act on that impulse, and generally speaking, the guy with the most followers won.
This is an archaic institution that bears just shy of zero relevance to our conditions today. We are fed and clothed well, and aren't, barring a return to Stone Age subsistence (like we see in the Middle East) going to devolve to the point of warring for food. Even were warlords to rise (a near impossibility) they can't possibly maintain a hold on any land.
Can not possibly maintain a hold on any land. I mean that.
Let's say you've got Libertania and the steppes of Khanland. The Khan of Khanland requires a thirty-percent tax for his armed forces, which he uses to expand into Libertania. Because of the (inevitably, incontrovertibly, incalculably) destructive nature of statism, you're going to have a bunch of people living on a fraction of their productive capacity.
Here's the rub. All they have to do is cross the border. No border is watched all the time, especially when Libertanian teen boys get their kicks by blowing up the fences. All they need to do to be free and live well is join the other side.
How many missed meals do you think it will take? Six? Three? Less?
Being free is profitable. Being a slave is not, it is a liability. When aware of the choice between the two, most people will make the choice of freedom. Shit, just look at the Cubans that try to swim the bloody Gulf of Mexico to get to the United States. Now make the United States eight, ten times more prosperous. Even the people of the U.S. as it is TODAY would risk life and limb to get there!
I'm not even getting into the inviability of maintaining a stranglehold on people who don't want to be controlled in the modern day - I don't need to. The Second Amendment web network is a testament to the notion that a people who want freedom will have it in the days of easy armament and force-equalization.
There's five decades of literature on this subject. While I don't mind making my own contribution to it, it's relatively minor when Rothbard, Friedman and however many others have written treatises on it.
"Do you mind if we get this guy to quit stomping us with his boot before we argue how to run the shoestore afterward?"
ReplyDeleteThat just gets the Confederate army raiding your farm for food and conscripts instead of the Union army. The examination of principles is actually the very practical strategic planning of how not to shoot yourself in the foot.
John Higgins said... [...] Even were warlords to rise (a near impossibility) they can't possibly maintain a hold on any land.
I beg to differ. Warlords have arisen, they do maintain a hold on land, and there is no place more free next door to flee to. I believe your political simulation is oversimplified. As a start, you might consider improving the fidelity of your simulation until it predicts the Chinese, Russian, and German genocides. Especially the German one, since Wiemar Germany best fits your condition of high productivity.
No question, it's simplified. I think the reason simplified simulations are employed is abundantly obvious.
ReplyDeleteThe essential disconnect between Wiemar Germany and the other examples of societal collapse, and my theoretical social establishment, is that they were preceded by periods of intense state regulation.
That's a big friggin' deal. There was a state to regulate. There were restrictions on individual rights already.
In a way you're proving my point - so long as there IS a state, warlords are guaranteed.
The inviability of a warlord holding land that I posit in my simulation is dependent on a post-state construct, a time when at least a generation has been brought up without government limiting them. This generation, while not homogeneous, would generally speaking be quite well-armed and reluctant to see their paychecks halved, quartered or worse. They would know that the state is NOT a "necessary evil" and many of them would look upon would-be rulers like we look upon street preachers insisting that the end is nigh - as crazy folk.
Of course, there are potentially infinite contingencies that may shake such a society's foundation. But I'll put my bet on a free society surviving, rather than declare it dead before it's even been born and throwing up my hands (or bending to grab my ankles...) in defeat.
The inviability of a warlord holding land that I posit in my simulation is dependent on a post-state construct, a time when at least a generation has been brought up without government limiting them. This generation, while not homogeneous, would generally speaking be quite well-armed and reluctant to see their paychecks halved, quartered or worse. They would know that the state is NOT a "necessary evil" and many of them would look upon would-be rulers like we look upon street preachers insisting that the end is nigh - as crazy folk.
ReplyDeleteA free land as an output requires a free land as an input...I think that's circular. If the US around 1900 doesn't qualify as free enough and wealthy enough (for white males), would anything?
It does not require a free land as an input. Where are you getting that?
ReplyDeleteI'm saying that once established, it's self-sustaining. That's a far cry from what you suggest.
You undermine your own argument. "For white males." Freedom is an absolute thing, you have it or you don't.
If only white men are experiencing what you'd call "freedom" (in which, I'd like to point out, there was still about 51.69 billion dollars of federal expense, inflation-adjusted to 2007 dollars) then your argument is flawed ab initio. That's like pointing out that Soviet Russia was in fact quite free for high-level apparatchiks and the nomenklatura!
I'm saying that once established, it's self-sustaining.
ReplyDeleteRight. But that's not today's problem. Today's problem is to establish freedom where it isn't. If you have a method that will go from less free to more free, then you can drop it in anywhere and it will improve the local conditions. It will also have proven to be self-sustaining, at least until the population forgets its history. Whereas, your claim that freedom is self-reinforcing resembles the claims of this constitution and every other. The historical evidence is that it has never worked.
Freedom is an absolute thing, you have it or you don't. [...] That's like pointing out that Soviet Russia was in fact quite free for high-level apparatchiks and the nomenklatura!
I think it is instructive to examine the properties of the relative freedom of a minority. If we considered the borders differently, I could claim that Americans are the free nomenklatura and the Iraqis are the subjugated.