Comments on Pro Libertate: War is Holy, This I Know -- For Dear Leader Tells Me So

In Fed #10, Madison explains why we are a republic...

2011-04-06T05:09:14.298-06:00

In Fed #10, Madison explains why we are a republic rather than a democracy:

[First sentence]: Among the numerous advantages promised by a wellconstructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and CONTROL the VIOLENCE OF FACTION.

By a FACTION, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of PASSION, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community… the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property.

The rest of it is about our (the masses) sinister views, convulsions, passions, factions, dangers, schemes of oppression and the best way to CONTROL us. Why a republic? Unlike a democracy, in a republic the masses are spread out over a wide area and are “represented” by a few and don’t come together in large groups as in a democracy. Therefore, being spread out, they are easier to control and are less likely to form factions, i.e. tax "rebellions," which strike their "hearts" with terror. He mentions “government ruled by law” only, let me get my calculator, zero plus zero equals... zero?

Now here’s the relevant part of the last sentence: In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases [of faction] most incident to republican government...

That Shays tax “rebellion” influenced them more than anything else to secretly create a new government seems true. Controlling the wayward masses and threatening them with military force if they are “disobedient” (in paying their taxes) is the theme of the Federalist Papers.

This is what Hamilton wrote about Shays “rebellion” (which happened in Massachusetts) in Fed #21: Without a guaranty the assistance to be derived from the Union in repelling those DOMESTIC DANGERS which may sometimes threaten the existence of the State constitutions, must be renounced. USURPATION may rear its crest in each State, and trample upon the liberties of the people, while the national government could legally do nothing more than behold its encroachments with indignation and regret. A successful faction may erect a tyranny on the ruins of order and law, while no succor could constitutionally be afforded by the Union to the friends and supporters of the government. The tempestuous situation from which Massachusetts has scarcely emerged, evinces that dangers of this kind are not merely speculative. Who can determine what might have been the issue of her late convulsions, if the malcontents had been headed by a Caesar or by a Cromwell? Who can predict what effect a despotism, established in Massachusetts, would have upon the liberties of New Hampshire or Rhode Island, of Connecticut or New York? Which, being interpreted, means "If the surrounding states join this "rebellion," we're sunk.

Somebody quick! Hand that bulbous-nosed little twit some smelling salts, lest he faint from indignation!

Funny he should mention Rhode Island being in danger of despotism from citizens in Massachusetts. During the second meeting of the very FIRST congress, Rhode Island had not yet voluntarily joined the voluntary union, so they decided she must be “punished” for her “disobedience.” A law was written (and passed) that Rhode Island would be “sanctioned” – no other state could trade with RI, and RI could trade with no state; however, money would still be collected from her. Ah, freedom! I wonder what it’s like?

Levin's comments read like they're out of ...

2011-04-05T21:11:51.662-06:00

Levin's comments read like they're out of The Onion.

To my knowledge the best option is what the Foundi...

2011-04-05T00:46:10.783-06:00

To my knowledge the best option is what the Founding Fathers did: create a system of checks and balances within a limited constitutional republic to keep political power contained as long as possible, make it less malignant, and impart to their descendants the importance of eternal vigilance.

And how well has that worked out?

Here's a well-executed shredding of that farcical fantasy called "checks and balances."

@The Omega Man... Nothing in your comment address...

2011-04-05T00:37:57.182-06:00

@The Omega Man...

Nothing in your comment addresses the constitution's legitimacy. Spooner had weak arguments on some subjects (see: The Law of Intellectual Property; or An Essay on the Right of Authors and Inventors to a Perpetual Property in their Ideas [1855]) but his treatment of the constitution is spot on. If you claim he is wrong, at least give us a summary of your argument. Otherwise, I have to assume you don't have one.

Also,... man is that photo of Hillary wicked.

2011-04-04T23:15:48.155-06:00

Also,... man is that photo of Hillary wicked.

The Omega Man said... "North and Spooner have...

2011-04-04T23:13:31.500-06:00

The Omega Man said... "North and Spooner have valuable insights into many subjects, but they're wrong about the Constitution..."

I wonder if The Omega Man and People like The Omega Man have even read the arguments presented by North and Spooner before dismissing them? It just doesn't seem like it, especially in light of what Yossarian said so elegantly.

In many instances in today's business world individuals are set-up for certain failure by design, sometimes knowingly. Such a set-up is not always easy to recognize, especially if the design of the set-up is due to organizational structure.
It is the same with the organizational structure of government.

Don’t blame Adams? You mean John “Alien and Sediti...

2011-04-04T22:21:55.462-06:00

Don’t blame Adams? You mean John “Alien and Sedition Acts” Adams or John “Destitute men can’t form a right judgement and are too dependent upon others to have a will of their own” Adams? I blame him and also John “The mass of men are neither wise nor good” Jay, George “mankind are not competent to their own government without the means of coercion in the sovereign” Washington, Alexander “Governments are formed because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint” Hamilton, Alexander “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: YOU MUST FIRST ENABLE THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL THE GOVERNED” Hamilton (that may have been written by James “Feets don’t fail me now” Madison; we just don’t know) and Henry “Congress needs the power to force the states to do those things which are essential for their own welfare or for the general good” Knox.

The “mass of people” (y'know, we, the people?) were, at various times, desperate, unprincipled, arbitrary, capricious, and treasonous, while the “rich and well-born” so-called founding fathers were men of reflection, property, station and principle.

I must respectfully disagree with you on this, MoT...

2011-04-04T11:53:31.517-06:00

I must respectfully disagree with you on this, MoT. North and Spooner have valuable insights into many subjects, but they're wrong about the Constitution. If I want investment advice I'll listen to Gary North, but for insights regarding the Constitution, I'll listen to Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano. Leaving aside the strong possibility that the Articles of Confederation may indeed have worked out better, our current state of authoritarian affairs is not the fault of the Constitution. A code of law only works if each successive generation believes in it. Our current foreign belligerency is specifically forbidden by the Constitution; that successive presidents thumb their noses at our laws is not the fault of the Founders. They're not alive to hold Bushes and Obamas and Roosevelts to the system of checks and balances---that's our job, we the living. And if states broke ties with the Federal government and reasserted sovereignty, the resulting decentralization of power would be a good thing relatively, but not a panacea. Since each state would be less powerful than a federal government, our freedoms would be somewhat more secure, but by no means assured. A State is, after all, a State, whether its power is concentrated in Washington DC or Richmond or Madison. Our rights and freedoms can be trampled nearly as easily by a governor and state legislature as they are by a president and Congress. No code of laws or ethics, no matter how good and wise, can protect us if no one believes in them. And while I agree that '..a new storming of the Bastille.." is a pleasing thought, we ought to remember what happened to France afterward.

Let me clarify here that I agree with MoT and most other of Mr. Grigg's eloquent regulars--it is a credit to Mr. Grigg that his essays attract such a group of like-minded lovers of liberty--on what is generally wrong with our country today. I am merely disagreeing with the contention I occasionally run across that the Constitution and its framers are somehow to blame. The power-hungry will always find ways around any obstacles we put in their path, no matter how we decentralize power, unless we are vigilant. If they found loopholes in our constitutional republic--and they certainly have--they will find loopholes in any alternative way we do things. They would almost certainly have found ways to circumvent and distort the Articles of Confederation, for example. Where there's a will there's a way, it's said, and where lust for power is concerned, there's a powerful will.

To my knowledge the best option is what the Founding Fathers did: create a system of checks and balances within a limited constitutional republic to keep political power contained as long as possible, make it less malignant, and impart to their descendants the importance of eternal vigilance. That is what was meant by the phrase "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". If that system begins to fail, which it has, then it isn't the Constitution that failed; we failed. Don't blame Adams and Jefferson for our current state--blame our parents, and grandparents, and their parents...and ourselves. The system will always be flawed, because people will always be flawed. Remember what Benjamin Franklin said: "We've given you a republic....if you can keep it." Well we didn't. That's not Jefferson's fault, it's ours.

Gary North lately points out the obvious: The Con...

2011-04-04T00:25:28.449-06:00

Gary North lately points out the obvious: The Constitution is responsible for what we're burdened with. Heck! Even Spooner back in the 19th century made that obvious. I say the only way this might end is for states to once and for all stand on their own feet and declare their sovereignty and cut the ties that bind them to Moloch on the Potomac. Either they can do so peacefully or else a new storming of the Bastille may be necessary.

And don't forget, Whitebuffalo, we had gone th...

2011-04-03T23:55:49.517-06:00

And don't forget, Whitebuffalo, we had gone through World Kinetic Military Actions One and Two.

the dimbulbs in power fail to recognise WHY our Fo...

2011-04-03T22:55:50.053-06:00

the dimbulbs in power fail to recognise WHY our Founders troubled themselves to labour long and hard to give us a Constitution: so MEN would not rule, but consistent LAW would. What will it take to remove this Pretender in Chief from his appointed role as supreme exalted ruler of all? He would have made a great member of the FEO Masons... and would be a LOT less disastrous in consequences of his delusions. Masons have little power outside their own circles. This guy wants to take over the world. He thinks WE are HIS subjects, forgetting HE is OUR SERVANT.. time he sets his lil ol self to be about his lawful business.. of SERVING us, his rulers. Remember, it is WE THE PEOPLE who are the sovereigns in ths nation, not our "free and exalted leaders".

You don't understand Mr. Grigg. This isn't...

2011-04-03T20:38:22.649-06:00

You don't understand Mr. Grigg. This isn't a war - it's just a kinetic military action.

And a bank robbery is just a kinetic economic transaction.

Seriously, it is a delight to watch the hypocrisy derby as the "Bush's wars bad/Obama's wars good" lefties compete with the "Bush's wars good/
Obama's wars bad" righties. The doublethink and doublespeak from both sides exposes the serious lack of intellectual integrity of either party.

So Caesar has not only crossed the Rubicon; but, n...

2011-04-03T20:10:59.179-06:00

So Caesar has not only crossed the Rubicon; but, now has a four lane bridge for his convenience. No surprise, at least not anymore.