Hollow Words

93
2578
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

We go through the motions – often, because it’s the easiest thing to do. Inertia. We celebrate anniversaries without meaning. Wedding days in marriages gone cold.

And, of course, the Fourth.

That vapid day is coming ‘round again. People will drink beer and cook out and go through the motions. Some will launch illicit fireworks – real ones being mostly illegal now.

But only a cognitively dissonant American celebrates his “freedom” – which for the record isn’t even what the day is supposed to commemorate.

Read the words penned on that yellowed piece of parchment drafted by Massa Tom sometime. Few apparently do anymore. It is the “Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America.”

Not the Declaration of the (redacted) United States of America. It is an important distinction.

Plural vs. singular.

Confederated – that word! – rather than consolidated.

Thirteen independent states. Not a United – at gunpoint – state.

The latter is celebrated; the former forgotten – and not because of absent-mindedness but deliberately, via suppression of the fact because of what that fact implies.

But first, some history:

On that summer day in July of 1776, each former American colony became a state – i.e., a political sovereignty. Delegations from each of these sovereign states were empowered by the respective states to formally declare their individual independence from Great Britain.

New York had no authority to speak for Virginia – and certainly had no power to force Virginia to assent to anything. This included the terms of peace with Great Britain agreed to by each individual state at the conclusion of the war that followed the publication of the Declaration.

There was no treaty with the United States singular but with the United States, plural.

A stark contrast with today – and the existence of a single state governed by a central authority which imposes its will on all the administrative districts that were once-independent states.

Until 1865.

In 1861, eleven of the still-independent states decided – reasonably, if naively – to do what had been done 85 years prior, for essentially the same reasons. 

The Southern states objected to being governed by a distant authority whose authority had grown obnoxious to them – and which they longer consented to be governed by. And so, they withdrew that consent.

Well, they tried to withdraw it.

Consent of the governed…

Another heretical word – and even more heretical idea.

It has become a dirty word – chiefly because of the failed effort of those eleven Southern states to assert their independence.

This must not be spoken of anymore because of the dangerous implications.

If consent is a moral prerequisite to legitimate government then the government of the United States – singular – is illegitimate on the face of it.

Because no one now living has consented to it. And those now long-dead were made dead for attempting to withdraw their consent.

Since 1865, consent has become irrelevant. We are subjects, not citizens.

We find ourselves in the position of an inmate urged to cheer his jailers – and laud his prison.   

He is”free”  . . . to pace around his cell more or less as he likes. But never to leave it.

He wears what he is told to wear; does the work he is required to do. Paid – if at all – what his jailers decide he will be paid. He is permitted to associate with some – but not others.

As decreed by the authorities who run the prison.

Our jailed bird may eat the food he is offered – but isn’t free to eat what he wants.

He is “free,” in other words, to do as he is told – or be punished for not doing it.

This is the nature of the “freedom” we are expected to celebrate each year on the anniversary of the Fourth of July, 1776.

A prisoner urged to do so would not even go through the motions; he has more self-respect. He knows perfectly well that he is not free.

The average American believes he is – often, belligerently –  even as he also does as he is told. Even as he is forced to pay for “services” he didn’t ask for and doesn’t want or use but which others do want – and force him to finance.

Even as he is told that he may not transact business without  having obtained permission first – and ongoing.

Even though he is well-aware that if he goes about his business without having obtained permission, he will without question suffer punishment.

He knows isn’t free to not pay “taxes” – the euphemism used to describe the legalized theft of his money. Which isn’t really his because this creature called “the government” may seize as much of it as it likes whenever it likes.

Whatever he retains is only by sufferance – not by right.

He isn’t free to own property, either – no matter how much he paid for it or how long ago it was paid for. He is obliged to continue paying money to a government whose exactions – whose existence – he never consented to.

He may not refuse even to associate with those he would prefer to avoid – who may force him to associate with them.

He is “free” to do almost nothing  . . . except what he is told.

Which means, of course, that he – that we –  are also prisoners. Our “yard” is larger and our food is somewhat better, but the fundamental thing – that we are not free – is the same thing.

Which is nothing to celebrate – by fireworks or barbecue.

Rather, it is cause for mourning.

And for anger.

“Freedom”  without consent is like an air conditioner without refrigerant.

It doesn’t work.

The prisoner knows this.

Americans have forgotten it.

Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  

 

Share Button

93 COMMENTS

  1. We have never lived in a free country! The line “where things began to change for the worst” can be drawn anywhere after the Constitutional Convention really. This country has been at war for at least part of a year 93+% of the time since its founding. http://www .information clearinghouse.info/article 41086.htm (remove the spaces) We had the draft until the mid ’70’s, and the State was quite harsh on the anti-war protestors. As to Michael Jackson; I am no fan of his, but that light skin transformation was supposedly due to a skin condition that really exists.
    I liked some of the ’60’s and ’70’s rock, but I hated that bubblegum music. I also hate rap and most modern country music, but like folk fiddle music. I likewise hated those stupid baby on board signs! As if we would be tempted into ramming into their cars without them stupid signs!

    • T’is true, Brian- we never truly had freedom in the USA- and especially not after 1860- but the thing is, it was so much easier to fly below the radar the further back ya go; or just to live normally, and not be interfered with.

      Even in the 70’s (and I’ve seen this with my own eyes) if a woman said to a cop that she was being beaten by her husband, they’d just say “that’s not our business”- and unless someone was raping their kid or really brutally beating them, etc. and there was actual evidence of it (as opposed to presumed guilt) the state would not interfere.

      Tyranny just increased…little by little- with a few periods of BIG leaps- like during commie FDR’s reign of terror- and then little by little- law upon law; intrusion upon intrusion…till we got to where we are today where it’s 99% gone almost everywhere.

      But man! If we woke up tomorrow and found ourselves back in the 70’s, after having lived like this for the last 40-50 years, we’d feel so free, it’d boggle your mind.

      And yeah….Whacko-Jacko’s “skin disease”….which conveniently thinned his nose to about 10% of what it used to be, and straightened his hair…. 😀 LOL.

      As much as I couldn’t stand what he had become (He was O-K when he was a niglet), I did feel very sorry for him, for what the system did to him, based on nothing more than the mere accusation of some adolescent. The raiding of his house; the legal circus and fees; the ruining of his reputation; the stress and anguish and wasted time….it was truly disgraceful- and actually made me feel sorry for him, even though I couldn’t stand him.

      • Hi Nunzio,
        That nose narrowing thing was cosmetic surgery. I liked Michael Jackson’s fast paced songs, but disliked his slow ones where he sang like a girl. He was certainly very strange, and I felt sorry for him about the other issues too.

      • M-J was actually a fairly good-looking black kid, and I’m definitely not gay nor do I “walk on the Wild side”. As the joke about a white guy and a black guy ascending the high Himalayan mountain to reach the guru in the cave near the summit, and the response to the black fellow: “You IS what you IS..”

  2. Vicksburg, Mississippi had it right. They were invaded and subdued by yankee forces on 4 July 1863. Even after the South was forced back into the union with the horrors of Reconstruction, Vicksburg did not celebrate the 4th of July until sometime in the 1960’s. Don’t let Clover/SJW/commie infested Wikipedia tell you otherwise. Old folks passing on the truth of the matter to us young’uns say different.

    The only thing done usually in many places in the South in the 60’s for 4 July was kids buying firecrackers and mangling various bits of landscape. I never remember organized celebrations until the 70’s, maybe with the Bicentennial.

    • That’s why the reference to what was a war of Northern or Unionist aggression as a CIVIL war really rankles me, Crusty.

      First off, it wasn’t a conflict to overthrow the Federal government seated in Washington, DC, it was a breakaway, a war of INDEPENDENCE, much akin to the one fought by their great-grandfathers against the British! The Confederacy was lawfully established by its member states as a separate NATION, and was recognized as such by the UK and France. The “Civil” War was a war of CONQUEST, waged on the CSA by the USA, and considering not only Vicksburg but also Sherman’s infamous “March to the Sea”, not a terribly “civil” affair, Suh!

  3. Jefferson was clear that the ideal American was a yeoman farmer. He wrote that the United Sates would become corrupt when the people “are piled upon each other in cities, as in Europe.”

    Freedom as the Founders understood it was the government leaving you the hell alone. This is doable out on the frontier in a premodern society in which people are preoccupied with agricultural work from sunup to sundown seven days a week.

    The America of the Founders lasted until 1865. It was killed off by Lincoln and the North, which won the Civil War because it was more urbanized, had more people, more industry, and more money. By contrast America was founded by Southern farmers. Four of the first five presidents were Virginians — for good reason Virginia became the “cradle of the confederacy” only seven decades after the Constitution was ratified.

    Interestingly… most antebellum references to the nation were phrased as “THESE United States” — but after Lincoln created America 2.0, it became “THE United States.”

    But even Lincoln’s urban, Northern, industrial, corrupted America was fairly tolerable compared to what we have now. A least it recognized the need to AMEND the Constitution rather than simply buy off judges to defy the plain meaning and intent of the document.

    Hell, even the PROGRESSIVES of a century ago felt the need to amend the Constitution rather than f–ing laugh at it like the out-and-out commies do today…

    • Well-said, X. Amen.

      Even by the standards of 1985, America was strikingly more free than it is today. Especially in terms of the little things. No seatbelt, helmet or smoking laws. Kids ran around the neighborhood unleashed. There were cops with revolvers and without body armor and they generally left you alone unless you gave them a pretty good reason not to. People just out and about and minding their own business were not ordered to present ID. You could still “get away” with having a club just for the boys and hot dog stand didn’t need a ramp for the disabled.

      • …and in 1985 the drinking age was 18 just about everywhere… you could smoke everywhere too — including indoors.

        A LOT of the totalitarianism of today’s government comes from the feminization of our society. Single women without a good man invariably rely upon the government for a job and or/income, for promotions, for physical security, to help them raise their kids, to stand up to people who offend or simply annoy them, to help them escape the consequences of bad decisions (which is why they want government-funded abortions and “domestic violence” policies with no due process for the accused) and to perform tasks that they are unable or unwilling to do — like fix cars.

        1985 was not the United States of Kirsten Gillibrand, that’s for sure.

        • You hit the nail SQUARELY on the head, “X”, and counter-sunk it!

          Yes, “womyn” (re: feminazis and other assorted hags that you couldn’t get drunk enough to fuck anyway) cried out, starting when it was “Women’s Lib’ ” back in the ’60s and ’70s, that they wanted “independence” and to be treated “the same” as the men! Shit, they didn’t realize just how GOOD they had it! However, the harsh reality of life is this: women are the ‘weaker’ sex not b/c of endurance (they typically live LONGER than men, how many old hags do you know that went on for decades with ‘one foot in the grave’?), nor their peculiar and blessed ability to conceive and bear children (the epitome of their feminine nature), but due to that they less engage in problem-solving skills that most mechanics, engineers, and mangers, which are still MALE-dominated, nor are they, the FICTIONAL “Action Girls” like Star War’s Padme Amidala SKywalker or her daughter, the ‘feisty’ (which was DARING in 1977) Princess Leia, notwithstanding, inherently fighters or PROTECTORS. Unless I was a young man, there was a PRESUMPTION that a girl was “protected” by her father and/or her brothers or other male relative, and the primary duty for said protection was passed on to her HUSBAND upon marriage, and if that husband not only failed in that primal duty but became the aggressor, he could expect retribution from his in-laws! But once the role of the ‘patriarchy’ was greatly diminished, women still had to rely on some male(s) to protect them, and they found it via the legal system and its chain-dogs, the POLICE.

          Women are being taught not only to call the cops on their husbands if they strike them (and I don’t feel sorry for these louts, domestic violence is a serious CRIME and jail IS where they DESERVE to go, IF they are guilty), but over ANY dissatisfaction in the marriage or “relationship”…e.g., ALL shortcomings, real or perceived, on the part of the male are now “violence”, of which said male is presumed guilty, and not allowed due process to have his day in court.

          However, in the cause for ‘equality’, often it’s “womyn” getting trussed up on DV charges, whether versus husbands, boyfriends, or GIRLFRIENDS or ‘legal’ SPOUSES (ugh). A good friend of mine runs a DV counseling program, with two weekly session for the guys, and one for the ladies (they are, by design, not co-ed), and the numbers of these ‘ladies’ is increasing FASTER than the guys! One interesting case…a young lady and her b/f had a ‘tiff, and supposedly she smashed a picture frame (the pic was his OLD g/f, allegedly back in the ‘picture’) over his shoulder. She stomped out, and he was more than content that she not come back. This little bit of drama would and SHOULD have ended there…BUT…in the course of him making arrangements to have the old g/f’s things moved out, an attorney friend advised him that if HE didn’t press charges over the smashing of the picture on his person, that the g/f COULD press DV charges on him, even making it all up, since it was acknowledged that an incident had happened, and he could be thrown out of HIS house and she occupy it, even getting a court order to live there indefinitely! So, DV charges over this silliness were indeed made, and she was arrested and had to post bail (about $10K, I think). Ultimately she got the case dismissed in return for my friends 12-week “short” DV course, else, though likely she’d not gotten any jail time, as she had no prior record, it would have cost her about $2,000 in fines, with about $3,500 more in court costs and a “penalty assessment”, plus a minimum of 80 hours on work detail, and yes, you pay for THAT, uniform and meals included, and having a DV conviction, even a misdemeanor, is a terrible thing, as you forfeit 2A rights FOREVER under Federal and recently CA law, as well as licensing in quite a few professions. I must point out that had it been the guy whom smashed a pic frame on his g/f’s body, he’d definitely NOT been offered the 12-week course in return for a dismissal! As under CA PC 273.5 any DV resulting in ‘bodily harm’, however slight, is a “wobbler”, meaning it can be charged as a misdemeanor or a FELONY, even for someone with no priors. It the accused is on misdemeanor probation, or has a prior misdemeanor DV conviction, or is a FELON, even a non-violent one, that WILL be charged as a felony! So this guy , whom in times past would have let bygones be bygones, and simply forget about the loss of the picture frame, had little choice but to let the legal system grind on his erstwhile g/f, lest he be ‘grist for the mill” as well!

      • The mid 1980s marked the beginning of society’s unraveling for sure. Drinking age and seat belt legislation was making its way through state legislatures. The 55 mph speed limit was in effect. Those obnoxious “Baby on Board” signs found their way into cars in 1985. Going 70 mph on a highway would get you a big fat ticket. Although the computer systems were not very sophisticated, it would invariably be followed by a rate boost from insurance companies. AGWs got a big boost from the White House occupant as “heroes” in the “Drug War.”

        From a culture standpoint, the feminization had begun. Michael Jackson started prancing around like some android freak and began lightening his skin. Women loved it. The deep bass, which gave 70’s music its depth was taken out of popular music beginning around 1983. Cars were becoming Front Wheel Drive with far easier handling characteristics than the RWD counterparts.

        People largely agreed with the coming totalitarianism. If there had been a false flag event like 911 back in 85, large segments of society would have caved to what later became known as the TSA and the Patriot Act. After all the Energy Crisis False Flag of 73-74 gave us 21 years of the 55 mph speed limit. Only a small group, a band of determined drivers, got it repealed during the 1995 Congressional session. Otherwise, the die was already cast.

        The 80s was the decade of “No,” and it was no fun. The only thing worse is today with the third way feminist movement.

        • I’m not sure I want to know but why, exactly, does everyone hate “Baby on Board” & etc.?

          I personally have never noticed any especially bad driving coming from cars with those signs, or the stick figure family ones either. Make and model is usually a much more reliable indicator but even then, there are only a few cars prone to be driven poorly. Full-size pickup trucks in general, but the Ford F-series in particular, seem to be some of the overall worst.

          • It was the arrogant Clover mentality of the drivers, acting as if since their “little precious” was being transported that you “brutes” out there had to be on your “best behavior”.

        • I remember that time so well, Swampy!

          The late 60’s and the 70’s were paradise- and it was a gigantic blessing and privilege to have been born just at the right time to grow up in that time period. Very early 80’s: Still tolerable- but by Reagan’s second term, you could feel the difference- even in NYC, which had even been a good deal freer prior to then.

          Prior to that, even though government had already grown huge (especially in NY) you didn’t really notice it; it was easy enough to steer clear of, even if you weren’t really trying. By the mid 80’s, ya started getting the idea that you’d better start putting some real effort into steering clear, because it was starting to spiral out of control, and would sweep away anything that just happened to be in it’s pathy.

          By thge late 80’s, it became clear that there was no going back; things were never going to be the same again; tyranny was not going to be dialed back, but would just keep increasing until the average person had all they could stand, ’cause they can’t stands no more [-Popeye]…..and then something amazing happened: Everyone just started accepting how things were as if that was the way they had always been; and they had no interest in changing them…only in making things more commodious for themselves and or their favored interest- everyone else be damned. And here we are. 🙁

          • The 1950s were even better, Nunz. Despite a host of bullshit we had back then I’d go back in a heartbeat if it were possible. Mmmm, thinking about the Automat is making me hungry!

              • Thanks Jeremy! I used to eat at Horn & Hardart automats in New York pretty regularly. Good food cheap.

                An automat was a featured location in the 1962 film “A Touch of Mink” where we get to see some of the “magic” behind the shiny, automated facade.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTqjO-dHTmE

                Now where’s that Tardis?

            • Jason, I can only imagine!

              And funny- my mother also still reminisces about the automats! She grew up on W47th St.- and literally, not a week agao, was saying she wishes that the ‘mats were still around!

              I’ve only ever seen ’em in a few movies- and most memorably, in one of the lost episodes of The Honeymooners.

              And I can only imagine how great the 50’s must have been. It was largely the remnants of the 50’s that were still lingering, that made the 70’s as good as they were. (And the 70’s largely seem so good by comparison to how far we’ve fallen since)

        • The period 1972 to about 1988 was indeed the NADIR of American automobiles! No wonder the Japs took over, unlike our fathers and grandfathers, whom, after combat with the rice-eaters, beheaded them, boiled down their skulls, and stuck the skull on some rebar, brazed the Imperial Jap Army helmet to the top, and welded the rebar on the side of the tank or half-track, and thus festooned with the skulls of dead Japs, went off into combat!

          One only has to look at the Mustang II to understand it. Not a bad looking car, and trimmed down from the ’71 to ’73 models, which were getting much larger and HEAVIER than Lee Iacocoa’s ’64-1/2 creation. The trouble is, they were utterly GUTLESS. Not only a Pinto chassis, but the Pinto engines! For some stupid reason, the Cologne V6 used in the Capri wasn’t initially available! Even the 302 V8, which had some promise, was in its sedate 2 barrel version, with an tepid 135 horsepower on tap!

          Never mind all the quality control issues, as the Big Three virtually lost control of their workforce. There were numerous incidents, well-documented, of workers DELIBERATELY sabotaging the cars, and QC inspectors and engineers being assaulted on the line! Gone were the days when Henry Ford and Walter Chrysler would hire goons to stop that shit, they didn’t wait for the police!

    • In 1865, there was still a great deal of open land to be settled, and the native Americans (mostly Oglala Souix in the Dakotas and the Apaches in the Arizona territory) hadn’t YET been penned up in what were effectively concentration camps, or as we termed them, “Reservations”. Hmm…ol’ Adolf and the “Nat-Zees” (that hadda be “dee-stroyed”!) should have termed the jewish ghettoes of the “General Government”, what they termed their part of occupied Poland until 1945, likewise as “Reservations”, to point out our own hypocrisy on the matter. Even most states, which had been rushed into admittance by the North in order to wipe out Southern political hegemony (Nevada had only about 15,000 souls when it was admitted in 1864, even though the Constitution specified 30K as a minimum, in return for the pledge of their three electors to Lincoln’s “Union” party, keeping in mind that cashiered General McClellan had a serious threat to “Dishonest Abe” in his effort to get re-elected. Interestingly enough, one elector did abstain, and NV at the time did NOT include present-day Clark County, just imagine how different things would be if it were now Las Vegas, ARIZONA?), especially west of the Mississippi, were relatively sparse, for example, CA in 1860 had but 380K persons, which was still better than a four-fold increase from its 1850 report of some 93K persons.

      At least as far as establishing a business, what you paid and whom you employed, you were fairly much left to whatever the market would bear. As well as, if you wanted to be like the fictional Doc Emmett Brown of Hill Valley, CA, whom mysteriously appeared in 1885, and build some “infernal contraption” that made ice, no one thought it any business but YOURS.

      • Hey Doug,

        Talk of mystical unions, the centralization of power and suppression of regional authority are the tools of every national tyrant. There is a reason why Hitler admired Lincoln above all other presidents.

        Cheers,
        Jeremy

        • Interesting…even though the Americans that went to Spain in the 1930’s to fight the Fascists under Franco, whom Hitler supported (“Condor” legion) were known as the “Lincoln” brigade! What’s also interesting is how FDR spoke admiringly of Hitler, especially after the Munich Conference in September 1938!

          • Hey Doug,

            FDR’s new deal was consciously modeled on fascist ideology. Rexford Tugwell (chief architect of the first new deal) was a great admirer of Mussolini and envied his dictatorial powers that allowed him to implement the “cleanest, neatnest [sic], most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen”. FDR also greatly admired Mussolini and stated in private correspondence, “… I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman” and, “…I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished…”

            https://www.conservapedia.com/Fascism_and_the_New_Deal

            Of course, the sordid, racist and totalitarian roots of the “progressive” movement have been mostly flushed down the memory hole.

            Cheers,
            Jeremy

    • When LR talks about taxes, he doesn’t talk about how, prior to the 16th Amendment, people and businesses within our borders didn’t know the tax man. Taxes were paid at the border in the form of tariffs and such. We weren’t robbed-at least not initially, anyway.

      • He does mention it elsewhere, Mark. But regardless, what’s the difference? If Congress was granted the ability to lay taxes, with no restrictions being prescribed, it’s pretty much giving them carte blanche to do what ever they want.

  4. I choose to stay “anonymous” because it is easier than signing in and all that noise. I don’t live under the illusion that anonymity is even possible (I’m sure comments can be traced to the same IP address for example). I’m no tech wiz, but someone has eyes on this kind of thing.

    I’ve recently drunk the libertarian kool-aid, and am in the learning process. I’d like to learn a little bit more before I have an “identity” here. (You dudes can be brutal)

    As a regular reader (and most recently one to comment), the regulars have pretty unique writing styles. It isn’t difficult to determine which anon is which..

  5. As I have heard someone say before, there is no freedom without the freedom to say no. If you cannot say no, then you are not free. Simple as that. Full stop.

    • Hi Jay,

      Indeed. But there is a missing element – which is implied in what you’ve written but must be spelled out: One must be free to say no… without being punished for saying it. People could say no to Stalin – but there were repercussions. People can say no to Uncle – but there are repercussions. Until we can say no without them, we are not free!

      • Most especially, you can’t say “no” or otherwise be critical of the element that has “Uncle” by the “cajones”, namely, the Zionist J-O-Os running that criminal enterprise know as ISRAEL.

  6. “This makes me suicideily sad”

    Cheer up there are a couple of dates in July to celebrate.

    Mary Jo Kopechne day is July 18th. The day this great woman gave her life to save us all from another Kennedy in the Oval Office.

    Almost 30 years to the day, on July 16th, John Fitzgerald Kennedy Jr. ended his chances of becoming president.

    Junior doubled his uncle Teddy’s body count just twenty or so miles from Chappaquiddick.

    So enjoy July 16-18. Be safe. Stay dry.

    And just for you Jeremy https://youtu.be/eIqESwzCGg4

      • The wife is watching this and it makes me sad. I really liked this guy. It has nothing to do with what is being discussed but he is interviewed a lot through it and says real country and blues are inseparable….as I’ve always believed. It’s just “country” blues but even the same instruments. Anyway, I hope someone enjoys it.

        Til the rivers all run, till the sun falls from the sky, till life on earth is through, I’ll be needing you.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV8wbYM67Cw

  7. Unfortunately, very true. For those who still think we live in a free county, ask them this; list ten things that you can do that does NOT involve some tax or government regulation. I bet you can’t list even one! Even death involves the government and inheritance and estate taxes! No escape!!

  8. I just got back from Mexico, where THEY are referred to as Los Estados Unidos (not El Estados Unidos). It’s a shame that the English language uses the same article “the” to be used in both the plural and singular forms. If there were an article other than “the” for plural, this whole plural-to-singular sleight of hand may not have been able to have been achieved.

    • And the ones who didn’t like what I stood for referred to me as norte-americano…tousand needles. Not much I could say about that. They wrongly thought I was part of that. They seemed to think I was part and parcel of being a “thousand needles” when my only part was having a gun to my head to pay for it. Had I said same about them, we’d have had a fight on our hands. Of course Mexicans are always speaking of what “the government” is doing or not doing, the latter mostly. They think the government should be the end all be all since they’re over 500 years of genuflecting to a man with a queer hat.

  9. I went to get a passport from the sovereign state of Wisconsin. They laughed and told me to go to the DMV for my papers.

  10. well of course now the government is outsourcing its tyranny to its corporate servants so its outside of whats left of the constitution. Or is the government a servant of the corporations . Its hard to tell. Clearly theyre blending to come one and the same.

  11. Sad to say but it was the ‘founders’ that did this. We had the Articles which EXPLICITLY noted the States were sovereign. The government in Washington had little power over them and depended upon the States for funding. Then during what was supposed to be some simple changes to the Articles they (the Founders) canned the Articles for the Constitution saying they wanted a strong central government. The Constitution ripped sovereignty from the States and handed it to the central government. It WAS the several States,,, People were citizens of their State. The States had absolute control of the National government. The founders willingly and thoughtlessly changed this.

    The founders were extremely smart,,, they had to know the ‘strong central government’ would someday just ignore the Constitution and Declaration and it only took about 70 years. The CSA would have ended up the same, their Constitution gave them only slightly more leeway than the Northern version,,, mostly to do with slavery. What changed was the voluntary union of the several sovereign states became an involuntary union of captive states held together at gunpoint.

    It’s too late now…. the entire constitution has been usurped. IMPO there is no way to peacefully recover our lost liberty. The country is breaking up,,, hundreds of factions fighting each other over control of others and their resources. The breakup is baked in now…..

      • Didn’t Washington break this himself by becoming the leader of the federal govt. against its sovereign citizens in the Whiskey Wars? Seems to me it was downhill from there on. I can tell you we old Texans would have never stood for becoming part of the US. Not that the very ones who did had any choice. When there’s so many more guns against you than you have it’s just a matter of genocide till it’s a done deal anyway. To this day the Texas flag is the only flag that can fly at the same height of the US flag. Of course, you have to take this with that grain of salt so to speak since you can’t Force me to fly an American flag….or at least not yet as I know. Still, I refuse, come hell or high water. You can guess where I think the 50 stars belong.

        • Morning, Eight!

          I agree with you in re Washington. A (very) rich man leading troops to extract money – taxes – from very poor people. Federal troops. Among the first examples of the central authority flexing its muscles. I’m not sure whether the average American was better or worse off after the Revolutionary War, in terms of how much money was fleeced from him. The war benefited the planter/merchant aristocracy, of course – so we have a case of exchanging Who’s in Charge more so than Get Off My Back.

          • He also signed the bill authorizing the first central bank. He is said to say he knew it was unconstitutional but he signed it anyway.

            The Constitution was just a mechanism for bankers to regain control through bribed sociopaths.

            Would have been much harder to do in the decentralized Articles but the Constitution made it easy peasy.

          • Good morning eric. The tea tax that supposedly started it all was minimal and probably treating you and your land and family as the king’s subjects and eat your food and sleep in your bed was more the real incentive to say fuck you to England.

            Things might have worked out better if kicking the English out much later had been done as so many countries finally did. Fuzzy Wuzzy broke the square and sent England a packin. In that battle England said the square was never broken and technically that might have been true but every man there who survived said it certainly didn’t feel like a victory and that was the end of their rule. All the way to the top they felt beaten and a good offensive aimed at them would probably have convinced them immediately. Timing is everything.

          • Of course Posse Comitatus came later replacing the Insurrection Act. A US citizen, living in this country and being hunted and aggressed against with the military is now completely ignored. They used to dress it up in the guise of using the state militia. Even that’s gone.

      • Hi Nathan,

        I got a paragraph in before I had to stop. The author’s description of the “excellence” of Hamilton curdled my bowels. He was perhaps “excellent” in terms of his intelligence, but that man and his fellow-travelers are the source waters of our troubles today. It was he and other proponents of a “vigorous” central government who imposed exactly that upon us, who inserted the necessary shysterism (e.g., “general welfare,” “necessary and proper”) in the language of the Constitution to make it so, eventually.

        What Hamilton wanted was the British system with Americans in control of it.

        Hamilton and the federalists were the enemies of everything expressed in the Declaration – which Massa Tom ought to have written more carefully, beautifully written though it was.

      • Hello Nathan

        No,,, The founders were not betrayed, they betrayed the nation. The national government was not designed to be small. For it to control all the states, tax the people, fund a military it would ‘have’ to be huge. It is funny as hell that ‘conservatives’ always TALK about small government but watch what happens when someone proposes cutting the military….

        In the Articles the States were sovereign,,, thus they took care of most problems themselves. Other than interacting with other governments there was little for the national government to do and if it tried it could be easily overridden.

    • Ken,

      The federal gov’t started ignoring the Constitution almost right away. Exhibit A is the number of representatives in the House. The Constitution stipulates 1 rep for every 30,000 of population. In 1790, that would have meant 131 reps, but we only had 69! They knew that was little more than half, but they didn’t care; they ignored the clear language of Article I.

      If the feds hadn’t capped our reps @ 435 back in 1929, we should have 10,292 reps-WOW! Richard Proctor was on David Knight’s show yesterday, and they talked about this. If we had the 10,292 reps we should have, there’s NO WAY ON EARTH any oligarchs could get to all of them, because the power was too dispersed; 435 is a manageable number for an oligarch, whereas 10,000+ is not. Since we have gatherings of thousands at rock concerts, sporting events, etc., there’s no reason why we couldn’t have 10,292 reps today. The best part is that the reps would have to live in our districts, so if we were upset with something they did, we could talk to them about it PERSONALLY.

      But yeah, the feds started running roughshod over the Constitution almost IMMEDIATELY. The ink was barely dry before they started ignoring it. One of the more BLATANT examples of ignoring the Constitution was how we had little more than half the reps stipulated in 1790. That was barely TWO YEARS after the Constitution was written.

      • “The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand” — that’s a maximum number, not a minimum number. In other words, you can’t have one for every fifteen thousand.

      • I’ve often advocated several changes that would restore that intent:

        (1) Get rid of capping the House at 435 members, have one per about 250K persons, with a minimum of 200K and a maximum of 300K; this would restore the “local” nature of representation in the House. This would mean a House of about 1,300 members.

        (2) Have the House members serve on a PART-TIME basis, with NO salary or pension, but a modest stipend to cover travel expenses and the cost of a long-term hotel stay in the DC area when the Congress is in session, which would be limited to 120 days per year. There would be a modest general support staff in DC and a SMALL office funded via Uncle Sam in DC; any office “back home” would be the responsibility of that state. Also, NO pension, whatsoever. This would provide for service by folks whom already have means, who’ve “urrned” it outside of being a political hack!

        (3) Repeal the 17th Amendment. Let the states decide, as they once did, how THEIR two Senators are picked. Most would likely keep a popular election, but it’d be decided by that state. And likewise, as with the House, let the Senate have a modest full-time support staff back in DC, with the respective state picking up the tab for the local office, AND the Senator’s salary and pension, if any, as the six-year term would give reason to pay a salary. However, as with the House, the Senators should be bound by the same health care rules and tax laws as we “Mundanes” are!

        (4) Have the Electoral College adopt the “Congressional District” method as is used in Maine and Nebraska. This would open up many states which are currently “in the bag” for one candidate or the other. The “battleground” for the POTUS election should be as much of the country as possible!

        • Hey Anon,

          Great post, I’ve been making similar arguments for awhile. I agree with most of what you say but would go much lower than 200 – 300K representation.

          I wrote this a few months back.

          Currently, each house member “represents” an average of about 850,000 people. In the early days of the Republic, the ratio was about 30,000 to one. This means that the relative power of each individual to their “representative” has decreased nearly 30 fold. The 17th amendment destroyed the last vestiges of state sovereignty and effectively neutered the power of the states to check the power of the Federal government. Senators were supposed to represent the interests of each state, and could be fired at the will of the legislature. Now they are just better paid, more pretentious and less accountable “representatives”.

          The 17th amendment was pushed by the apostles of Democracy as a populist, anti-elitist means of granting more power to the people. Its’ effect has been to further consolidate power in the Federal government and to eliminate the bicameral system intended as a check on that power. It was the last nail in the coffin of “limited government” in the US. The push for more Democracy quite literally destroyed the “Republic”.

          So, what is to be done? Because I find it very unlikely that people will suddenly realize that voluntary cooperation is actually what makes society work and that society functions despite the State, not because of it, considering ways of improving what exists is important. Those who advocate Democracy but do not recognize its’ inherent flaws are dangerous. Still, we will be stuck with this system for awhile, so we might want to think about ways to improve it.

          These are my proposals and I’d love to get some feedback.

          First, repeal the 17th amendment. This would restore the bicameral system and, perhaps, make the 10th amendment relevant again.

          Second, eliminate the cap of 435 house members and restore the ratio of 30 to 35 thousand to one.

          Third, require all representatives to reside, full time, in the district they “represent”.

          Today, there is no reason why “representatives” need to meet in a single building. Thus, the existence of 9 to 12 thousand representatives does not pose a logistical problem today, as it did in the past. Requiring them to live among their constituents would make it almost certain that they would actually have to interact with them, which would impose some external check on their behavior.

          Counter intuitively, drastically increasing the size of the House is a form of radical decentralization. It would dramatically increase the power of each individual relative to their “representative”. In addition, it would make rent seeking by corporations far more costly and inefficient because they would need to buy off hundreds of congressman instead of just a few.

          Kind Regards,
          Jeremy

          • Jeremy, I’d say divide the districts in degrees straight across the US on a vertical N to S plane. This would include the flyover country with the huge masses on each coast broken into districts with flyover country. I don’t know how this would divide things up degree by degree but I’d guess there’d be enough flyover people to offset the massive cities of the coasts. It would even divide up such as the Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex and LA, Houston area and (we’d hope)NYC.

            I’d be interested to see what amount of degrees would pit an equal or close to equal number of the people who despise freedom with those who love it.

            It would be an interesting thing to draw those lines at various distances and see what people would be represented by each rep. Naturally I’d like to keep everyone at odds like when a bunch of DC people came to look at the Texas house when Coke Stephenson was leader and the house was aroar with everybody talking at the same time. They asked why he didn’t call the house to order and his reply was “If I did that, they might start passing laws.”

        • Anon,

          Loverly! So the same fools who sit on juries and let cops get away with murder, can have their wills better represented. ….

            • Hey Jer!

              I’m objecting to the idea that having better “representation”, by having more representatives, would in any way change anything for the better- since the majority of ‘our’ problems exist because of the average person’s failure to embrace the basic principles of liberty.

              In fact, we’d likely be worse off than we are now, since 80% of the population now reside in cities or metropolitan areas, where they either practice or at least gladly tolerate liberalism and much tyranny.

              And ultimately, it would result in even MORE government…..

              • Hey Nunz,

                Thanks for the explanation. Alas, I think your analysis is incorrect. Increasing the number of representatives to a 30,000 to one ratio would radically decrease the power of any individual representative. It would render rent seeking by corporations much more costly. It would make powerful, small coalitions capable of ramming bi-partisan shit through Congress far more difficult. It would also make it untenable that all the assholes meet together, live together, etc…

                That is why I would bar representatives from living outside of their own district. This would have two positive benefits. First, in a relatively small group of people, the representative would likely have to interact with actual people. This alone would create an external check on their actions because people can tolerate abstract, distant criticism far more readily than personal, up close confrontations. Second, it would break the insular, disconnected reality of national politicians. These people, quite literally, live in a different world than we do. They all live in the same echo chamber, they are protected from any interactions outside of that club. No matter there professed differences, they have more in common with each other than with any of “us”.

                It’s no about improving representation, it’s about decreasing individual power and decentralizing aggregate power. Look, I’m a philosophical anarchist so I don’t believe such a structure would be legitimate, just likely to be better than what we have now. I also don’t know that it would work to reduce Federal power. However, we’re not going to get a critical mass of people who realize the inherent illegitimacy of political authority anytime soon.

                You write,

                “And ultimately, it would result in even MORE government….”

                I can think of no credible reason as to why this would happen and numerous theoretical reasons why the opposite result is more likely.

                Cheers,
                Jeremy

                • Mornin’ Jeremy,

                  I do agree with you that having more reps would probably cut down on the buying of special interests and such; and that requiring reps to actually live among their constituency should be mandatory.

                  I do believe, that yet more politicians, and thus miore of the aparatus surrounding them, would just mean more government; and that there would either be no difference, or even a negative effect if people were better represented, considering the tendencies and beliefs of the average person today- However, if they had had better representation in the past, before the government started controlling the behavior of and influencing the very thoughts of people, THEN things likely would have never gotten to the abysmal point where they are now.

                  So I guess my point is that better representation could have slowed things down a bit if retained since the early days of what was then a minarchy…..but if enacted now, wouldn’t make a noticeable difference- except perhaps in some very minor ways.

                  I’d imagine it would just be empowering more politicians; and empowering more practitioners of ‘democracy’- and I do believe, considering the ideas I see most citizens expressing these days, it would just essentially give leftists an even stronger presence )Just think how many reps there’d be from CA and NY alone!), while at the same time, allowing the leftists who live in conservative states a greater voice- thus effectively increasing their ranks in Wurshington (as if DC isn’t leftist enough already! 😀 )

                  Ultimately, no matter what scheme of government/authority/collectivism that exists, nothing would change fundamentally until; and if the minds and hearts of a significant number of citizens changed to that of pursuing liberty and casting off tyranny- which of course, I know you know and agree with.

                  • Hey Nunz,

                    If I understand your argument correctly you are asserting that more congressman would likely result in more government. I still fail to see the mechanism that makes this likely. More congressman does not mean that the power of Congress, as a whole, would increase. In fact, it would decrease dramatically. I base this assertion on two assumptions: humans act with self interest and incentives matter.

                    First the position would likely attract fewer sociopaths because their individual power would be vasty diminished. Second, the cost of corporate capture would be much higher and would likely render those practices economically inefficient. Third, coalition building would be much more difficult, perhaps limiting instances of bipartisan consensus, which is nothing more than ramming the worst ideas of both parties down our throats. Finally, it would make it much more likely that outsider candidates were elected.

                    Cheers,
                    Jeremy

          • I agree Nunzio! Statism of every flavor has been tried in over 100 countries for over 10,000 years, and has only ever been a success for those on top!
            So what if some wealthy investors (who already had everything to gain by living in a new free country) would have not profited from their war-time investments? The CONstitutional CONvention was just like the TARP bailout: the people were robbed so that the investors wouldn’t have to take a haircut! Even the government prior to the convention was imposed upon us. Show me the election results with the names of the majority of all affected people having chosen to be governed in that way. Nobody can, because the real founders (the citizens) had no way in the matter until it was imposed upon them by force and domination! People are so muddle headed! They know that the early politicians broke all treaties with the Indians; yet they persist in the belief that those same people intended to establish a good government for we, the people!?! Bahhhh!
            Invading other countries is very expensive, therefore the central treasury is the top target by the Invaders to seize. They also co-op the entrenched bureaucracy ,who want to remain employed, to maintain control over the population. Having no central treasury or government seat and a heavily armed public would have been far better protection from foreign Invaders than having a government!

            • WELL-SAID, Brian!!! [Clap clap clap!]

              I can only ad one thing:

              Even if there had been an election….it still would not have legitmized anything, except what the specific people who voted yea for, to be imposed on them, and them only- as they do not have any legitimate claim over the lives of those who would have voted nay, nor over anyone else, including us, 200 years later.

              {I think I’m going to copy your post and save it!]

    • The Constitutional Convention was a coup engineered by the holders of Revolutionary War Debt who discovered that the government constructed by the Articles of Confederation was too fiscally weak to ensure the debt they held couldn’t be repayed.
      Much better to destroy freedom than allow that to happen.

      • ^^^This^^^
        As I said before, the Founders were betrayed. I could not find the exact words needed to express it, but Bill Jones has said it better than I could. Although I did not know the specifics as to WHY , I assumed the usual motives of them seizing power for power’s sake.

    • IDK if the establishment of the Constitution could be characterized as a “coup” against the several states. The Federal government under the Articles was under-funded, indeed, scarcely funded at all, and it failed in its primary purposes: to promote mutual self-defense of the country, to encourage free trade and commerce between the several states, in in reality were acting like independent nations, and to pay off the considerable debts arising from the Revolutionary War. The states themselves were having a rough time collecting enough taxes to even pay the interest on their notes; hence things like “Shay’s Rebellion” in MA in 1786. Hence the purpose in the Preamble: “We the People, in order to form a MORE PERFECT UNION…”, in acknowledgement that the Union existed but was in need of some ‘tweaking’.

      However, and perhaps with a degree of naivete’, the Founders NEVER envisioned what would become of the Federal Government. The language was clear: It was to be the SERVANT, and not the MASTER as indeed Lincoln ever-so-forcefully made clear!

      An entertaining but nonetheless informative movie is “1776”, a 1972 musical with Howard DaSilva as Benjamin Franklin. One Blythe Danner had a small role as Mrs. Thomas Jefferson (before the libturds made much of Jefferson’s alleged dalliances with the mulatto slave girl, Sally Hennings, never conclusively proven), with her unborn daughter, Gywneth (Paltrow) in the ‘oven’, though with the costume used the pregnancy wasn’t evident). The movie touches well on all the carping, bickering, and political infighting that went on that hot Philadelphia summer of 1787! It certainly wasn’t as lighthearted a proceeding as the “Schoolhouse Rock” version!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHp7sMqPL0g

  12. Hi Eric,

    “Consent of the governed” is as absurd a concept as the “general will”, propagated by the proto-totalitarian twit, Rousseau. It should be obvious, even to the most dim-witted, that if one cannot refuse consent, one cannot grant it. Likewise, the concept of just authority derived from delegation of such authority from each individual to the State is preposterous. One cannot delegate an authority that one does not possess.

    Political authority is a myth, those who believe in it do so on faith but lack the self reflection to understand that their conviction is neither rational, logical or empirically justified. The “new atheists” like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are insufferable because they actively seek to destroy the faith of others while remaining in complete ignorance about their own faith. Statism is the world’s most dangerous religion, made even more so by the widely held belief that it is not a religion.

    Cheers,
    Jeremy

    • Consent of the governed is an oxymoron, since if you can withdraw your consent, it ain’t a government. It’s even meaningless to talk of “withdrawing” that you never “drew” in the first place.

      An HOA, for example, isn’t a government precisely because you have to explicitly agree to it by buying a house where the contract says the HOA is part of the deal, and the association can be ended at any time by selling the house.

      • The Lawn Nazis, AKA HOA, Community Association, etc. may not be a government, but they DO go against the very idea of property ownership by infringing upon my right to do as I please with my property. Property rights are indeed the one great idea that enabled all the others. Without the ability to own property unencumbered by others, what good is freedom of speech? Why, yes, you can say what you will, but we can tell you you can’t put it on a sign in front of your house, why that is so dirty and low class! It will not be done, and we will force you to not do it…on your own property.

        Property ownership must be absolute, or tyrants will absolutely abrogate it!

        • I have some friends who live in an HOA. They could…and have had nice places, kinda sorta in the country except they’re in residential neighborhoods even though it might be on a lake. They had a nice place near Huntsville with enough property to be grown up and wild. They have had nothing but hell with the HOA because the old man does wtf ever he wants as far as trees, shrubs, etc. They installed a nice line of shrubs to give a bit of privacy in the front lawn only to be cited by the HOA as blocking the view of their house(of courses it wasn’t tall enough to do so…but would be someday). And its amazing how many people will call for shit like leaving a ladder against the house at night when they’re doing repairs. My life would be short in an HOA. These places are where you find the very totalitarians that hate freedom. They’re all narcs and seem to live to file grievances against anyone not “genuflecting” properly.

          • Hi Eight

            I dislike HOAs but don’t oppose them, because you’re free to not buy a house in a neighborhood that has a HOA. You can say no, in other words. If you say yes, you’ve freely consented to the HOA and have no basis for complaint.

            But government is very different.

              • That was the big appeal of the home I used to own in Citrus Heights, CA…no “Mello-Roos” (meaning additional taxes on top of property taxes, in defiance of the intent of Prop 13 which the libtards hate so much), and no HOA…gone via divorce, unfortunately!

            • Unfortunately Eric, HOAs are like kudzu, once they get established, all the “smart” SJW developers want their development to have one! And, HOAs run with the land, they cannot be eliminated by the “consent of the governed”, unless the bylaws have some reasonable mechanism to amend them (most do not, for obvious reasons).’

              Try finding a non-Lawn-Nazi-encumbered house in most of the Houston area, for example. Sometimes, there are TWO Lawn Nazi orgs stacked on top of each other in many places.

              The HOA is zoning by any other name, but with a non-accountable blue haired SJW Clover in charge…think of that for a moment. Something WORSE than a city council!

              • Where I live has an HOA. They literally never do anything. Occasionally hold a meeting (at 10AM on a Saturday so no one attends), or collect membershp dues of about $75 a year. The rest of the time, no one even thinks about them. They do have one extremely bletcherous rule which is that, in order to maintain the wild, Alaskan feel of the place, a certain percentage of the trees that were there when the house was built (or when you bought it, or something) have to stay… in other words, good luck getting rid of all the cottonwoods (“weed trees”) trying to kill your lawn and garden!

                • We have an HOA at our current house and our rental. The rental HOA appears to be a much bigger pain in the arse. But, it was a part of the purchase agreement I signed, with ample warning by the realtor, so I’m fine with it.

                  The property taxes, not so much.

      • True…consent of the CITIZENS would have been a better phrase. Hence why the 2A and it’s explanatory clause as “A well-regulated militia, being NECESSARY to the SECURITY of a FREE state..”, is most certainly not fulfilled by the respective state’s NATIONAL Guard (itself actually a “Federal” military entity, “on loan” to the state until the President “activates” it, in the capacity of its several members as Army or Air Force reservists). The intent of the Founding Fathers was that the default military capability was devolved as much as practical to the citizens at large themselves, this is supported not only in the Federalist Papers but also by the passage of the Militia Acts of 1792, which REQUIRED all able-bodied men ages 16 to 45 to possess a musket or rifle, powder, ammunition, and necessary accouterments to function as infantry, and to keep them “in good order” and to DRILL on a regular basis. Not only should the “redcoats” return, or the “Injuns” get “restless” was this needed! Even George Washington himself pointed out that the militia was the answer to how to deal with a Government gone tyrannical! Some two centuries ago, had the new-fangled “Feds” gotten “too big for their britches”, it would have been considered appropriate for the militias to assemble, march on Washington, and throw the bastards out!

    • Hi Anon,

      Please don’t kill yourself. If you’re the lady anon that has been posting regularly, I enjoy your contributions.

      BTW, can’t you anons figure out some way to distinguish yourselves from other anons? One of the great things about this place is developing relationships with particular people. This enhances community and conversation. I understand the desire to be anonymous, but I don’t understand why one can’t be anonymous and differentiated.

      Cheers,
      Jeremy

      • Jeremy, I thought the same thing. What could Eightsouthman possibly mean to other people. Only 4 people know what it means and I really wish it was only 3 or 2. One helped me to become that and it’s because of him I was able. But there’s no way of guessing what it means. But I’ll tell you it’s near and dear to me….and once to many others, whether they know it or not……and they don’t. I don’t mind telling you the next time we visit. But maybe we’ve covered that and I just don’t remember. I have a way of doing that. Cheers to you. peace b

      • I was Anonymous. Then I decided my name was not important because I am no one of consequence, but no one to be trifled with. I’m not the real dread pirate anonymous; the real anonymous is retired and living like a king in Patagonia, while I am just unemployed in Greenland. I used all these different names but it was just work, work, work trying to decide which one to use each time.

LEAVE A REPLY