If only we had the right people in office

I think this myth can be destroyed along with "for the greater good". The system we have, fattened and corrupted by income taxes, will not be improved by plugging in different players, not substantially , anyway. It's not like Fantasy Football where different players can make a huge difference.

Our government needs systemic changes, with a few changes being -- repeal the 16th Amendment, rewrite the commerce Clause and clarify "general welfare". These three fixes would go a long way toward saving America from socialistic collapse, like Rome collapsed long ago from the sheer weight of pedal-to-the-metal bureaucracy and statism. 

As I've written about lately, and quoted from Frank Chodorov, it's not likely that the American people will even consider making these changes, and certainly no political leader is going to bring it to the forefront of the American consciousness. Which brings up a question -- are there any political leaders capable of fighting statism? Will this fight, if, indeed, it is a fight, against statism be a leaderless battle? It seems that all revolutions and counter-revolutions require brave and wise leaders. Well, perhaps not, because if Chodorov was right and the 1913 passage of the 16th Amendment was a Revolution, then perhaps great change can come from a popular movement with no identifiable leader. I suppose you could say that Teddy Roosevelt and Taft were the leaders, but no one had any idea a Revolution was taking place -- the people simply wanted to soak the rich, and the government liked the idea of having that great source of revenue.

The sad part of all this is that after decades have passed, people still want to "soak the rich" and haven't caught on that the rich aren't the problem. The fact that this is so is a testament to the power of State propaganda and control. 

Leaders or no leaders, if we repealed the 16th Amendment, many people wouldn't comprehend the impact, but it would be world changing. Changing players in a bad system doesn't work -- changing the system does. Giving government the power to raise a limitless amount of money creates statism -- limiting the revenues the government can raise limits the government's power.

I firmly believe that unless the states combine to repeal the 16th Amendment we can not stop statism, no matter who is in office.

Repeal the 16th Amendment!

We can talk about healthcare, Palin, Iran, cap and trade, global warming cons, NY-23, national debt, tea parties, socialists in the White House, corruption, unemployment and a dozen other topics, but as long as government has the power to tax our income there is nothing more important than a national movement to repeal the 16th Amendment, but this needed effort doesn't look promising, even when viewed from the past:

Frank Chodorov writes, regarding the original Constitution and the subsequent 16th Amendment:

Certainly, no tax on incomes got into the Constitution. That was unthinkable. A people that had but recently kicked over the traces because of taxes far less onerous would hardly have countenanced an income tax. They knew their freedom.

The case for repeal rests on this tradition. If there are still enough Americans who are of the opinion that that government governs best which governs least, if there is among us a group willing to risk their fortunes, their lives, and their sacred honor for freedom, then repeal has a chance. If, on the other hand, the habits of mind acquired under income taxation have completely obliterated the American tradition, then any effort to restore citizen sovereignty is futile.

It is never too late to put up a fight for freedom.
Right now, even in America, the prospect for starting such a fight is unpromising. Not that the goal is unattainable, but that the interest in freedom is at so low an ebb. The great enthusiasm of the times is "security"; it is a mirage sprouting out of deep-rooted human yearning for something-for-nothing. Government, which lives and thrives on power, fosters belief in the "golden calf," so that it can surreptitiously rob the self-mesmerized worshipers of their wealth and their dignity. It requires no great acumen to realize that what trickles out of the government's cornucopia must be replaced by labor. But reflection is foreclosed by the madness that has come over us. The national passion is for handouts, no matter what the cost. Freedom, which puts a premium on self-reliance, is in short demand. Why put up a fight for it?

The rank and file, those whose principal preoccupation is with the problem of existence, are in no mood to argue with the beneficient State; they are for letting well enough alone. These Americans who have pretensions of over-average capacities are also quite willing to put their self-esteem on the barrellhead. The entrepreneur whose venture would not exist but for government loans or government contracts readily makes peace with government regulation. So long as government bonds pay interest, the banker will not quarrel with government intervention. The farmer does not object to the meddlesome federal agent who brings him a gratuity, and the professor who lives by subsidies will write books in praise of the subsidizing State.
  Who wants freedom?

First, there must be recognition that freedom is valuable and that statism is fed by the income tax -- then, there must be the willingness to sacrifice for liberty. It's not wild-eyed idealism that has to burn in the hearts of the American people, although that wouldn't be so bad -- but something deeper than economics must be at play. Perhaps no one cares about property, individual rights and liberty in modern America, but I find this difficult to believe. I believe Americans have been sold a bill of goods and the fraud must now be revealed, once again. Perhaps every so often the American people will have to re-evaluate where they are and what they want, and this is one of those times. There should be no queasiness about calling theft what it is -- theft.

Where are the people who will fight statism? Politics is a game of illusion, but the time has come for objectivity, honesty and reality. Grownups can no long afford to play the game of illusion. I will be writing daily through December about fighting statism. It's time to come out of denial and face responsibility.

America finances statism

Dependence on government subsidies, grants, protection, entitlements, etc. has grown to proportions which make resistance to statism almost impossible. The insanity of this dependence is that government produces nothing -- all the money used to support the dependents comes from the American people. Future opinion of our actions will not be kind to us. We've destroyed the only thing that stands between us and tyrants - an inviolable Constitution. But it's not just the amendments -- some amendments, such as the 13th amendment, have been necessary due to oversight, or lack of will, in the beginning. We couldn't have made it without such amendments. But reason tells us that the 13th amendment was in the spirit of the Declaration of Indpendence -- it should have been a part of the orginal Constitution.

The egregious violations of the Constitution, such as the 16th amendment, have more to do with a shift in philosophy which is antithetical to the Declaration of Independence. Once we allowed government to tax us directly, to confiscate our income, based on the idea that income should be redistributed, we also allowed our philosophy to shift and to deny property rights. The income tax opened the door for our government to control us, to intimidate us into compliance, to wage huge wars, to redistribute wealth, to allow corruption to spread, to manage the economy, to pick winners and losers in industry, to create a mountain of debt, and, consequently, to transfer power from the people to the state.

The Declaration of Independence is a philosophical document which brought to life a New Order of liberty against the Old Order of domination by rulers over their subjects. The New Order was the epitome of the Renaissance and it brought a measure of freedom, reason and light to subjugation, superstition and darkness. This might be a quaint fairy-tale to those who talk about bending the cost curve and compromising like quivering sycophants to the throne to determine the amount of liberty and property we're planning to surrender, but for some of us believe the philosophical power of Declaration of Independence has never faded and is still applicable.

In large part, many Americans have become immoral dependents, trained to use the power of the state to take what belongs to others without an ounce of shame or second thought. Taking what belongs to others has become normalized -- most people expect the government to confiscate large amounts of the people's wealth to distribute as politicians see fit, and for whatever political gain they can dream. There are some in society who can't help themselves and are in true need of assistance, and there is no shame in receiving this type of help, although there are better ways to provide this assistance through the private sector -- but for many who merely pad their own well-being off the sweat of others, there should be shame.

 And if someone refuses to cough up the proper amount of their wealth, the state has a goon squad which will hunt them down make sure they pay the price for resistance -- unless the tax dodger has political connections, then the goons go blind, deaf and mute, but not without a wink. This is not to say that all the good people working for the IRS are goons, just that the IRS produces goon-like behavior from good and bad people alike.

I don't think I could work for the IRS, but you never know -- unemployed and offered a position, I might rationalize my decision and choose to take the job, and this is the danger of a powerful state -- it sucks people in and eventually becomes indispensable -- it can make good people bad over time. Hardly anyone is taught about the dangers of a powerful state, so it's natural for many that the state should collect money from those who have it and give it those who want it -- this is the way to fairness, right? What it does is limit the people's property, making it more difficult to excercise their free will. You could say that this not true, because the state helped many people buy homes who couldn't have afforded a home -- but who are these people indebted to -- FHA -- and who is now helping them out with their mortgages when they can't meet their obligations? The state. And if the state has their way, Fannie and Freddie will be their landlords.

The tenacles of the state are reaching into every area of lives, and we are financing every power grab they make. Doesn't make sense, does it?

Why pundits don't understand Sarah Palin's appeal

Since most of the pundits pontificating on Sarah Palin don't understand her appeal, they should stick to what they understand -- politics. I don't make claim to being mind-melded to the heartland of America, but I have a better perspective than the political class who think of the country outside Washington D.C. as ignorant, docile subjects to the powerful state.

Between 1988 and 1991 I had to go to D.C. about six times a year to deal with a contract we had with AmTrak, and I can't think of a another place in this country more antithetical to the traditional idea of America than Washington D.C. -- it's a gross misrepresentation of our country. What D.C. represents is what's wrong with our country -- statism. All of the muscle-bound architecture is an affront to innovation, individual liberty and the creative spirit of the free market. All the arrogant waste is a sign of our past apathy and ignorance. All the dire poverty, blocks from the opulence of power, is representative of our dependence.

The restaurants/bars full of political players speaking loudly and drunkenly represent a country on a binge, spending money and creating a mess we'll pass on to our children and grandchildren to pay for and clean up, or wallow in as they spiral further downwards in collapse, taught by their parents only how to party and spend. One day, though, a future generation will look back and wonder in disgusted amazement how we could make heroes of men like Edward Kennedy while denigrating the heartland as rubes and racists, undeserving of a voice in governance.

Washington D.C., with its New York financial connection and Hollywood/media image connection, is a cancer spreading through the body of America, and now the body is beginning to fight back. The heartland of America is fighting back against an arrogant state which thinks it can control a country born in individual liberty and individual rights. Washington D.C power players look across America and see a collective to be manipulated into power bases of dependent voters -- what they miss is the diversity and the awakening. The power players have no idea how vulnerable they are against the people of this country, once the people wake up and act.

Sarah Palin understands the power of ordinary people, the diversity which makes up America, and the arrogance of paternalism. Because Sarah Palin is an individual not made in Washington D.C. and not approved by the D.C. power players, she must be destroyed. It has nothing to do with the individual -- Sarah Palin -- it has to do with the image -- Sarah Palin -- that the power players perceive as dangerous. Any one of these power players who met Sarah Palin at some social event, if Palin was not the image she is now, would have no problem with her and would no doubt like her or be indifferent to her -- but they'd have no reason to hate her.

The D.C. power players hate what Sarah Palin represents -- a diverse public outside D.C. fighting against state power. The power players will hate anyone who rises above the perceived collective -- Beck, Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, Coulter, etc. The only reason all these people are on the right is that no liberal has risen from outside, or inside, the D.C. statist culture to become a popular voice against statism -- but make no mistake, the first liberal who rises up and becomes a popular voice of resistance, will be destroyed. Statism and power are what the Washington D.C. political class is protecting, and anyone from the "collective" across America who rises to challenge statism will be attacked.

Sarah Palin's appeal is that she empowers ordinary people against a powerful, over-reaching and impersonal state. This, the political class can't have.

Reclaiming the Right

Rightwing has become somewhat of a confused and convoluted position. Moving forward, or backward, the libertarian/right movement of the 30s and 40s, the right has transformed into something unrecognizable. Murray Rothbard wrote an essay in 1964 about the transformation, and the Rothbard would be even more appalled today, 45 years later, as the right is in a greater, confused state of intellectual disarray.

There is evidence of a present resurrection among independents and some conservatives, but it remains to be seen if this resurrection is grounded in anti-statism and non-intervention overseas like the Old Right. Hardly anyone is addressing the internal threat of statism as both left and right have found new external threats which take precedence over liberty, peaceful trade and free markets. The modern right gives lip service to classical liberal principles, but these principles are largely viewed as quaint ideas of a simpler, less dangerous past.

The old charge of "isolationism" missed one of the core values of the Old Right, what Rothbard described as America "serving the world as a beacon light of peace and liberty, rather than as master of a house of correction to set everyone in the world aright by force of bayonet."

The perceived threat of communism turned the right into militaristic statists, retrenching into a traditional system satisfied with temporary loss of freedom for the sake of Power, God and Nation, much like Bush's betrayal of the free market to save the free market. Individual liberty, free markets and limited government became something we could attain later, but, in effect, classical liberalism was being traded for a statist-leaning conservatism. Many moderate statists today yearn for Buckley when they should yearn for Nock.

The New Order created by the Industrial Revolution, the American Revolution and the French Revolution has been sliding back to the ogligarchic control of the Old Order, but it has a new face. Today's conservativism, which passes for the Right, is a conglomeration of muddled thinking, although a strain of classical liberalism/libertarianism is breaking through. Anti-communism was replaced with anti-terrorism, and while both have been threats, each has been a rationalization for building a more powerful, interventionist state. "Terrorists" are actually statists using different tactics, and America continues fighting statism with more powerful statism, just as we did with the communists. The weapon to use against statism is anti-statism, but we have to believe that statism is wrong in order to use this weapon properly and too have any integrity.

If it's a matter of the most powerful statists winning, then we might win the war of control, but how many innocent people must die in the process? How much liberty must be lost? And if the idea of statism lives on, then we'll always be fighting some other statist power which challenges us for control. Where are the voices of anti-statism in the world, upholding the New Order of classical liberalism which transformed the world once upon a time? The progressives are preaching a stale moral relativism, while the conservatives are preaching military superiority, but no one is preaching individual liberty, free markets and limited government. It seems as if these principles have been assigned to obscurity as we discuss ways for groups of states to control the world.

We are no longer that "beacon light of peace and liberty", just a powerful state with no vision of the future. It embarrasses most intellectuals to even think in such terms of having a vision of the future inspired by classical liberal principles, much less voicing these principles full-throatedly and attempting to persuade others to follow, or, through our actions, lead by example.

The world should be tired of war by now, but there are no champions for peace. The world should be tired of coercion by now, but there are no champions for liberty. The world should be tired of central planning and social engineering, but there are no champions of limited government and voluntary action. Well, there's not many champions, and the ones who do raise their voices are called reactionaries, rubes, rightwing fanatics, gullible, isolationists -- they are ridiculed and marginalized. To be fair, some strains of the right deserved ridicule and marginalization, and we're better off for their loss of power and influence, but, hopefully, the original resistance by libertarians to the Rooseveltization of America will never die.

There's still a useful distinction between right and left, but the right has been reduced to a few surviving libertarians screaming against a powerful and destructive wind. Melodramatic? Quixotic? I prefer to think that it's a healthy defense of liberty, and an authenic call for peace and prosperity for all -- a right resistance to a statist left and a confused moderate middle.