Western Rifle Shooters Association

Do not give in to Evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it

Thursday, November 8, 2007

It's Time to Part Company

As you read this column from 2000 by economist Walter Williams, ask yourself if any of the issues cited by Dr. Williams have improved over the past seven years.

Then ask yourself, with a mere 363 days until the 2008 election, if you can rationally expect any of these same issues to improve over the next seven years of Demoblican rule.

One political question we have to answer is whether George W. Bush or Albert Gore shall be president, and just which party will control the House of Representatives and the Senate.

But I'd suggest that there's a far more important long-run question we must answer: If one group of people prefers government control and management of people's lives, and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, and risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences, or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?

Like a marriage that has gone bad, I believe there are enough irreconcilable differences between those who want to control and those want to be left alone that divorce is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.

Let's look at just some of the magnitude of the violations. Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution enumerates the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained it in The Federalist Papers: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

Nowhere among the enumerated powers of Congress is there authority to tax and spend for: Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget. Neither is there authority for Congress' mandates to the states and people about how they may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. A list of congressional violations of the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end.

Americans who wish to live free have two options: We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed to force America's tyrants to respect our liberties and human rights, or we can seek a peaceful resolution of our irreconcilable differences by separating. That can be done by peopling several states, say Texas and Louisiana, controlling their legislatures and then issuing a unilateral declaration of independence just as the Founders did in 1776.

You say, "Williams, nobody has to go that far, just get involved in the political process and vote for the right person."

That's nonsense. Liberty shouldn't require a vote. It's a God-given or natural right. Some independence or secessionists movements, such as our 1776 war with England and our 1861 War Between the States, have been violent, but they need not be. In 1905, Norway seceded from Sweden, Panama seceded from Columbia (1903), and West Virginia from Virginia (1863). Nonetheless, violent secession can lead to great friendships. England is probably our greatest ally and we have fought three major wars together. There is no reason why Texiana (Texas and Louisiana) couldn't peaceably secede, be an ally and have strong economic ties with United States.

The bottom line question for all of us is should we part company or continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did any of those issues improve over the last 7 years of Republicbum rule? Hardly. It's cause the Republicbums want big government as much as the Democrats do. There is so much more money that can be made off of a big spending government than off a low spending government. Just ask Blackwater and all the "security" companies that have grown rich after 9/11.

It'd be great if all the "it's not mentioned in the Constitution so the gub'mint shouldn't do it" folks did move to Wyoming and secede. The whole thing would implode pretty quickly though. Suppose a farmer or rancher sold some tainted grain or meat. Without any FDA there won't be any quality regulations. After killing that guy, people would demand some regulations. Suppose another farmer dammed a creek for irrigation. Everyone down stream would be pissed off. After killing that guy, people would demand some regulations.

November 8, 2007 at 9:32 PM  
Blogger Cabinboy said...

I don't think implosion is so certain.

The rancher in your hypothetical would be sued out of financial existence, wouldn't he?

Water rights, although tricky, have been resolved by individual agreements and multistate compacts for years.

I don't disagree that people would demand that the parties responsible for harm should be held accountable. I just think you are too credulous re the effectiveness of regulations and Big Government.

What tangible goods & services did you get for your aggregate (Federal, state, local )tax load (including regulatory fees and other indirect forms of government taxation) last year?

November 9, 2007 at 12:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In order to sue the rancher there has to be a judicial system and laws. I didn't think Libertarians approved of either.

It doesn't take a Big Government to enforce regulations. A small government can do that too. And, yes, maybe I trust too much in regulations reducing bad behavior (so do the Republicans) but that's all I got especially when faceless multi-national corporations are involved.

I don't like paying taxes. No one does. In particular, since I have no children and have paid real-estate taxes for 20 years now, I think I have paid my fair share of school taxes. Some "tangible goods & services" were received from my taxes, but obviously determining how much was received is very complicated and likely impossible.

The Republican shell game of lowering taxes and increasing spending is far worse than the Democrats pay as you go approach.

November 9, 2007 at 9:01 PM  
Blogger Cabinboy said...


I am a Constitutionalist. Strike the "general welfare" clause as some folks did in 1861, and start over with just Amendments 1-10, plus 13, 15, and 19 (for the ladies).

We can talk from there about the rest.

Anarchy is bad.

Totalitarianism is bad.

Limited-government constitutional republics are good.

Nothing there that would preclude Federal courts of limited jurisdiction, plus state courts.

And bro, check your numbers. Neither Dems nor Repubs are "pay as you go" so long as SS receipts continue to go into the general coffers.

November 9, 2007 at 9:55 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home