Tom Woods: Conservatives And War

In California last year

To dam bad is to poorly stop up fluid.

Too damned bad might suggest: Sorry about your luck. Is that not what you mean?

You may have quibbles and disagreements with Dr. Woods, but no one said you have to agree with everything a person has to offer.

I’m not sure Dr. Woods argued he wanted to go back to the AOC, but even so, why is this considered bad or wrong? Dr. Woods’s main thesis was to question the presumption of centralization: why is it presumed that centralization of power is a just state of affairs? Is it conceivable that another arrangement of political life can survive and handle the problems that beset us? Has not centralization of power produced in the whole mass deaths and destruction? Was Jefferson correct when he said “a single consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on the earth”?

On Presidents, the question arises: why the mystique towards that office? Writing in The American Conservative Dr. Woods details the thoughts and opinions of a prominent conservative intellectual, Robert Nisbet, on what conservatives stand for and how things have changed. In it, Dr. Woods quotes Robert Nisbet on federal dominance:

The Far Right is less interested in Burkean immunities from government power than it is in putting a maximum of governmental power in the hands of those who can be trusted. It is control of power, not diminution of power, that ranks high. Thus when Reagan was elected conservatives hoped for the quick abolition of such government ‘monstrosities’ as the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and the two National Endowments of the Arts and Humanities, all creations of the political left. The Far Right in the Reagan Phenomenon saw it differently, however; they saw it as an opportunity for retaining and enjoying the powers. And the Far Right prevailed. It seeks to prevail also in the establishment of a ‘national industrial strategy,’ a government corporation structure in which the conservative dream of free private enterprise would be extinguished.

On presidents:

There are too many powerful voices among intellectuals—in press, foundation, and elsewhere—that want a royal President provided only that he is the right kind of individual.

On the mystique of the president:

Not only what the President thinks on a given public issue, but what he wears, whom he dines with, what major ball or banquet he may choose to give, and what his views are on the most trivial or cosmic of questions—all of this has grown exponentially in the regard lavished by press and lesser political figures upon the presidency during the past four decades.

He also question Reagan’s conservatism:

President Reagan’s deepest soul is not Republican-conservative but New Deal-Second World War Democrat. Thus his well noted preference for citing FDR and Kennedy as noble precedents for his actions rather than Coolidge, Hoover, or even Eisenhower. The word ‘revolution’ springs lightly from his lips, for anything from tax reform to narcotics prosecution. Reagan’s passion for crusades, moral and military, is scarcely American-conservative.

"We need to have a discussion as to what the role of Government in our lives should be."

I love the Constitution. But I also have to keep in mind it's just a piece of paper, with words on it. I'm not trying to marginalize it, that is simply a fact. It has influence and can be held up as a blueprint/plan, but Government is really a reflection of the people. The original Constitution did not authorize a Central Bank and removal of the Gold Standard. The piece of paper did not stop us from having a Federal Reserve Act foisted on us by men in power while Congress was in recess for Christmas in 1913. The Federal Reserve Act was a reflection of the people that were voted into power at the time. From my viewpoint, the people that did the electing let it stand. They did not demand a repeal and continue to demand one until such time that it was repealed. My hope is that, that is changing.

I No Longer Want To “Restore The Constitution” - http://www.libertariannews.org/2012/02/09/i-no-longer-want-t...

When we no longer have the rule of law and elected officials that actually represent us, it is our right, our duty, to alter or throw off such Government, and elect officials that do represent us. You can actually do that when the people are the ones that have the money. The value of the Government's money, which it has a monopoly on, is nearing zero. When it gets to zero, what power will our Government have?

"We need to have a discussion as to what the role of Government in our lives should be."

It certainly shouldn't be to have a monopoly on money. It shouldn't even be in the money business. The only monopolies are ones that are created by Government.

When they took us off the Gold Standard they took away our money... in order to make it theirs.

The idea for the US was a union of republics. Large republics do not work as well for various reasons. Plus if a state is oppressive with taxes, regulations, etc then you move to a "better" state. But if the federal gov is guiding all policies you have no where to "vote with your feet". Since we do not currently have the originally intended environment one could argue we were better off with the Articles of Confederation.
Frequently the people who want a strong federal gov want more power and control but there is something to be said about local government being better for the individual.

To better understand Tom's argument, it would behoove you to read more about the original intent of the Constitution and how it has facilitated the growth of the leviathan that all lovers of liberty abhor. The District of Criminals will continue to promote this parchment idolatry because it serves THEIR interests; not yours or mine. The Constitution, has written, is not worth the paper it was written on.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/7833.cfm

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

"Our constitutions purport to be established
by 'the people,' and, in theory, 'all the people'
consent to such government as the constitutions authorize.
But this consent of 'the people' exists only in theory.
It has no existence in fact.
Government is in reality established by the few;
and these few assume the consent of all the rest,
without any such consent being actually given."

"The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes - a large class, no doubt - each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a "free man," a "sovereign"; that this is "a free government"; "a government of equal rights," "the best government on earth," and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change."
~~Lysander Spooner