10 votes

The Independent States of America

Why do We need the Central Government?

Defense? Hardly. The only time America was faced with invasion from a world power was that accompanying the American Revolution, and it must be noted that there was no central government at the time - but rather just the Colonies.

Do you think it's easy to defeat countries that aren't superpowers? Go tell that to the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, and the Afghanis. Plenty of other examples are available.

So, since evidence supports that a strong central government is not needed for defense, why do We need one? To condition Our children? To erect barriers to entry for aspiring entrepreneurs? To force Us to buy goods and services that We may or may not want? To counterfeit Our money? To invade countless other countries and murder their people? To execute the War on Drugs? To take your money by force, tell you that they're going to put it back for your retirement and, then, squander it? To provide the ruling elite with lavish vacations at the expense of a broke populace? To use the major sources of media to rail against dissenters and whistle-blowers and maintain indoctrination? To militarize local police forces? To spy on each and every one of Us even though We've engaged in no criminal action? Simply because it's familiar?

How does the list of good weigh against the list of bad?

Why do We need the Central Government?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Favor a Confederation

The Swiss model gets a lot of mention. Confederation with limited national gov't.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

It's still a confederation.

It's still a confederation. It's just that everyone is a "confederation" citizen and has pledged allegiance to its government rather than their own home nation, like Colorado.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

I still like the idea of Nation

Ex: There is a Swiss nation but it is a collection of "cantons" (states) who choose to associate and have a rotating presidency with very limited powers. There are still some things that work better at a national level.

The allegiance is to my state and then the nation, not the reverse.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

Please spend the money and read The Red Amendment

Please spend the money and read The Red Amendment (link below). It will clarify the lawful nature of the States to each other and the States to the international organization known as the United States. It will also, and more importantly, clarify your de jure relationship to these political organizations. Then you can fully comprehend how the US became such a centralized power, and how we unknowingly support and perpetuate it without any ability to stop it.

In my view, being a US citizen is like being a UN citizen. One relinquishes one's true nationality in favor of citizenship of a non-state political organization. Does anyone believe that if the UN were to develope a "citizinship" that these citizens would form a de jure body politic? Whould they have to be born on UN land or could they be born in Massachsetts, France, Germany, or China? If they were born in a state outside UN land but with UN citizen status, what would it say about the sovereinty of those states? Does it make those states political subdivisions of the UN? Is the nature of the UN changed by the addition of citizens? Do its citizens have natural rights and rebublican freedom?

Has not the creation of the US citizen by the adoption of the 14th Amendment done just that?

We have lost the sovereign status we once held as proples of the American republicss, members of the States' de jure bodies bolitic where rebublican freedom exists. Centralization of power in the federal government has come because we, our parents, and their's let it happen, and even fostered it by maintaining this de facto US citizen status. Even if we/ they didn't and don't want such centralization to take place, we are powerless to stop it because of our status. It is our abandonment of the true and lawful flow of power, from the peoples of the States to the Governments of the States, and from there to the United States and its possessions, among which are its citizens, that has caused this catastrophy. So as federal US citizens we find ourselves no longer at the top of that power structure, but at the bottom.

There is still some thing we can do, however. Read the Red Amendment. Learn that it is.

As a good friend keeps saying: "The government won't change until the people change."

May the god of republican freedom bless us with rebublican peace. (Not to be confused with the fight for Marxist peace which we are living through now.)

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

What link?

...

The one in the tag line at

The one in the tag line at the bottom.

Happy reading. :-)

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Your work betrays your ignorance

Giving a monopoly of coercive power to one group in a given territory is the fundamental issue that needs to be dealt with. Anytime you have a violent monopoly of authority, you have slavery. Period, end of story.

If someone invades Massachusetts what affect does it have on me. Did someone "invade my country" or did someone encroach on the violent monopoly of the U.S. Government? What affect does that invasion have on the citizens of Massachusetts? You would have to ask each individual. Someone might experience change, others may not. Some might feel liberated, some might feel as though they have been attacked.

Some folks might lose their jobs. Were they doing work for stolen money? Some businesses might shut down, and some work not allowed to be done. Is it any different than what happens today, in the here and now?

What if a person lived with complete sovereignty? Would it matter to him who the owner of the next door slave population was?

No. It would only matter what his neighbor would do with and for him. It would not matter why.

Séamusín

There would certainly be a reallocation of workers

from the public to the private sector. It would be a shame to lose all those bureaucrats.

A land invasion by a foreign power would have implications for the entire territory and would certainly invoke a response from more than just the affected state.

In addition, I think it's extremely improbable that chattel slavery would be re-instituted. Trying to make that argument is nothing more than demagoguery.

Re-institued?

What are you talking about? What do you call the current system other than chattel slavery?

Sure, it would implications over the whole territory for the foreign power or the current slave owners. Not for me. I would just maintain the course of my life, and wait to be threatened with violence in which case I will laugh and ignore.

Until violence has been used or threatened against me, I have not been attacked. The state of Wisconsin might respond but I am not a member of it. I wash my hands of it as soon as its done taking my money. It is just another violent entity that takes my money without my consent. An attack on the state is not an attack on me. An attack on someone's personal property in Massachusetts is not an attack on me. It may be recognized as an attack on the entity of Massachusetts, that's up to them. Doesn't bother me either way as I am not in the business of violence.

I am not threatened when the state is threatened. The state is only a burden to me.

Séamusín

I guess I read your first response in haste

I was preparing to go the hospital with my dad this morning.

I agree that we should get rid of the State, in general. However, I think the first step will be dissolving the Central Government first. The People have grown tired of it, but I doubt we can talk them into getting rid of all the state governments yet. That'll have to happen one at a time I'm afraid.

I take the same position as Rothbard (paraphrasing):

"If there was a button to end the State, I'd blister my finger pushing the damn thing."

We are certainly in agreement

Except that I make a significant portion of my income playing the flute. Can't afford to blister any fingers.

:)

Séamusín

Maybe you could become the Pied Piper and lead

all the political rats into the sea.

Regarding defense

You do realize we had aid from the French with that one, right? We *might* have been able to win without their help, but I doubt it.

No, a central government does have a role, but it's strictly in the realm of defense - specifically, a large and capable Navy, not a standing army. The states can raise their own militias easily enough.

Non-sense

They may have taken Philadelphia, but they certainly would not have defeated a free people.

You can enslave a free person, but not a free people.

Séamusín

Natural Law

The answer is natural law. I agree with Seamusin. There are very distinct ways to look at both sides of this argument, however I see that the central "powers" have increasingly overstepped their bounds, and will do so in the next social paradigm unless people take responsibility for themselves and their community. I am NOT saying that "it takes a village to raise a child", what I am saying is that if you owned land, or if you rented a space, and your neighbor's land or space was threatened by the "government" or an outside force, wouldn't you fight to preserve their rights as renters or owners of their space? What if you were on the receiving end of the force? Would your neighbors fight for you? Answer: NO, not today. After the nanny state is dissolved or diminished: YES.

Just think about it for a moment... No central or state government. Wouldn't we all get along much better if big brother wasn't holding our hand? Wouldn't we all make sure that each and every member of our family, and community was safe, and prosperous?

It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.