Category Archives: Decentralization

Dick Cheney and the American System of War

The Trump – Powell Spat: A Distraction from the Debt Crisis

Since his return to office in January, President Donald Trump has called on Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell to cut interest rates which Powell and the Fed’s Board of Governors have refused to do. In typical child-like behavior when he doesn’t get his way, Trump has hurled insults at Powell calling him a “stupid person,” “too late Powell,” and a “numbskull.”

Trump’s juvenile attacks, although misplaced, have been quite humorous and a welcome change in tone to the respect, reverence, and almost deification that previous Presidents, Congressmen, and the financial press heap on Federal Reserve Chairmen.

Unfortunately, as with all his policies, Trump’s megalomania is on display. After the Fed’s June meeting when it once again decided to leave rates unchanged and indicated that there might be only one rate cut in 2025, Trump again slammed Powell and suggested that “Maybe I should go to the Fed. Am I allowed to appoint myself to the Fed.?” *

While Trump’s ridiculing the head of one of the sacred cows of America’s ruling establishment is welcomed, his crazed notion of putting himself, and presumably future presidents, in charge of monetary policy does not offer any viable alternative to the debt crisis that is staring the nation in the face with the U.S. in the hole in excess of now some $37 trillion.

Although Trump’s blasting of Powell has provided some comic relief from the dire economic conditions which confront the U.S., in reality both the president and the Fed Chair are wrong over interest rate policy although, in this case, Powell is less wrong. Like most of Trump’s kooky ideas – taking over Greenland, making Canada the 51^st state – not only is the slashing of interest rates counterproductive, but the idea of giving the executive branch of government control of monetary policy would turn the nation into a complete dictatorship.

Powell, too, has been mistaken in his policy of holding rates steady. Interest rates, in fact, are too low and need to be higher. At current levels, rates are too “accommodative” as price inflation remains above the Fed’s 2% target. Of course, in reality prices are rising at a much briskier pace than official government estimates.

Hiking rates would encourage savings and discourage consumption both of which would put downward pressure on consumer prices. If Trump wants to achieve his goal of a reindustrialized America, there needs to be an increase in savings. Production of goods takes place over time and without savings to fund the construction of factories, the purchase of machines and equipment, and the payment of wages, there can be no economic growth.

Trump wrongly believes that lower rates will spur economic growth. Sustained prosperity can only take place through savings and investment not money creation via credit expansion which the president is a fan of.

More fundamentally, both Trump and Powell are wrong: interest rates should not be set by governments or monetary authorities, but be determined by market forces – the aggregate decision making of individuals on how much to save or how much to consume their income. Concomitant with non-state involvement with the setting of interest rates, a return to a metallic monetary standard would prevent price inflation which would make saving more attractive.

Another reason why Trump wants lower rates is that servicing the mammoth U.S. debt would be somewhat more palatable. His “big, beautiful bill,” working its way through the Senate, will need to be financed. Lower rates would reduce the government’s borrowing costs. This irresponsible argument was also made by former Federal Reserve Chair and later Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.

Since Donald Trump has no ideological core that shapes his world vision, his outlook and policies are more often than not based on what affects him personally or who strokes his ego or lines his pockets. The proper monetary policy for the nation is not to cut interest rates, but to raise them and reduce the national debt through spending cuts. While there would certainly be short-term pain from such a policy, eventually matters would turn around and economic activity would be placed on a sound footing.

Ultimately, if sound money is ever to return to America and the Western world, its control must be taken away from central banks and the influence of mercurial politicians. The creation of money, its distribution, authenticity, and safe keeping should be left up to a decentralized non-governmental arrangement.

*Tyler Durden, “Trump Slams ‘Stupid’ Powell: ‘I Think He Hates Me. I Call Him Every Name in the Book to Try and Get Him to Cut,’” Zero Hedge, 18 June 2025. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/trump-slams-stupid-powell-i-think-he-hates-me-i-call-him-every-name-book-try-and-get-him

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

Trump’s Grandiose Political Centralization Scheme Not America-First in Spirit

4 Replies

Colorful houses of the coastal town of Ilulissat in western Greenland.

Although Donald Trump is now in office, his statements since the election indicated he has forgotten his pledge to follow an “America first” foreign policy. This is what he promised during the recent presidential contest and what he pledged in the 2016 campaign, but failed to deliver during his first term. While domestic issues are what a president is mostly concerned with, the most important decisions surround foreign affairs, since they often involve war.

Since his lopsided victory over the hapless Kamala Harris, Trump has made few references about reigning in the murderous U.S. Empire, but instead has talked about buying or invading Greenland, seizing the Panama Canal, and making Canada an American state. After the resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump said that “many people in Canada love being the 51^st state,” according to The New York Times, Jan. 7.*

If Joe Biden or Kamala Harris said such things, the MAGA crowd would be up in arms and accuse them of moving the country in the direction of the New World Order.

Whether Trump follows through with such fanciful plans, it shows that he does not understand what lies at the heart of the social and economic problems that America and the Western world face. Trump’s ideas would create greater political centralization, as an American-Canadian or American-Canadian-Mexican-Greenland union would create a gigantic North American state.

For anyone concerned with individual liberty, prosperity, and the No. 1 social issue that confronts the U.S. – illegal immigration – a North American superstate would be a nightmare. Gone would be the vital ability of “dissenters” to “vote with their feet” and move to less burdensome political jurisdictions.

In the United States, one can see this taking place on a daily basis as Americans move from high-tax and high regulatory states to those less onerous. Of course, citizens cannot escape the federal government’s dictates unless one decides to expatriate. Students of the nation’s history know the often-overlooked Anti-federalists made this argument in their opposition to the Constitution which has, over time, proven to be quite prescient.

The idea that more political entities lead to greater freedom has been proven by history. The best example of this is pre-modern Europe which was made up of a host of kingdoms, duchies, and free states with no dominant central government that could tax without impunity. It is well accepted by historians that Europe’s rise in its standard of living was the result of its political decentralization that resulted in low levels of taxation.

A multitude of nation states allows for “competition,” where if one government becomes too tyrannical, people have an opportunity to flee to another land. In recent U.S. history, a number of draft-aged men fled to Canada instead of being sent off to Vietnam to fight in what they considered an immoral war. A colossal North American state would have ended such an option.

Although not explicitly discussed by Trump, a North American Union would more than likely mean the creation of a new monetary unit as was done with the euro when the European Union was formed. Despite the warnings of some economists, price inflation in Europe escalated for countries like Germany once they relinquished their monetary autonomy.

Currently, national currencies “float” against one another in terms of exchange rates. If one central bank inflates its currency too much, its money will lose purchasing power to less inflationary nations. While not nearly as good as a gold standard, there is a sort of a “check and balance” on central bank monetary debasement with floating exchange rates.

A single North American monetary unit would not face the kind of limit that now exists, where the Canadian dollar, Mexican peso and U.S. dollar vie against each other. A North American currency would be another ominous step to a one-world currency – a dream of New World Order proponents.

While Trump’s disappointing talk about political centralization looks like a betrayal of the principles of America first principles, there may be a glimmer of hope. In a recent Truth Social post, Trump reposted a video of Prof. Jeffery Sachs, a longtime critic of American foreign policy, criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s genocidal actions in Gaza and throughout the Middle East calling him a “deep, dark SOB.”

Since the video has been posted, Netanyahu has canceled his plans to attend Trump’s inauguration, the implication being the Israeli leader was offended by the comment.

Only time will tell if Trump will abandon his promised America-first policies or pursue a drive to a New World Order.

*David E. Sanger and Michael D. Shear, “Trump Floats Using Force to Take Greenland and the Panama Canal,” The New York Times, 7 January 2025.

Antonius Aquinas@antoniusaquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

School Choice: A Bad Idea

2 Replies

While the school choice movement has been a popular policy initiative for conservative politicians and parents who are disgusted with the failing and, in many areas, debauched public school system, a closer look at “choice” in education, which includes charter schools, vouchers, and scholarships, may not be the panacea for educational reform as many believe.

One of the latest developments in school choice involves the funding of an Oklahoma religious charter school. The state’s Supreme Court has ruled that the public funding of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School is unconstitutional.* While privately run, charter schools are tax financed and “must abide by many of the rules that govern traditional public schools” says Laura Meckler in an article titled “Oklahoma Weighs Nation’s First Religious Charter School,” published in The Washington Post, April 3, 2024.

The “constitutionality” of the case was challenged by Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who cited state law that says “charter schools may not be sectarian or affiliated with a religious institution.” The attorney general contended that, if the school is allowed to exist, it would have “unlimited unintended consequences” and thus “the state of Oklahoma effectively has control over the school.”

Drummond said, “That’s the state controlling religion. That is a slope for which there is no end.”

While the Oklahoma Supreme Court has concurred with Drummond’s assessment in the St. Isidore school case, it is disturbing as to why the school’s backers, as well as other proponents of charter schools, do not see the obvious danger of government interference in religious education which necessarily comes once state monies are allocated.

In the past, religious institutions would have recognized the threat to their independence and would have no part in such an arrangement no matter how lucrative. The appeal of private schools has always been that the government has little oversight over the curricula, and that parents have a say in what their children are taught. Many private schools today, however, are little different than their public school counterparts in curriculum offered, discipline, and cultural outlook.

Besides the obvious constitutional issue of forcing taxpayers to support religious institutions, there is another moral issue which is rarely, if ever, discussed that exists not only with charter schools, but public education in general. Why should those that are single, childless couples, and those parents who send their children to private schools be forced to pay for public education? While taxpayers are protected from being coerced to contribute to religious institutions, why are the rights of those who do not use public schools not observed?

While constitutional conservatives have ignored this aspect of tax-funded schooling, there is another troubling aspect of public education. The public school has always been a vehicle for the left’s social-engineering schemes. One of the most egregious of these was Brown vs. Board of Education, which inaugurated the coercive racial integration movement.

It is little wonder why the American electorate has moved decidedly leftward. Several generations of young minds have spent their formative years exposed to some of the most radical ideas that are now presented as normal. At one time conservative commentators spoke about this, but, like nearly all of their other principles (except for their love of war), the right has abandoned this important aspect of American life.

The entire concept of school choice is confused, put forward by its proponents to somehow reform and act as an alternative to public education. Because of its nature – “one size fist all” – a bureaucracy cannot be reformed or offer diverse products or services to its customers.

If reformers want real choice, they should call for an end to public schooling and substitute in its place a decentralized system of education provision, where a wide variety of schools and institutions offer families genuine alternatives. In a market for education, parents can choose their children’s curriculum and also who instructs them.

Of course, a truly free educational system includes home schooling, which would be completely liberated from state interference.

Removing government from schooling would be a gigantic blow against the nanny state and, once again, place the responsibility for the education of youngsters with the family. The societal benefit of such a change would be incalculable.

Choice in education is another example of conservatives attempting to amend the welfare/warfare state. While it has gained in popularity and may receive in the future judicial approval, school choice will not fix public education, which will continue to be a breeding ground for the left. However, the elimination of government involvement in schooling would not only provide families with superior educational opportunities, but would remove a key component of the left’s power and control over society.

*https://apnews.com/article/public-religious-catholic-charter-school-unconstitutional-oklahoma-e4ef414605094313331a39cc645ede8a

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

What Tucker Carlson and the Pro-Life Movement Miss about Abortion

3 Replies

In a recent talk to the Center for Christian Virtue, Tucker Carlson railed against abortion asserting that it is “no benefit to society” and “it erode[s] its very foundation.”* The former Fox News anchor called the battle over infanticide not a “political debate,” but a “spiritual battle.”** The speech comes as the issue of abortion has heated up in the Republican presidential campaign.

Carlson is certainly correct in his assessment that the fight over abortion is a spiritual struggle, but he, like most of the pro-life movement, does not understand the larger tragedy of abortion. The failure of the pro-life movement to stress this fundamental aspect, and to see abortion in the light of eternity, is one of the reasons why the evil is still a legalized part of the so-called civilized world.

While the killing of the unborn is a crime, a greater injustice of that heinous offense is committed. Most Christians, including presumably Tucker Carlson (who was brought up Episcopalian) and the Center for Christian Virtue, would agree that one must be baptized to have a chance at salvation. Abortion denies that opportunity. Unbaptized infants neither go to heaven or hell, but to the “limbo of the children” where they do not suffer the pains of hell, but neither can they receive the beatific vision.

Abortion is not only the killing of the unborn, which is heinous in its own right, but it denies one from entering heaven. If this aspect had been emphasized from the start, it may have mobilized even greater public and judicial support to outlaw the abominable practice.

Tucker Carlson’s Christian priorities are also skewed as he states:

The point of life is to have children and to watch

them have grandchildren. Nothing will bring you

joy like that will. Nothing comes close. Would

trade your job for your children? Would you trade

anything for your children? Of course not.***

The point of life is to save one’s soul and, as the Divine Savior taught, this is done by loving God with “thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind” and loving “thy neighbor as thyself.”

Christ is very clear about those who put either parents or children above Him:

He that loveth father or mother more than

me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth

son or daughter more than me, is not worthy

of me. [Matthew 10: 37]

Of course, children are precious gifts from God who add enjoyment and fulfillment to one’s life for those who can have them. Children, however, are sinners and are in need of nurturing and instruction in how to live a moral life. Sadly, despite the efforts and best intentions of parents, some children turn out badly.

The fact that abortion is now a part of the political discourse demonstrates just how far the natural authority figures and institutions of society have failed in fulfilling their roles as moral guideposts. Yet, this was bound to happen with the increased power of the state in all aspects of society, usurping the role that the family (and its extension – uncles, aunts, grandparents), churches, ministers, arbitrators, employers, philanthropists and scholars once held. Where at one time ethical matters were discussed and decided outside of the state apparatus, now nearly every personal decision is subjected to government interference which has become the supreme arbitrator of what is moral and what is not.

That society’s non-governmental authority elements have little clout is also a factor in why most young people do not have much of a moral compass in how to conduct their lives and are susceptible to support the most debauched aspects of society.

The left has long recognized this and has used the state to push through their agenda on all sorts of social and economic issues. Using the levers of the state, a small, determined minority can impose its will on an unorganized majority. This is another argument as to why pro-lifers should be for radical political de-centralization and the restoration of natural authority in society.

Ultimately, the eradication of legalized abortion will not come via politics. Instead of political wrangling, what should be made clear to the pro-abortion crowd is the real eternal consequences of their actions where the Divine Judge, who is not subject to legislative interference or some perverted, phony “right to choose” nonsense, will deliver perfect justice.

*https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-tucker-carlson-spits-fire-anti-abortion-speech

**https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/09/26/tucker-carlson-abortion-not-political-debate-spiritual-battle/

***Ibid.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

The Convention of States Project: A Bad Idea

11 Replies

Similar to Patrick Buchanan’s campaigns, Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America,” the Tea Party, and to some extent Donald Trump’s presidency, the Convention of States Project* will not solve the crises that America faces. It will, undoubtedly, like most of the previous reform and populist movements be sabotaged by the ruling class if it ever gets close to accomplishing its goals.

The Project’s rhetoric is “old-style” conservative/populist-speak which seeks to “[propose] amendments that impose fiscal restraint on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.”** Some of the proposed amendments include:

Congressional term limits
Requiring a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to increase the public debt
Restoring the Commerce Clause to its original intent and scope
Repeal of the 16^th Amendment, which gave us the income tax
Giving states, by a three-fifths vote, the power to negate any federal law, regulation or executive order giving Congress an easy means of overriding regulation

So far, 19 state legislatures have called for a constitutional convention, 34 states are needed for a convention to be called and, for an amendment to be passed, it must be approved by three quarters of state legislatures.

The state legislatures who have signed on have realized that the federal government has become omnipotent and the individual states are now merely appendages to Washington. “The states,” said South Carolina state representative Bill Taylor, “have sort of lost their voice, and all we can do now is beg from the cheap seats and say, ‘Hey, don’t do that.’”***

After the totalitarian and draconian efforts of the U.S. government and those around the world the past two years in response to the “pandemic,” Mr. Taylor’s sentiment is, to say the least, an understatement!

The fundamental problem with efforts such as the Convention of States Project is that they do not understand the nature of the crises that both America and most of the world face. For America, its current malaise can be traced shortly after its independence with the adoption of the Constitution itself.

While it has long been touted as a great document of freedom and liberty, it is anything but. The “founding fathers” knowingly created a powerful central government and decreased the sovereignty of the individual state governments which had existed under the Articles of Confederation.

In the words of Murry Rothbard, the Constitution was a coup that, for the most part, was the antithesis of the spirit and drive of the American Revolution which was a movement against political centralization and empire:

It was a bloodless coup d’etat against an unresisting

Confederation Congress. . . . . The Federalists, by use

of propaganda, chicanery, fraud, malapportionment of

delegates, blackmail threats of secession and even

coercive laws, had managed to sustain enough delegates

to defy the wishes of the majority of the American people

and create a new Constitution.****

Worse than the power grab was the establishment of an omnipotent state as Rothbard incisively continues:

The drive [for ratification] was managed by a

corps of brilliant members and representatives

of the financial and landed oligarchy. These

wealthy merchants and large landowners were

joined by the urban artisans of the large cities in

their drive to create a strong overriding central

government – a supreme government with its

own absolute power to tax, regulate commerce,

and raise armies.*****

410jXD-zO+L

The celebrated “separation of powers,” and “checks and balances” within the federal system and even the Bill of Rights, so often lauded by conservative and populist commentators, have proven from the very start to be ineffectual in stopping the expansion of state power.

The Constitution itself declares that it is the ultimate authority as Article VI states:

This Constitution and the laws of the United States which

shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made,

or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States,

shall be the supreme law of the land. . . . [Italics mine.]

The massive and now unresolvable social, economic and political troubles both in the U.S. and around the world stems from a concentration of political power that is inherent in the nature of constitutional government. This power is augmented and sustained by a system of central banking which provides the nation state with seemingly unlimited financial power to implement its various social engineering schemes, conduct continuous warfare, and has the ability to crush any opposition to its hegemony.

The solution, which is all too obvious, but not attainable in the current ideological atmosphere dominated by statist thinking, is political decentralization.

The smaller political alignments under decentralization would probably coalesce around peoples with similar economic, social and religious affiliations and status and those with similar ethnic and racial backgrounds. Such a system would be truly diverse and undoubtedly lower social tensions which derive from the central state’s forced integration polices.

Once political decentralization became a reality, the natural and mutually beneficial relationships and interactions between peoples would emerge. The immense advantage of free trade – the widening of the division of labor and specialization – would be the norm between societies since smaller countries could not afford to restrict trade since doing so would lead to autarky and the resultant fall in standards of living to primitive levels.

Likewise, a universal monetary standard, most likely based on gold and silver, would arise among differing communities since a multitude of currencies would lead to monetary chaos and render economic calculation an impossibility. Since no central state could impose its currency, the only honest and sound money – gold/silver – would be quickly adopted by all.

The mass invasion of the U.S. taking place under the negligence and encouragement of the Biden Administration could also be thwarted through political decentralization. Areas where the lives and property of people are threatened by invaders have more of an incentive to effectively deal with unwanted groups than bureaucrats living often times thousands of miles away.

Each jurisdiction would make its own policies on who or how many it wanted in its territory. Moreover, each community could expel undesirables without interference from those who are not property owners or members of such communities.

While those behind the Convention of States Project and the state legislatures which have called for a constitutional convention may be well meaning, they will ultimately fail. Such efforts are a wrongheaded approach to address the myriad of problems that plague the U.S. and, for that matter, the entire world.

Instead of attempts to amend the Constitution or though the electoral process by finding the “right candidate,” the very viable and historically proven alternative of de-centralization through secession is the only pathway to ultimate success. Until the break-up of the nation state is accomplished, America and the world’s future will be considerably bleak.

*https://conventionofstates.com/

**https://starkrealities.substack.com/p/activists-more-than-halfway-to-forcing

***Ibid

**** Murray N. Rothbard, Conceived in Liberty. Vol. 5, The New Republic, 1784-1791, ed., Patrick Newman. Auburn, AL.: Mises Institute, 2019, p. 306.

*****Ibid.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

The Constitution IS the Crisis

8 Replies

A Review of Murray N. Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty, Vol. 5The posthumous release of Murray Rothbard’s fifth volume of his early American history series, Conceived in Liberty, is a cause of celebration not only for those interested in the country’s constitutional period, but also for the present day as the nation is faced with acute social, economic, and political crises. The fifth volume, The New Republic: 1784-1791, stands with Boston T. Party’s 1997 release, Hologram of Liberty, as a grand rebuttal of the cherished notion held by most contemporary scholars, pundits on the Right, and, surprisingly, many libertarians who believe that the US Constitution is some great bulwark in defense of individual liberty and a promoter of economic success.

ConceivedInLiberty4in1 Volumes 1-4

Rothbard’s narrative highlights the crucial years after the American Revolution focusing on the events and personalities that led to the calling for, drafting, and eventual promulgation of the Constitution in 1789. Not only does he describe the key factors that led to the creation of the American nation-state, but he gives an insightful account of the machinations which took place in Philadelphia and a trenchant analysis of the document itself which has become, in the eyes of most conservatives, on a par with Holy Writ.

What Might Have Been

While Rothbard writes in a lively and engaging manner, the eventual outcome and triumph of the nationalist forces leaves the reader with a certain sadness. Despite the fears expressed by the Antifederalists that the new government was too powerful and would lead to tyranny, through coercion, threats, lies, bribery, and arm twisting by the politically astute Federalists, the Constitution came into being. Yet, what if it had been the other way around and the forces against it had prevailed?

It is safe to assume that America would have been a far more prosperous and less war-like place. The common held notion that the Constitution was needed to keep peace among the contending states is countered by Rothbard, who points out a number of instances where states settled their differences, most notably Maryland and Virginia as they came to an agreement on the navigation of the Chesapeake Bay. [129-30]

Without a powerful central state to extract resources and manpower, overseas intervention by the country would have been difficult to undertake. Thus, the US’s disastrous participation in the two world wars would have been avoided. Furthermore, it would have been extremely unlikely for a Confederation Congress to impose an income tax as the federal government successfully did through a constitutional amendment in 1913.

Nor would the horrific misnamed “Civil War” ever take place with its immense loss of life and the destruction of the once flourishing Southern civilization. The triumph of the Federal government ended forever “states rights” in the US and, no doubt, inspired centralizing tendencies throughout the world, most notably in Germany which became unified under Prussian domination.

In a failed attempt in 1786 to enact an impost tax under the Confederation, Abraham Yates, a New York lawyer and prominent Antifederalist, spoke of decentralization as the key to liberty as Rothbard aptly summarizes:

Yates also warned that true republicanism can only be preserved in small states, and

keenly pointed out that in the successful Republics of Switzerland and the

Netherlands the local provinces retained full control over their finances. A taxing

power in Congress would demolish state sovereignty and reduce the states, where

the people could keep watch on their representatives, to mere adjuncts of

congressional power, and liberty would be gone. [64]

Antifederalists, such as Yates, had a far greater understanding of how liberty and individual rights would be protected than their statist opponents such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. The Antifederalists looked to Europe as a model, which, for most of its history, was made up of decentralized political configurations. The Federalists, on the other hand, got much of their inspiration from the Roman Republic and later Empire. There is little question that an America, with the political attributes of a multi-state Europe, would be far less menacing to both its own inhabitants and to the rest of the world than what it has become under the current Federal Leviathan if the Constitution never passed.

Speculation aside, historical reality meant that America would be fundamentally different than it would have been had the Articles of Confederation survived, as Rothbard points out:

The enactment of the Constitution in 1788 drastically changed the course of

American history from its natural decentralized and libertarian direction to an

omnipresent leviathan that fulfilled all of the Antifederalists’ fears. [312]

Limited Government Myth

One of the great myths surrounding the American Constitution – which continues within conservative circles to this very day – is that the document limits government power. After reading Rothbard, such a notion can only be considered a fairy tale!

The supposed “defects” of the Articles of Confederation were adroitly used by the wily nationalists as a cover to hide their real motives. Simply put – the Articles had to be scrapped and a new national government, far more powerful than what had existed under the Articles, had to be created as Rothbard asserts: “The nationalists who went into the convention agreed on certain broad objectives, crucial for a new government, all designed to remodel the United States into a country with the British political structure.” [145]

In passing the Constitution, the nationalist forces gained almost all they had set out to accomplish – a powerful central state and with it a strong chief executive office, and the destruction of the states as sovereign entities. The supposed “checks and balances,” so much beloved by Constitution enthusiasts, has proven worthless in checking the central state’s largesse. Checks and balances exist within the central government and is not offset by any prevailing power, be it the states or citizenry.

There was no reform of the system as it stood, but a new state was erected on the decentralized foundation of the Confederation. Why the idea of the founding fathers as some limited government proponents is a mystery.

The Chief Executive

As it developed, the Presidency has become the most powerful and, thus, the most dangerous office in the world. While its occupants certainly took advantage of situations and created crises themselves over the years, the Presidency, especially in foreign policy, is largely immune from any real oversight either from the legislature or judiciary. This was not by happenstance. From the start, the nationalists envisioned a powerful executive branch, and though the most extreme among the group were eventually thwarted in their desire to recreate a British-style monarchy in America, the final draft of the Constitution granted considerable power to the presidential office.

As they did throughout the Constitutional proceedings, the nationalists cleverly altered the concept of what an executive office in a republic should be, by subtle changes in the wording of the document as Rothbard incisively explains:

[T]he nationalists proceeded to alter . . . and exult the executive in a highly

important textual change. Whenever the draft had stated that the president ‘may

recommend’ measures to the Congress, the convention changed ‘may’ to ‘shall,’

which provided a ready conduit to the president for wielding effective law-making

powers, while the legislature was essentially reduced to a ratification agency of laws

proposed by the president. [190-91]

As if this was not bad enough the office was given the ability to create departments within its own domain.

In another fateful change, the president was given the power to create a

bureaucracy within the executive by filling all offices not otherwise provided for in

the Constitution, in addition to those later created by laws. [191]

The totalitarian federal agencies that plague the daily lives of Americans were not some later innovation by the Progressive movement or New Dealers, but had been provided for within the document itself. The efforts of those opposed to the various social welfare schemes of the past, which have been put into effect through the various Cabinet departments, have been in vain since the power was given to the Presidency and has been taken advantage of by nearly all of its occupants.

Rothbard’s analysis of the chief executive office is especially pertinent since the nation is once again in the midst of another seemingly endless presidential election cycle. The reason that the office has attracted so many of the worst sort (which is being kind) is because of its power. If elected, the ability to control, regulate, impoverish, and kill not only one’s fellow citizen, but peoples across the globe is an immense attraction for sociopaths!

A Coup d’état and Counter Revolution

Rothbard makes the compelling case that the Constitution was a counter revolution, which was a betrayal of the ideology that brought about the Revolution:

The Americans were struggling not primarily for independence but for political-

economic liberty against the mercantilism of the British Empire. The struggle was

waged against taxes, prohibitions, and regulations – a whole failure of repression

that the Americans, upheld by an ideology of liberty, had fought and torn

asunder. . . . [T]he American Revolution was in essence not so much against Britain

as against British Big Government – and specially against an all-powerful central

government and a supreme executive. [307]

He continues:

[T]he American Revolution was liberal, democratic, and quasi-anarchistic; for

decentralization, free markets, and individual liberty; for natural rights of

life, liberty, and property; against monarchy, mercantilism, and especially

against strong central government. [307-08]

There was, however, always a “conservative” element within the revolutionary leadership that admired Great Britain and wanted to replicate it in America. It was only when there was no alternative to British political and economic oppression that they joined with their more liberal-libertarian brethren and decided for independence.

Conservatives did not go away after independence, but would continue to push for an expansion of government under the Articles and finally, after most of their designs were consistently thwarted, did they scheme to impose a powerful central state upon the unsuspecting country.

Yet, they would not have triumphed had a number of key liberal-libertarians of the revolutionary generation moved to the Right during the decade following independence. Rothbard shows why he is the master in power-elite historical analysis in his discussion of this tragic shift, which would spell the death knell to any future politically decentralized America:

[O]ne of the . . . reasons for the defeat of the Antifederalists, though they

commanded a majority of the public, was the decimation that had taken place in

radical and liberal leadership during the 1780s. A whole galaxy of ex-radicals, ex-

decentralists, and ex-libertarians, found in their old age that they could comfortably

live in the new Establishment. The list of such defections is impressive, including

John Adams, Sam Adams, John Hancock, Benjamin Rush, Thomas Paine, Alexander

McDougall, Isaac Sears, and Christopher Gadsden. [308-09]

As the country’s elite became more statist and as political (Shays Rebellion) and economic (a depression) factors played into their hands, conservatives seized the opportunity to erect on America a powerful national government:

It was a bloodless coup d’état against an unresisting Confederation Congress. . . .

The drive was managed by a corps of brilliant members and representatives

of the financial and landed oligarchy. These wealthy merchants and large

landowners were joined by the urban artisans of the large cities in their

drive to create a strong overriding central government – a supreme government

with its own absolute power to tax, regulate commerce, and raise armies. [306]

Conclusion

The Mises Institute and the editor of the book, Patrick Neumann, must be given immense credit for bringing this important piece of scholarship into print. Once read, any notion of the “founding fathers” as disinterested statesmen who sublimated their own interests and that of their constituents to that of their country will be disavowed. Moreover, The New Republic:1784-1791 is the most important in the series since the grave crises that the nation now faces can be traced to those fateful days in Philadelphia when a powerful central state was created.

Volume Five shows that the problems of America’s past and the ones it now faces are due to the Constitution. The remedy to the present societal ills is not electing the “right” congressman, or president, but to “devolve” politically into a multitude of states and jurisdictions. For the future of liberty and economic well-being, this is where efforts should be placed and Murray Rothbard’s final volume of Conceived in Liberty is essential reading if that long, arduous, but much necessary task is to be undertaken.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

posted 02-10-’20

The Constitution Myth

22 Replies

One reason for the failure of the modern conservative and libertarian movements to scale back, in even a miniscule way, the now gargantuan US welfare/warfare state has been the misinterpretation of the US Constitution. Many conservatives have a slavish devotion to the document, placing it on a par with the Ten Commandments and New Testament.

A typical misunderstanding of the Constitution’s history and content appeared in this recent op-ed:

The Constitution was intended to limit 1) the power

of government over the citizenry 2) the power of each branch of

government and 3) the power of political/financial elites over the

government and the citizenry, as the Founders recognized the intrinsic risks

of an all-powerful state, an all-powerful state dominated by one branch of

government and the risks of a financial elite corrupting the state to serve

the interests above those of the citizenry.*

The author, like so many “Constitution enthusiasts” has also been hostile to the Medieval era, denigrating its institutions and social constructs – feudalism, aristocracy, crusading – when, in fact, the Middle Ages, in many respects, were far freer with less government than the present epoch. **

When the founding fathers decided to meet in Philadelphia in 1787, they did so at first to “amend” the Articles of Confederation which had guided the young country through some perilous times. While the Articles had some defects (some libertarians even contend that they were too statist***), the delegates, at first, did not want it scrapped, however, it was the “leading lights” of the convention which connived to completely do away with it.

By superior political maneuvering, the pro-Constitution forces were able to ramrod their plan through despite being in the minority. Not only were the majority of the delegates initially against scrapping the Articles, but most Americans were opposed to the creation of a new central government.

Despite this, the Constitution was ruthlessly pushed through and, as its opponents feared, America would be saddled with a highly centralized national government, the loss of considerable state sovereignty, and the eventual erosion of individual liberties even with the inclusion of a Bill of Rights.

A brief examination of the document reveals that its implicit and explicit language grants wide latitude for the expansion of state power. In its Preamble, the ambiguous clause to “promote the general welfare” can and has led to all sorts of destructive social engineering schemes. More ominously, for anyone that is under the illusion that America is governed by a “federal” system, they should reread Article VI which in part says

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. [emphasis added]

An all-powerful central state went against much of Western history after the fall of the Roman Empire and the idea was always feared by philosophers. Basic political theory and practical experience showed that a multitude of sovereign states were preferable not only for the protection of personal liberty, but for economic growth. Numerous states and jurisdictions were a far greater check on government than the much celebrated “separation of powers” concept of constitutional government.

Under the Articles of Confederation, each individual state was autonomous while the national government had to rely on the states for most of its support. Unfortunately, it will never be known what would have happened if the country remained as a confederacy of states, it is likely however, that there would have been less bloodshed, greater economic growth, and more personal freedom under a decentralized regime.

It is curious, therefore, why so many on the Right continue to revere the Constitution as some great bulwark against state power. Much of it probably stems from ignorance or personal bias against the political conditions which existed prior to the late 18^th century.

Much of European history was under the sway of monarchial and aristocratic rule and the integral presence of the Catholic Church in society with a diffusion of power among kings, princes, dukes and Churchmen. While far from perfect, the social order which existed under Christendom may not have been as materially or technologically advanced as contemporary times, but in regard to morality, justice, and individual freedom, there is no comparison. The Christian age saw nothing of the social depravity, war making with its mass murder, the trampling of individual rights, and the existence of totalitarian government as witnessed in the supposedly “enlightened” modern age.

Decentralized Europe of 1300

Until it is realized that the Constitution is an impediment to rolling back the American Leviathan, there will be little progress in the fight for individual liberty and economic progress.

*Charles Hugh Smith, “Let’s Face It: The U.S. Constitution Has Failed.” Zero Hedge. 20 February 2019.

**One example, Charles Hugh Smith, “America’s ‘Neo-Feudal’ System is ‘Both False & Precarious.” Zero Hedge 19 December 2018.

***David Gordon, ed., Strictly Confidential: The Private Volker Fund Memos of Murray N. Rothbard, Auburn, AL.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2015, pp. 96-98.

Antonius Aquinas@antoniusaquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

[emphasis added]

Is Political Decentralization the Only Hope for Western Civilization?

6 Replies

US Secssion Map II

A couple of recent articles have once more made the case, at least implicitly, for political decentralization as the only viable path which will begin to solve the seemingly insurmountable political, economic, and social crises which the Western world now faces.

In the last few months, over 3,000 millionaires have fled the hopelessly corrupt and bankrupt state of Illinois. When asked, 47% of Illinoisans would like to leave the state which, over the last decade, has seen over a half million of its residents flee. Naturally, this exodus has exacerbated the Land of Lincoln’s financial straits to catastrophic levels.*

A report published by the American Legislative Exchange Council predicted that the tax flight which is occurring in Illinois will similarly take place in the coming years in high-tax blue states such as California and New York. The 2017 Trump tax reform will accelerate this process since under the new legislation the amount of state income tax that can be deducted on federal tax returns has been capped at $10,000 per family. The authors of the report wrote: “. . . high [income] earners in places with hefty income taxes – not just California and New York, but also Minnesota and New Jersey – will bear more of the true cost of their state government.”**

The not too subtle consequences of the new tax code will mean an even greater exodus of taxpayers out of blue states which will shrink state revenues even further and create job losses across the board.

While those who want to escape the crushing burden of individual state taxation and regulation, if they have the means and desire to do so, can move to more favorable climes, no such option exists (except the drastic step of expatriation) to escape federal tyranny. Yet, the same benefits which occur from a multiple of individual states and jurisdictions would be present if the various nation states which dominate the globe were broken up into smaller political units.

While the authors of the cited articles see the advantage that multiple states have where one can “vote with his feet,” the same logic can be applied to central governments across the planet who are, on the whole, more tyrannical than local jurisdictions. More political bodies would not only provide sanctuary for the oppressed, but it would tend to keep a check on tyranny among existing states.

Political decentralization is a far greater deterrent to government largesse than constitutions, elections, or finding the “right person” to “fix things.” The events of the last few weeks in the realm of US foreign policy once again demonstrate that trusting candidates to fulfill campaign promises is naive, to say the least.

To get to this goal, all and every secession movement, even of a Leftist bent, should be supported, whether they are nations that want to “exit” from larger political units, such as Great Britain from the EU, or within nation states themselves such as California in the US. All should be encouraged.

Of course, the case for decentralization has to be made on ideological grounds. The Left, most likely, will not be a natural ally for secession, nor are conservatives, most of whom are under the spell of “nationalism” and “restoring the Republic.” Yet, the Right offers the best opportunity to build a secession movement and needs to be convinced that the preservation of the nation state will only lead to the complete triumph of liberalism.

Secession would also necessitate the breakup of the nation-state’s monopoly of money and banking. Numerous political divisions would be more likely to adopt a single monetary unit – gold – which would guarantee financial stability rather than the debt ridden paper-money system now in place.

Next to the outbreak of World War III, immigration is the greatest threat to what remains of Western Civilization. Smaller political units would be far better to control their borders than reliance on a central authority which can be easily manipulated from outside agents.

The solution to the myriad of social and economic problems that confront Western societies will not come about from a “reform” of the nation state, but through its dissolution. Only through a world made up of hundreds, if not thousands, of Lichtensteins, Hong Kongs, Monacos, confederacies, free cities, etc., will these crises be hoped to be resolved.

*Tyler Durden, “This $5 Trillion Time Bomb Will Devastate Americans.” Zero Hedge. 9 August 2017. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-09/5-trillion-time-bomb-will-devastate-americans

**Robert Frank. “800,000 People Are About to Flee New York and California Because of Taxes, Say Economists.” CNBC.com. 26 April 2018. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/26/800000-people-are-about-to-flee-new-york-california-because-of-taxes.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

A Constitutional Anniversary to Forget

14 Replies

constitutionstupid

While not a jubilee year, last week marked the 230th anniversary of the US Constitution. Naturally, most of its devotees enthusiastically praised the document which by now is seen on a par with Holy Writ itself. An editorial from Investor’s Business Daily provides an example of such hagiography:

The Constitution’s beauty is that it not only delineates our rights

as Americans, but expressly limits and defines government’s ability

to interfere in our private lives. This equipoise between citizens’

duties, responsibilities and rights makes it the defining document

or our nation’s glorious freedom.

But America is wonderful largely because of the Constitution and

those who framed it . . . .

What we have is too precious to squander . . . .*

Most of the piece laments about the widespread ignorance of its sacred contents among the denizens in which it rules over and encourages the unlearned “to bone up a bit on your constitutional heritage . . . .” The editorial fails, as do most others on the Right, to understand that it is not a lack of knowledge of the Constitution’s contents among the populace which lies at the heart of America’s social, economic, and political problems, but the very document itself.

One of the main reasons why the Constitution continues to be so widely venerated is due to the deliberate distortion of history that its “founders” promoted and that generations of its sycophants have continued to perpetuate to this very day. The official narrative runs that the Constitution was enacted because of widespread popular support for a change to the supposed inadequacies and deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation.

This is a myth. Instead, the Constitution was a coup deliberately schemed by the leading political and mercantile classes to set up a powerful central government where ultimate authority rested in the national state. The use of the term “federal” to describe what was created in Philadelphia in those fateful days was a ruse much like the banksters and politicos used “Federal Reserve” to describe the central bank created in 1913. It was neither “federal” – a decentralized monetary order – nor a “reserve” of gold, but a monetary institution which could create money out of thin air and eventually eliminate the gold standard.

It was a similar political maneuver 230 years ago as a new American national state was established and touted as a decentralized form of government where power was evenly divided between state and national levels and between the different branches of the government itself – “separation of powers.” In actuality, however, the “federal system” was the elevation of central power at the expense of local authority which had previously existed. Section VI of the Constitution says it all:

The Constitution and the laws of the United States . . .

shall be the supreme law of the land; and the

judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the

Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Elementary political science has shown and plain common sense knows that any person or institution given “supreme authority” will misuse and abuse such power. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely is an undeniable dictum of human nature. A truly decentralized system of governance would not contain a plank as “supreme law of the land” as part of its foundation. Instead, real federalism would be dispersed, as it existed in the past in such political arrangements as confederacies, leagues, and, certainly, under the much maligned feudal social order.

Even the Constitution’s celebrated Bill of Rights is flawed and has proven to be ineffective in protecting basic human freedoms. It is the federal government which enumerates and interprets what freedom individuals should possess. Thus, the meaning and extent of individual liberties will be in the hands of federal jurists and courts who will invariably rule on cases in favor of the state. The ensnaring of individual rights within the central government’s authority did away with the venerable common law which was a far greater defender of liberty than federal courts.

Just as important, the enactment of the Constitution, which brought all the individual states under it suzerainty, did away with one of the most significant checks on state power – “voting with one’s feet.” When there are multiple governing authorities, if one jurisdiction becomes too oppressive, its subjects can move to freer domains. This still happens on a local level as high tax and regulatory states such as California and New York have lost demographically to freer places like Nevada and Texas. Yet, from the Federal Leviathan there is no escape, except expatriation.

Unless and until Americans and all the other peoples of the Western world who live under constitutional rule recognize that it is the type of government which is the cause of most of the political turmoil, social unrest, and economic malaise which they face, there is no hope of turning things around.

*”Sturdy Constitution, ” Investor’s Business Daily, Week of September 18, 2017, A20.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com