|
|
There is a
concept in American politics which is often expressed as: “We are a
democracy. Whenever we have a disagreement, we vote on it, and the majority
wins.” An illustration of this idea is the current debate over health
care. The “liberals” have one view, and the conservatives have
another view. The country is now in the process of voting, and when the vote
is in, we will accept the decision of the majority. That’s the system.
First, is that actually the system? At the time that America was created, did
any of the men who created it indicate, in any way, that they were setting up
such a system? Are there any words to this effect?
While such a political system would be much better than many which have
existed in human history, we cannot find any statement in any of the
important documents of American history that the above system was the
intended goal. Among important documents I would include the political
agitation which led to the Revolution, mostly by Sam Adams but also including
Patrick Henry and John Adams; the Declaration of Independence; the
Constitution; the debates at the constitutional convention of 1787 and the
Federalist Papers.
Indeed, another Revolutionary writer, James Wilson, made the following
statement:
“…the only reason why a free and independent man was bound by
human laws was this – that he bound himself.”
Andrew C. McLaughlin, Wilson on Blackstone, The Foundations of
American Constitutionalism: (New York, 1932), pp. 83-84.
This is a most interesting statement because it does not deal so much with
political issues as ethical issues. And John Locke, the philosophical
inspiration behind the Founding Fathers introduced the idea of a political
right. What does the word right mean? Any child can tell you that something
right is something good. It is the opposite of wrong. A right, as Locke used
the concept, a political right, was a freedom of action. Locke was saying
that political rights were right (in the moral sense). He was saying that
freedom was morally right.
How did the enemies of democracy deal with Locke’s argument? After all,
at the time he wrote democracy had been dead in the world for over 17
centuries. How did the people of Charlemagne’s time justify their
opposition to democracy? The answer was very simple. The supporters of the
system of monarchy from 44 B.C. to 1646 A.D. never tried to justify it at
all. You want justice? they said. You have the wrong earth. All men are evil,
and there is no justice on earth. Where the Anglo-Saxon revolutionaries of
the 17th and 18th centuries differed from all previous people since the fall
of the Roman Republic was that they expected and demanded justice. In short,
this is not a battle between two groups with different ideas of right and
wrong. It is a battle between one group which favors doing right and another
group which favors doing wrong. In short, this is the classic battle of
Armageddon, the battle between good and evil.
John Adams followed up on Wilson’s support for voluntary consent. He
wrote:
“The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals;
it is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen
and each citizen with the whole people.”
Constitution of Mass., 1780,” chiefly the work of John Adams, from
Documents of American History, 8th Edition, ed. Henry Steele Commager (New
York, 1968), p. 107.
In conclusion, since they based their political philosophy on the concepts of
rights and morality, America’s Founding Fathers intended to set up a
system based on voluntary consent. They had no intention of resolving all
differences by majority rule.
Second, let us take a common sense example. Let us imagine that we are
setting up, not a government, but just an ordinary association for an
ordinary purpose, perhaps a bridge club, a ski club or a club to study
classic literature. What would we do? The answer, of course, is that we would
follow James Wilson’s principle. We would deal with all parties by
their voluntary consent. No one would be forced to join our ski club without
his voluntary consent.
Of course, certain funding is necessary to make the ski club work. So we
would probably set up dues. We would make it clear at the outset that the
club charged dues; thus when each person joined, he was agreeing to pay dues;
thus this conforms to the principle of voluntary consent. Further, since we
could not tell in advance what level of dues was required to carry out the
purpose of the club, we would probably have the exact level of dues set by
majority vote, keeping in mind that each person had the right to quit the
club (secede in political terms) at any time for any reason.
Third, this voluntary consent model was exactly what the Founding Fathers had
in mind when they wrote the Constitution. The Constitution granted the
Federal Government 17 powers. The idea was that it had those powers and no
others. As they said, over and over;, it was a limited government. Certain
issues were resolved by majority vote but only after the unanimous consent of
everyone agreed that majority vote would apply in this particular case.
For example, an important purpose of government is to go to war. However, it
is not realistic to think that every person in the society will agree on
every war. Nevertheless, we all want to stay together as a society because we
need the protection of an organized society in case of future aggression by
evil people (e.g., Hitler, Osama bin Laden). Therefore, this is an issue
which the Constitution lists as one of the 17 powers of the Federal
Government. Most people, when they have lost a vote on a particular war, will
choose to remain in the association (i.e., remain citizens) rather than
secede. But in the concept of the Founding Fathers they always have the right
to secede if they feel strongly enough. Indeed, at the time of the War of
`1812, New England was ready to secede if the Federal Government continued to
prosecute the war. The 4 New England states called a convention in Hartford,
CT and voted to secede if the Madison Administration enacted a military
draft. “Hell no, we won’t go” is a long American tradition.
Earlier in the war Madison called out (federalized) the New England militia.
The New England governors and congressmen pointed out that the militia could
be called out only for purposes within the country (“to execute the Laws
of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” Art. I,
section 8). They could not be sent across a national border.
When Madison ordered the New England troops across the Canadian border, they
refused to go. This led to the defeat of the American invasion force and is
the reason that Canada is an independent country today. New England’s
right to succeed was accepted by all the other states, and the New England
militia were never punished for their disobedience.
In a similar manner, the western part of the state of Virginia seceded from
Virginia just prior to the Civil War because they did not want to fight a war
for slavery. Thus was formed the state of West Virginia. Even Lincoln, who
was in principle opposed to secession, accepted the West Virginia secession.
As a result of the Civil War, the nation accepted an anti-secession
viewpoint, but this represents nothing more than the evil of Abraham Lincoln
and the general failure of the pro-liberty movement of the time. Certainly
Lincoln’s viewpoint had no support from the Founding Fathers.
Fourth, the voluntary consent model and the concept that the powers of
government were limited were explicitly affirmed during the adoption of the
Bill of Rights. In answer to an objection by Hamilton (who correctly foresaw
the possibility of such people as the modern social democrats) James Madison
proposed an amendment as follows:
“The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of
particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just
importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the
powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of
such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.”
James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789,
Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, (Washington,
Gales & Seaton, 1834), Vol. I, p. 439.
In simple words, if the Constitution does not give the Government permission
to do something, then it can’t. But if the Constitution doesn’t
explicitly say that the people have a certain right, then they still have it.
Powers limited. Rights unlimited. End of story. Madison’s proposal was
divided into two parts and voted into the Bill of Rights as the 9th and 10th
amendments.
Now what does this mean? To take a few simple examples, the Constitution does
not give the Government power to pass health care legislation. Therefore, all
such legislation, be it Medicare/Medicaid or the current Obama monstrosity,
is unconstitutional. Since it is unconstitutional, it is null and void and
has no power. It is not a law. If you are a juror, your obligation on the
jury is to vote in accordance with the fact that the above legislation is not
law. The same is true for social security and for all of the wars
unconstitutionally declared by Presidents since Harry Truman. You also have a
moral obligation to vote against any candidates who violate the Constitution
and work toward the impeachment of such officials.
Fifth, the modern social democratic position (that everything should be
decided by majority vote) simply goes against the most basic common sense. It
is one of the characteristics of evil people that they will load the game in
their own favor and never make the slightest attempt to be fair. A good
example of this is the policy adopted by the New Deal to destroy food, first
by plowing under crops and later by simply paying farmers not to grow it. The
argument for this policy is that it will make the whole society richer. In the
same way, the Wall Street bailout bill of 2008 was defended by the argument
that without it the financial system would have collapsed. However, Wall
Street firms have been going bankrupt pretty much since Wall Street began,
and each time the financial system came back stronger. These were not serious
arguments. The people who made them did not believe them. They are not
genuine disputes. Further, the party which championed these positions (in
both cases the Democrats) openly declared that its objective was to rob. (It
said, “rob from the rich and give to the poor,” but it always
robbed from the poor and gave to the rich.)
Cicero pointed out that even to propose such legislation destroyed social
harmony. If I can claim that you have to give me money and that you have to
submit the issue to majority vote, then I will obviously keep manufacturing
false issues with the idea of stealing your money. Thomas Babington Macaulay
contrasts the heroic behavior of the newly republican Romans of 510 B.C. with
“modern” Rome after the welfare state had come in:
“Now Roman is to Roman more hateful than a foe,
And the Tribunes [the political left] beard the high, and the Fathers [the
political right] grind the low.
As we wax hot in faction, in battle we wax cold:
Wherefore men fight not as they fought in the brave days of old.”
“Horatio at the Bridge,” by Thomas Babington Macaulay
This is clearly happening in modern America and has been happening ever since
the beginning of the welfare state. Social harmony has been destroyed, and
Americans prefer to fight each other than to fight a foreign enemy.
There is, however, hope. The existing establishment made an enormous error in
2008. The slogan “rob from the rich to give to the poor” made an
enormous impression on many working class Americans. They did not have the
slightest concept of the depreciation of the currency and genuinely believed
that the New Deal was robbing from the rich to give to them. Even as they got
poorer and the rich got richer (1972-present) they clung to the notion that
the government was robbing from someone else to benefit them. But in 2008,
the establishment made a historic blunder. Henry Paulson openly declared that
he was robbing from the poor (“the taxpayer”) to give $750
billion to Wall Street and the banks. That was the wake-up call.
The more the Democrats pursue their fanatic “health care”
legislation the lower they drop in the polls. The “health care”
legislation itself is running a 40%-60% deficit in the polls. Obama is almost
as bad. Sen. Nelson of Nevada is down (against his likely Republican
opponent) by 30%-60%. He is the Senator whose crucial vote was bought by
Obama via favors to Nevada voters. Right now a disastrous defeat is shaping
up for the Democrats in the Nov. 2010 election.
It must be emphasized that virtually all of the Democratic legislation passed
since 1933 has been illegal because it has been against the 9th and 10th
amendments. The Founding Fathers said repeatedly that their intention in
setting up this government was to protect our rights, and one of the most
important rights was the right of property. A Government which robs is not
legal.
There is not much to be said for the conventional thief. But at least he has
physical courage. The political thieves get the Government to do their
stealing for them and to do this they violate our fundamental principles of
Government, the principles which gave us the happiest, most prosperous, most
secure and strongest country in the history of the world.
To overthrow one’s government is treason, and the historical punishment
for treason is death. Since the crimes of the New Dealers include murder as
well as thievery, the death penalty is fully warranted. They are a threat to
the life and property of most every American. For every left-wing Democrat
who is let off, it is a good estimate that millions of Americans will die.
Democracy in the wider sense is a noble ideal. But democracy in the
reactionary sense of simple majority rule with no regard for the rights of
the minority is not our form of government. To defeat the New Deal at the
polls (which appears to be about 10 months away) and then let them escape
their just punishment would be a betrayal of America and of all the American
people.
Howard Katz
The Gold Speculator
Howard S. Katz is
the editor/publisher of the One-handed Economist, a financial letter which
combines fundamental and technical analysis. He was a bug on gold in the
1970s and became a bug on gold again in late 2002.
Subscribe to the Gold
Speculator (the One Handed Economist)
You can subscribe
to Howard Katz’s thoughts on commodities, stocks, bonds and real estate
are available in a letter entitled The One-handed Economist and published
every two weeks giving specific advice on trades in stocks and futures. This
letter is available (both electronic and paper copy) for $300/year with a
3-month trial for $100. Send to: The One-handed Economist, 614 Nashua St. #122,
Milford, N.H. 03055.(Include both electronic and mailing address.)
|
|
