A Tale of Two Governments

two faces

Back in the days when I blogged at Townhall.com I regularly argued with anti-government types who alternately identified themselves as libertarians, anarchists, minarchists and anarcho-libertarians.  They weren’t quite sure what they stood for or precisely what they wanted, but they denounced me as a “grateful slave” to government because I was a conservative Republican.  Despite all of their angry fist-shaking, their attempts at debating me failed because they could not get around this one inarguable fact:  there will be government.

Thomas Paine said, Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”  The anarchists will quibble, pointlessly, about whether government is “necessary,” but this is like arguing over whether mountains are necessary or rocks are necessary.   Why argue whether something is “necessary” when it is going to exist regardless?  Government is a reality.  It is going to exist whether we like it or not, and whether anyone deems it “necessary” or not.  The reason I know this is because it occurs in every society, across geography and across time, from tribal chieftains to Pharaohs to kings and queens to prime ministers to presidents and congresses….. government has existed in one form or another.  This is the nature of the human race.  It’s why ships have captains, corporations have boards and CEOs, schools have principles and towns have mayors.  Society yearns for order and order requires leadership.  And the dirty little secret of the anarchists is that they don’t want to ban order, they want to define it.

The point of this tale is to explain the thinking of America’s great Founders.  The anarchists would argue that the Founders weren’t great at all, that they were just self-serving men who wanted to install a government of their own liking, and in doing so they empowered the power-hungry and set us up for the ongoing struggle against big government that has persisted ever since.  But I believe the Founders, knowing and living history as they did, were responding to the reality that there will be overarching government, and if they did not shape it, someone else inevitably would.  So they seized the moment and shaped a Constitution that, if adhered to, promised to protect liberty by limiting the reach and power of the federal government.  In doing so it’s true that they also created the means by which the power-hungry could worm their way in and take control, as we’ve seen others do again and again throughout history.  The fact is, though, the power-hungry are always lurking and would come no matter what.  Just as human nature prescribes that societies will instinctively sort themselves into leaders and followers, it also prescribes that a fraction of the population will be driven by an insatiable quest for power.  The Founders made no claims of having the magic to defeat them.  They could only set up a firewall and hope that we would have the wisdom, the fortitude and the perseverance to preserve it.  I think they would be disappointed, but not surprised, to see how the firewall is crumbling today, and how the power-hungry have seeped into the cracks like water through a compromised dam.

The two governments that I refer to in this tale, therefore, are the government of the Founders (i.e. The People) versus government of the power-hungry, both of which are waging a fierce battle for control of the means to carry out their mission, i.e. our federal government.  The Founder’s government sees itself as defined and limited by the four corners of the Constitution.  It’s job is to provide for the nation’s defense, our common welfare and to be America’s trustee when dealing the rest of the world.  The government of the power-hungry sees itself as limited only by what it can’t get away with.  It sees the federal government as a tool for forcing the American people to bend to the will of the power-hungry and to transfer wealth from one group of Americans to another so as to serve the ultimate interests of the power-hungry.  The government of the power-hungry performs the role required by the Constitution only to the extent that it serves the ultimate interests of the power-hungry.

So whether government is “good” or not all depends on which government you’re talking about:  the Founder’s government (good) or the government of the power-hungry (evil), though the great rub is that the same host makes it possible for either one to exist.  I’ve been accused by some of being “anti-government” and by others of being “a government slave.”  LOL.  They’re both right, and they’re both wrong.  That’s the nature of the times we live in.

~CW

P.S.

Keep an eye on the fight brewing in Florida.  Looks like it could come down to a battle of the Florida constitution versus the power-hungry who are testing the citizens’ will to enforce that constitution.  It may be the perfect micro-study of the battle described above.



Categories: Political

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

34 replies

  1. BTW, I think there are clear flaws in the American System…some were there from the beginning, some have been added over time. Primarily, though, the creation of a Super-State (USGovt.) was the fatal flaw. I think we saw the same problem in the USSR as well as with the EU today. I think its pretty clear at this point that states/nations shouldn’t co-mingle their sovereignty & that smaller-states are probably more manageable.

    Statism itself is inherently flawed because is allows a small ruling-class to violate basic natural laws that the rest of us are expected to respect–they literally have a license to kill, steal, and coerce/extort us. I’m still waiting for Statists to explain how they deal w/this inherent contradiction & how they prevent Sociopaths and Psychopaths from rising to power…

    Indirect-democratic representative govt. (esp. one w/as low a ratio of reps. to residents as the USA) has proven to not function well as far as executing the “will of the people” is concerned. Its too easy to subvert. There are too many bottle-necks in the existing system–control of a single President, several key Cabinet positions, 5 SCOTUS judges, etc., results in effectively controlling the entire power structure.

    Winner-take-all elections isn’t as good as proportional representation.

    Allowing women to vote has been a disaster–so has extending the vote to every 18 y.o. idiot w/a pulse. The franchise should be strictly limited to more mature (I’d say 25-30 y.o. minimum) men who pay taxes. Those collecting a govt. check of any kind should absolutely not be allowed to vote.

    Massive bills/laws that contain all kinds of garbage in them are ridiculous.

    Sunset-clauses for legislation should exist.

    Its currently too easy to pass legislation & tax.

    Its too easy for govt. to ignore written limits on its power.

    Income-tax & state control over eduction are evil.

    There should probably be term-limits.

    Those are some thoughts, there are more flaws I can list, but the problem is that the VAST majority of AmericanIdiots aren’t capable of seeing the problems in the system.

    Like

    • I think there’s a reasonable argument to make against uniting all of the states into one much larger country, but it’s a moot point now. Obviously the states weighed the pros and cons at the time and concluded that the pros outweighed the cons. We could debate all of that but I don’t see the point of wasting time on something that isn’t going to change.

      >>” Statism itself is inherently flawed because it allows a small ruling-class to violate basic natural laws that the rest of us are expected to respect–they literally have a license to kill, steal, and coerce/extort us.”

      AGAIN, that goes to the question of whether gov’t is us or them. If 100 people choose to get together and form their own little town and they vote on laws to adopt and elect someone to enforce those laws, that elected official who enforces the town’s laws does not become “a small ruling class” who can impose his personal will on the others. He is the EMBODIMENT of the people themselves, imposing THEIR rightful will to enforce the laws that they had every right to adopt. As long as our police forces and elected officials act within the constraints rightfully determined by the people, they are our agents carrying out our will and ANY ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE THAT IS A DENIAL OF LIBERTY AND SELF-GOVERNANCE of those people. The rejection of this basic right is why I find libertarianism so confounding. Your insistence that societies don’t have the right to act upon their natural instincts for order and self-protection is just a different form of authoritarianism, but since it serves your notion for how society ought to look you’re fine with it.

      The problem occurs when the people we appoint or elect begin to act outside of the constraints that the citizens initially agreed to. And I will be the first to concede that it ALWAYS happens, so in response to your challenge, “I’m still waiting for Statists to explain how they deal w/this inherent contradiction & how they prevent Sociopaths and Psychopaths from rising to power…” We can’t guarantee against sociopaths and psychopaths from rising to power, especially not when the people have been intentionally dumbed down and brainwashed; but you can’t offer any means of doing so either. Would you actually suggest that the absence of gov’t prevents sociopaths and psychopaths from rising to power???

      >>”Allowing women to vote has been a disaster–so has extending the vote to every 18 y.o. idiot w/a pulse. The franchise should be strictly limited to more mature (I’d say 25-30 y.o. minimum) men who pay taxes. Those collecting a govt. check of any kind should absolutely not be allowed to vote.”

      I agree with you – and I’m a woman! I would gladly forfeit my right to vote if the rest of the female population could be prevented from voting (my apologies to my fellow female bloggers here who are definitely pulling up the average intelligence of our gender), so long as the rest of my rights remained intact. I agree with the rest your suggestions as well. I must say, however, that the voting restrictions you propose don’t conform to the usual notions of libertarianism. Would you agree?

      >>”…the problem is that the VAST majority of AmericanIdiots aren’t capable of seeing the problems in the system.”

      Or they stand to benefit from those “problems”…….

      Like

      • >>>>>>>>>>I think there’s a reasonable argument to make against uniting all of the states into one much larger country, but it’s a moot point now. Obviously the states weighed the pros and cons at the time and concluded that the pros outweighed the cons. We could debate all of that but I don’t see the point of wasting time on something that isn’t going to change.<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>AGAIN, that goes to the question of whether gov’t is us or them. If 100 people choose to get together and form their own little town and they vote on laws to adopt and elect someone to enforce those laws, that elected official who enforces the town’s laws does not become “a small ruling class” who can impose his personal will on the others. He is the EMBODIMENT of the people themselves, imposing THEIR rightful will to enforce the laws that they had every right to adopt. As long as our police forces and elected officials act within the constraints rightfully determined by the people, they are our agents carrying out our will and ANY ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE THAT IS A DENIAL OF LIBERTY AND SELF-GOVERNANCE of those people. The rejection of this basic right is why I find libertarianism so confounding. Your insistence that societies don’t have the right to act upon their natural instincts for order and self-protection is just a different form of authoritarianism, but since it serves your notion for how society ought to look you’re fine with it.

        The problem occurs when the people we appoint or elect begin to act outside of the constraints that the citizens initially agreed to. And I will be the first to concede that it ALWAYS happens, so in response to your challenge, “I’m still waiting for Statists to explain how they deal w/this inherent contradiction & how they prevent Sociopaths and Psychopaths from rising to power…” We can’t guarantee against sociopaths and psychopaths from rising to power, especially not when the people have been intentionally dumbed down and brainwashed; but you can’t offer any means of doing so either. Would you actually suggest that the absence of gov’t prevents sociopaths and psychopaths from rising to power???<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>I agree with you – and I’m a woman! I would gladly forfeit my right to vote if the rest of the female population could be prevented from voting (my apologies to my fellow female bloggers here who are definitely pulling up the average intelligence of our gender), so long as the rest of my rights remained intact. I agree with the rest your suggestions as well. I must say, however, that the voting restrictions you propose don’t conform to the usual notions of libertarianism. Would you agree?<<<<<<<<<<<

        I think Ann Coulter also agrees w/me. If I could trade my right to vote for 20% more freedom, I'd do it in a heartbeat. As w/other things we've discussed, its a moot point, but we can dream, eh? My views on voting are probably shared more by New Right-types than libertarians, although I know some libertarians who would prefer Monarchy, a Military Junta, or even a Christian Dictatorship over what we have now (as long as it would be, on net, a freer society. You know my views on Statism, so barring the possibility of an Anarcho-Capitalist society, the form of govt. isn't as important to me as the amount of freedom we have.

        IMO, its well past time that we recognize that the "American Experiment" has, for various reasons, failed & try to think of alternatives for the future's sake. I've already mentioned some of the structural failings of our system, won't repeat it here.

        Like

    • Okay, I’m gonna jump in here, because this has to stop. I’ve watched this for days, and aside from loving to hear yourself talk, you have contributed nothing but more drivel. It’s obvious you can go on and on, pathetically and endlessly, and CW is to be commended for her infinite patience, but Garnet wouldn’t have tolerated this, and out of respect for him, I have to stop it.

      Since Garnet can’t speak for himself or for his site, I must. Any additional comments from you will be marked as spam and won’t be posted.

      If you missed the part where we told people this site is shutting down since the loss of our founder, then let this serve as a reminder. If you want to continue this conversation, do at your own site, or not. I don’t care, but this stops now.

      Like

  2. CW
    July 23, 2019 • 11:07 PM
    Like I said in another comment, it’s easy to be a libertarian. Since you never win, you never have to make hard choices and you have no record – good or bad – so the arrogance comes easily I guess.
    _______________________________________________________________________________________

    No, it’s not easy being a libertarian…being constantly right & having no one listen…being the few sane people in this nation surrounded by insane idiots.

    If ‘winning’ is me voting/supporting those who are actively engaged in destroying America, thanks, but no thanks, I’ll stick to ‘losing’.

    Arrogance is supporting destructive, failed policies (like Iraq-Af, WOT, Police State Amerika, etc.) & refusing to take responsibility. Your mind-boggling defense of GWB’s Trotskyite foreign policy also sounds very much like Progs who defend Obamacare–we had to do SOMETHING to combat the HC ‘crisis’. I guess Progs can simply dismiss Conservatives who predicted ACA would be a disaster too, eh? See how that works?

    About 3000 people died in the 911 attacks (at least partially carried out by ‘our great friends/allies’ Israel & Saudi Arabia)…app. 10-12X that number of people die EVERY YEAR just on America roadways…homicide account for another 5-8X the deaths EVERY YEAR. 100,000’s die EVERY YEAR from from sickness/disease. 10,000’s commit suicide EVERY YEAR. A measly 3000 deaths caused you to panic like a herd animal and beg your rulers for less freedom!

    Your hysterical reaction to 911 was utterly predictable & irrational. Your Rulers understood that you would EAGERLY trade freedom for perceived security–and you did. Ironically, the same rationale is used by Progs to push gun control.

    While you NeoCons have been supporting America’s role as World’s Policeman, fretting about Israel’s borders, and wasting TRILLION$ defending Europe, Japan, Australia, Saudi Arabia, etc…America was invaded by 50-80 MILLION unarmed 3rd World peasants and another 60 MILLION Americans were murdered via abortion. Talk about not having your head screwed on right!!!

    Like

  3. Yo, CW, do you realize that American NeoCons were (are) Jewish Trotskyites (or descended from them) who lost the Communist power struggle in the Soviet Union?

    Why would you place more trust/faith in Jewish Trotskyite Communists than in American libertarians?

    Do you realize that your views are far more in line w/Communism than liberty?

    Are you confused or dishonest when you claim you’re for limited-govt. & pro-American?

    Like

    • >>“…do you realize that American NeoCons were (are) Jewish Trotskyites (or descended from them) who lost the Communist power struggle in the Soviet Union?”

      No. Is Trotskyite-ism hereditary??

      >>”Why would you place more trust/faith in Jewish Trotskyite Communists than in American libertarians?”

      I wouldn’t put my trust in either one.

      >>”Do you realize that your views are far more in line w/Communism than liberty?”

      You don’t know my views. You’re too busy trying to twist and mold me into the archetypical adversary you’ve read about at LewRockwell.com because that stereotype is the easiest for you to attack.

      >>”Are you confused or dishonest when you claim you’re for limited-govt. & pro-American?”

      No. But you are confused AND dishonest about my views.

      Like

  4. CW
    July 21, 2019 • 9:23 PM
    It typically was that RP was an isolationist, and while you may rightfully quibble with the use of that term there is no question that there were justifiable concerns about RP’s views on foreign policy
    _______________________________________________________________________________________

    Interesting…this sounds a lot like the Trotskyite talking-points NeoCons used to mindlessly repeat back in the day…its crazy that anyone would still defend the Iraq-Af Wars, Patriot Act, etc…but I am dealing w/NeoCons here after all!

    History has completely vindicated Ron Paul (and like-minded folks)…the NeoCon idiots were proven as wrong as wrong can be…maybe you should start listening to your betters?

    Like

    • >>”History has completely vindicated Ron Paul…”

      That’s a favorite line with RP supporters, but that’s like claiming victory when someone chooses wrongly from two blind forks in the road when you still have NO IDEA where the other fork would have led. Neither you nor I nor RP knows how things around this world might have differed with RP calling the shots.

      Like

      • Do you BoomerNeoCons EVER take responsibility?

        And, yes, actually libertarians DID know where the idiotic NeoCon foreign policy would lead and strongly advised against it (Ron Paul was actually warning about it in the late 1990’s)…I guess you clowns forgot about the Vietnam War & what invading Afghanistan (“Graveyard Of Empires”) did to the USSR, eh?

        We were right (AGAIN of course!) & you were wrong…

        Like

      • Like I said in another comment, it’s easy to be a libertarian. Since you never win, you never have to make hard choices and you have no record – good or bad – so the arrogance comes easily I guess.

        You and RP were right – fighting back against aggression and doing your duty to defend the country you represent has its downfalls. If and when anything goes wrong, you will be blamed. Not everyone has the courage for that.

        I guess YOU forgot about ALL of the conquests throughout history when people said, “I’m sure if we just mind our own business they’ll leave US alone.” It’s a lot of forgetting, to be sure, but libertarians have short memories.

        Like

  5. Paraphrasing what Lysander Spooner said LONG ago:

    “The Constitution either grants authority to everything the Federal Govt. does, or has been powerless to restrain it.”

    Those are the ONLY two options…

    Like

    • And since you already acknowledged that there will be government, maybe you’d like to enlighten me as to what the genius Spooner suggested as a way to solve this problem? Can’t wait to hear this….

      Like

      • Any honest & relatively sane/informed person SHOULD be able to see that the system created by the Founders utterly failed to achieve their stated aims (of course, the conniving Federalists may have actually wanted a massive govt. all along)…

        As I said, govt. MAY be inevitable, but what we can conclusively say is that the current American system preserved neither liberty nor the nation itself (actually, it has done the opposite).

        Like

      • In other words, you can’t answer my question.

        You’re real good at complaining. You just don’t have any better ideas.

        Like

  6. CW
    July 20, 2019 • 9:59 PM
    “Thank you for that lecture. A serf calling someone else a “serf” is very meaningful.”

    I’m sorry if facts hurt your feelings, but…property taxes (permanent rent paid to your govt. feudal lord for the PRIVILEGE of being allowed to reside on its land) do in fact exist…if you work (being you’re a Boomer, it’s possible you’re already retired and leeching off of other people’s labor) its very likely that your total tax/cost-of-govt. burden (in the 30-50% range) is as much or MORE than that of old-time serfs.

    Oh, but I forgot, “Muh Founders & Constitution say I’m free–Merr’kuh!” And you get to vote for either Republican Tyranny or Democrat Tyranny! TOTAL FREEDOM, WOO-HOO!

    Like

    • Seems to me YOU are the one whose feelings are most hurt by the facts…..

      Like

      • CW
        November 9, 2018 • 5:01 PM
        “If it were possible, they would scrap the Constitution and install a king, letting him rule indefinitely.”

        Yep – and *we’d be* the serfs.

        Seems to indicate that you don’t understand that you ARE a serf…although old-time serfs were likely left alone to a FAR greater degree than we are today.

        Voting for John McRomney won’t change it either.

        Like

      • Did voting for Ron Paul change it????

        Like

  7. Anarchists & libertarians are simply people who recognize the BS that most people believe about the govt. ‘We the people’ did not set-up the govt. The govt. does not represent ‘us’.

    Maybe govt. is inevitable, but instead of lying to yourself about it, you could at least recognize the obvious fact that govt. is nothing more than a legalized mafia which extorts protection money from you & which forcefully assumes control over key choke-points of the economy/society in order to extract fees from the rest of us.

    Like

    • Your version of gov’t is one of the two faces I described above. The other face of OUR gov’t, thanks to our wise Founders, is the face that protects your right to free speech, your right to be armed, your right to be defended in court, your right to vote, etc., etc., etc. You know as well as I do that in many other countries such rights don’t necessarily exist. That’s not a “lie.” That is the reality. Gov’t is no better than the people who are elected to run it. The Founders never promised it would be otherwise, and you can’t offer anything better.

      You begrudgingly acknowledge that gov’t is inevitable, but you brush it off as if this is some side fact that’s inconsequential to your point. You’re WRONG. Every facet of this discussion hinges on that one inescapable reality. That’s what the Founders understood. Neither you nor Lew Rockwell has attained that level of wisdom. Complaining is easy. Anyone can do that. Get back to me when you have a solution to the problem of the “legalized mafia.” I’ll be patiently waiting right here.

      Like

      • You sound like someone defending communism/socialism…”we just need the right people in power”…”so-and-so nation/system wasn’t real socialism”….

        Like

  8. “I regularly argued with…anarcho-libertarians.”

    LOL.

    So did I. I well remember that asshat. One of the greatest things about owning our own blog sites is that we have the power of the “Delete” key.

    Excellent column.

    You quoted Thomas Paine: “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” I usually go for Thoreau, who’s pithier: “That government is best that governs least”.

    Either way, it’s an acknowledgement that government is NECESSARY. What anarchists (and socialists, for that matter) refuse to factor into their arguments is the reality of human nature. The anarchist takes the preposterous position that without government interference people will work out their differences, and their transactions, in a way that’s fair and beneficial to all parties.

    Things might work out that way if people were angels… but they’re not. Nor are they ants genetically programmed to perform their assigned functions without self-interest. If there were no government, human nature dictates that human interaction would consist of one long, continuous and deadly game of “King of the Mountain” until that “king” established his supremacy. And, of course, once he did — and it would most certainly be a “he” because we’re talking about physical warfare — you’d have an actual king, which means… a “government”, in this case a monarchy.

    “Government” is part of the natural order of human existence, all the way down to the smallest level of the family. Even a nuclear family has a social order — or “government” — in place.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks, Brian. Excellent comment. I like the quote by Thoreau.

      I guess I’m a little weird because I kind of liked arguing with the “asshats.” It was fun to see them dance around and try to ignore facts and reality. They actually thought they had stumbled upon something ingenious with their ideas about no government and the NAP, etc., as if no one in the world had ever considered such a possibility before. But then their frustration made them vicious (so much for “non-aggression” eh?

      Your comments on human nature are spot on. The anarchists and the socialists and the communists willfully turn a blind eye to reality because they are simply determined to have what they want. At some point they will give up the pretense of debating about it and they’ll just turn violent.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I remember going onto Townhall (Israel-firster/NeoCon
      /Trotskyite site) and arguing w/Conservative asshats who thought the Iraq-Af Wars, Patriots Act, TSA, etc. were all wonderfull ideas!

      Asshats who thought John “Liberal Maverick” McCain & Mitt “New England Progressive” Romney were more in line w/America, liberty, & the constitution than RON PAUL!

      Like

      • You’re just a liar who makes up shit. I was at TH, and the argument for McCain was not that he was “more in line w/America, liberty, & the constitution than RON PAUL!” It typically was that RP was an isolationist, and while you may rightfully quibble with the use of that term there is no question that there were justifiable concerns about RP’s views on foreign policy, regardless of whether you agree or not. More importantly, RP didn’t sell his message well, and he couldn’t win. All the righteousness in the world isn’t worth a damn if you can’t beat back the enemy.

        Eleven years later and you’re still as dishonest now as you were then. Sad.

        Like

  9. CW, you are right. The Founders implemented a Republic. They feared majority rule and Democracies as outlined by Madison in Federalist Paper 10. However the progressive revolution has been changing the U.S. into a a Democracy where the most powerful rule the minority. Now we are changing from a Democracy to a Socialist nation. It is not the job of elected officials to implement the policy of a majority of their supporters, but it is the job of elected officials to protect the rights of all equally. This is where government has gone awry. For instance, a border wall will protect the rights of all citizens from having illegal aliens violate their rights but protectionism may favor some citizens at the expense of others.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Very well said, Patrick. The border wall is a perfect example of gov’t performing its proper role according to the Constitution, both with respect to our security and the common good.

      Like

  10. Great bird’s eye view of the Florida voting corruption. It is the power struggle between the law and the anti law thugs. Pray! This is an important election in Florida.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The Dems are figuring that they can’t lose. If they overturn the election, they win, and if they manage to de-legitimize the Republicans like they did to Bush, they’ll consider that a win as well. That’s how evil they are.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Good stuff, as always, CW. Motivation is the factor that makes the biggest difference. The Founders set up our type of government because they cared about this new country and wanted it to endure. They put the power in the people’s hands and made sure we would never have a king.

    That ‘insatiable quest for power’ is the motivation for the evil-doers. They care very little about the country itself or how long it can last. If it were possible, they would scrap the Constitution and install a king, letting him rule indefinitely.

    We have to keep fighting, even if all we do is tread water, so we don’t end up right back where we started. Like Reagan said, there’s no place else to go.

    Re Florida – Marco Rubio made a good point about this – Bay County was hit with a Cat 4 hurricane 4 weeks ago and still managed to account for their votes, while Broward County, untouched by the storm, is having problems. Why weren’t these people fired after they had problems with them in 2016??

    Liked by 1 person

    • “If it were possible, they would scrap the Constitution and install a king, letting him rule indefinitely.”

      Yep – and we’d be the serfs. Of course, then they would all be scheming to dethrone the king and take over themselves…..

      “Why weren’t these people fired after they had problems with them in 2016?”

      I can only assume that Dems run the whole show in those counties. Maybe they kept her because they knew she could be counted on.

      Thanks, Kathy!

      Like

      • The constitution was scrapped (Lincoln’s War) and you are a Serf–you can’t own land but only rent (property taxes) from the govt; assuming you work & aren’t leeching off of others via Social Security, a pension, or some other type of welfare, you likely pay MORE in combined taxes than a typical medieval serf did.

        In the American System the President (esp. in the modern era) serves a similar function to a King. At least a straight-up Monarchical System is honest about who rules you.

        Like

      • Thank you for that lecture. A serf calling someone else a “serf” is very meaningful.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: