The First Ten Years: The Monster Proceeds Apace by Bill Buppert

“The United States Constitution provides that Congress “shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises … but all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

The Anti-Federalists were the enemies of the state and the Federalists were the champions of the omnipotent national state. This divide would animate the argument on how to govern North America below the Canadian border after 1783. But why then was the war fought? Why institute a system just as monstrous as the one they had just stumbled away from in London?

So, why, pray tell, did the British colonials seek a divorce and violently so after General Gage’s predations on arms and power in 1774-175?

So it begins:

Many causes emerged and these are certainly at the forefront:

 October 7, 1763 King George III proclaims a ban on westward migration in the colonies.

 April 5 and 9, 1763 Parliament passes the Sugar and Currency Acts

 March 22, 1765 Parliament passes the Stamp Act (even playing cards and dice)

 May 15, 1765 Parliament passes the Quartering Act of 1765

 March 18, 1766 Parliament repeals the Stamp Act and passes the Declaratory Act (asserting the authority of Parliament to legislate for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever.”)

 June 29, 1766 Parliament passes the Townshend Acts

 July, 1767 Parliament passes the New York Suspending Act

 April 21, 1768 The British Secretary of State for the colonies responds to the Massachusetts Circular Letter

 June 8, 1769 The British Secretary of State for the colonies orders General Thomas Gage to deploy forces to Boston

 March 5, 1770 The Boston Massacre leads to the death of five colonists

 November 2, 1772 The first Committee of Correspondence is formed in Boston, and produces Samuel Adams’ bold assertion of the “Rights of the Colonists,” and Dr. Joseph Warren’s “List of Infringements and Violations of Rights.”

 January 6, 1773 Massachusetts’ Governor Hutchinson argues the supremacy of Parliament before the General Court

 May 10, 1773 With the passage of the Tea Act, the East India Company is granted a virtual monopoly on the tea trade in the colonies

 March 31-June 2, 1774 The British Parliament passes the five Coercive Acts in order to punish Massachusetts for the Tea Party and regain control of the colony

 September 11, 1774 King George III commits Britain to a policy of intractable opposition to colonial claims.

This is not the complete list but simply highlights what one can find in the primary source documents but many of these simply overlook the day to day predations of the ruling class both English and later American weaponized by the governing instruments of the state.The Whiskey Rebellion was merely a homegrown version of reacting to the Coercive Acts under the British yoke. I would urge everyone interested to read further on these precursors to American Revolution I.

This is not comprehensive by any stretch but space demands brevity for the purpose of showing that the Constitution was simply a redux and improved imitation of Imperial law making from the mother country. This is why the Anti-Federalists were so horrified by the political coup in Philadelphia crafting the monstrous Constitution.

You will be shocked to learn by the end of this essay a legal precedent in 1792 that current band of legal brigands on the Supreme Court used to tax not only action but inaction (drawn from the chilling dissent by Thomas on the national socialist healthcare tax championed by Roberts).

Many Constitutionalists constantly badger everyone around them that the restoration of the document or a return to its origins will create a new yellow brick road where the government acknowledges and protects individual liberty at every turn and the central government in contravention of all human recorded history will remain small and vigilant of every predation on individual freedom.

Ad nauseum, the same parroting of nonsense learned in government obedience classes carefully and artfully disguised as civics class begun by a pledge to the centralizing instrument of mankind on the North American continent. The statist Tourette’s syndrome that urges desperate men to paint history not as it was, but as they wish it to be.

I have covered various aspects of why the Constitution is a devilishly clever instrument to make a Helot people think they are free. Under Article VIII of the Articles of Confederation, the United States federal government did not have the power to tax. And on reflection, wisely so. As one will note from the quote at the top, the first order of business for the Constitution was into wrest the power of the taxing regime to the top of the political food chain.

Kenneth Royce does a brilliant book-length treatment of why the Constitution is so awful for free men and such a gift for grasping totalitarians.

So I simply want to treat the first ten years of the career of the document to show just how monstrous a predator on liberty it truly was. Many of these champions of the “original” document claim that the later distortions and license used by the executive, legislature and courts were merely deviations. I will establish they are a pattern from birth.

These are the same folks by the way who take the problematic Second Amendment seriously yet the record of infringement would occupy volumes to document. A brief 20th century tour of “infringement” would be the 1934 National Firearms Act, 1938 Federal Firearms Act, 1939, US v. Miller, 1968 Gun Control Act (egged on by Governor Reagan’s Mulford Act and the RFK assassination), Nixon’s call for a handgun ban in 1972, the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act, the Bushevik I import ban in 1989, AWB, Brady Bill, NICS, Bushevik II’s 2007 NICS Improvement Act and all the attendant nonsense in between and since.

Excepting Nixon’s imbecilic proposal, all the law of the land stamped and approved by all branches. All Constitutionally endorsed.

The Arkansas high court stars the ball rolling in 1842 in State v. Buzzard for this collectivist nonsense with guns. “That the words ‘a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State’, and the words ‘common defense’ clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Arkansas and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms.”

And we have all heard that nonsense in the gun community for decades and nothing is new under the sun.

But I digress; this is merely Exhibit A to show the further corrosive effects of thinking a government can remain limited in its infringements on liberty, which the Constitutional framework codifies in addition to the legal ownership of other humans in chattel slavery..

We’ve all discussed the Quasi-War with France from 1791-1800, the Whiskey Rebellion, the Alien and Seditions Act and other such liberty destroying edicts that crushed the animating spirit of liberty that had started the divorce proceedings with the United Kingdom in 1775 in the first place.

The Constitution not only codified slavery but used government money to equip the patrols to repatriate the “human property”. Read Section 3 and 4 of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 to really get your government muscle on. This was approved on 12February 1793 with 48 votes in favor and 7 against and 14 abstaining.

This was the unfinished business of the slave clause from 1787 coup convention:

The Fugitive Slave Clause undoubtedly gave slave-owners something of value. The Articles of Confederation had contained no similar provision, nor had the Articles given the Confederation Congress power over the issue. At most, masters might attempt to exercise their common law right to recapture fugitives on their own, but it appeared that nothing restricted free states from denying that right by asserting that any slave who entered their territory could not be seized and returned.

Both of these laws also made it a crime to abet or provide sanctuary for runaway slaves. This is an important part of the modern police state in America with its huge odious infrastructure of confidential informants, accessories and all the active police state apparatchiks that comprise the bloated malum prohibitum legal/ custody complex in America.

Want to read something really scary? Look at what happened to Ben Franklin’s grandson, Benjamin Bache, at the hands of the Federal government at the Aurora in the 1790s. James Adams, the royal aspirant suggested a verbose title for the president: “His Highness, the President of the United States of America and Protector of the Rights of the Same.” Despite the HBO whitewash of this politicking scoundrel, the record speaks of a despot. Along with this, he proposed that the president and all senators should hold their offices for life. Bache would suffer mightily at the hands of the administration for merely pointing out the emperor has no clothes.

Ask Mr. Bache about Rightful Liberty.

A closer look at the mischief of the ten years under the auspices of the Constitution paints an even bleaker picture.

Almost immediately. the taxing mischief of the central state to get the machinery rolling. In fairness, by 1796, state and local governments in fourteen of the 15 states taxed land. Delaware taxed the income from property. The central government tax theft schemes would merely compound matters for struggling farmers, ‘smiths and businessmen.

Despite the famed marker of 1803 for Supremes sovereignty in determining Constitutionality, it occurred earlier than that. In Hayburn’s Case (1792), the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the Invalid Pensioners Act (1792). Once again, a mere year after the ratification of the Constitution a wealth redistribution scheme for the transference of government monies from one part of the constituency to another was argued after said money had been seized through taxation. Of course, the practice was continued.

Unlike Marbury v. Madison in 1803 which questioned an Act of Congress and ruled it unconstitutional, Hylton v. United States was the 1796 decision that determined the tax industry for the American government would be able to torture language and behavior until they wrestled a rationale to start taking money out of the citizen’s pockets a mere five years after the ink had dried on the Constitution. This would be the first in a long and wretched train of decisions expanding the central government’s ability to tax everything it could lay claim to. The sole reason income taxes weren’t considered was most likely the immaturity of accountancy and verification technology at the time. Ironically, Justice John Roberts in 2012 would use this decision as a touchstone for justifying Obamacare as a tax. Think about that: the rudiments of the national socialist takeover of healthcare in America relies partially on the rationalizations for tax schemes from the early days of the beloved Constitution.

You have to read Roberts’ opinion to get a full whiff of the stench of this decision:

“A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, “without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance.” Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) Justice Roberts says: “…the health care penalty tax is not a direct tax because no one in the past has every tried to tax everyone directly for health care. If no one in the past has ever tried it, then it cannot be a direct tax now.”

This is the reasoning of a toddler lathered in complex fallacies throughout.

Roberts later admits that the penalty applies to everyone (that is, it is an unconstitutional direct tax), but it is only “triggered by specific circumstances.” Figure that out. That circumstance is being forced into an insurance pool after which one is committed by the government to fulfill. Ex post facto ergo propter hoc.

Samuel Chase said in Hylton:

“The term duty, is the most comprehensive next to the generical term tax; and practically in Great Britain, (whence we take our general ideas of taxes, duties, imposts, excises, customs, etc.) embraces taxes on stamps, tolls for passage, etc. etc. and is not confined to taxes on importation only.” And, “As I do not think the tax on carriages is a direct tax, it is unnecessary, at this time, for me to determine, whether this court, constitutionally possesses the power to declare an act of Congress void, on the ground of its being made contrary to, and in violation of, the Constitution; but if the court have such power, I am free to declare, that I will never exercise it, but in a very clear case.”

This is a terrific example of the logic of a tyrant. The Constitutional parchment is merely another instrument of tyranny but what a vehicle for abuse of power it has become.

This the first ten years of this diabolical instrument. Ten years on and it is used as a lever to control the most banal human transactions from speech to spirits to dissent.

Is it any wonder the westward expansion started so quickly as entire families and communities desperately fled west to territories unfettered by the Constitution?

As Patric Henry would tell us, he smelled a rat. Indeed.

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

– Lysander Spooner

19 thoughts on “The First Ten Years: The Monster Proceeds Apace by Bill Buppert”

  1. MtTopPatriot

    The beast never stopped at the edges of the north American frontier, it divorced itself from the British empire and became an empire which eclipsed every empire before it. But it is a singularly unique empire, one which has employed soft strategy of economic and monetary warfare upon the world, its vassal states are akin to lieutenants and captains in a Sicilian crime family, a spoils system, with an armed leg breaking component which is sent after those who refuse to comply or pose a threat to the revenue stream.
    I think the new empire required a safe base to originate this new world order from, both security through geographic isolation, and unfettered access to uncountable pristine resources, and thus the conspiracy of Philadelphia created the fig leaf of legitimacy required to fool enough people long enough, and to create a domestic spoils system in which it garnered its starting capitol, monetary, political, and resource wise, to rule and plunder the economic world.

    And that is what we have today.

    Because parchment.

    A cabal of oligarch’s psychopaths and a few megalomaniacs whose greed and hubris and lust can never be sated, who created and control the western monetary system, and employ cause and effect to manipulate what they don’t directly have their fetid meathooks on, and most of the resource stream of essential materiel which powers humanity.

  2. MtTopPatriot

    A Russian perspective of how desperate the Federalists are to retain their primacy and power. Lot of good stuff in this. You can see a number of parallels in the crisis as a means doctrine and means justify the ends mentality of the sonofabitches.

    But even more evil is just how out of control and totally insane the system of nation states has become, and how little people are lower than insects to be used crushed murdered and exterminated by any expedient means required in the pursuit of ever more power and wealth.

  3. Pingback: Buppert: The First Ten Years – The Monster Proceeds Apace | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  4. Interesting.

    Given that my focus is on teaching tactics for post-collapse survival, and that if we have a collapse the USC is a moot point, what do you propose as a system of government after that point?

    (Assuming survival and some sort of organization into sustainable communities – the danger being ‘might is right’ and that it isn’t the ‘good guys’ putting laws back into effect. Warlordism, foreign invasion, etc).

    1. Max,

      Always a pleasure to hear from you and I appreciate the skills you bring to the post-collapse possibilities. I propose nothing resembling the pre-collapse borders of America and hope those ambitions remain dead and buried. I want to see secession, sundering, decentralization and a variety of possibilities emerge. Different polities can emerge to suit every fancy from non-slave states to communes to USC micro-republics to full-blown soviet republics in the American NE and the Left Coast (is there marxism in the Pacific Ocean?). I suspect there may even be theocratic freeholds in the Inland NW. The possibilities are endless. I used to cotton to the Articles of Confederation but history has left me bereft of a single example of a government that limits itself.

      Per the foreign occupation thesis advanced by a number of observers and 2x Russian professors, I see no credence in it. The peaceful divorce of Czechoslovakia, the dozen+ states sundered from the collapse of the USSR (the Stan brothers) and the Balkan fissure saw no ambitious foreign landholders “fill the void”. Hell, the Alma/Ata Protocol may be a model for dissolving the US. So history doesn’t prove out the thesis but the sheer lack of strategic sealift and airlift on the part of any other countries obviates the possibility of a beachhead much less a lodgement that can be expanded to consolidate the initial hold.

      Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria have all proved that even in this hyper-tech world of US hyper power badness, stalemates if not defeats can be visited on the most able nation at arms esp invaders.

      BTW, your recent posting on the Colombian army paralysis in the face of rather mundane SUT by the FARC is demonstrative of US light fighter training = call for fire when in a lurch and don’t use elegant light infantry maneuver to solve the problem. This is why when the collapse comes, Max-trained FREEFOR and FM 7-8 practitioners are going to provide quite a run for SLAVFOR when they get sporty. Also, per your own observations, the Kiwis are a much more tempting and doable invasion prospect if the Chinese shake off their historical temerity for extra-territorial military adventures.



  5. I think we might want to hold our fire on this question of the Constitutional “restoration”:

    The point is not to persuade Constitutionalists not to be Constitutionalists. The point is to get them to tolerate others who do not agree with them. We will need them as allies in the coming rebellion, and they will need us. We just need to make it very clear that, at the end, we will no more put up with tyranny on their part, than we will from the tyrants they replaced.

    1. Paul,

      Outstanding essay and observations. As someone obsessed with historical truth, I can’t help but examine the sordid beginning that Rothbard turned me onto. I will fight alongside Constitutionalists in FREEFOR but it is disconcerting to see how many profess once SLAVFOR is vanquished they will turn their guns on anyone who doesn’t bend a knee to the next variation of the state that thinks the Ten Commandments are a bad idea and “don’t hit and don’t steal ” is an improper means to build a society.


  6. William Lind’s “Victoria” is interesting in describing a potential answer to that problem of finding a functional middle ground between complete anarchy and overarching central government. Most, I think, would like to preserve a civil society and the benefits derived there from. The trick is how to accomplish that for the long term.

    1. Charles,

      I like Lind’s work esp on 4GW; I will take a look. Let’s remember that the west wasn’t tamed by gunfighters but by commerce. Capitalism is the glorious system in which two complete strangers can meet, exchange goods and services and shake hands without ever taking their guns out of the holster. But government ALWAYS uses a gun b/c absent force, it can’t exist. As a matter of fact, absent a policy of terrorism (politically motivated violence against innocents), how could any state exist?


      1. I think you will find it intriguing. Keep in mind it is in the format of a novel and some things seem a bit far fetched but the underlying structure and philosophical construct of what a workable solution could be is clear.

  7. What is to replace it? What can be fashioned out of the heart and mind of a race with a fallen nature? It doesn’t matter what you make; it will be corrupted by the next generation. You cannot escape the nature of man. If you want total liberty then buy a gun because your neighbor is coming for you and yours out of greed, lust or stoked up offense. Do you want security, then bow the knee to a benevolent tyrant and hope his son is just so.

    What we have after we fix it (this Government) is the best ever created or will be created by mankind. There is no other; there is no hope other than the return of Jesus Christ and His iron rod rule based on His unchanging standard of morality. It is only God that can change the nature of a man and render him safe to live with.

    A good man today is a menace tomorrow. How many good men have we sent to D C only to have them morph into a sly little cockroache. It is the nature of the beast because the beast is made out of many little beasties. POWER CORRUPTS, ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.

    Anyone or assembly of anyone’s that think they can fashion a structure strong enough to bind the will and ego of fallen mankind is delusional and in this case revolutionary in nature which is an immorality in itself.

    Stop living in a delusional Hobbitville of a future post-revolution rebuild. It isn’t going to happen whiteboy. We’re going to have Muslims, Blacks, Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Mexicans and basically anybody that can get here crawling all over our ass. So we should secede into multiple “redoubts” and expect to survive and live in the luxury of unfettered freedom? Yea, right.

    Our ONLY hope is to sincerely repent, get armed to the teeth, stick together, fight to the death, and get the creature in Washington back onto the leash. Only this one made out of steel.

    Only put me in charge because I don’t trust you; and I will treat everybody fairly with my benevolent policies.

    1. God has not, nor will ever abandon His people (Israel). Our Father has given us civil law. Plz remember Jesus has ALL authority over heaven and earth. Not Russia, not the constitution, not any of the earthly (pathetic) attempts of man to carve out a piece for himself. If you are a follower, and you serve the constitution (you cannot have two masters), I encourage you to read the Torah, and also what Jesus and Paul have to say bout the Law

  8. The breakup in Europa was maintained by the threat of fist in face by the USA. That’s why nobody moved to claim the fragments of the workers paradise.

    China, India, Africa, Muslims; everybody is coming here to open arms by the DC cockroaches. Why do they need to fight for a beachhead? Why do they need to send war machines to attack our infrastructure? They are here and will be supported by “our” present administration. What, pray-tell, makes you think we are immune to invasion?

    And what makes anybody think that rampant sodomy, 60,000,000 dead babies sacrificed to the god of sexual pleasure and convenience, brain/soul twisting pornography, drug addled social policies, gluttony, sloth, casual blasphemy, greed, unthankfulness, isn’t enough for God to dropkick us into the garbage dump of history?

    Gentlemen; we are not safe. We have made God our enemy. Now that, is genius military strategy.

  9. Jeff Gardner

    The sweeping breadth of constitutional debasement in the document’s first decade is somehow not taught in govt skools. You went right to the crux upon which all else is built — taxation.

    Hylton was indeed the harbinger of the dark clouds a-gathering in tax matters. And, you can write about it without boring people! I submit that the horrors that later accumulate actually date to 1791 — five years before Hylton. The 1856 Murray’s Lessee decision permitted FedGov to employ mid-14c English tax procedures that were still in place at 5A ratification. G.M Leasing v U.S 429 U.S. 338 (1977) codified it. Which is why IRS just takes Stuff today absent meaningful due process. (Lots of people know that the result of these is decisions is that even for those while file taxes, never ever ever ever file a 1040 — structured as the modern day 1350-ish statute staple.)

    I digress. The point being that not only did constitutional protections fall apart inside of a decade, they eventually predated the document itself. This, of course, dusted off the oppressor’s methodology when such became convenient. You remember…the dastardly British.

    Taking that full circle, taxation was just the beginning. B of R British usurpation charges look like child’s play compared to USG action today far in excess of ‘swarms of agents to eat out their substance.’ Everything from commerce clause to Spooner’s post office echoes what you wrote in this article. An article that would become a War-and-Peace-like tome if all constitutional depredations were considered.

    1. Jeff,

      All the parts and pieces you bring together is great stuff especially concerning the 1856 madness that made any IRS taking legitimate no matter what. Yes, the document was designed from the beginning to create the monster on the Potomac.


  10. MtTopPatriot

    What if the conspiracy in Philadelphia began long before Philadelphia? What if the dissolution of the compact of confederation was one of the main reasons for the war with the British empire. What if those who could do these things understood the threat to power and money the compact represented, where once such sovereign states got the economic and industrial feet under them, where the blessings of free enterprise, liberty, become a force too powerful to clandestinely undermine? What if it was all a ruse to begin with to disguise the truth?
    Crazy conspiracy theory?

    When has there not been a deeper motive and interest below and behind war, or where peoples have not been manipulated and played in the service of darker interests, which is rarely ever exposed but long after, or only known or accepted by a minority?

    What grander fig leaf of legitimacy is there than an instrument of tyranny dressed up as liberty as the USC? Such a device was not theorized and conjured by a few with ulterior motives in short order. Such a thing originated from deeper sources and a long view of such acts of tyranny.

    Look through history, the general historical record is too pat, too convenient, too many coincidences, too many convenient crises, which dovetail so well with the roots of the progression of tyranny we suffer, not unlike every pivotal point or paradigm like event in our history. Not unlike events and actions today taken under a myriad of political, social, and economic causation. There is nothing new it is all the same things only the dates and actors change. And one common thread, the one constant which has continued on a straight line through time is like an arrow straight right to our time and the totalitarian culmination of those seeds of tyranny planted all the way back to the beginning.

    1. Doug,

      Fantastic summation as usual. While I am not a conspiracy theorist per se, there is a sure recipe throughout history that seems to riff in the west. The “great man” arrives on a horse to unseat the latest miscreants in power and the identical surrender of liberties leads to more….tyranny.

      I would hate to lose you here but you need to pen your own blog.


      1. MtTopPatriot

        Well that means a lot coming from you Bill. A lot. I hope in some way we are on the same page.

        Your audacity and perseverance and considerations of what the truth of history is is a great effort. The truth is everything, nothing less is acceptable, especially if there is to be something worthy in the cause of liberty. The great thought leaders of the day, which I believe you are one, are essential if we are to find something greater and larger in ourselves. Max would never accept such a title himself, and in his own way Max is a leader, a reluctant and humble one, though he carries a big stick and knows well what he is about. Fact of the matter, you both carry big sticks, pens and swords really. That is inspiring things, and that you two wielded them with humility lends you both and your words, and actions credibility.

        I would like to point out there is another connection between Max and you, please forgive me if I am being presumptuous, both of your endeavors are inseparable, both of your positions on liberty are integral to the larger scope of things, as in you can’t have one without the other.

        Maybe that is obvious and it is stupid to say it?

        But if there is one thing that is apparent, all the ingredients of liberty and freedom, from the philosophical to action, are component parts, and where one is neglected liberty and freedom is not obtainable, rightful liberty and freedom to be exact.

        It seems like a kind of absolute, where there is no such thing as partway liberty, there is no such thing as a little bit of slavery. Patrick Henry said it best “Give me Liberty or give me death”. There is no compromise.

        Just as we all can not compromise on the truth, we can not afford to do so, and as long as we are like ten thousand ants on a soap box floating down the Potomac, or maybe it is the Rubicon, all trying to be heard at once, it is difficult to hear anything at all.
        And that is where that plurality thing is so important. To me it is the crux of the answer to all the questions of where it went wrong, and specifically where it was intended to go astray, and it is where we find the answers, liberty that is. We become a plurality or we remain that ten thousand ants. And we are picked off like shooting fish in a barrel.

        You have suggested many times I write my own blog, I understand that. What I don’t understand is what a plurality is, importantly how it becomes one, how it even becomes aware it is one. I think I understand the power and undeniable a plurality possesses. I think I understand it need not even be formed of a great number of people. That a plurality which holds the moral high ground, is one of the most legitimate things in the sphere of human activity, kind of like liberty huh? And in a fashion is a leaderless movement, and in rare but extreme circumstances a leaderless insurgency, and it is providential in a way that is like the sacrifice. The Sacrifice. It carries a caveat of the highest pedigree.

        I read Eric Frank Russell’s great masterpiece on a plurality Then There Where None when I was very young, I think it stuck with me in some way, you turned me on to it awhile back and it really stuck with me again. But the great question for me, and so much pivots on understanding the choice, not the question, because I already made the choice I am a plurality, of one, how is a plurality of peoples come to be in the context of here and now?

        It is like a splinter in my mind, I worry at it, hoping to dislodge it and in the process an epiphany comes to light, that somehow the realization of the cause of liberty lies in this plurality, a preference cascade, a commonality of purpose and goals.

        For some reason the answers mean everything. There is a catalyst somewhere somehow. Something precipitates it, precursors exist, there is a particular kind of spark which ignites the flame of liberty. I know it.

        And if I can understand that, so can others, everything changes.

        Maybe it is as simple and beautiful as we are a plurality already, and we just plain don’t know it. And that is all the difference in the world Bill.

  11. MtTopPatriot

    I applaud Max for his forthright profound question of what do we do, what alternatives are there worthy of our liberty and freedoms.

    We all could do well, by ourselves and each other to figure this out. Because it is the right question.

    I think many of us think about it, it is a pickle.

    I know what I hope to happen, but without a plurality of the kind required to define its own destiny, what I hope for will never happen.
    But I’ll say this, we all have an opportunity which comes to a people once in an age where they have the opportunity to get it right. Where history is a great teacher of what not to do.

    I think almost everything is in place where a pivotal point arrives to do what otherwise could not be accomplished.

    If it could be summed up in simplest terms, our destiny is in our hands and that begins with each of us, and somehow we must reach down within ourselves and find the way to become that plurality united, and in doing so destiny, our destiny as freemen is not a victim of destiny, but our destiny is because we are, Freemen.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Scroll to Top