20 Comments

America really needs to read this:

https://francesleader.substack.com/p/what-does-the-rule-of-law-mean?utm_source=%2Fsaved&utm_medium=reader2

It sort of knocks the foundations out of your constitution.

Expand full comment

Another vote of excellent. Learned something new (Wickard v. Filburn) and made me think...

In whose interest is it to revise the way we teach children the history of our Founding Fathers? Did 19th century missionaries abridge the Biblical story of Exodus for the good of the people who were enslaved?

Expand full comment

Yet all the Founding Fathers had to do was learn the lesson from history. Magna Carta - ‘the’ Great Charter… except there were more than one. King John who signed it had started ignoring it before his reign ended. There were in fact half a dozen rewrites of the Great Charter with additions as each subsequent Angevin king ignored its provisions. Today there is no trace of Magna Carta left in the British Constitution, all overwritten by legislation to shift power from the citizen to the State and its sponsors and cronies. The Founders understood the problems with Government, what apparently they didn’t understand was a piece of paper weren’t the answer. The only answer is no Government. The principle of democracy: power evenly distributed throughout the people, is to prevent tyranny by power being concentrated in the hands of one person or a minority group. In other words democracy is to prevent Governments forming. Democratic Government is an oxymoron. Voting doesn’t mean democracy. We could replace Government with a free social market modelled on free economic market, where nobody rules but everyone cooperates within a frame work of rules (Common Law) out of mutual self-interest. Those who say there would be chaos without Government are those in or who want to be in Government or Government cronies, and those who believe in central economic planning and control.

Expand full comment

I wear sunscreen to protect you, I'm very altruistic.

https://nakedemperor.substack.com/

Expand full comment

Excellent essay. Worthy of multiple readings.

Expand full comment

When ol' Ben says, "Hella," he means, "A list? We don't need a stinkin' list. We ain't givin' a thing they don't already have."

Expand full comment

Yes as much as I love that little strip, I wish they had said "How many of the peoples' rights should we protect?" or something like that :)

Expand full comment

Yes. Then "Hella" would mean simply "All the People want."

But I think the founders realized this, hence the a propos sunglasses; The founders are cool! I like the strip, too.

Expand full comment

Excellent.

True freedom is the freedom "of" things, not the freedom "from" things.

The former is the bright future of a proud and brave sentient race of empowered individuals, the latter of fearful slaves, hive insects really, latched on to State teat, looking forward to the peace of death.

Expand full comment

Timothy, that’s the bovine covid-compliance of 2.5 years in a nutshell. I’m thinking the masses are neither proud nor brave. That was the biggest shock to me, circa early 2020 & ongoing to this day that there was so little resistance

Expand full comment

Things are changing. (Thanks for the late reply, Cindi.)

Expand full comment

No government makes you free, all prefer you in chains.

Expand full comment

President Adams had a different view did he not? The Alien and Sedition Acts -https://www.thoughtco.com/the-alien-and-sedition-acts-of-1798-4176452

Expand full comment

Thanks for the link, M. Stegiel. I have read elsewhere that Mr. Adams "Statism" (i.e. a strong Federal gov't.) was mostly informed by fear of the then-still-world-superpower over the Atlantic horizon. Did he foresee the future (War of 1812), or what. And here-in lies the eternal libertarian (Classical Liberal) conundrum. A nation must defend itself from the powers that be, but the State capable of doing so, is a State capable of "growing" itself.

How to have both, how to have both, how to.......

Expand full comment

The Articles of Confederation were overcome by the Federal Imperial State. My view is the Anti-Federalists hewed closer to the idea of political freedom. Anti-federalist Brutus (generally assumed to be New York delegate Robert Yates) summarized the issue thus:

“The first question that presents itself on the subject is…whether the thirteen United States should be reduced to one great republic…or whether they should continue thirteen confederated republics, under the direction and control of a supreme federal head for certain defined national purposes only?” https://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plans/lesson-1-anti-federalist-arguments-against-complete-consolidation

This in turn forces the question of the primary objectives of the American Revolution. Again arguments can be presented that freedom was intended rhetorically by the "Grandees" of the Eastern Seaboard who were quite closely tied to British interests. My family pioneered Kentucky in the 1740's. They came from Bremen, Germany. Never wealthy nor slavers but part of the American experience. History tends to be sentimental. We forget easily men make history. In our Revolution, and curiously in the French revolution, Masons were integral. George III was also a German. English subjects did not like having a German monarch. Part of the reason for our Independence was land greed-see Charles Beard's Economic Thesis of the Constitution, and Commercial. The Colonies were more prosperous than England. A higher living standard. Less control. The irritant was the British system that required imports when the colony could manufacture. Colonies were not allowed to manufacture anything. Everything came from England.

Expand full comment

Thank you, M. Stegiel.

(My wife's mother's family fought in the Revolutionary War, and were awarded land in the Virginia Territory that they settled. They founded Millersburg in what is now part of Kentucky. They were Scots-Irish (like me), but my mother-in-law married a descendant of the Woelkes of Bremen, Germany!)

I have always wondered whether I hewed Federalist, or Anti-Federalist, and, as you say, which allowed the greater freedom, in general. I have read the "Papers," and arguments in both appeal.

I am skeptical that the over-all standard of living was higher in the Colonies, but that they were more prosperous is a big reason for, among other things, the increases in the King's levies.

Anyway, my reading list grows and I thank you, again!

Expand full comment

My mother's family settled Muhlenberg county KY Timothy Andrew Staples. Here is my source for Colonial prosperity. Colonies More Prosperous Than The Home Country

Before the American War for Independence in 1776, the colonized part of what is today the United States of America was a possession of England. It was called New England, and was made up of 13 colonies, which became the first 13 states of the great Republic. Around 1750, this New England was very prosperous. Benjamin Franklin was able to write:

"There was abundance in the Colonies, and peace was reigning on every border. It was difficult, and even impossible, to find a happier and more prosperous nation on all the surface of the globe. Comfort was prevailing in every home. The people, in general, kept the highest moral standards, and education was widely spread."

When Benjamin Franklin went over to England to represent the interests of the Colonies, he saw a completely different situation: the working population of this country was gnawed by hunger and poverty. "The streets are covered with beggars and tramps," he wrote. He asked his English friends how England, with all its wealth, could have so much poverty among its working classes.

His friends replied that England was a prey to a terrible condition: it had too many workers! The rich said they were already overburdened with taxes, and could not pay more to relieve the needs and poverty of this mass of workers. Several rich Englishmen of that time actually believed, along with Mathus, that wars and plague were necessary to rid the country from man-power surpluses.

Franklin's friends then asked him how the American Colonies managed to collect enough money to support their poor houses, and how they could overcome this plague of pauperism. Franklin replied:

"We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps."

Thanks To Free Money Issued By The Nation

His friends could not believe their ears, and even less understand this fact, since when the English poor houses and jails became too cluttered, England shipped these poor wretches and down-and- outs, like cattle, and discharged, on the quays of the Colonies, those who had survived the poverty, dirtiness and privations of the journey. At that time, England was throwing into jail those who could not pay their debts. They therefore asked Franklin how he could explain the remarkable prosperity of the New England Colonies. Franklin replied:

"That is simple. In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called 'Colonial Scrip.' We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods and pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one."

The Bankers Impose Poverty

The information came to the knowledge of the English Bankers, and held their attention. They immediately took the necessary steps to have the British Parliament to pass a law that prohibited the Colonies from using their scrip money, and then ordered them to use only the gold and silver money that was provided in sufficient quantity by the English bankers. Then began in America the plague of debt-money, which has never since brought so many curses to the American people.

The first law was passed in 1751, and then completed by a more restrictive law in 1763. Franklin reported that one year after the implementation of this prohibition on Colonial money, the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployment and beggars, just like in England, because there was not enough money to pay for the goods and work. The circulating medium of exchange had been reduced by half.

Franklin added that this was the original cause of the American Revolution - and not the tax on tea nor the Stamp Act, as it has been taught again and again in history books. The financiers always manage to have removed from school books all that can throw light on their own schemes, and damage the glow that protects their power.

Franklin, who was one of the chief architects of the American independence, wrote it clearly:

"The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament, which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England and the Revolutionary War."

This point of view of Franklin was confirmed by great statesmen of his era: John Adams, Jefferson, and several others. A remarkable English historian, John Twells, wrote, speaking of the money of the Colonies, the Colonial Scrip:

"It was the monetary system under which America's Colonies flourished to such an extent that Edmund Burke was able to write about them: 'Nothing in the history of the world resembles their progress. It was a sound and beneficial system, and its effects led to the happiness of the people.'" John Twells adds:

"In a bad hour, the British Parliament took away from America its representative money, forbade any further issue of bills of credit, these bills ceasing to be legal tender, and ordered that all taxes should be paid in coins. Consider now the consequences: this restriction of the medium of exchange paralyzed all the industrial energies of the people. Ruin took place in these once flourishing Colonies; most rigorous distress visited every family and every business, discontent became desperation, and reached a point, to use the words of Dr. Johnson, when human nature rises up and asserts its rights."

Another writer, Peter Cooper, expresses himself along the same lines. After having said how Franklin had explained to the London Parliament the cause of the prosperity of the Colonies, he wrote:

"After Franklin gave explanations on the true cause of the prosperity of the Colonies, the Parliament exacted laws forbidding the use of this money in the payment of taxes. This decision brought so many drawbacks and so much poverty to the people that it was the main cause of the Revolution. The suppression of the Colonial money was a much more important reason for the general uprising than the Tea and Stamp Act."

Expand full comment

Interesting. I recently read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and he said much the same thing. One of the biggest reasons was as a new country, settlers could easily acquire a decent amount of quality land to live on as opposed to Britain where it was concentrated into the hands of the wealthy and the nobility.

Expand full comment

Especially in the Southern colonies.

Expand full comment

Fucking tyrants everywhere!

Expand full comment
Error