Dissatisfied yet?

[Freedom First]

What are we doing here? We sit here bashing away at our keyboards while the AG of the US lies and squirms in front of a panel of our so-called representatives as he tries to protect the POTUS from the consequences of attacking 2A. Our government borrows and then spends billions daily on endless stupid things and spends our kids into eternal debt. The presidential candidates will spend nearly TWO BILLION on a job that supposedly only earns $400,000 per annum and our collective breath is held as to which professional liar will actually win. Our police are being turned into the military and the military is busy policing other nations. It’s just crazy. And clearly broken. So what?

What can we do?

What should we do?

What should America look like when we are done?

I suppose the last question is the real one I would like to examine. The premise I would like to work on is this: The current federal government falls. What should it be replaced with?

“But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.”

So what sort of government would command your respect and why?

 

[NoTolerance]

Who is John Galt?

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

An originalist constitutional government. Hillsdale College Constitution-101 Free on-line ten hour long lectures. IIRC the fifth lecturer makes clear the anathema libertarianism is to the Founding Fathers' conception. Over all the lectures make clear the philosophical fundamentals of our Constitution.

The mention of John Galt is naive and good evidence of no familiarity of Ayn Rand Randianism. I live in a fine Galt's Gulch and am very familiar with the entire literature - that I rejected for the corruption by her heir.

Better, read Karl Popper The Open Society and Its Enemies and Friedrich Toennes Gemeineschaft und Gesellschaft

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Self-governance. Only.

 

[S&W_Guy]

A return to the roots that our founding fathers laid down in 1776.

 

[Freedom First]

Self-governance. Only.

More details please. What exactly do you mean?

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Voluntaryinism/anarcho-capitalism. I started out as a pro-war, Limbaugh listening Republican. Then I changed to a Constitutionalist, then to a Libertarian, and the more I've learned, the more I've progressed to full out abolitionist. Any and all government is slavery as far as I'm concerned.

There's a great quote I'll paraphrase here; "It's silly to think that we are not good enough to govern ourselves, but we believe we can elect men good enough to govern us instead."

"I heartily accept the motto, 'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe -- 'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have." ~Henry David Thoreau

"All government, of course, is against liberty." ~H. L. Mencken

"Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government." ~Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man

"I disown you; I am my own state; I ask nothing of you, and I will concede you nothing. I am a man; I am my own sovereign, and you have no authority over me but by my consent. That consent I have never given; or if I have heretofore given it, I now withdraw it. You have, then, no right over me, and if you attempt to control me you are a tyrant." ~From Orestes Augustus Brownson's Democracy and Liberty

I fully realize there are many who are not ready or willing to accept this sort of idea, and will react with scorn, disdain and absolute rejection of such philosophy. One can only conclude from such balking to an absolute liberty, is that they prefer to be governed by other men rather then by themselves.

 

[Freedom First]

Voluntaryinism/anarcho-capitalism. I started out as a pro-war, Limbaugh listening Republican. Then I changed to a Constitutionalist, then to a Libertarian, and the more I've learned, the more I've progressed to full out abolitionist. Any and all government is slavery as far as I'm concerned.

Wow, you and I should start a club... "Voluntaryinism/anarcho-capitalism" is a tough sell to the two party folks. Many seem to think we can just vote our way out of this.

I fully realize there are many who are not ready or willing to accept this sort of idea, and will react with scorn, disdain and absolute rejection of such philosophy. One can only conclude from such balking to an absolute liberty, is that they prefer to be governed by other men rather then by themselves.

Ah, but life is so much safer when you can blame someone else. I agree that true Freedom is terrifying to many. I'd sure like to take a swing at it though.

Thanks for the details. I'm batting around several ideas personally but to paraphrase Thoreau, truly inventive government is an exceedingly rare thing. I do think that we do need to start having these discussions before they are needed. I doubt the Framers started thinking when they arrived in Philly...

 

[Jack House]

Voluntaryinism/anarcho-capitalism. I started out as a pro-war, Limbaugh listening Republican. Then I changed to a Constitutionalist, then to a Libertarian, and the more I've learned, the more I've progressed to full out abolitionist. Any and all government is slavery as far as I'm concerned.

Pretty much the same for me. Only throw in a little Dreamer for a short period of my life. My excuse is that I was a teenager at the time. Teenagers are stupid, that's my story and I'm stickin to it! :lol:

As a bonus, my parents were democrats for most of my childhood, but I converted them to republicans sometime between 12&14. A move in the right direction I say.

 

[JmE]

Right on the money, IMHO, PistolPackingMomma. Great post!

I started out as a child thinking that communism was the best and then moved on through socialism -> liberalism -> conservatism -> anarchist. Now I'm pretty much there at Voluntaryinism/anarcho-capitalism. I guess the next step for me is grumpy-old-man-ism where I just want to be left alone.

 

[OC for ME]

Funny, the question posed.

Our Founders knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that government is inherently 'bad' for liberty, while, ironically, at the same time creating a government to protect our individual liberty from government and out fellow citizen's predations.

This is not about what government we would like to see but about why the majority of our fellow citizens do not participate in government.

We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate. - Thomas Jefferson

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Wow, guys, I gotta say...I wasn't expecting such a positive response. Y'all have put hope in my heart and a huge smile on my face for the rest of the week!!!!!!!

:monkey:monkey

 

[Jack House]

Jack House: Giving hope to the masses since 1986.


Wait, giving hope for change, that makes me Obama doesn't it? :uhoh:

 

[Freedom First]

Funny, the question posed.

Our Founders knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that government is inherently 'bad' for liberty, while, ironically, at the same time creating a government to protect our individual liberty from government and out fellow citizen's predations.

This is not about what government we would like to see but about why the majority of our fellow citizens do not participate in government.

I'm just hung up on the idea that just because this was a good idea it must always be a good idea. That's poor logic.

The Framers were right on but they also predicted the failure of their own work. And we live in that failure.

 

[gobbly]

ss dd. Stuff like this has been going on my entire life, from watergate, to iran contra, to extreme rendition, to fast and furious. Judging from the intelligence (or lack thereof) I am surrounded with on a daily basis, and the short term memory of the public as a whole, I don't really have a lot of hope for change. I expect such events to get milked for all the politicians can squeeze out of them, then forgotten once they have served the political agendas.

 

[gunns]

The real powers in this world are the bankers. That is why we are so screwed up. The Fed and big banks want us in perpetual war mode so they can continue to rape the world of resources and money. Its about power.

That is why someone like Ron Paul will never be president, because he knows it and they don't want anyone to wake up.

That is why it doesn't matter which one becomes president, Obama or Romney. Romney will destroy us slowly and Obama will do it well before his second term is up. I will try and make my vote count, if Ron Paul is on the ticket he has my vote, if not I will vote for Obama to hurry the destruction along while I still have my health. I would rather fight when I can still fight, then suffer when I am older because I don't have any fight left.

So this talk of what government after is all a pipe dream. Even after the collapse, we will see the Bankers have all the power, they will have their armies, the technology and the manufacturing. The time for real change is over, all we can do now is vote, fight and than die.

 

[Grapeshot]

Giving full credit to the reason and desire for this thread, it does not fit within the constraints of OCDO - specificity to OC or targeting RKBA. In order to preserve it, am moving it to the Social Lounge.

 

[()pen(arry]

An originalist constitutional government.

I am not silly enough to suppose that the Founders got everything right, nor were they, as evidenced by the writings of many of them after the Constitution was ratified. The question is about theoretical ideal. Therefore, I'm not interested in cleaving, blindly, to some imperfect historical model that was, even at its writing, in large part concession to competing interests. The Constitution is a damn sight better than what we actually have today, but it's far from ideal.

So. The only proper role of government is protection of the governed from coercion. Therefore, the ideal government is one which is only granted powers which are necessary to prevent and punish coercion, and one which is only permitted to exercise those powers in the actual prevention and punishment of coercion. That distinction is critical: granting a power to government is considered, today, to grant that power completely; I insist that the power which is granted may only be exercised in pursuit of the purpose of its granting.

So what counts as coercion? It is the willful intent and attempt to influence the behavior of others contrary to their own interests. Influence is not coercion. The intent to harm is coercion. This includes assault, theft, fraud, official misconduct, and attack by foreign powers. The details and out-workings of this are properly up for reasonable debate; the principle is inviolate.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

That is quite a paradox presented.

We want to be free from coercion, so we create government. Government can only stop coercion through power of force or intimidation; which is the very definition of coercion. Ergo, we have created a larger threat to protect us from smaller threats. Defeats the purpose a bit, huh?

 

[()pen(arry]

That is quite a paradox presented.

We want to be free from coercion, so we create government. Government can only stop coercion through power of force or intimidation; which is the very definition of coercion. Ergo, we have created a larger threat to protect us from smaller threats. Defeats the purpose a bit, huh?

If we stipulate that people will collaborate by any fashion other than outright free-for-all, then we must stipulate the existence and enforcement of rules. This is the minimal description of government. I don't necessarily disagree that, from a certain perspective, the purest form of liberty is anarchy. However, if we are going to stipulate the formation of society, then what I have outlined is the ideal for maintaining liberty.

Moreover, I do not accept that "power of force or intimidation" is "the very definition of coercion". Justice is not coercive, it is corrective (more accurately, according to Common Law, it is remunerative; after all, everything is economic, at the end of the day, in the context of society).

Does the existence of government inherently threaten liberty? Without question. You can choose between anarchy or society. If you choose the latter, liberty demands what I've described.