Saturday, May 16, 2009

Getting down to the brass knuckles

Why do some elected officials at the State level feel threatened by the Tenth Amendment and the State sovereignty movement? John Bowman at has some interesting thoughts based on a little-known sixteenth-century French philosopher, Étienne de la Boétie. In la Boétie's book The Politics of Obedience, he explains why ordinary people accept servitude:

"The fundamental political question is why do people obey a government. The answer is that they tend to enslave themselves, to let themselves be governed by tyrants. Freedom from servitude comes not from violent action, but from the refusal to serve. Tyrants fall when the people withdraw their support."

Mr. Bowman applies this withdrawal of support to the growth of the State sovereignty movement. He asks the same question we have stated in this space many times, "Do the [people] not realize that they are merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that these federal funds could not be given them without having first been taken from them?"

The national solution to this problem would be to get Congress to end the Federal Reserve, the Infernal Revenue Service, and repealed the Sixteenth Amendment -- but we might as well expect to see pigs fly (outside of a monument in Cincinnati). The easier solution is secession. Once a State refused to allow the Feds to collect their taxes at the expense of its people and businesses, other States would have to follow suit, if for no other reason than that failure to do so would spark an exodus to the "free" State.

The State sovereignty resolutions are a license from the State legislatures to themselves to resist Federal authority where it is not Constitutionally warranted. Failure to assert our own sovereignty, then, is an admission that we prefer servitude to freedom.

Virtual buckeye to Gabe McGranahan, a leading State sovereignty activist in Ohio.


PhreedomPhan said...

I can offer one explanation why State officials are afraid to exercise Tenth Amendment rights and powers. They sold them a long time ago.

I pointed out in my regionalism post in lostliberty that the federal government, enabled by the income tax, the Federal Reserve, and the loss of the Senate to the States, began using grants to force upon the States programs that were beyond federal rights and powers. If the States didn't want to do what Washington wanted, they didn't get the money. Congressman Reuess called this the "carrot and the stick" method. Legally it's bribery and extortion.

When you think about it, this puts State officials in a very difficult position. If they keep their integrity and refuse the money, the Big Brother media will pillory them for "losing" the "federal" money. Unfortunately, the sheeple will join the Denunciation Chorus singing the "Ballad of the Bad State Officials" for "losing" that money. The rights of the States and the People that were saved will not be mentioned.


Anonymous said...

as more and more states do this, and more sheeple take notice of what's going on outside the media blind eye, shouldn't it be an easier sell?