Lobbyists too powerful because government is too powerful

As a member of the Libertarian Party, I frequently get e-mails from national party Chairman Mark Hinkle and Executive Director Wes Benedict. I read them and usually delete them. However, today's message from Mr. Hinkle gets right to the root of the problem with big government. I am quoting it in full:

"President Obama is currently caught in a bit of a scandal over his pledge not to take campaign money from lobbyists.

"According to the New York Times, 'Despite a pledge not to take money from lobbyists, President Obama has relied on prominent supporters who are active in the lobbying industry to raise millions of dollars for his re-election bid.'

"It's unfortunate that the president has added one more to his pile of broken promises. But it's not at all surprising.

"Our government has far too much power and money at its disposal. The inevitable consequence is that businesses, organizations, and individuals will work very hard to guide that power and money in their own favor.

"In fact, it often seems like politicians intentionally create incentives for people to try to bribe them.

"Businesses especially will fight for more corporate welfare, and also for regulations that stifle potential competitors. What choice do they have? If they don't fight for those special government favors, then someone else will, which will put them at an increasing disadvantage, and might drive them out of business.

"A recent Economist article pointed out that over the last ten years, companies that lobbied heavily had a much bigger increase in stock value than those that didn't. Executives might conclude that if you're not lobbying, you're ripping off your shareholders!

"And of course, these entities that stand to benefit from government favors will work hard (and spend hard) to get friendly politicians elected.

"Some people feel that massive campaign finance regulations will stop this unholy bargaining. It won't. When the dust settles, campaign finance restrictions usually just make life easier for incumbents and harder for challengers. We Libertarians know that only too well.

"I have to remind myself, lobbying isn't essentially a bad thing. It's an expression of our right to 'petition the government for a redress of grievances.' It provides information to politicians. But when politicians get in the habit of handing out favors, you can bet everyone is going to run up to the trough.

"The only way to reduce the power of lobbyists is to reduce the power of government. That choice rests with the voters. If voters keep electing Democrats and Republicans, then the power of government and lobbyists will continue to grow. If voters start electing Libertarians, things will change."

Besides voting Libertarian, the only long-term solution to lobbyists is to decentralize government so much that lobbying becomes impractical, except by local citizens and businesses.

Decentralism: even in Russia?

Arutz Sheva, an Israeli network, reports that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev may oppose the powerful Vladimir Putin for the Presidency. It appears that Mr. Medvedev is positioning himself as one who supports the inviolability of private property:

"We tried to create a society without the rich in the past. That experiment led to stagnation, poverty and disintegration of the country," he said.

Not only does he oppose the top down approach so endemic in Russian politics and government, he actually favors decentralism:

"A sophisticated society with many groups and centers of influence requires further decentralization on our part, transferring certain governance functions to social organizations and responsibilities at the highest level to the regional and municipal levels."

The Russians may be proving that decentralism is indeed our zeitgeist (spirit of the age).

Politics made simple

As I grow older, I am finding that almost all social theory is based on simple principles -- religion, government, economics -- everything. The Bible says as much in Ecclesiastes 7:29: "I tell you this, God made man simple (or upright), man's devices are of his own making."

In Vandalia, I will discuss how monetary policy is really much simpler and less mysterious than the Federal Reserve Bank would have us believe; and later this year, I will deliver a sermon at my church on the simplicity of the Christian faith.

Ideas are made complicated, because it serves the interest of those who complicate them -- it is a way of making knowledge esoteric, therefore profitable to those who hold the "secrets."

Applied to politics and government, here is the simple truth. Our Founding Fathers stated that the purpose of government was to protect the lives, liberties, and property (pursuit of happiness) of the people. Nothing else. Our responsibility as citizens is to look at everything government does through that lens. Nothing that government does that does not have the net effect of protecting the lives, liberties, or property of the people should be tolerated.

Protecting property also means preserving the sanctity of contracts freely entered into against wilful changes by governments. Private property makes personal security and economic growth possible. Keep this in mind when the Federal Reserve practices "quantitative easing" once too often and wipes out your retirement savings through hyperinflation.


I will add two corollaries to this. First, protecting lives and liberty for children means to protect their innocence. Children should not be subjected to inappropriate ideas about the adult world (especially sex) until they are old enough to handle those ideas. Laws against child pornography or other forms of exploitation are necessary and appropriate. I would also argue that protecting the lives of children means that abortion should be illegal, at least when the fetus is known to be sentient. The precise point when this takes place seems to be unknowable; however, the detectable heartbeat concept being promoted in the General Assembly strikes me as a reasonable indicator.* Secondly, it is appropriate to legislate to protect the dignity of elderly and disabled people to protect them from being defrauded or abused by greedy family members and "caretakers".

* It seems reasonable to me because it at least provides an empirically provable benchmark; as opposed to the arbitrary restrictions of "first trimester," etc. I have friends who are passionately pro-choice who will consider this opinion to be nothing less than barbaric -- to them, I ask, at what point do we discount personal responsibility? In most cases (rape and incest being two exceptions), pregnancy is the result of at least two bad decisions by the parents: the one to have sex outside of marriage, the other to have it unprotected. Freedom and mass personal irresponsibility cannot coexist in the same society. It is the duty of the family and community institutions to teach morality, but a government that ignores morality is subverting it. I am using morality in the broadest possible sense to mean living in a way that respects the rights of others, not any particular religious doctrine.

Independence is drawing academic interest

Alan Caruba at LewRockwell.com has read the book Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century, a scholarly anthology edited by Donald Livingston of Emory University in Atlanta, to be published in October by Pelican Press.

After reading the book, Mr. Caruba observes that "clearly the central government has grown so large, so unwieldy, so wasteful, and so unresponsive to the problems and costs it has imposed that people are beginning to wonder why 435 Representatives in the House and 100 in the Senate should control the lives, the economy, and the education of more than 300 million people in fifty sovereign States.
The President virtually makes law with 'executive orders' and the nine members of the Supreme Court exercises final authority of the constitutionality of laws. Congress is so divided by raw partisanship it is barely functioning."

“The only remedy,” says Prof. Livingston “is territorial division of the Union through secession into a number of different and independent political units.”

Professor Livingston then observes that the "arrogant social engineers" on the U.S. Supreme Court feel free to strike down state laws at will. He urges the states to "reassert their sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and recall those powers they have allowed to slip out of their hands to the central government."



Mr Caruba continues:

This is not a call for anarchy. It is the realization that the modern presidency has aggregated to itself powers it does not have or, in the case of Libya, is ignoring the War Powers Act that limits its ability to engage the nation in conflicts Congress does not ultimately authorize.
 
It is the realization that every United Nations treaty the United States signs deprives it of its sovereign rights.

It is a call for consideration that regional groups of States with common interests might provide better government within such groups, leaving to the central government the responsibility to protect the nation via a common military, conduct foreign affairs, and return to the gold standard that would protect the value of a common currency...

When one-in-five Americans give credence to the right of secession, it is clear that the problems being experienced in all fifty States, the massive regulation of all activities within those States, the imposition of a centralized “core” curriculum to be taught in all schools, is arousing a rediscovered sense of liberty among Americans.

Mr. Caruba and Prof. Livingston provide further evidence that an idea that was considered wacky three years ago has entered respectable public debate, precisely because the usurpations of this President and the neglect of this and the previous Congresses to check those usurpations have awakened the American people to the fact that more drastic measures will become necessary, if we are to regain our liberties.

For myself, I would prefer that Ohio go it on its own as an independent Republic. With 11.5 million people, a land area of 40,000 square miles, and what would be about the 20th largest economy in the world if no larger state seceded, we would actually be a bit larger than the average nation out there today. However, I can see some advantages to forming a very loose "Confederation of the Great Lakes," but only if it follows the example of Switzerland and writes a constitution that consciously keeps the confederate government as weak as possible.

The window is opening for a serious discussion of independence in Ohio. My question to the reader is, how do we most effectively introduce it?

Quotation of the day

From Michael Boldin, director of the Tenth Amendment Center, whom I met at the Nullify Now! rally on Saturday:

"One size fits all solutions lead to a situation where having a bad leader screws everyone. Decentralization allows a huge range of political, economic and religious viewpoints to all live together in peace..."

The Decentralist Manifesto

We need a new world order. Capitalism is broken.  We must return power to the people!

The solution is not a hierarchical global order with a single world government. We don’t need two hundred nations – we need two thousand nations, each respecting the human and cultural freedom of its people, each minding its own business. 

You say no one can manage two thousand nations. 

You’re right, and that’s the whole idea. We don’t need world government, we need world networks, that enable people in those two thousand nations to link up for specific purposes when it is to their mutual advantage to do so. Networks of trade, of information, of sharing cultures. Networks to extradite criminals, to keep dispersed families in touch, to solve problems. Networks that everyone participates in, but no one owns.

Idealistic? Perhaps, but “with no vision, the people perish.” *

Capitalism isn’t inherently evil, but it has been corrupted from years of large corporations buying favors from governments. We need to stop losing ourselves in corporate and governmental bureaucracies. Instead, we need to look within ourselves to solve problems locally through citizenship and entrepreneurship. We need to restore a system in which government grants no privileges, and creates no roadblocks except as necessary to maintain public safety.

We don’t need big banks – we need honest money – money that is a store of real value and is accessible to all people.

We don’t need religious theocracies, but we do need, within each of us, faith in God that we can do good according to His purposes.

We don’t want other people telling us how to live, so why do we let a bureaucrat in Washington (let alone in some faraway land) tell us what we can eat, drive, or do with our own money, or what medical care we will be allowed to get?

We need to create governments, churches, schools, and businesses that are built on a human scale – that we all understand and can influence. We need to make laws we can understand and respect, then respect the laws we make.

Our new world order wants nothing to do with empires or imperialism; so those who share this vision must work through their local councils and state legislatures. We must take some risks by starting our own businesses and avoiding those who help enrich other countries at our expense. We must help our neighbor in need through our churches and community chests, and stop depending on government to do our giving for us. We must raise and educate our children in the values that will make them strong and independent. Charity – and prosperity, sound government, and proclaiming the truth – begin at home, so let us begin there. Every community that embraces these values will find others like it. Together (independently, but in cooperation), they will move states. States will move nations, and nations will change the world.

People of the world, cooperate! You have nothing to lose but your humanity!

*  Proverbs 29:15 kjv

We need to round up corporate agriculture, not crops

I am not particularly well informed on agricultural issues; but I am in favor of sustainable farming, which means to me that we need to be careful what we use for fertilizers and herbicides. Jeffrey Smith, at the Institute for Responsible Technology, has written an interesting, and fairly scary, article about a "Sudden Death Syndrome" (SDS) that affects crops on land repeatedly treated with glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide). The article is well-illustrated, for us non-farming types. The illustrations provide documentary evidence of the claims made in the article.

According to Mr. Smith's research, such herbicides are not only responsible for SDS, but have led to crops lacking in nutrients. Glyphosate has entered our diets through corn, soybeans, meat, and milk, and has been associated with a number of human health issues, including a sharp increase in the incidence of Alzheimer's Disease since the 1990s. In support of that claim, the article notes that one of the primary triggers of Alzheimer's is a lack of copper and magnesium in the diet. A test of glyphosate applied to a Roundup-resistant alfafa (called "Roundup Ready") showed a 20% loss in the copper content and a 26% loss in the magnesium content the year following application of the herbicide.

Mr. Smith wants the Secretary of Agriculture to deny approval for Roundup Ready alfalfa. Approval of the strain will continue to support manufacturers of potentially dangerous genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

I am sure professional agronomists can find room for argument in the studies presented; but for the layman, it provides one more example of how large-scale government tends to protect the corporation at the expense of the individual. Decentralism will strengthen local governments and peer pressure; which I suggest would actually prove more effective at dealing with such issues.

How decentralism works

This article in LewRockwell.com, by my friend Michael C. Tuggle ("Old Rebel" in the Rebellion blog) explains why dynamic relationships between smaller entities make for more efficient and effective government. He uses Switzerland as an example.

The article is nearly seven years old, but is more applicable now than ever.

Platform of The Ohio Republic

Readers who have followed The Ohio Republic through more than a few posts understand the principles that guide it, but I thought it might be helpful to state it as a platform:

1. The Ohio Republic is committed to individual freedom: spiritual, political, and economic. When considering policy positions, we keep this end in mind. Our most general rule is WWJD? In spiritual matters, “what would Jesus do?” in political and economic matters, “what would Jefferson do?”
2. The Ohio Republic seeks government that is decentralist, which may be loosely defined as a system in which there is little or no federal government, little state government, and as much local government as the people desire; but accountable to the state for corruption and violations of basic human and political rights by local officials.
3. The Ohio Republic being, of course, Ohioan, seeks practical approaches to problem solving. Too often, libertarian thinkers get lost in a fantasy world created by the ideology. Solutions are not practical if they ignore political and economic realities, or if they fail to take the dark side of human nature into account.
4. The Ohio Republic specifically rejects anarchism. While government must be strictly limited, it remains necessary to protect the people from criminal use of force and from fraud. Government can promote the liberties of the people effectively and efficiently, by returning to Constitutional principles and by replacing the proactive (administrative) compliance model with a passive (judicial) model. (I shall explain this principle further in my book, Governing Ourselves, to be published later this year).
5. The Ohio Republic, consistent with its commitment to decentralism, presses the Ohio General Assembly to assert the rights of Ohioans and of our state government against unconstitutional intrusion by the federal government. If we are to protect our rights and remain in the union, we must demand that our Ohio General Assembly interpose in those instances where federal law exceeds the limits set in the United States Constitution. (This is more commonly called nullification)
6. The Ohio Republic advocates Ohio’s independence from the United States as a last resort, when all efforts to reason with the federal government through the standard political process and nullification have failed. There is no question in our mind, based on the experience of other nations, that Ohio is perfectly viable as an independent Republic; provided that its government and people have taken certain preparatory steps prior to the declaration of independence. Prominent among these are the revitalization of the organized state militia, and the establishment of a currency based on silver or gold.
7. The Ohio Republic draws on our Judeo-Christian tradition to support its emphasis on personal freedom, not to proselytize for any religious belief; but because the Bible has documented a way for a people to live in political and economic freedom, as long as the people accept individual responsibility for their own actions.

Paradise Lost

What the United Nations should have, but did not, become -- and a warning against "world government":

We shall not rebuild civilization on the large scale. It is no accident that on the whole, there was more beauty and decency to be found in the life of the small peoples, and that among the large ones there was more happiness and content in proportion as they had avoided the deadly blight of centralization. Least of all shall we preserve democracy or foster its growth if all the power and most of the important decisions rest with an organization far too big for the common man to survey and comprehend.

Nowhere has democracy ever worked well without a great measure of local self-government, providing a school of political training for the people at least as much as for their future leaders. It is only where responsibility can be learned and practiced in affairs with which most people are familiar, where it is the awareness of one’s neighbor rather than some theoretical knowledge of the needs of other people which guides action, that the ordinary man can take a real part in public affairs because they concern the world he knows. Where the scope of the political measures becomes so large that the necessary knowledge is almost exclusively possessed by the bureaucracy, the creative impulses of the private person must flag. I believe that here the experience of the small countries like Holland and Switzerland contains much from which even the most fortunate larger countries like Great Britain can learn. We shall all be the gainers if we can create a world fit for small states to live in.

But the small can preserve their independence in the international as in the national sphere only within a true system of law which guarantees both that certain rules are invariably enforced an that the authority which has the power to enforce these cannot use it for any other purpose. While for its task of enforcing the common law the supernational authority must be very powerful, its constitution must at the same time be so designed that it prevents the international as well as the national authorities form becoming tyrannical. We shall never prevent the abuse of power if we are not prepared to limit power in a way which occasionally may also prevent its use for desirable purposes,. The great opportunity we shall have at the end of this war is that the great victorious powers, by themselves first submitting to a system of rules which they have the power to enforce, may at the same time acquire the moral right to impose the same rules upon others.

An international authority which effectively limits the powers of the state over the individual will be one of the best safeguards of peace. The international Rule of Law must become a safeguard as much against the tyranny of the state over the individual as against the tyranny of the new superstate over the national communities. Neither an omnipotent superstate nor a loose association of “free nations” but a community of nations over free men must be our goal.

-- Friedrich A. von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, (1944; Definitive edition, Bruce Caldwell, ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 234-235.

Glenn Beck coming to Wilmington Dec. 15

Update Nov. 22: The statement below that Wilmington is recovering without government help is not true. Here is the correction.

I probably like Glenn Beck a little too much for my own good. I know he doesn't get it about Lincoln, is too pro-war any war to suit me, and has a bit too much of the huckster in him. On the other hand, it is obvious he has a good heart and has presented in a popular, easy-to-understand way basic the principal concepts of U.S. history and Judeo-Christian morality.

The story of Wilmington (county seat of Brown Clinton* County in southwestern Ohio a bit northeast of Cincinnati) has clearly touched his heart. Wilmington (population 12,000) was a freight hub for DHL, when that company decided to close it in November 2008. Two-thirds of the town had been employed by DHL.

However, the town is recovering, without governmental help. Apparently, most of the help is coming from local churches. Mr. Beck is visiting the town to show it off to America as an example of recovery without governmental help.

* My mistake. See comments for additional discussion.

Virtual buckeye to the Ohio Liberty Council on Facebook.

And people wonder why I'm a secessionist...

Eric Foner editorial in The Nation, February 11, 1991 (quoted by Thomas DiLorenzo in LewRockwell.com -- Prof. DiLorenzo's article is well worth reading, by the way):

In an editorial in the February 11, 1991 issue of The Nation magazine entitled "Lincoln's Lesson," Foner called the breakup of the Soviet Union, which at the time was being wildly cheered by freedom lovers everywhere, as "a crisis" that threatened the "laudable goal" of creating a system that demanded "overarching loyalty to the Soviet Union" while at the same time allowing separate republics to exist. No "leader of a powerful nation," Foner wrote, should allow such a thing as "the dismemberment of the Soviet Union."

He concluded that "The Civil War was a central step in the consolidation of national authority in the United States," which he of course views as a great event. One cannot adopt socialism – in the United States or anywhere else – without a highly centralized, monopolistic government. "The Union, Lincoln passionately believed, was a permanent government . . . and . . . Gorbachev would surely agree."

Well, President Gorbachev didn't agree, and on Christmas Day 1991, the Soviet Union was no more. Power is dangerous, especially when pursued for its own sake. If centralization is a necessary step to creating socialism, then it logically follows that we must decentralize to avoid it.

Virtual buckeye to Rebellion.

Consolidation is not the answer

In recent weeks, I have noticed a tendency in the Columbus Dispatch (example) to favor a major reduction in the number of school districts and local governmental entitities. As a general rule, I am not in favor of consolidating anything, because consolidation is a centralizing tendency; and I favor the gradual abolition of the public education system in favor of vouchers to the private school of the parents’ choice.

In a few instances, consolidation might make sense. For example, in Franklin County, there are a few remnants of townships that occupy small non-contiguous areas that lead to extremely inefficient government. These remnants probably should be merged with neighboring townships if possible, and with municipalities if not; but this is a relatively unusual situation that exists only in large urban counties.

The drive for consolidation comes from two legitimate concerns: lack of accountability, because local governments do not report financial statistics in a way that enables them to be collected for review and comparison; and the proliferation of special districts for various purposes. Special districts historically have been created because the Revised Code has lacked flexibility in defining the functions of county or local government. In other instances, they have been created to address a local turf battle. In addition, this problem has led to numerous exceptions and extra clauses within the Revised Code itself.

The solution to these problems is really quite simple, but as with other simple solutions, will require a special measure of political will. Only three laws are needed.

First, the General Assembly should abolish statutory county, township, and municipal government by writing model charters for counties, cities, villages, and townships that essentially contains the features of the existing statutes. The model charter would not apply to any government that already has a charter of its own. The act, if it were adopted by the next General Assembly, would replace statutory rule with the model charters on January 1, 2015. In the meantime, counties, cities, villages, and townships could create charter commissions to amend the model charter as desired. On the same date, all special exceptions in the Revised Code related to county and local governments would be repealed.

Secondly, all special districts, except multi-county districts, will be merged with the next larger unit of government. For example, a police district that consists of part of a township would be run by the township trustees. Vocational school districts formed from several districts within a county would be run by the county board of education. They would either be run solely for the benefit of the taxpayers paying the taxes; or the larger unit could vote itself the same tax to broaden the area of service. Most "regional transit authorities" could be run as part of county governments.

Finally, all local governments would be required to issue a financial report in a state-standard format to the County Auditor and the State Auditor. While it would be the County Auditor’s responsibility to recommend solutions to problems found within the reports, the State Auditor would collect and report the statistics statewide. This relationship is similar to the reporting of election statistics by county Boards of Election to the Secretary of State.

In this way, we can achieve much greater efficiency while sacrificing very little local control.

Is constructive change possible?

I think so -- but let me share with you a correspondence I had with a friend of mine last night, who will only be identified as Q. I'll call myself A:

Q: Do you think that participation in the system as it exists now is necessary to bring about peaceful secession, or can it be achieved without direct participation?

A: I suppose peaceful secession would be possible without direct participation in the system -- especially in a revolutionary situation in which the federal government bared its teeth against the states or the people -- but I have difficulty picturing how it would work, because our fellow Ohioans are so attached to the rule of law that they would not be likely to accept a change by any other means.The beauty of peaceful secession within the system is that it is achieved through the rule of law. A government thus instituted will immediately be accepted many nations (other then the rump USA and others under its thumb) as legitimate.

I also think it would be easier to pull off. Granted, right now -- especially given the response of many of our friends to Glenn Beck's rally, during which my stomach did flip-flops, it seems unlikely and to many, hopeless. But my experience agrees with Rush Limbaugh (Aug. 5) that secessionism isn't the "rantings of extreme kookism" anymore.

Ohio historically has been one of the most pro-Lincoln unionist of states, but my personal encounters with people suggest a rapidly growing acceptance of secession (especially if attempted gradually after a few nullifications of federal law). Ohioans today are less likely to be hostile to secession in principle than convinced that it will not work, or that it will result in an extremely violent federal backlash. If a poll were taken today, I think 20-25% of Ohioans would be open to secession, nearly double what I estimated from a Zogby poll two years ago.

One of the problems with promoting new ideas in this state is that people are likely to say that they won't work before they consider the idea's merits. Ohio [is] a tough environment for an intellectual.


Q: Personally, I'm having trouble finding a reason to participate directly (elections, etc.) these days. Almost as if it gives "them" credence, if you know what I mean. And so many are so blind. Things really shake them to their core and they hold on to false truths so tightly. I was there once, but libertarianism came so much easier to me I think. I'm not sure why, but I feel like I wasn't nearly as thoroughly brainwashed as many I encounter these days... or they're genuinely just so diametrically opposed as to be hopeless... I haven't decided.

A: Libertarians are still in the wilderness. While it seems to be an obvious answer for people like us, a lot of people perceive the Libertarians to be wild anarchists. In my opinion (and I've talked about this with Ken Matesz*), there are shades of Libertarian just as there are shades with everything else. The "conservative" Libertarian (I'm calling myself one of those) is one who believes that some government is necessary at all levels; but with very little federal government, a little more state -- or even better, a weak national government in the State of Ohio -- and all the local government the people want (I call this decentralism).To more directly address your concern:

If I were not a classified state employee**, I would be working on [a Libertarian] campaign for State Senate. His district appears in polls to be nearly evenly divided between the R and the D (there is no incumbent running), and he has an outside shot of winning with, say, 38% of the vote. I think we all need to be involved in the system, but we must have the courage to actively support and build up the Libertarian (or if that is too extreme for you, the Constitution) Party as (1) a viable alternative to the "two evils", and (2) a base on which the secessionist movement will grow when the time comes (and I am confident that it is coming soon -- within two years). In the meantime, we need to prepare our fellow Ohioans for accepting the actions that will be needed to restore liberty.

----

Now, I half expect a frequent commenter to this blog to come in with his Constitutional arguments as to why it is impossible for a state to secede. However, he has yet to satisfactorily answer this question of mine:

When can we come to the conclusion that the federal government is fouled up beyond all repair; and when we reach that conclusion, what can we do about it?

His answer, in essence, is to apply the Article V amendment process -- one that we have shown to be dangerous to liberty, and one which the current power élites are likely to respect about as much as they do the rest of the U.S. Constitution.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Constitution. It was divinely inspired, and if followed, would effectively protect our freedoms. But the revolution will come when the people realize that in the last ten years it has become a dead letter.


* Libertarian candidate for Governor.
** Who is barred from partisan political activity by section 124.57 of the Ohio Revised Code. In this post, my toes are probably touching the line marking non-compliance, but as I understand the letter of the law, I am not crossing it.

Think Ohio couldn't make it on its own? Think again.

Kirkpatrick Sale (left) has extensively studied the size (both land area and population) of nations and their relative effectiveness -- economically, politically, and in their ability to maintain the literacy and freedom of their peoples.

His conclusion: Ohio (land area 40,000 sqare miles, population 11.5 million) is a bit on the large side. Of the 223 independent political entities in the world, Prof. Sale finds* that 58% are smaller than Switzerland (which, at 7.7 million is much smaller than Ohio). And 85 of the 223 have an area less than 10,000 square miles -- one-quarter that of Ohio.

He has summarized his findings into Sale's Law: "Economic and social misery increasers in direct proportion to the size and power of the central government of a nation." He backs this up with a brief review of four periods of world history when governments radically centralized -- the most recent being 1910-1970. Accompanying those periods were the most devastating wars, the most severe depressions, and the highest inflations in modern history.

The entire article is very interesting, and may be found in Truth to Power, to which a virtual buckeye is due.

The biggest barrier to freedom and independence is the one that resides between our ears.

* Using a Wikipedia ranking based on United Nations population statistics.

Decentralism works!

Here's proof:

Voters in Fremont, Nebraska have demonstrated that local action can be an effective way to control immigration: the only way the American people can enact much-needed border security.

Here is the story from KTPM Fox42 in Omaha:

The ordinance will require employers to check their workers through the federal E-verify database to see if they're illegal or not. For landlords it means all renters over the age of 18 must get an occupancy license from the Fremont Police Department, where their immigration status will be checked.

The votes of the special election will not be made official until Monday. The ordinance will then go through the city council.

Over 45% of registered voters made their way to the polls compared to a 28% voter turnout in the primary election.

Mike Tuggle at Rebellion comments (and I wholeheartedly agree with him):

The high turnout reveals a basic truth: People can make more of an impact where they live. That's where their loyalties lie. And smaller, local governments are more attuned to their friends and neighbors than a distant central government could ever be. That's why political power should devolve down to the smallest possible level.

That's also why those special interest groups who hate and want to transform America, from Neocons to the NAACP to La Raza, all want a powerful central overnment as an engine of reconstruction.

This further confirms an observation I made years ago. City councils see very few professional lobbyists. Why? Because there are too many cities. Lobbyists can't spread themselves that thin. This is the power of decentralism!

Ohio State Rep. Kris Jordan introduces bill to intercept Federal taxes

Rep. Kris Jordan (R-Delaware) introduced HB 496 to the House of Representatives on April 19. Its purpose:

To enact sections 131.70 and 131.71 of the Revised Code to assert the state's claim of sovereignty pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to require Ohio residents to remit federal taxes to the Treasurer of State, to require that those taxes be retained by the state for its own use to the extent the General Assembly finds that the federal government penalized the state for failing to comply with a federal mandate determined by the General Assembly to be unconstitutional or to the extent directed by a statewide ballot initiative, and to declare an emergency.

I have worked with Rep. Jordan and his staff on this bill, which is modeled on Georgia's; and have discussed with them some practical issues, which will need to be hammered out in committee -- assuming that Speaker Budish and Rep. Gerberry (chairman of the House State Government Committee) allow it to get that far. I do strongly favor the principle, which would provide Ohio a solution to balance the budget by eliminating federal penalties for state non-compliance with federal laws and regulations that are not in conformance with the United States Constitution.

I have suggested that the law enable federal participation in the process of determining Constitutionality, to overcome objections that it might violate U.S. Supreme Court decisions, such as Marbury v. Madison and Osborn v. Bank of the United States.

I expect that the bill will be quickly pilloried by those who favor an activist federal government; and I'm sure the liberal mindset will try to laugh it out of Columbus; but I also see enactment of HB 496 and its counterparts in other states as a sucker punch that will effectively take some the wind out the federal behemoth.

It is an item in the 2010 Ohio Republic legislative program that should be supported by those who love liberty and support Ohio's sovereignty.

Here is why we need decentralism

The Tea Partiers themselves are divided. According to a survey of attendees to the national Tea Party in Washington by Politico magazine, while 75% are convinced that President Obama is leading us to socialism; 43% want government to promote traditional values -- a position held by Sarah Palin, who was supported for President by 14% of the attendees. However, 42% hold that government should not be in the business of promoting any particular set of values -- a position held by Ron Paul and most libertarians. Rep. Paul was supported for President by 12% of the attendees. The article presents a number of other statistics, but they support the same point.

In other words, Tea Partiers are as polarized as much as the rest of us.

There is only one way to resolve this problem -- decentralism under a libertarian government. In other words, all governments above the local (city, village, township) level must be values-neutral; but allow considerable latitutde for local governments to promote the values held by their inhabitants. This way, we can all live in the kind of communities we want; and if we don't like where we live, its a short move to a better situation.

Why can't we see the alternatives?

The health care crisis has prompted considerable discussion in Facebook and some other forums that I follow, to the effect that federal funds are the only way to ensure that those who are in need get a hand up. By implication, critics of libertarian causes accuse us of promoting selfishness, because we oppose the use of government funds for charitable purposes.

Let's set aside the argument that taxation is legalized theft; and that government is forcibly redirecting our tax money to spend on its favorite causes (some of which are indeed charitable); or even that the data show that conservatives and libertarians give much more generously to charities than liberals, who seem to want charity only with other people's money. These statements are true, but we need to dig deeper.

There is a widespread assumption, undoubtedly fostered by the federal government, that only the federal government has the resources to solve social problems. Never mind that, but for the Federal Reserve and its ability to print money, the federal government would have been bankrupt years ago. Never mind that three generations of inner-city people have relied on federal handouts instead of themselves. Never mind that Medicare and Medicaid, with their myriad regulations, have distorted the once-free health care market to give providers incentives to raise prices to their current ridiculous levels; instead of keeping them low because they face competition. The fact remains, the federal government is not the only way people can be helped. And, as I shall show presently, it isn't even the best way.

We've all heard the proverb that, if we give a man a fish, he will eat a meal; but if we teach him to fish, he will always be able to eat. Federal entitlements have stripped us of the ability to fend for ourselves, and to teach others to fend for themselves. Even those of us who have jobs are afraid to step out to do what we really want to do, because we see too few examples of successful entrepreneurship. Government has destroyed meaning and purpose from millions of human lives -- and not just those of the needy. Few of us will ever experience the spiritual benefits of true charity, because the opportunities are few and not well known to the general population; and because our consumer society promotes selfishness. Liberals have tried to persuade us that libertarianism will put selfishness on steroids.

Eighty years ago, there were plenty of institutions that gave real help to people in need. There were the YMCAs, the settlement houses, the food pantries, ordinary people helping other ordinary people to find jobs; and employers willing and able to take a chance on the poor, but promising young person. People did not delegate everything to the social worker; and government regulations did not give an employer an additional disincentive to hiring a risky employee. Not all of these institutions have gone away, but they are less prevalent in our society now than they were then. Why? Because government has made them seem unnecessary and ineffective; and through taxation it has too often shut them out in the competition for financial and human resources.

Many years ago, we thought of multiple "institutions": churches, schools, community non-profit organizations, arts groups, informal voluntary groups, and free enterprise (meaning farmers and mostly small business). French historian Alexis de Tocqueville* commented at length at the American tendency to form voluntary associations to do all kinds of things, when he visited in the 1830s. Most of us don't do much of that anymore, because we are too busy working long hours at our jobs (to make up for our families what governments take in taxes) or scooting our children from one sport/dance school/planned activity to another. In so doing, we have stripped ourselves and our children of the ability to creatively solve the problems of life. In so doing, we have stripped ourselves and our children of much of our humanity.

As we begin to think about how we might dismantle some (or all) of this federal government, we also need to think about how we can build up the alternative -- voluntary -- institutions that can take up the slack, particularly with education and the social services. This is made more necessary because government is singularly incapable of providing the one thing people in need, need most: love. Jesus taught that, more than anything else, it is love that exalts the human spirit -- but government must by its nature be concerned with efficiency and accountability. Love has trouble staying strictly within the rules.

Non-governmental institutions were the true strength of America, an historical fact recognized by Alexander Stephens in a speech he gave November 14, 1860, in an effort to keep Georgia in the Union:

Our Institutions constitute the basis -- the matrix -- from which spring all our our characteristics of development and greatness. Look at Greece! There is the same fertile soil; the same blue sky; the same Aegean; the same Olympus; -- there is the same land, where Homer sung; where Pericles spoke; -- it is, in nature the same old Greece; but it is 'living Greece no more!'

Descendants of the same people inhabit the country; yet, what is the reason for this mighty difference? ... Why is this so? I answer this, their Institutions have been destroyed! These were but the fruits of their forms of Government -- the matrix from which their grand development sprung. And when once the Institutions of our people shall have been destroyed, there is no earthly power that can bring back the Promethian spark, to kindle them here again, any more than in that ancient land of eloquence, poetry, and song!

(Alexander H. Stephens, A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States [Philadelphia, 1868], p. 8).

By reducing our government, we will restore our humanity; and with that restoration we can build a vibrant culture. This is a change that can again fill our people with real hope and provide them with real opportunity for personal advancement and growth. However, it won't happen until we detoxify ourselves of the synthetic entitlements emanating from a power-hungry federal government.

* In Democracy in America.

Envisioning Ohio independence: Switzerland as a role model

Thomas Naylor of the Second Vermont Republic has written an article detailing exactly how a small country can successfully protect the liberties of its people -- even when its neighbors are trying to pull it into a different direction. Switzerland, since its independence in 1291, has never been conquered by a foreign power, and has what Mr. Naylor calls "the weakest federal government in the world." Switzerland has one third the land area of Ohio and two thirds the population. Mr. Naylor attributes the success of the Swiss to twelve principles:

- Small is beautiful
- Gold backed currency
- Fiscal responsibility
- International tax haven
- Swiss federalism
- Direct democracy
- Neutrality
– Avoiding entangling alliances
- Decentralized health care
- Swiss railroads and infrastructure
- Locally controlled schools
- Decentralized social services
- Sustainable agriculture, energy, and environment

The article adds considerable detail to each of these principles, and is well worth reading.