Politicians who have taken an oath to "support the Constitution" have violated one of its most central principles: that of "enumerated powers." They have exercised powers which were never given to the federal government in the Constitution. In the above graph, this includes job training, environment, education, nutrition, housing, income security, health, and, most likely, "other." Cutting "unconstitutional" programs would mean cutting more than 90% of the federal government. Instead of the people of Missouri sending their money to Washington D.C. where bloated bureaucrats take their cut and send the rest back to Missouri in a long, leaky hose, the People of Missouri could spend their money in more efficient ways, on more effective local programs, and eliminate the federal middleman.
In recent posts we have observed that "corruption" is inescapable in government, even in the military, because transactions which are governed by force are inherently corrupt and corrupting, unlike voluntary transactions. Therefore if we were to abolish all "unconstitutional" federal programs, as well as all inherently corrupt and inefficient federal programs, we would abolish the federal government altogether.
There is no service which is necessary for an orderly and prosperous society which can be better provided by the Federal Government than by the Free Market.
Back in June I asked, How Big is America? Based on those numbers, let's ask two additional questions:
- How big would Missouri be if we abolished the United States?
- Why should we even think about abolishing the United States?
We just answered the second question in part, but there's more. Here is the answer to the first question:If we abolish the United States federal government, and create 50 new sovereign nations, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of top nations, based on data from the 2007 CIA World Factbook, compiled here, would be as follows:
1. Japan $4,911,000,000,000
2. Germany $2,858,000,000,000
3. China $2,512,000,000,000
4. United Kingdom $2,341,000,000,000
5. California/France $2,154,000,000,000
What's wrong with a world where Japan is the largest nation, followed by Germany, China, the UK, and California? Would Japan, Germany, China, or Great Britain have any reason to invade California? Right now Japan's military is non-existent, provided for by the U.S.
7. Italy $1,780,000,000,000
8. Texas/Canada $1,089,000,000,000
Would the Republic of Texas and Canada be safe from Italy and those other nations above?
10. Spain $1,081,000,000,000
11. India $796,100,000,000
12. Florida/South Korea $768,500,000,000
14. Illinois/Mexico $741,500,000,000
16. New Jersey/Russia $733,000,000,000
18. Ohio/Australia $645,300,000,000
20. New York/Brazil $620,700,000,000
22. Pennsylvania/Netherlands $612,700,000,000
24. Georgia/Switzerland $386,800,000,000
26. North Carolina/Sweden $371,500,000,000
28. Massachusetts/Belgium $367,800,000,000
30. Washington/Turkey $358,200,000,000
32. Taiwan $353,900,000,000
34. Virginia/Austria $309,300,000,000
36. Tennessee/Saudi Arabia $286,200,000,000
38. Missouri/Poland $265,400,000,000
Should Bill Gates tremble in the state of Washington for fear of an invasion by the superior power of Belgium?
Should Missouri fear an invasion by Saudi Arabia?
But why is this?
Because the federal government of the United States sells weapons to the nation that gave us 17 of the alleged 19 9-11 hijackers. Saudi Arabia is the federal government's largest Arms Client. Just last month the federal government offered another $20 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.
Do we really need the federal government to keep us safe?
The federal government in Washington D.C. is the greatest threat to peace in the world today. Abolish it entirely and we will all be better off.
America's Founding Fathers would see this instantly.
Just as they worked to abolish the government set in place by the British Empire over the colonies, they would work to abolish the government they themselves set in place over the states, were the Founders here today.
They risked their lives, their fortunes, and the sacred honor in defense of the principle of "Liberty Under God." They were motivated by Micah's vision of everyone owning private property and dwelling safely under their Vine & Fig Tree. That vision is threatened more by the U.S. federal government than by any other nation or terrorist organization on the planet.
OK, so Belgium and Germany won't be attacking Missouri if we abolish the federal government. But would Osama bin Laden attack the Republic of California or Texas or Missouri?
No, because Osama stated clearly why he issued a Fatwa calling for Holy War against the U.S.:
(1) the U.S. has troops in the Saudi Arabian holy lands
(2) the U.S. bombed Iraq
(3) the U.S. supports Israeli terrorism against Palestinians.
Abolish Washington D.C. and these grounds for attack on the American people are eliminated completely. Let California go on record as
(1) opposing sending troops from the California Republic to Saudi Arabia,
(2) opposing sending B-52's from the California Republic Air Force to bomb Iraq
(3) opposing sending military and financial aid to the Israeli government
and California will enjoy more prosperity and security than it does paying tribute to the U.S. federal government so the feds can sell arms to dictators that harbor terrorists at the same time the feds anger terrorists by killing the terrorists' relatives.
America's Founding Fathers understood that national security comes primarily from trusting God, and secondarily from not selling arms to your enemies.
OK, but why should we think about something like abolishing the United States? We opened the post with the reason: It is 99% unconstitutional and what is not unconstitutional is inherently corrupt.
But there is a second reason we should think about abolishing the United States.
The answer is, Because THEY already are.
THEY want to Abolish the United States
Find out who "they" are, and their goal.
We must take control of this movement.
The U.S. federal government is at war with the principle of LIBERTY which animated America's Founding Fathers. The federal government is at war with the principle of non-aggression, which the Libertarian Party has traditionally embraced:
I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.The federal government teaches all of us that violence is a better way to get what we want than persuasion. Because in addition to opposing the "Liberty" part of "Liberty Under God," the feds oppose the "Under God" part. The federal government prohibits us from teaching "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" in our neighborhood schools. We can't even post a copy of the Ten Commandments on a classroom wall.
I grew up thinking that kind of tyrannical atheistic stuff only existed in the Soviet Union.
God's laws are opposed by Washington D.C. because Washington D.C. is fundamentally unethical and corrupt. They have no moral scruples against killing a million Iraqis or seizing hundreds of billions of dollars of other people's money, if that's what it takes to solidify their political power.
There are a handful of exceptions, of course, but even the exceptions believe in "reform" rather than abolition.
I want to be as RADICAL as America's Founding Fathers would be if they were here today.
I propose a change as momentous as that described by Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, upon hearing of Locke's rejection of the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings:
Never before had I heard the authority of kings called in question. I had been taught to consider them nearly as essential to political order as the sun is to the order of our solar system.Lawrence Cremin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning Professor at Columbia Univ. writes:
For Rush, the events surrounding the creation of the Republic marked nothing less than a turning point in the course of human history. "I was animated constantly," he reflected in later years, "by a belief that I was acting for the benefit of the whole world, and of future ages, by assisting in the formation of new means of political order and general happiness."The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush, edited by George W. Corner (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1948), p.161, quoted by Cremin in American Education: The National Experience, 1783-1876, NY: Harper & Row, 1980, p. 114-15.
We don't need a king to rule us.
We all agree with this statement, radical as it was in 1776.
We don't need the federal government either.
Not all agree with that statement, even though it flows logically from the premises laid down by America's Founding Fathers.
We don't need the post office. We don't need federal control of education, welfare, business, and every other area of human action and society.
We don't need Homeland Security and federal arms sales to terrorists.
America didn't need London in 1776, and America doesn't need Washington D.C. today.
By being an anarchist, I am, like Benjamin Rush, "animated constantly by a belief that I am acting for the benefit of the whole world, and of future ages, by assisting in the formation of new means of social order and general happiness." That new means is nothing less than 100% pure laissez-faire capitalism, conducted "with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence," in accord with "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions." In short, "Liberty Under God."
The 21st century will be an incomparable blood-bath if human beings do not repudiate the political mythology of institutionalized vengeance and pursue the anarchist policy of "non-aggression." Christians brought liberty to the Western world by questioning the universally-accepted belief in "the divine right of kings." Now is the time for a "paradigm-shift" of equal magnitude. Our concept of social order should depend on personal responsibility nurtured by Godly families, not institutionalized political violence.
"Power tends to corrupt" -- Lord Acton
"Liberty has not subsisted outside of Christianity." -- Lord Acton
"I agree we need smaller government," you say, "but I think abolishing the federal government entirely is taking that too far."
Fine. Is there another candidate for Congress that is even going in the right direction? Is there another candidate who is committed in any meaningful way to smaller government? No. Look at the graph at the top of this post. Our current Congressman has been voting us in the wrong direction for 10 years, expanding the federal pie year after year. I want to abolish the pie altogether, piece by piece. You and I both agree that cuts must be made. Politicians do not get elected by cutting, but by promising a bigger pie. You need to battle these politicians with someone who is philosophically opposed to the pie. If you really believe in smaller government, you must vote for the candidate that's going in the right direction. Give that candidate a two-year term, then maybe another two-year term, and when you finally conclude that this candidate has abolished enough of the unconstitutional and wasteful programs and agencies of the federal government to suit you, don't send him to Congress for another term. (You won't live that long.)
So far, in the last 100 years, we haven't even started cutting. The pie has only been expanding. It's time to start moving in the opposite direction. Only a radical can be trusted to move that way, against the tide.