If there was ever a year for Lysander Spooner’s wisdom to be proven true (yet again) it has to be either 2020 or 2021. While only a minority of historians recognize that the US Constitution was effectively a coup d’etat, it is none the less a very true statement. The only effective measure against tyranny that destroys the effective rights that God gave us is decentralized, less powerful, non-empire states or city-states. Should the 13 colonies have remained under the Articles of Confederation, what we have seen today would not have happened.
Imagine a Texas or Florida connected only to a centralized federal government by an agreement verses a financial-based web of co-dependency and you would have seen early in 2020 the withdrawal from the pact that has the states act together. Medical tyranny would have been thwarted and medical freedom would have reigned.
How does this look here in 2021? Dr. Simone Gold explains using the failed US Constitution as a reference point:
“We have lost many of our Constitutional rights.
Freedom of Religion? Only if you follow the Religion of Public Health.
Pastors, Priests, and Rabbis bowed down to the false god of government when tyrannical governors prohibited or limited in person religious events.
Free Speech? Not anymore.
Controlled and censored speech is the order of the day. Critical thinking is mocked. Doctors are threatened by the medical establishment for asking scientific questions about COVID early treatments and vaccine related illnesses.
Free Press? Wiped out.
Five corporations control 90% of America’s news outlets: Comcast, Disney, Viacom/CBS, News Corp, and AT&T. The official narrative is parroted verbatim and incessantly. Just like China. Just like North Korea. It is no wonder a recent Rasmussen poll found that over 60% of the American people view the press as: “The Enemy of the People.”
Freedom of Assembly? The government is threatening organizations who don’t “social distance,” who refuse to wear a mask, and who won’t abide by limits on the number of people who can attend rallies-groups like America’s Frontline Doctors.
Freedom to Petition the Government? I am, for all practical purposes, under house arrest with no formal charges brought against me. Why? Because I petitioned my government—and now I have lost my Constitutional rights. And I am not alone.
Fourth Amendment: Right to bodily integrity. This is essentially gone, through coercive tactics to force Americans to accept an experimental treatment they don’t want and don’t need.
Fifth Amendment: Due process. Don’t get me started. There are good people, Americans who are languishing in jail as I write you – pretrial – based upon accusations only!
Sixth Amendment: Speedy and Public Trial. Gone. No longer will the US government promise to give us our day in court, much less before a jury of our peers for all to see. So-called secret courts.
Seventh Amendment: Trial by Jury. Due to lockdowns, the accused are held without a trial by jury for weeks or months.
I always thought I lived in the United States of America, not in some communist dictatorship.
And what are the excuses for erasing our Constitution? Medical safety, economic security, and religious duty.
But we cannot afford to overlook the underlying theme to all three: TYRANNY.
The reason the communists decided to use medical tyranny is because it is the most effective: it is silent, stealth, and insidious. It causes great fear, cowardice, and a hyper-reliance on authority. It also distracts people from the REAL enemy: the tyrannical overlords who seek to divide us.
The tyrannical overlords pit black against white, male against female, rich against poor. Vaxxed vs. normal is just another exploitable division…”
The US citizens trusted the government in 15 days to flatten the curve, gave the consent to mask up (95% at its peak), to social distance (the magical six foot) and to get the jab (approaching 70% if you can believe government statistics). The learning curve is pretty steep for sheep!!!
So we did it once, secession that is, but the next time did not go so well for those who just wanted to live life THEIR way .. of course that time “slavery” was the excuse for not letting those 7 states go, EVEN THOUGH the Union slave states kept their slaves in bondage until the end of the war against southern independence.
Once the war was won by the Union and the Radical Republicans, the military districts set up ensured Reconstruction punished those who believed in the “consent of the governed” to put that ideal to rest and believe in “one nation indivisible”. It didn’t take, even after 100 years of economic hardship in the South, there is still injustice in the air.
Fast forward to 2021 and what have we learned? That a vast majority of Americans prefer safety to freedom. There is a lot of learning (and un-learning) to do in the years to come.
Tom Woods clarifies how wrong the state-educated Americans get the first secession of the thirteen colonies from the British Empire:
In school, we were told this: “No taxation without representation.”
Zzzzzzzz.
The real principles were more like the following.
(1) No legislation without representation.
The colonists insisted that they could be governed only by the colonial legislatures. This is the principle of self-government.
This is why a Supreme Court ordering localities around is anti-American in the truest sense. It operates according to the opposite principle from the one the American colonists stood for.
(2) Contrary to the modern Western view of the state that it must be considered one and indivisible, the colonists believed that a smaller unit may withdraw from a larger one. Today we are supposed to consider this unthinkable.
(3) The colonists’ view of the (unwritten) British constitution was that Parliament could legislate only in those areas that had traditionally been within the purview of the British government. Customary practice was the test of constitutionality. The Parliament’s view, on the other hand, was in effect that the will and act of Parliament sufficed to make its measures constitutional.
So the colonists insisted on strict construction, if you will, while the British held to more of a “living, breathing” view of the Constitution. Sound familiar?
I think these are key .. because we all know the taxes AFTER the war for independence were higher than before the war (thank you George Washington and Alexander Hamilton). NO legislation without REAL representation .. and I don’t just mean voting!
.. and this whole Pledge of Allegiance propaganda that implies one nation, indivisible .. well that could only have been written by a socialist (here is looking at you Francis Bellamy). Only empires, communist states and democracies want the largest territories to be able to tax the people from, as when you run out of other people’s money, well then that is the end of that road.
As far as Tom’s point #3, well I align more with Lysander Spooner:
I don’t care how limited you make a constitution, at the end of the day it is still a piece of paper.
Now beyond this I call attention to Peter R. Quinones’ latest:
… What did affect me was watching people just roll over and take everything that not only the State was doing to them when it came to COVID-hysteria, but how people also backed down from neighbors who turned into COVID-Karens and COVID-Kyles. THAT made me re-think just about everything.
Up until then I thought there was a chance that in my lifetime 5-8% of people would get on board with drastically reducing the size and reach of the federal government. Now, I no longer believe that’s possible… using the same tactics as before. Society has proven that it wants to be told what to do when it comes to pretty much every single action in their lives. And libertarians are the people “diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone.” Barf!
I’ve come to realize that any message about increases in individual liberty and contractions to government must be accompanied by an equally powerful message of personal responsibility. Does anyone reading this believe that the majority of the population wants to take responsibility for their lives? I don’t. Then maybe this message of personal liberty and responsibility needs be accompanied with a detailed plan on how to achieve that. I know, I know, we don’t tell people how to live their lives. However, if you don’t educate them someone else will, and that someone else will most likely be the State. Do you trust the State to actually help people with this goal? ..
I don’t trust the state, no way, no how.
After the past 16 months, if you still do, I recommend you get some counseling!
So the path forward includes the hard work of showing how keeping people on the government handouts is a recipe for life long servitude. It should not be a surprise how the 1960s Great Society blew up the black culture in the US .. how many black families have fathers in the home today? Not as many as they did in the 1950s.
Well, it is apparent this last go around that the US government wants even more dependent people sucked in to the state’s freedom prison. Do know that boxcars are at the end of every one of these utopian totalitarianism wet dreams. People need to understand this with their head and THEN believe it with their hearts.
I am sorry to say that churches don’t even give hope in this present trajectory, just like the 1st century Pharisees and Sadducees gave no real hope to the people, just more of the same as they allied with the state at every turn.
Grassroots one person at a time, keeping any groups very small and be on the lookout for infiltration from the state .. you can never be too careful with your circle of “friends”.
May this 4th of July inspire you toward the next real secession event here in the USA.
In Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s classic “Democracy – The God That Failed“, the utter weakness of this form of government is laid bare, as all non-principled people pursue the “free” things government can provide, from the poorest in the street to the upper class CEO, government becomes the vehicle of theft:
With a [democratic] government anyone in principle can become a member of the ruling class or even the supreme power. The distinction between the rulers and the ruled as well as the class consciousness of the ruled become blurred. The illusion even arises that the distinction no longer exists: that with a public government no one is ruled by anyone, but everyone instead rules himself. Accordingly, public resistance against government power is systematically weakened. While exploitation and expropriation before might have appeared plainly oppressive and evil to the public, they seem much less so, mankind being what it is, once anyone may freely enter the ranks of those who are at the receiving end. Consequently, [exploitation will increase], whether openly in the form of higher taxes or discretely as increased governmental money “creation” (inflation) or legislative regulation.
The Right accepts the reality of human differences but the Left does not. Because Leftists try to make everyone equal, they favor massive interventions by the State to abolish human cdifferences.
I am not saying that the so-called Right is honest, honorable or trustworthy, it is just that it seems to be a few degrees away from evil in admitting that no entity can “make” everyone equal, except in slavery.
One must note that the so-called Left, who politically years ago were aligned more with Thomas Jefferson, has drifted very far from the thoughts of the founding document the US Declaration of Independence which says in part:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it ..
Are we really created equal. No way, no how. However, what is equal is the rights as humans created in the image of God have under natural law, that is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness retaining all the personal property we acquire honestly with our work along the way. Government was supposed to see us equal under the law. As it turned out, most in government, Democrats and Republicans, see themselves above the law.
The bent humans develop overtime can be used for good but also for evil. We should by now see start evidence of how this plays out in crisis events, tyrants and snitches at every level of society come out of the woodwork. People we have known for years seem to have abandon common sense and have a cult-like zealous look in their eyes as they argue the latest fad built on half-truths, either from the masses or from government.
Hans points out that it is not only the masses, but the elites that are on-board with this agenda:
The egalitarian worldview of the Left is not only incompatible with libertarianism, however. It is so out of touch with reality that one must be wondering how anyone can take it seriously. The man-on-the-street certainly does not believe in the equality of all men. Plain common sense and sound prejudice stand in the way of that. And I am even more confident that no one of the actual proponents of the egalitarian doctrine really, deep down, believes what he proclaims. Yet how, then, could the Leftist worldview have become the dominant ideology of our age? At least for a libertarian, the answer should be obvious: the egalitarian doctrine achieved this status not because it is true, but because it provides the perfect intellectual cover for the drive toward totalitarian social control by a ruling elite
The United States has been on this path at least since the War Against Southern Independence from 1861-1865 when the state crushed those who were following the Declaration of Independence when it said:
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..
The seven secession documents outlined that these entities were taking back the powers it had given to the federation formed in 1787 with the US Constitution as they no longer consented! What, pray tell, will happen to us in the future when we lay claim to that founding principle? With the masses, the elites and the state in partnership, those that understand what is going on will be surrounded.
It has to be noted again that Lincoln’s centralizing of power was admired by Karl Marx, who correctly understood that:
So in fact it was the Republicans that led the United States down this road that the Democrats have fully embraced. How stupid is that.
Late 1930s American Communist convention
So today in 2020 we have the masses that are enthralled by “bread and circuses” while not being able to critically think what the end-game is here that the elites have for us all. Seems that most college graduates only see the first consequence of any action or decision, and rarely if ever see that the second and third consequences will be disastrous to them. But the masses are generally asses .. they go insane together in large groups and only then do some come back one at a time.
The other thing that democracy has done to society is to make it immoral. Few in society today think it is wrong to take with others have honestly earned and give it to the government to redistribute. Theft via government is honorable in their mind. Personal property of others means nothing as well.
Two articles (each dated by a year or five) caught my eye this week about small governments serving their people where happiness thrives. The first is Donald Livingston’s Abbeville blog post from JAN2019 that states:
Switzerland is regularly ranked by the UN’s World Happiness Report in the top ten happiest countries in the world. The top ten are usually always small states. The U.S. has yet to make the top ten.
The second one is a five year old Abbeville blog post (recently re-shared) that states:
In his time [Nathaniel] Macon was widely admired by Americans as the perfect model of a republican statesman. By republican I mean republican with a small “r.” I definitely do NOT mean the Republican Party, which, from its very beginning, when it stole the name from better people, right up to this minute, has stood for the exact opposite of what Nathaniel Macon meant by republican government.
It should be noted that the thirteen British colonies that seceded from the British Empire chose to fashion their guiding document, the Articles of Confederation from the Switzerland’s confederation documents. So when on Nov. 15, 1777, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, he articles vested the conduct of war and foreign policy in a Federal government, but left everything else to the States.
The Swiss Confederation was chosen in part due to it having been established more than four centuries earlier and was still intact and the federation in 1777 was still thriving. Historically, in 1315, the Swiss defeated the powerful Austrian empire in the Battle of Morgarten, when the men of Schwyz (one of the Swiss cantons / sovereign states) lured the Austrians into the mountains and ambushed them in a pass. The men of Schwyz killed 1,500 Austrian troops, drove hundreds more into Lake Lucerne and put the rest to flight. The country’s inhabitants were so grateful they changed the name of their nation from Helvetia to Switzerland. The country has remained free, independent and faithful to its own Articles of Confederation for nearly 700 years.
What this means is that the small republics, cantons, allow the people in a federation to tolerate differences across these unique cultures and lands. Smaller is better, but bigger can allow for protection from external forces, the problem is when there are internal forces that attempt to use the larger body for their own agenda.
The republics themselves have the following guiding principles modeled by the Greeks:
There are four principles to this republican tradition: First, republican government is one in which the people make the laws they live under. But, second, they cannot make just any law. The laws they make must be in accord with a more fundamental law which they do not make but is known by tradition. Third, the task of the republic is to preserve and perfect the character of that inherited tradition. And finally, the republic must be small. It must be small because self-government and rule of law is not possible unless citizens know the character of their rulers directly or through those they trust.
The Greeks created a brilliant civilization that was entirely decentralized. It was composed of 1,500 tiny independent republics strung out from Naples to the Black Sea. Most were under 10,000. One of the largest was Athens with around 200 thousand people. For over two thousand years, up to the French Revolution, republics seldom went beyond 200-300 thousand people, and the great majority were considerably smaller.
Having only 300,000 people to a republic, is small enough to personally kick the *ss of a politician who has done the people wrong. Large states have whole groups of people that live above the law and not under the laws they themselves get to create. Large states are also known for killing large amounts of their own people as in the case of Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China. It was not that long ago that the USSR disintegrated into 15 republics proving that they too found the downside of the large centralized state.
So we have the options of small republics and large nations, but it was a German Calvinist Johannes Althusius (1563-1638) that proposed a federation of small polities in a state larger than the classical republic, but smaller than a European monarchy. He called it a federation! In this structure, to prevent the central government from consolidating the smaller polities into a unitary modern state, Althusius introduces a constitutional right of secession from the federation. If a federation grew too large, it could always be brought back to a republican scale by secession.
This was why the founders, BEFORE the full force of the British Empire was on their shores, thought that this arrangement like the Swiss had (see below) would work across the cultures from New England to the Southern colonies:
Switzerland is so decentralized that its central government has no original taxing power. Its power to tax requires a constitutional amendment approved by a majority of the cantons, each of which has one vote, and a majority of individuals.
Switzerland (including all 26 cantons) would fit in South Carolina
After the revolutionary war, many founders abandoned the Swiss model as being too week and opted again towards the large-state model which is why we are in the mess we are in today!
It was at this point as the Revolutionary War ended that a reluctant Nathaniel Macon appeared on the scene:
Macon was born in 1758 on a plantation in Warren County, where he lived his entire life. He was a student at what is now Princeton when the War of Independence broke out in 1775. He left school and joined the New Jersey militia on active service, and then went home and joined the North Carolina troops. He was offered but refused a commission and he refused also the bounty that was paid for enlisting. He served in the Southern campaigns until he was elected to the General Assembly near the end of the war while he was still in his 20s. In the next few years he was offered a place in the North Carolina delegation to the Continental Congress which he declined.
You can see Macon’s character here, refused a commission (G. Washington would never do that), declined a place on the North Carolina delegation to the Continental Congress, but when the wheels started coming off the liberty and freedom wagon, he showed up!
As soon as the U.S. government went into operation, Hamilton and his Yankee friends, claiming that they were acting in behalf of “good government,” began to turn the government into a centralised power and a money-making machine for themselves by banks, tariffs, government bonds, and other paper swindles that would be paid for out of the pockets of the farmers, who produced the tangible wealth of the country. To oppose this Macon accepted election to the U.S. House of Representatives for the Second Congress. He served in the House 24 years and the Senate 13 years—representing North Carolina in congress from 1791 to 1828, from the age of 33 to the age of 70 when he retired voluntarily.
He was in this fight to the end as his own philosophy did not change at all from his farm in Warren County, North Carolina to the swamp (which it literally was in those days) called District of Columbia.
During all this time Macon was admired because he never changed from the principles with which he began. What were these principles? The federal government should be tightly bound by the Constitution. It should not tax the people and spend money any more than was absolutely necessary for the things it was entitled to do, nor go into debt, which was just a way to make the taxpayers pay interest to the rich. Eternal vigilance was the price of liberty. Power was always stealing from the many to the few. Office-holders were to be watched closely and kept as directly responsible to the citizens as possible.
Nathaniel Macon
His priority at all times was the people, not himself, not his agenda. He was a learned man who know the history of other peoples in different times and learned from their mistakes:
It might be nice to pay for everybody to go to college, or to build a fancy temple for the Supreme Court, or to issue bonds for rich people to invest in, or overturn a dictator 5,000 miles away. But the politicians had no right to take away the citizens’ earnings for whatever they thought was good. ..
History showed that the stronger and more centralised a government became the less free were the people. And the richer the government and its politicians and beneficiaries became, the poorer were the people. That was what had always happened, but America, with governments created by the people, had a chance to avoid the bad tendencies of government of the past.
It had a chance but even Nathaniel know the momentum was against those who saw the eternal vigilance against state powers was needed but was found wanting toward the end of his life:
By the end of his life Macon had realised that the cause of republicanism was lost at the federal level, and also that the North was determined to exploit and rule the South. South Carolina tried in 1832 to use “nullification,” state interposition, to force the federal government back within the limits of the Constitution. After he read Andrew Jackson’s proclamation against South Carolina, Macon told friends that it was too late for nullification. The Constitution was dead. The only recourse was secession—there was nothing left but for the South to get out from under the “Union” and govern itself.
Patrick Henry saw the American Republic die with the 1787 US Constitution when he said “I smell a rat”. Nathaniel Macon tried fighting the good fight until 1832 before he admitted that the Constitution was dead. Lysander Spooner saw this all real clear by 1867 when he said:
It was over before any of us were even born. The American Empire is what is rolling on now to its eventual grave, which those in command trying to take as many tax slaves with us to potential early graves.
Anyone who attended public school in the last 100 years have been taught that the US Constitution was one of the milestones in this country’s birth and maturation process towards being and becoming the land of the free.
This is rubbish. Americans were more free in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris than they were after the US Constitution was revealed on 17SEP1787 and finally ratified by 11 of the 13 former colonies two years later in 1789.
This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.
Personally, way back in MAR1976 when I was a high school senior and 17 years old, I made the oath below:
“I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
Enlisting in the US Navy, I had little to no idea as to the words I was repeating. At that time I was not aware how defective the Constitution was, the way it was created (the charge in 1787 was to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to replace it) and the way it has been abused.
Note that my first charge in this oath I took is to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. So what if the President of the US is that enemy, how can I still “obey the orders of the President of the United States”?
Looking back in history, I see that many if not all the presidents have subverted the US Constitution either in the letter or spirit of that defective document. LBJ, FDR, Wilson, Lincoln and even Washington all said that some existing crises necessitated their decisions and actions. So what good is this document (as Lysander Spooner said)?
The answer is “Absolutely Nothing!” This document does nothing to restrain tyranny in these united States as it was originally intended, by some of its authors.
But I digress, for a better question is why was this document needed? Why were the Articles of Confederation just tossed aside? Why was this document drafted in the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia behind closed doors in tremendous secrecy?
The truth is, if word leaked out of the actual contents, the original intent and the agenda that was behind this major shift, the revolution that had just concluded would have been set ablaze again. The authors of this document were in a race against time and did everything in their power to ensure that the adoption took place as quickly as possible to avoid reflection and contemplation in the public square that would kill the proposal once the consequences of its agenda became apparent.
They were actually insisting that the states ratify first and then propose amendments later. The document had no bill of rights and it actually gave more power to the general or central government. It was a political coup d’état. No wonder Patrick Henry said he smelled a rat.
It was nothing less than an oligarchical coup to ensure that the moneyed interests, bankers and aristocrats could cement their positions and mimic the United Kingdom from which they had been recently divorced.
In the interests of truth, the document that should be taught before the US Constitution is in fact the Articles of Confederation that was conceived in 1776 and adopted in 1781. As William Buppert explains:
As Austrian economists have discovered, bigger is not necessarily better. The brilliant and oft-dismissed Articles of Confederation (AoC) and Perpetual Union are a testament to voluntarism and cooperation through persuasion that the Constitution disposed of with its adoption. Penned in 1776 and ratified in 1781, the spirit and context of the Articles live on in the Swiss canton system and are everywhere evident in the marketplace where confederationist sentiments are practiced daily. The confederation’s design divines its mechanism from what an unfettered market does every day: voluntary cooperation, spontaneous information signals and the parts always being smarter than the sum A. confederation according to the Webster’s 1828 dictionary is:
The act of confederating; a league; a compact for mutual support; alliance; particularly of princes, nations or states.
This ‘marriage’ retains the freedom of the entities that would voluntary join to also exit. What is obvious is that the US Constitution did not guarantee this exit clause, otherwise the state constitutions of New York and Virginia would not have had exit rights penned into their own documents. Furthermore, when the Constitutional Convention convened in 1787, 55 delegates came but 14 later quit as the Convention eventually abused its mandate and scrapped the Articles of Confederation instead of revising it.
Ultimately, actions spoke louder than words when even the much admired Washington was revealed as having none of the talk of independence and wanting a firm hand on the yoke of the states to make them obey their masters on high. Washington’s behavior in the Whiskey Rebellion cast away any doubts of the imperious behavior of the central government a mere four year after the adoption of the Constitution.
There were those who stood in the way, but typical to politics in general, these people are marginalized. Patrick Henry gave the firmest defense of the skeptical posture when he questioned the precarious position the Constitution put to the state’s sovereignty on 5 June 1788 at the Virginia Ratifying Convention. It should be noted that the savvy ‘Founding Lawyers’ ensured that the process of ratification was sped along by bypassing the bicameral house requirements and simply asking the states to conduct ratifying conventions. Henry’s text says:
“How were the Congressional rights defined when the people of America united by a confederacy to defend their liberties and rights against the tyrannical attempts of Great-Britain? The States were not then contented with implied reservation. No, Mr. Chairman. It was expressly declared in our Confederation that every right was retained by the States respectively, which was not given up to the Government of the United States. But there is no such thing here. You therefore by a natural and unavoidable implication, give up your rights to the General Government. Your own example furnishes an argument against it. If you give up these powers, without a Bill of Rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw — A Government that has abandoned all its powers — The powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a Bill of Rights — without check, limitation, or controul. And still you have checks and guards — still you keep barriers — pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated State Government! You have a Bill of Rights to defend you against the State Government, which is bereaved of all power; and yet you have none against Congress, though in full and exclusive possession of all power! You arm youselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity? What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong energetic Government? To that Government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up. This is a real actual defect. . . “
We, in 2019, are feeling the full effects of this constitution’s real purpose with the emergence of the government spying on its citizens and the whole Red Flag law emergence. Total control implies that all guns are in the government’s hands so that “All your defence is given up”
Helpless tax slaves is the aim of the government we have today, thanks in part to the efforts of Madison, Hamilton and John Jay.
It appears that James Madison tried to reverse himself somewhat by introducing ten amendments called the Bill of Rights, but it was too little, too late, and only represented a piece of paper:
“Our constitutions purport to be established by ‘the people,’ and, in theory, ‘all the people’ consent to such government as the constitutions authorize. But this consent of ‘the people’ exists only in theory. It has no existence in fact. Government is in reality established by the few; and these few assume the consent of all the rest, without any such consent being actually given.”~ Lysander Spooner
