The on-line links to the following articles can be found in the "issues archive" of our

Federal Issues Committee website [ http://www.indeedfree.com/fic/issues/archive.html ]

and also at the Federal Issues Committee webpage of IndianaArmstrongPatriots.com

In the short span of a century and a half, the US went from a government famously described by Abraham Lincoln as "of the people, by the people, for the people" to one "of the Elites, by the Elites, for the Elites."

Albert J. Nock referenced Lincoln's phrase as "probably the most effective single stroke of propaganda ever made in behalf of republican State prestige." Perhaps, but when Lincoln said it our country had at least some resemblance to Lincoln's description.

This country, founded on personal liberty, freedom and limited government, has morphed into a massive Social Welfare State rivaling the paragons of Socialism in Europe.  The concept of government serving the people no longer applies. The people now serve their government and its cronies.

The Founding Fathers would not recognize what has transpired in this country. Their creation and ideals have been savagely distorted if not destroyed forever. In its place stands the detested evil that results from increasingly unbridled power. The image of Leviathan ruthlessly ruling over its citizens is faintly visible.  Each violation of The Constitution and The Rule of Law only strengthens the growing monster.

Two diametrically opposed views of government played a role in our metamorphosis:

• 1. Government as Passive, Unbiased Referee
• 2. Government as Active Player

The concept of government as an honest broker used to be acceptable to many (although probably not the Founding Fathers). Fifty or sixty years ago this view was reflected in statements like: "If you can't trust your government, who can you trust?" Today, few make such statements outside of comedy club routines.

Even the libertarian Milton Friedman believed, for a time, that government could be an unbiased referee. When asked late in life about his biggest mistake, he replied that some early policy recommendations he made were based on this erroneous assumption.

If government were honest and unbiased, it would be reasonable to grant it a larger role than if it were not.  However, even this unrealistic assumption cannot justify the excessive government of today.

Public Choice Theorists, like Nobel Laureate James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, provided an alternative view of government that was consistent with that of the Founders. They saw government as just another institution in the sense that it is populated by self-interested individuals. As such, it would be an active player in the economy and society to the extent possible.

So long as these individuals could benefit from outcomes, government could not be an honest broker. In their view, those who "serve" are no different from the "greedy" businessman who politicians regularly condemn.

This view of human nature drove the Founders to develop The Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the separation of powers in an attempt to contain misbehavior by government. Public Choice theory is merely a  modern intellectual affirmation of what our educated Founders knew two and one-half centuries ago.

Government is necessarily run by self-interested individuals until we discover a way to breed and elect angels.  Friedrich Hayek, among others, argued that a biased process attracts and enables the "worst" to succeed in government. (See "The Road to Serfdom" for his reasoning).

Passive and unbiased government is not impossible, merely highly improbable. Noble phrases like "public service" are should be seen as modern day examples of what Nock saw as self-serving propaganda.

What Does This Mean?

Mr. Anderson's description of the two follows:

The principled view of government is equivalent to the ideal type of the Passive, Unbiased Referee. The pragmatic is government equivalent to Active Player. Viewed on a continuum, the US government began as principled and degenerated over time to pragmatic. Democracies of other countries seem to have followed a similar path.

Unless the proper incentives and disincentives are in place, government will turn from principled to pragmatic. Putting them into place is difficult while keeping them in place is likely impossible. Individuals have incentives to break free from "rules" that prevent self indulgence. Whereas these same people make and enforce the rules, containing government is likely an intractable problem.

Over time, the binding constraints are changed to benefit those in power. That is what happened in the US. For political scientists this natural degenerative process of government may provide the basis for an interesting doctoral dissertation dealing with the cycle of civilizations and the rise and fall of nations.

There is a clear progression from pragmatic to corrupt government. There is no countervailing force to reverse this progression. Those wielding power have incentives only to expand power and personal benefits. No one outside of government has the power to overrule government. At some point in the accretion of power, the ballot box is obsolete.

From a short-term perspective, the deterioration in government is barely noticeable. It proceeds slowly, in the same manner and to the same effect as rust or erosion. Looked at from a wider time perspective it is easy to see as some of these examples illustrate:

• In the late 1800s, President Grover Cleveland, when criticized by a member of his own party, responded: "What is the use of being elected or re-elected unless you stand for something?" Contrast that with Rahm Emanuel's statement in 2008: "Never let a good crisis go to waste." In Cleveland's time there was still a sense of "doing the right thing." Today politics and self-interest are the ends. "Right" is anything which advances a political agenda.

• Prior to 1913, there was no permanent income tax or Federal Reserve in this country. Government ran mostly balanced budgets, funding operations via excise taxes and tariffs. When government debts were incurred, they were usually paid off within several years.

• Inflation was an oddity before the Federal Reserve. During the nineteenth century, arguably the fastest growth period in our history, declining prices were the norm. Only during the War of 1812 and the Civil War in the 1860s was inflation a problem. Even with those wars, prices were lower at the end of that century than the beginning.

• Since the formation of the Federal Reserve about 100 years ago, inflation is a constant. The Fed has systematically destroyed the purchasing power of the dollar and with it many types of savings. This institution, sold to the American public as necessary to protect the dollar, has destroyed 95 cents of every dollar since its formation.

• The nature of government and our attitudes toward it have changed dramatically. President John F. Kennedy's views would not be acceptable to today's Democrat party. He could be considered too conservative for many modern-day Republicans.

• The humorous definition of a "great statesman" used to be a "dead politician." For politicians who have expired within the last fifty or so years, there are few great statesment, even by this gratuitous definition.

There is no viable political solution. Choosing between Corruption Faster (Democrats) and Corruption Slower (Republicans) does not change the destination, merely the rate at which the public is plundered. Government is too large and too powerful to allow itself to be dismantled via the ballot box. Yet it is also too large, too inefficient and too insolvent to survive.

A mercy killing, administered by an economic collapse, will provide a meaningful opportunity to address the political problem and return to limited government. Such an event, unfortunately, also opens the possibility of a totalitarian state.

Great pain lies ahead. The only issue is whether it will be short-term (say ten years) or long-term as in the old Soviet Union. Be aware of what lies ahead and prepare as best you can.

gxm 12/09/2011 09:36 AM

Yes, and most likely we will be no exception. This is why I favor as a last effort a constitutional convention restricted to amendments that would strengthen the Constitution which has been grossly subverted and undermined. Can that be done? - probably not. But I see it as quickly becoming our only hope. And yeah it’s dangerous but wait until you are up close and personal with a third world existence. Then you will find out what real danger is. Here are my favorite amendments which I post everywhere. Maybe I should put them in a time capsule. IMHO [In My Humble (Honest) Opinion], it’s just about game over.

1. A balanced budget Amendment with real teeth like the one from Representatives Jeb Hensarling of Texas , Mike Pence of Indiana and John Campbell of California.

2. Repeal of the 16th Amendment that also makes plain that only consumption taxes like the FairTax are henceforth permitted cutting off the massive money pipeline that politicians use to punish enemies, reward friends and of course reward themselves.

3. An original language or original intent amendment that makes clear that the bogus and sophistic "living document"/ "general welfare" concept is henceforth banished from American jurisprudence.

4. An amendment that either abolishes the Fed or at the very least backs the dollar with precious metals so that out of control money creation is stopped.

5. An amendment that explicitly makes the commerce clause (in Article I Section 8) more restrictive and in line with its original intent, i.e. limits its applicability to acts by the states that are in restraint of trade such as duties, tariffs, subsidies, etc.

6. Repeal of the 17th Amendment and a return to Senators being appointed by the state legislatures so that the original idea of preserving state sovereignty is protected.

tonymarini 12/09/2011 04:33 PM

All the prescriptions to cure the illness with our nation are fine and dandy, but they miss the nub of the problem causing the malady: Human nature. So long as both those who elect the representative and the representative themselves are flesh-and-blood humans, the outcome will remain the same. Simply put...we can't control ourselves. And we're willingly and easily controlled, so long as there's something in it for us. Historically, we have made poor decisions regarding those folks we've sent (and continue to send) to Washington to purportedly represent our best interests. As a result, our nation has become entangled in a death grip of our own making. The one-time representatives have now become elites, our betters and our rulers. Their position in office ostensibly gives the the power to truncate or eliminate our God-given natural rights as recognized by the Framers, or abridge the Constitution as they see fit. Regardless if they've been elected or not, this is all done without our consent. Just because we elect an individual does not confer tacit permission to abuse us or infringe upon our rights and liberties. If American citizens were *ASKED*, via referendum, if they assented with most or many of the laws passed or programs enacted, then those in power could rightfully argue that things were done according to the will of the people. But this hasn't happened for more than a century now! Face it, we are but mere pawns in a corrupt, contemptible and sinful game and power play. We will NEVER know how the grand experiment that the Framers set in motion in 1779 will turn out -- because that experiment ended around 1900 with Teddy Roosevelt and the laboratory was destroyed with the Wilson and FDR administrations. Any government action after that has been more Bolshevik than (original 13) colonial. QED.

GeorgiaBoy61 12/10/2011 01:19 AM

TonyMarini, re: "All the prescriptions to cure the illness with our nation are fine and dandy, but they miss the nub of the problem causing the malady: Human nature. So long as both those who elect the representative and the representative themselves are flesh-and-blood humans, the outcome will remain the same. Simply put...we can't control ourselves."

You've gone to the heart of the matter. The founders cautioned us that our republic and constitution were fit only for a "moral and religious people," which I take to mean a people of good character able and willing to restrain themselves and their appetites. The founders, wise and practical men that they were, knew that all humans are fallen and prone to corruption. They designed a system that balanced interest against interest, power against power, in an effort to channel human impulses toward useful ends, and sublimate the baser elements in our natures in the interests of our new nation. They gave us a constitution capable of chaining the worse abuses to which the powerful can be prone, provided that all Americans agreed to live by the social contract implied in our founding documents.

The lynchpin of the whole enterprise, however, was that our system depended (and still does depend) upon having vigilant people of good character and jealous of their liberties, as citizens. Many would argue that we no longer have enough "moral and religious" people in our nation to make the American experiment work ... that we no longer possess the moral rectitude necessary to keep the America our forefathers and mothers bequethed to us. What happens to us then? Ben Franklin answered that question, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Saving our Republic, then, starts with saving ourselves. That is, we can only save our republic one person at a time. If enough of us make the choice to become the kind of people worthy of the priceless legacy our ancestors left to us, we can protect and defend our beloved nation. On the other hand, if we cynically believe that "It's too late, nothing will work," and fail to take action, we will lose the America of our ancestors.

The rise of the Tea Party movement followed a period during which many academic students of constitutional law focused on "popular constitutionalism": the involvement of public opinion and popular movements in influencing constitutional interpretation. … Most of the previous scholarship on popular constitutionalism focuses on movements identified with the political left, such as the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, the feminist movement, and the gay rights movement. Although the Tea Party movement is primarily composed of conservatives and libertarians, it has much in common with previous popular constitutional movements. …

Part I of this Essay describes some of these similarities, focusing on the ways in which popular constitutional movements have arisen in response to social or economic crises, or major policy initiatives instituted by their opponents. Part II explains how the Tea Party movement shares key strengths and weaknesses of other popular movements. … Despite their flaws, the Tea Party movement and its predecessors serve a useful role as a check on the power of political elites. Part III explains two possible advantages of one unusual feature of the Tea Party—the fact that it is the first popular constitutionalist movement in many years whose main focus is the need to limit federal power. … . The Tea Party's focus on limiting government also makes it less likely that we will see the emergence of a right-wing populist movement that is focused on intolerance and xenophobia, of the kind that often arose during previous economic downturns. …

Despite its weaknesses, which are typical of popular constitutionalist movements, the Tea Party does have at least one important virtue. It, like many of its predecessors, is a potentially useful check on the power of political elites—those members of government who make and interpret the laws. If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and its interpretation is left solely up to political elites in the courts, Congress, and the Executive Branch, the practical result would be elite dominance of a political system unconstrained by public opinion. Given the incentive of elites to use political power for their own benefit at the expense of the public, this would be a dangerous state of affairs.

Even those skeptical that popular constitutionalism should displace judicial review can acknowledge that it can usefully play a more limited role in constitutional politics. Judges and other elites with specialized expertise in constitutional interpretation have valuable roles of their own. But their power should not be left unchecked by the public.

The need for popular constraints on elite discretion is particularly important with respect to constitutional issues relating to the scope of federal power—the main focus of Tea Party activists' attention. Federal officials in Congress and the Executive Branch have little if any incentive to constrain the scope of their own authority, and much reason to expand it. This truth was dramatically illustrated during the first six years of the George W. Bush presidency, when the Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House. Although the Party claimed to stand for limited government, in reality it presided over massive expansions of federal spending and regulation. In constitutional litigation, the Bush Administration defended nearly unlimited federal power—not only with respect to executive power over war and foreign policy, but also in cases addressing Congress's power to engage in domestic regulation. The Bush record suggests that many Republican Party elites are no more willing to accept constitutional restrictions on their authority than their Democratic counterparts, at least not when their party controls Congress and the White House.

Given the extreme reluctance of political elites in either party to accept constraints on their power, popular movements focused on limited government have a valuable role to play in enforcing such restrictions. Whether the Tea Party can succeed in constraining the use of federal power is far from clear. But at least it has focused attention on a crucial issue.

Despite its many similarities to previous popular constitutionalist movements, the Tea Party is unusual in one important respect: it is the first such movement in many years to focus its efforts primarily on limiting the power of the federal government. Obviously, other recent constitutional movements have sought to limit exercises of federal power that threaten particular constitutional rights, such as the Second Amendment right to bear arms or the right to be free of race and gender discrimination. But the Tea Party is unusual in focusing on structural constraints on federal power that go beyond restrictions on the violation of specific individual rights. This focus has two important potential benefits different from those created by most other popular constitutionalist movements: it could strengthen democratic accountability and preclude the rise of a right-wing populist movement that is more focused on intolerance and xenophobia. …

… The ultimate impact of the Tea Party on American constitutionalism remains to be seen. The movement could fade away, be co-opted by the Republican Party leadership, or veer off in a more socially intolerant direction. For now, the evidence shows only that the Tea Party is very much in the same tradition as previous popular constitutionalist movements. And its focus on limiting federal power could have some major beneficial effects.