Civic Duty

[C Molten]

It is clear, despite the general apathy and dis-interest, that we no longer have the republic the founders created. Personal responsibility, and the limited, representative government it produced are fading from the world. Civilization is taking a step backward. Government is not the fundamental problem, though the corruption, short-sightedness and general lack of enlightened thinking are hard to stomach. We are the problem. We have the leadership we deserve. Most people are not prepared or able to shoulder this blame.

Many simply recognize that there is a problem. I would venture to say that, in these times, even the most apathetic person feels some vague sense of unease. I suppose it is important for people to recognize we're headed for trouble, but only if it inspires them to do something substantial. Sending an email to your congressman and listening to Glenn Beck isn't going to return our republic. We must re-dedicate ourselves to personal responsibility and then re-establish a limited government that fosters individual liberty.

In Isaac Asimov's "Foundation", the main character recognizes that civilization is in decline (for reasons that may look familiar). His goal is to implement a plan that, if successful, will shorten the dark period and re-invigorate people to forge a new cycle of prosperity and advancement. We need a plan and a quorum of people committed to implementing it. The question is what to do?

Here are some assumptions followed with some ideas that I think have merit. I invite your comments and ideas.

Assumptions:
1) We need a mass movement. Anything less can be safely ignored or squashed. The numbers of people will depend upon the planned actions. 10 million might be sufficient for marching on Washington DC with torches and pitchforks, while it might take 100 million to recall everyone in Congress via traditional elections.
2) To inspire a mass movement we're going to have to focus on 1 or 2 principles that are easy to communicate and that resonate. We cannot invite everyone to read Ayn Rand and expect them to do it.
3) The reforms must be accomplished quickly, because the movement can only hold itself together for a very limited time. People generally have short attention spans. I do not, for example, think it will be possible to install new leadership in Congress via traditional election cycles.

Ideas I like:
1) A tax revolt. I recently attended a presentation for the "Continental Congress 2009". I won't go into much detail, but they are working on a plan that will likely include withholding taxes on a mass scale. This has been tried by individuals and small groups plenty, but it might be difficult for the IRS to deal with several million.
2) Constitutional amendments. The original doesn't actually need revisions, but the process might be useful as a way of putting the "shackles" back on government and re-focusing people on government's proper, extremely limited, role. I really like the idea of a balanced budget amendment in conjunction with a return to sound money - money backed by precious metals so that it cannot simply be printed.

To be honest, even though I like the ideas above, I do not yet sense either one has enough juice to succeed. It's a difficult proposition of get people to take responsibility for themselves. Please tell me how you think we can put a stop to civilization's decay.

Clint

[musashi]

Ideas I like:
1) A tax revolt.

Clint have you ever tried not to pay your taxes?

Like at the gas pump… Thanks, but no taxes. Or the cash register? No sales tax please. How about the phone bill? Try not paying any of the multiple fees they put on those. I’ve tried numerous times when I take a new job to join up without completing a W-4 (US tax withholding form). They will not hire you without one of those forms. Failing to pay your property tax leads to a constructive lean, and ultimately loss of the property. How do you have a tax revolt?

As far as a mass movement, how do you have one of those without centralized leadership? And if we do achieve leadership for this mob, how do we prevent the leaders from becoming corrupt?

[C Molten]

A sales tax on gasoline is an "indirect" or voluntary tax - in that if you object to the tax, or to the government collecting it, you can choose not to buy the gas. I know, I know - not buying gas isn't a very good option for most people. That's another topic - suffice it to say that some government is necessary and the best tax system is one where folks pay voluntarily. The idea is to make government earn its keep.

People live in fear of a myriad of Federal bureaucracies - for good reason. I am afraid. Remember, were talking about a number of people too large for the IRS to simply railroad into submission. A few million to start. There are plenty of folks who are self-employed or are business owners who don't have their taxes withheld. Coincidentally, these include the rich who aren't all that excited about government's program of wealth transfer via taxation. Imagine what happens when these people join the revolt and, additionally, provide that option to their employees by refusing to withhold. Imagine how quickly that revolt would grow, once it becomes clear the IRS has been overwhelmed.

"As far as a mass movement, how do you have one of those without centralized leadership? And if we do achieve leadership for this mob, how do we prevent the leaders from becoming corrupt?"

I do not envision this mass movement as a permanent fixture - such as a new political party. It should be temporary - meant to achieve the 1 -2 fundamental reforms necessary to re-impose strict limits on government and cement the importance of on going vigilance by the populace.

The heavy lifting, in terms of devising a system of government that does not evolve into tyranny and corruption has already been done. The system the founders established is beautiful. Your question was central to their planning and discussion. Of course, the essential element is a populace that remains committed to enforcing government's proper role. I'm not sure how to achieve that on a permanent basis. I suppose maybe Thomas Jefferson was wrestling with that question when he said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Maybe it takes an occasional crisis to re-focus people on core values. Here's hoping reform doesn't actually require blood.

Clint

[C Molten]

Sorry, I didn't answer your first question - Have I ever tried not paying taxes? No. I've been a loyal payer my whole life. A couple things have changed though:

1) I am now self-employed and no longer have my income tax withheld.
2) I am tired of being pissed off about the direction of government but too afraid and/or lazy to do something about it.

I believe it is time to do something substantial, which means taking some risks. The alternative is condemning my two kids to a lower quality of life. We are close to a point of no return where too many people are too ignorant and too dependent on government.

Clint

[musashi]

1) I am now self-employed and no longer have my income tax withheld.

As a self-employed person it would be a pretty big risk in deciding to not pay your quarterly estimated taxes - Big Penalties. I agree that no way could IRS and the various state tax collectors function if even a small percentage of payers revolted, but who will be first to put his head on the block? Or in context with these forums who will shrug first?

The direction of current events is interesting / upsetting and we’ve long discussed some of the challenges. As you lurk around you might find some of those topics.

In the past we invited re-opening old issues, since new members are continually joining and may have fresh perspectives. Currently that policy has reversed; I’d be careful about digging up and responding to any thread more than 30 days old, else be branded a grave digger. As my buddy Hugo Chavez has seized upon, one tactic to institutionalize regime change is to re-write the history books, and destroy the earlier editions.

[Sellmak]

It is clear, despite the general apathy and dis-interest, that we no longer have the republic the founders created. Personal responsibility, and the limited, representative government it produced are fading from the world. Civilization is taking a step backward. Government is not the fundamental problem, though the corruption, short-sightedness and general lack of enlightened thinking are hard to stomach. We are the problem. We have the leadership we deserve. Most people are not prepared or able to shoulder this blame.

Many simply recognize that there is a problem. I would venture to say that, in these times, even the most apathetic person feels some vague sense of unease. I suppose it is important for people to recognize we're headed for trouble, but only if it inspires them to do something substantial. Sending an email to your congressman and listening to Glenn Beck isn't going to return our republic. We must re-dedicate ourselves to personal responsibility and then re-establish a limited government that fosters individual liberty.

In Isaac Asimov's "Foundation", the main character recognizes that civilization is in decline (for reasons that may look familiar). His goal is to implement a plan that, if successful, will shorten the dark period and re-invigorate people to forge a new cycle of prosperity and advancement. We need a plan and a quorum of people committed to implementing it. The question is what to do?

Here are some assumptions followed with some ideas that I think have merit. I invite your comments and ideas.

Assumptions:
1) We need a mass movement. Anything less can be safely ignored or squashed. The numbers of people will depend upon the planned actions. 10 million might be sufficient for marching on Washington DC with torches and pitchforks, while it might take 100 million to recall everyone in Congress via traditional elections.
2) To inspire a mass movement we're going to have to focus on 1 or 2 principles that are easy to communicate and that resonate. We cannot invite everyone to read Ayn Rand and expect them to do it.
3) The reforms must be accomplished quickly, because the movement can only hold itself together for a very limited time. People generally have short attention spans. I do not, for example, think it will be possible to install new leadership in Congress via traditional election cycles.

Ideas I like:
1) A tax revolt. I recently attended a presentation for the "Continental Congress 2009". I won't go into much detail, but they are working on a plan that will likely include withholding taxes on a mass scale. This has been tried by individuals and small groups plenty, but it might be difficult for the IRS to deal with several million.
2) Constitutional amendments. The original doesn't actually need revisions, but the process might be useful as a way of putting the "shackles" back on government and re-focusing people on government's proper, extremely limited, role. I really like the idea of a balanced budget amendment in conjunction with a return to sound money - money backed by precious metals so that it cannot simply be printed.

To be honest, even though I like the ideas above, I do not yet sense either one has enough juice to succeed. It's a difficult proposition of get people to take responsibility for themselves. Please tell me how you think we can put a stop to civilization's decay.

Clint

I need to read this a bit, but I think you're saying that the victims deserve their fate. Here's the problem with this argument, there is no better country on earth for the rational-minded man. Period. Despite the massive flaws and corruption, we still have relatively low taxes, no socialized medicine (yet), and we are free to pursue our happiness.... in fact, that last bit might be guaranteed somewhere....

The point is, you can go elsewhere. It will be worse.

You can fight.... it will be worse.

You can hate it but still be happy and productive knowing that your rational self interest is still better than the attempts at inflicting misery and control.

I choose C.

[C Molten]

Terrific proposal - bend over and take it like a man, it's in your rational self interest. I'm not sure I completely understand though. Is this what I should expect?:

The current expansion of government is only a temporary trend. I know the natural tendency of governments is to drift toward corruption and tyranny. But not here. The US is the greatest nation on earth I need not worry. I just need to keep my head down and things will work out.

I wake up in 20 years picking turnips by hand and selling them to the government co-op. It sure seems like things used to be easier - I had a plasma TV when I was younger. Then I remember, my philosophy is to always focus on the bright side and make the best of my situation. I was clever enough to plant turnips instead of cabbage and the government contract price is better this year than for cabbage. In Canada they don't allow people people to have 5 acres of their own to farm and they don't let you decide what to grow. I love living in a free country.

Do I have that right?

[Petyr Baelich]

Rearden, meet Dannerskjold... Dannerskjold, Rearden.

[C Molten]

Here's a quote for you Sellmak:

“Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.”

Roman Poet Juvenal – 77 AD

[Petyr Baelich]

Rhetoric is only an effective means of argument if you're trying to get someone not to do something.

I agree with your position but I think you're being overly antagonistic and pedantic with your current argument against Sellmak's position.

[Petyr Baelich]

As far as a mass movement, how do you have one of those without centralized leadership? And if we do achieve leadership for this mob, how do we prevent the leaders from becoming corrupt?

By having the personal responsibility to assume a leadership position oneself and not settling for mediocre, easily-corrupted men.

[musashi]

As far as a mass movement, how do you have one of those without centralized leadership? And if we do achieve leadership for this mob, how do we prevent the leaders from becoming corrupt?

By having the personal responsibility to assume a leadership position oneself and not settling for mediocre, easily-corrupted men.

I agree that self-reliance, and self-determination are generally the best policy. But doesn’t individualism lack a degree of coordination?

Clint was suggesting a mass movement of some kind; a mob. If each member of this flock assumes they are the leader, would there be any followers?

It seems like this sort of an arrangement is as random as gas molecules striking the inside of a container; you don’t experience any single collision rather the net effect of all the collisions.

[musashi]

Rhetoric is only an effective means of argument if you're trying to get someone not to do something.

I like it

[C Molten]

"Rhetoric is only an effective means of argument if you're trying to get someone not to do something.

I agree with your position but I think you're being overly antagonistic and pedantic with your current argument against Sellmak's position."

Hmm, guess I haven't spent enough time on the board to get a handle on social mores around here. My impression was that scorn, derision and rhetoric were expected .

I don't really believe in my ability to change a person's fundamental views by waging a one man campaign on a message board. If Sellmak thinks the status quo is the best option, I doubt I'll be able to convince him otherwise. The rhetoric was designed to ring a bell with other readers who already acknowledge we have a problem and provoke a response.

For what it is worth, I have brothers who basically feel as Sellmak does. I acknowledge the possibility they are right - the world is not going to hell in a handbasket. But someone is going to have to start making a convincing case in the face of what appears to be pretty strong evidence to the contrary.

[musashi]

I think a spirit that I think David Souter related about the US Supreme Court.

The Justices have widely differing perspective, yet they attempt to explore their differences collegially.

[Sellmak]

Terrific proposal - bend over and take it like a man, it's in your rational self interest. I'm not sure I completely understand though. Is this what I should expect?:

The current expansion of government is only a temporary trend. I know the natural tendency of governments is to drift toward corruption and tyranny. But not here. The US is the greatest nation on earth I need not worry. I just need to keep my head down and things will work out.

I wake up in 20 years picking turnips by hand and selling them to the government co-op. It sure seems like things used to be easier - I had a plasma TV when I was younger. Then I remember, my philosophy is to always focus on the bright side and make the best of my situation. I was clever enough to plant turnips instead of cabbage and the government contract price is better this year than for cabbage. In Canada they don't allow people people to have 5 acres of their own to farm and they don't let you decide what to grow. I love living in a free country.

Do I have that right?

What you say is true. Governments tend towards corruption, its always the way of things. But history also teaches us that corruption and tyranny are answered by anarchy and rebuilding, so your comment is out of context.

But your point is invalid. Government is an effect, not a cause. You want a revolution Lenon? Then start with the people. Lead by example, not sarcasm. Contribute your value to an organization that promotes rational thought and behavior. Start an obj club.

If you think you will sway anyone into anarchy, and yes, that is what you are promoting IMPLICITLY, you will fail. I dont have any issue with your opinion per se, but your methods are atrocious. Sarcasm? Are you trying to persuade me or make me feel unearned guilt?

[Sellmak]

Rearden, meet Dannerskjold... Dannerskjold, Rearden.

Thats about the highest compliment I've ever gotten.

[musashi]

Rearden, meet Dannerskjold... Dannerskjold, Rearden.

Thats about the highest compliment I've ever gotten.

It valid observation though, one point of view attempts to achieve the best possible outcome within a flawed system (Yours & Rearden's). And the other has decided that participation with the flawed system is an erroneous idea (Molten's and Dannerskjold's).

[Sellmak]

"Rhetoric is only an effective means of argument if you're trying to get someone not to do something.

I agree with your position but I think you're being overly antagonistic and pedantic with your current argument against Sellmak's position."

Hmm, guess I haven't spent enough time on the board to get a handle on social mores around here. My impression was that scorn, derision and rhetoric were expected .

I don't really believe in my ability to change a person's fundamental views by waging a one man campaign on a message board. If Sellmak thinks the status quo is the best option, I doubt I'll be able to convince him otherwise. The rhetoric was designed to ring a bell with other readers who already acknowledge we have a problem and provoke a response.

For what it is worth, I have brothers who basically feel as Sellmak does. I acknowledge the possibility they are right - the world is not going to hell in a handbasket. But someone is going to have to start making a convincing case in the face of what appears to be pretty strong evidence to the contrary.

I think that you're confusing acceptance of status quo with indifference. I truly just dont care whether or not the government fails, they burn my house, steal my food, etc. I cannot stop them.

However, I cant live my life in fear of what may happen. I cant spend my time engaging in a futile process which will make me more unhappy. If I die tomorrow, then in that split second before the end, I will know that I lived life. And if I live and it becomes too much to bear, then.... here comes the meme.... I will shrug.

Oh, and derision is expected here. In fact, we've raised it to a high art form in some cases.

[Sellmak]

Rearden, meet Dannerskjold... Dannerskjold, Rearden.

Thats about the highest compliment I've ever gotten.

It valid observation though, one point of view attempts to achieve the best possible outcome within a flawed system (Yours & Rearden's). And the other has decided that participation with the flawed system is an erroneous idea (Molten's and Dannerskjold's).

Oh I got it. But thank you for ruining my bask in the light with your explanation.

I'm going to go and cut myself now.

[C Molten]

"If you think you will sway anyone into anarchy, and yes, that is what you are promoting IMPLICITLY, you will fail. I dont have any issue with your opinion per se, but your methods are atrocious.

More than one reader has the impression that I am agitating for anarchy, so I did not write clearly. I suppose it was because I suggested a tax revolt. That idea actually comes from the last phrase in the first amendment to the constitution - a right to petition for redress of grievances. In the Federalist papers this right was associated with the withholding of taxes in the event government will not provide redress. It is a remedy not designed to destroy government, but to make it accountable.

To be clear; I am not an anarchist. I am a big believer in the system of government as it was originally envisioned. I am seeking peaceful reform within the rule of law.

"Sarcasm? Are you trying to persuade me or make me feel unearned guilt?"

My opinion is that you should feel legitimate guilt, though of course I cannot prove beyond doubt your interests are best served by actively working to restrain the growth of government any more than you can prove the opposite. We are forced to act on our convictions.

"But history also teaches us that corruption and tyranny are answered by anarchy and rebuilding, so your comment is out of context."

I will just say that our government was intended to exist in the "balanced center" between tyranny and anarchy and to move society out of the perpetual oscillation between those two extremes. The key to the whole thing working was:
1) Vesting the true power, not in government, but in the individual.
2) Individuals recognizing their interests were best served by hanging on to that power with all of their might.

"I think that you're confusing acceptance of status quo with indifference. I truly just dont care whether or not the government fails, they burn my house, steal my food, etc."

Why do you and others not value/acknowledge the power granted by our system of government, but rather choose "indifference"?

"I cannot stop them."

That is BS. Self-interested people are the root cause of every reform, revolution, coup-de-etat, and revision to the local building code ever completed.

Clint

[Sellmak]

"If you think you will sway anyone into anarchy, and yes, that is what you are promoting IMPLICITLY, you will fail. I dont have any issue with your opinion per se, but your methods are atrocious.

More than one reader has the impression that I am agitating for anarchy, so I did not write clearly. I suppose it was because I suggested a tax revolt. That idea actually comes from the last phrase in the first amendment to the constitution - a right to petition for redress of grievances. In the Federalist papers this right was associated with the withholding of taxes in the event government will not provide redress. It is a remedy not designed to destroy government, but to make it accountable.

To be clear; I am not an anarchist. I am a big believer in the system of government as it was originally envisioned. I am seeking peaceful reform within the rule of law.

That makes more sense.

"Sarcasm? Are you trying to persuade me or make me feel unearned guilt?"

My opinion is that you should feel legitimate guilt, though of course I cannot prove beyond doubt your interests are best served by actively working to restrain the growth of government any more than you can prove the opposite. We are forced to act on our convictions.

False. I know that the people, whom give the authority to government, are in general, worthless sheep. They outnumber lions substantially. I offer Obama as evidence.

"But history also teaches us that corruption and tyranny are answered by anarchy and rebuilding, so your comment is out of context."

I will just say that our government was intended to exist in the "balanced center" between tyranny and anarchy and to move society out of the perpetual oscillation between those two extremes. The key to the whole thing working was:
1) Vesting the true power, not in government, but in the individual.
2) Individuals recognizing their interests were best served by hanging on to that power with all of their might.

except that, unless I'm mistaken, the government of this country was set up as a representative democracy; the very idea of which negates the power of the individual.
And to your second point, most of the founding fathers were federalists, which I'm pretty certain is contrary to the power of individuals.
Again though, this is all out of context because of the checks and balances system.
All plans fail in the face of the enemy.

"I think that you're confusing acceptance of status quo with indifference. I truly just dont care whether or not the government fails, they burn my house, steal my food, etc."

Why do you and others not value/acknowledge the power granted by our system of government, but rather choose "indifference"?

I'm glad you recognize it as a conscious choice. Indifference is what I choose instead of a bullet. Can't make it any more plain than that. I vote, even though my candidate ALWAYS loses. I've written letters, even though they are NEVER returned. I do what I can in my frame of reference, but spending hours pouring over the intricacies of abuses of power doesnt really factor in.

"I cannot stop them."

That is BS. Self-interested people are the root cause of every reform, revolution, coup-de-etat, and revision to the local building code ever completed.

Clint

[/quote]
No, it isnt bullshit at all. In fact, its very accurate. Nobody is strong enough to life 130 grains.

And building codes? Really? You ever read a code book? I spend 2 hours a day studying for my master electricians license, and I have yet to figure out in what universe it makes more sense to turn the ground prong up on a receptacle than down.

Joe

[C Molten]

"False. I know that the people, whom give the authority to government, are in general, worthless sheep. They outnumber lions substantially. I offer Obama as evidence."

And

"except that, unless I'm mistaken, the government of this country was set up as a representative democracy; the very idea of which negates the power of the individual.
And to your second point, most of the founding fathers were federalists, which I'm pretty certain is contrary to the power of individuals."

Our government was expressly not set up as a democracy. It was intended to be a republic - there is a huge difference. In a democracy, the worthless sheep get to make the decisions. In a republic they get a vote, but lions make the decisions. That's in theory. In practice too many lions have chosen indifference and Nancy Pelosi is leading the sheep.

"No, it isnt bullshit at all. In fact, its very accurate. Nobody is strong enough to life 130 grains."

Sorry, I can't place the reference and neither could a quick Google search. Help me out, please.

[Sellmak]

"No, it isnt bullshit at all. In fact, its very accurate. Nobody is strong enough to life 130 grains."[/i]

Sorry, I can't place the reference and neither could a quick Google search. Help me out, please.

grain is a measurement of how much powder is in a bullet. it is used to determine force during firing. and i misspelled. I meant 'lift' versus 'life'.

[Raaz Satik]

In practice too many lions have chosen indifference and Nancy Pelosi is leading the sheep.

Not sure if this is anti-goverment post or an anti-democrat post.