5kYL: Principle Twenty-one

STRONG LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT

The case for a strong local government is to refrain from centralizing power. Where the federal government is to be interested in things that affect everyone in the nation, the local municipal or county governments deal more at the individual level. This is what's so troubling about the federal government as it redistributes the revenues taken from hard-working citizens.

Let's look at a scenario: An amendment is added to a bill in Congress which provides funding for a new sewer system in Seattle. Now, obviously if a community needs a new sewer system, it should be up to that community which uses it to come up with the funds. But instead, think of a small farming community in Ohio that now has to help fund it too even though not one individual may benefit from it.

5kYL: Principle Nineteen

LIMITING THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT

In order to further limit the powers of the government, a separation of powers between the individual States and the federal government were established. In addition, as a system of checks and balances, neither federal nor state powers were to be greater than the other to ensure security for the people.

Many States have been concerned that their rights have been increasingly infringed upon. Therefore many State houses have introduced resolutions to reinforce their sovereignty. Also the Patrick Henry Caucus has been established to assert States Rights/Tenth Amendment Rights.

5kYL: Principle Thirteen

PROTECTION AGAINST HUMAN FRAILTY

"How can you have an effective government but still protect the freedom and unalienable rights of the people?"

In the American tradition, more confidence is placed in the people than in the leaders. This is because human frailty is linked to power. Skousen sarcastically said that every unconstitutional action was for "good cause". But this is because the leaders were granted too much power. One way increase in grabs of power occurs is when there are no checks between the separate branches. This often happens when one party controls two or all branches of government. When there aren't sufficient checks in power in the government the Constitution is frequently ignored. But how is this eschewed? Abolish the two party system? Promote more parties so the two parties in power now are demoted?

George Washington described government to a fire in that it's "[A] dangerous servant and a fearful master." This is a similar analogy I like to make for arguments against decentralization of power. If you spread the coals of a fire it won't burn as hot or for very long. Likewise, temperance in centralized power infrequently affects the populace negatively and if the people happen to get burned, it's short lived.

Unfortunately, government is a dangerous force that must be harnessed, which is what the Constitution was designed to contain. The Constitution is designed to give authority to officials to perform their duties effectively while at the same time provide strict limitations on said officials. Madison puts it more concisely: "You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

What is meant when Skousen claimed the original Constitution will never be obsolete?

Let's examine this other quote from Madison:

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations."

Is the inverse of this statement true? After a slow gradual degradation of liberty, is the only way to regain it a swift and violent revolution?

5kYL: Part 1

So our view of left and right has, let us say, skewed a bit over the last 230 years. What we have today it seems are two sides of the same political coin. One side moving towards tyranny and the opposite, though facing the other way, is following right behind at the same coins-width pace.

Skousen: "[U]nfortunate that issues [are discussed]in terms of political parties instead of political power".

Let me commence this post concerning the Ruler's Law which represents the left side of the political spectrum. #9 on the list of characteristics of Ruler's Law states that problems are always solved by issuing more laws, setting up more bureaucrats, more regulation, and continually adding taxes. This is exactly the course we've been heading for decades. We have an exorbitant corporate tax rate that makes it harder to compete. We've increased the size of Government and set up more excessive federal agencies over the years. Incessant laws and regulations are crippling rather than solving the nation's objectives.

Also, look at #11 on the list of characteristics. We don't necessarily have a class of nobility, but there are many who comprise a privileged class we refer as the elites. Then there is the class that seems to subject themselves to those elites. Examples of the latter class are found in the inner-cities where they live in perpetual poverty and pay higher taxes, yet continue to support the elitists.

Rather than Tyranny or Anarchy, the founders wanted to establish a government similar to the systems established by the Anglo-Saxons and ancient Israelis. In the pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine elaborates on his expostulation of Ruler's Law and the prohibition of Kings in Israeli law.

Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land
unto all the Inhabitants thereof

Questions to Consider:

So what of this natural inclination to move towards tyranny? What furthermore do you suppose could have been added to the Constitution to slow down this tendency?

What is meant by "coordination without consolidation"? Why is it important to require compromise and equally important to refrain from centralization of power?

Finally, the founders warned against the welfare state, yet we find ourselves deeply entrenched therein. Sam Adams remarks that it is "unconstitutional" to permit such a system. Where and when did we turn wrong? Also, where in the Constitution can you discover collectivism and the re-distribution of wealth prohibited?