The Republic serves the individual

Government should not be the dictator of morals. Can we comprehend the dilemma created by those believing codification of our morals was not enough. Creating laws at the state level served the nation well. But, the emergence of strong legislators and administrations gave rise to growth in Federal power. An outgrowth of central government power was the legislation of morals based on Christian ethic. It seemed right at the time. In my opinion, it seems right today. But, I am wrong. The decisions on morals belong at the local level, not the national level. Allowing a debate of morals at the national level has opened the door for an attack on our civilization.

“No, I do not mean take God out of the constitution, nor government. Read on–”

Decades later we find ourselves victims of legislation which violates our moral code and unable to combat it. The defense of marriage act will not pass in this climate, but legislation on the opposite end of the spectrum will. Time has come to rethink our attitude about central government. Let’s get back to the Constitutional model, which places the individual first. And, in which central government is not the law nor above the law.

Retro Constitutionalism

We cannot go back. EVER!

So now we should examine unwinding legislating morality at the national level. In my opinion, returning power to the state level ends socialistic dogma influence. On a state by state basis we can make decisions on marriage, abortion and other issues which have been tossed into the central government arena.

Libertarians might have some clues as to the relationship between federal government and the individual, but, there is no line which can be drawn in the sand. With libertarianism one gets the whole banana, drugs, sex, and no restrictions. It’s like Las Vegas on crack. But, Libertarians do believe the federal government should be restricted, not the individual.

In my opinion, no model exists which will move us forward as a Republic. We as, the government, must define a modern form of Republicanism. The men who constructed our Republic were motivated by the desire to “live free.” Those who hold positions of power today, work to maximize their take in the federal system, increase their power, and, most importantly, remain in power. Which is why I say, “we cannot go back.”

Regression is never a good thing. Retro goes in an out of fashion, but it is that- fashion. When applied to government we find those masquerading as retro-conservatives and progressives. Neither group can be defined by the original conservative nor progressive term. Each has put new measures into the equation and the end product just doesn’t ring true to the terms of their self labels.

Futurist See Maxist Valhalla

Most of the futurist I have read see our future as a high tech, multicultural, one world community. Our Founders struggled with religious prejudice and economic competition. The solution was to segregate the nation. Way down the list of definitions for the word – segregate- we find the explanation: seperate or isolate one thing from another. (freedictionary.com). The purpose of state’s rights was to allow states to retain their character in terms of economy and religion. The federal system was restricted from imposing moral values on the states. The states like the individual enjoyed positive liberty.

In previous articles, I have discussed positive liberty versus negative liberty. The long and short of it, states and individuals no longer enjoy positive liberty. Without unfettered liberty, we no longer live in a true Republic. What you and I experience today is a society under negative liberty, which is, in my opinion, just one step from martial law. Radical? I think not. If a central government sets the things which an individual can and cannot do, how large is the step to defining speech, and thought restrictions? Still doubt me? Explain “political correctness” to me then.

The redistribution of wealth through taxation seems like a new concept, but, apply that to the monarchy. Wasn’t that what the kings and queens of old did in the past? Yes, they charged taxes on the commoners to fill their own coffers for private use. Monarchies made the laws and taxed the people. That is top down, central government. The Founders believed in the placing the individual above the rulers, thus restricting their power.

Make sense now?

As practical matter we should abandon legislating from the top. BUT- Fear will hold us back.

Defense of the Republic.com Home Page