Please sir, may I have some more (freedom)? Part 2

In this series of posts am going to propose an idea that I believe has a chance to take root and change our circumstances with regard to the established powers and government.  The idea is in its infancy, and like an infant, is not fully developed.  That's where others come in (like you?)  Together we can refine and create the strategy and tactics to get us where we want to go.  Please bear with me, because this may take several posts to lay the foundation.  But to begin:

Like-minded people who believe in liberty should begin working together to have their objectives realized in their own lifetimes. 

This includes me, at the ripe young age of 53.  I want liberty in my lifetime.  I want to be able to pass liberty on to my children and grandchildren.  If you're reading this I assume you want the same things.  But right now, it seems an impossible dream, with little chance, short of a miracle, of happening. 

As it is, we have many good, and a few great, but all mostly-disjointed groups trying to chip away at the rising tyranny in one way or another.  As we have lost our freedom incrementally, we are doing our best to regain it incrementally.  I have no quarrel with these efforts.  I believe we should fight tyranny and oppression whenever and wherever we can.  But I contend that the incremental approach will not bring us to our goal--certainly not in our own lifetimes. 

Neither do I have any quarrel with those who want to "Restore the Republic"  by returning the United States to its founding constitutional principles.  Of course I would welcome that quality of life over the one we have at present any day of the week. I will befriend and support anyone who sets this as their objective.  But even if that were possible, I think reality tells you that any constitution is unfortunately, as verbalized in the anecdotal story of George W. Bush, just a "damn piece of paper." 

Although I would be much happier than today with a country that returned to honoring its constitution, I see nothing that would prevent the immediate erosion of the compact to begin anew.  How long did it take Alexander Hamilton, under our first "constitutional" president, to create a central bank?  How long did it take for our new nation, under its second "constitutional" president, to pass the Alien and Sedition Act? 

So although I will not work against, and may even lend a hand occasionally, to those who want to "Restore the Republic", personally I am not content to stop there.  Along with Patrick Henry, George Clinton and others, I believe the US Constitution gives the central government far too much power.  I want decisions to be made at the most local level possible, and I would really appreciate it if even at the local level, my fellow Americans (a term based only on where we live) would be ever-vigilant against the tyranny of the majority and those who have an unwholesome desire for power.

Back  to the idea of incremental freedom for a moment.  It's a fine thing to want lovers of freedom in public office, as opposed to those who lust for power or are beholden to the banksters and corporate interests.  It is certainly better in the context of a central government.  But simply electing lovers of freedom to office as a means to our end has several serious drawbacks. 

First, it is a very slow process, which, as with all incremental approaches, is subject to defeats as well as victories:  two steps forward, one step back, one step forward, two steps back, etc.  Let's face it, the majority of people in this country do not want to be free, and likely will never want to be free.  They want to have a nanny to one degree or another.  This will not change easily.  Although the "freedom caucus" could become substantial and have occasionally profound influence, I don't think it would ever acquire the majority and really enact true reform.  Therefore I don' think the electoral process can ever get us to where we want to be. 

Case in point:  even though the commedable "Free State Project" has been in open existence for several years, the overall effect on the political will of the people of New Hampshire has not been much affected.  They still voted heavily for Obama (54.3%) and McCain (44.8%) in the 2008 election.  Other candidates pulled in a mere 6,120 votes, a mere 0.9%. 

That said, I think the Free State Project does have the kernel of a workable idea, which I will elaborate on in later posts.

The incremental electoral process is also open to charlatans and psychopaths masquerading as freedom-lovers.  And finally, even if we get many liberty-minded people elected, this does nothing to negate Lord Acton's truism that "power tends to corrupt."  Plus, even the idea of central government carries with it the implication that since power is centralized, control over others is centralized as well.  Therefore it must be admitted that one who supports the incremental electoral process is giving their implicit consent to the legitimacy of a centralized government with centralized control.

If the incremental approach is highly unlikely to help us secure liberty in our lifetimes, we must look elsewhere. 

To be continued...