This is the tenth essay in my live-blog of Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce. You can also read my summary of the Introduction, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 6, Chapter 7 and Chapter 8.
In Chapter 9, Royce looks for solutions to reverse the growth of government within the existing political system, but sees little hope. He does not think that there will be dramatic reversals of policy through the legislative or executive branches. There is a better chance of liberty being advanced through the judiciary, but only if better judges are appointed. He thinks this is very unlikely and even if more liberty oriented judges were by some miracle appointed to the Supreme Court, the President and Congress could just increase the number of justices and pack the court with justices who will rule in their favor.
What about impeaching congressmen or justices who disregard the public interests? This is very unlikely. Says Royce, "Since 1940, there have been only nine impeachment investigations." And impeachments are now only used for criminal offenses rather than political offenses.
What about electing a President who would use Executive Orders to wipe out bureaucracies? This is also very unlikely. Royce does not see how a laissez-faire candidate could get on the ballot, much less be elected. A person cannot become a viable candidate without approval from the Republican or Democrat elite.
How about the Constitution? The Constitution could theoretically be amended to better restrain government. Royce even lists some possible amendments including:
- Congressmen cannot exempt themselves from their own rules;
- salary increases for President, Congressmen and Justices must be approved by popular referendum;
- moratorium on new, and ceiling on total, public debt;
- creation of a third house of Congress to unmake law with power also to impeach and try federal officials;
- monetary reform to recognize only gold and silver coin as money, and prohibiting government from selling credit;
- recipients of government checks, excluding disabled vets, denied suffrage until they return to the private sector;
- "due process" to mean (criminally and civilly) the unanimous verdict of twelve jurors in a local county court;
- elimination of Article I tribunals, civil forfeitures, eminent domain, and licensed monopolies and professions;
- "sunshine law" (expiration) for federal bureaucracies;
- elimination of "sovereign" and "good faith" immunities for government officials and employees.
These ideas sound pretty good on paper. But Royce knows that such amendments would never make it into the Constitution. Congress has stopped all attempts to limit the Federal Government. It is simply not in the interest of Congress (or the President or the Supreme court for that matter) to limit its own power.
What about the 10th Amendment?, asks Royce. Could not this amendment be used to thwart the growth of the Federal Government? Royce argues that the 10th Amendment was effectively killed during FDR's administration in the 1941 Darby case which upheld Roosevelt's Fair Labor Standards Act. A unanimous court ruled:
The power of Congress over interstate commerce is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are [expressly] prescribed in the Constitution....That power can neither be enlarged nor diminished by the exercise or non-exercise of state power...It is no object to the assertion of the power to regulate interstate that its exercise is attended by the same incidents which attend the exercise of the police power of the states...Our conclusion is unaffected by the Tenth Amendment which...states but a truism that all is retained which has not been [implicitly] surrendered.
The interstate commerce power is now used to federally mandate: whom you can hire or rent to; that you cannot take immediate possession of a handgun; that your children are to be bussed across town "to a gang-infested 'school.'" The 10th Amendment, says Royce, "is for any practical purpose, dead."
What are the chances of a 3rd party challenging the Republicans and Democrats? Royce says this is also unlikely for three main reasons:
- Third party candidates are effectively barred from the ballots by complicated, expensive procedures and rigged rules.
- A third party would have to overcome the "moral and intellectual vacuum of the electorate" to win the Presidency or be elected to Congress.
- Even though conservative Christians, Libertarians, Objectivists, and anarcho-capitalists agree on roughly 75 percent of issues (a point which can be disputed), they feud over the remaining 25 percent and cannot come together to challenge the entrenched Republicans and Democrats.
Is peaceful nullification by common-law counties, juries, and state governors possible? This is also not likely, says Royce: "Whatever the feds can squash, they will." Jury nullification will work, "so long as there are jury trials." The feds realize this and have become very shrewd at winnowing out potential nullifying jurors.
How about secession? Royce thinks that this is the only real hope for liberty. There is a class war brewing between those the working class and the welfare class, says Royce. He continues this line of thought, arguing
When the productive class realizes that all the political remedies have long been handed over to the Federal Government; that they are inexorably bound up as gallery slaves to the socialist ship of State and its welfare drones--that's when the last resort of secession will be seriously contemplated.
However, Royce is certain that the feds would go to war against any peacefully seceding territory. He argues that the feds would bring in UN troops to do this because "American troops wouldn't reliably shoot fellow Americans." I understand his logic, but I believe his premise is flawed. I don't think American troops would have any qualms about shooting American citizens. American troops have already killed Americans in this country and the police today have no misgivings about killing anyone who threatens their authority.
Moreover, the political propaganda of the Pledge of Allegiance has deeply entered into the minds of the masses. They believe that the US really is indivisible. Thus, the people in a territory who attempted to secede would be considered enemies to the Union by the American people themselves. The American soldiers would have no problems killing the "traitors" and the American people would cheer the soldiers on. So I agree with Royce that the Federal Government would attack a peaceful secession movement, but I disagree with him that foreign soldiers would be used.
Given this assessment, is there any good news for those who love liberty? Royce concludes that there is little chance for a political solution. What is needed is a "paradigm shift". However, Royce does throw out two political possibilities that he describes in Chapter 10.
Comments