STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
The Whiskey Rebellion: How Brand New America Tore Up The Bill of Rights
By Joe Jarvis - November 13, 2017

223 years ago today, “The Dreadful Night” occurred in Western Pennsylvania, after an uprising called The Whiskey Rebellion.

The United States was brand new. Soldiers who had fought for independence from Great Britain found themselves on opposite sides of a skirmish. Some were having their rights violated practically before the ink was dry on the Bill of Rights. Other Veterans of the Revolution were doing the oppressing at Alexander Hamilton’s behest.

The Whiskey Rebellion saw farmers stand up to an unfair tax handed down by the federal government, and the government responded with the force of a monarchy. It may have all sprung from Alexander Hamilton’s desire for glory. Or Hamilton, the first Secretary of Treasury, may have had other motives for setting the precedent of force which still lives on today.

It all started after the Revolution, in 1791, when the federal government was in debt, and had no official money. The notes they paid to soldiers were worth fractions of what was promised, but many had no choice but to accept the funds and go home in order to try to survive.

But the soldiers were not the only ones who needed to be paid after the war. There were a number of rich investors and bankers who had provided the capital needed to win the Revolution. They too were awaiting repayment.

Alexander Hamilton had a better relationship with these financiers than with the soldiers. Hamilton was one of the leading banking figures of the time. He proposed a tax which would have two purposes. The tax would raise the revenue necessary to pay back the wealthy financiers of the Revolution. But the tax would also bring under the jurisdiction of the federal government a group of pioneers living in rural western Pennsylvania. The tax was to be levied on the production of whiskey, and not just at a commercial level. Everyone who made whiskey owed the tax. This would be the first federal tax on domestic goods.

This was a problem for the people of western Pennsylvania. Most people in this area used whiskey as a currency. Whatever surplus grain a family had would be converted into whiskey in order to preserve it. Whiskey would still have the calories of grain and was drank by almost everyone. It could be used for preserving and making some medicines.

Whiskey didn’t spoil, was widely used, and easy to transport. This made it an ideal currency. No need for banks, no need for paper money the worth of which can be manipulated. These people had tangible goods with intrinsic value absent of government mandate.

But Alexander Hamilton and the federal government insisted that the tax on whiskey be paid in coin.

For western Pennsylvanians, this amounted to an income tax. But even worse, now they had to find a way to convert their whiskey into coin. They had no use for coin since they used whiskey as a currency. But now the federal government would require them to use more time and effort just to pay the tax.

But it gets worse. Producers of whiskey were given a choice. They could pay a flat tax or pay a per gallon price. For commercial distillers who produced a lot of whiskey, the flat rate was cheaper than the per gallon rate. But for individuals, the per gallon rate was cheaper.

This was a political reward that Hamilton gave to commercial whiskey distillers in the area. They would now have the cheapest whiskey available since the flat tax worked out to a lower per gallon rate than home-distillers were forced to pay.

Hamilton did this to gain a foothold of support in the area (his enforcer was a large scale distiller) and to convert the economy of western Pennsylvania away from a whiskey-based currency. The sooner everyone was brought under the jurisdiction of the federal government, the sooner the government could raise money to pay for spending.

The tax destroyed the way of life for your average rural Pennsylvanian. First, they were singled out for a tax that most city dwellers would not be affected by. Next, they were forced to find a way to earn coin in order to pay the tax. Then, the tax made their whiskey more expensive compared to commercial distillers. This meant it was harder to sell, making it harder to convert the whiskey into coin to pay the tax.

Many people from this area moved out west to avoid the intricacies of society and government. Some were veterans of the Revolution. They would not accept this tax.

They were outraged that this tax was levied against them while the Northwest Indian War was going badly for the U.S. making the area unsafe. Seeing the tax as an advantage to grain growers (who owed no tax) and big distillers in the east (who owed a flat rate) also fueled western Pennsylvanian’s anti-federal sentiment.

They decided that if this was the way the new country was to treat its people, they wanted no part in it. They refused to pay the tax and served vigilante justice to tax collectors and other sympathizers of the federal government. They reacted similarly to how the United States reacted to unfair British taxes which sparked the Revolution.

By 1794 the climax of the situation unfolded. A U.S. Marshall was sent to the area and a showdown ensued. Some rebels were shot in a skirmish and their leader, a veteran of the Revolution, was killed. The tax collector and U.S. Marshall were captured only to later escape, and the fury of western Pennsylvanians peaked.

There was talk among the rebels that they should secede from the United States and form their own country. The plan that emerged was a watered down version of protest in which the rebels would march through Pittsburgh nonviolently. This was meant to send a message that they would not back down against what they saw as Hamilton’s attempts to pay back the wealthy by taxing the ordinary citizen.

President George Washington decided it was time to send in the army. A commission he sent to western Pennsylvania returned and recommended using the military to enforce the tax laws, and restore order.

By October 1794 Washington was seeing troops off, and heading back east, much to the dismay of some moderate locals including Congressman William Findley. He saw Washington as a fair president who just wanted to do what was right. Alexander Hamilton was the real force behind the army heading west, according to Findley, who was included on Hamilton’s list of possible rebels to be arrested.

Hamilton went with the army of nearly 20,000 as a civilian adviser. He was instructed by Washington to maintain the utmost discipline among the troops. As they advanced toward their target in western Pennsylvania, Hamilton was to prevent any breach of law by the troops, such as pillaging the countryside.

Officers harshly punished any soldier caught stealing, but the soldiers were doing so because of the lack of rations and clothing. Hamilton decided to solve this by making the theft of these goods legal. According to William Hogeland in his book The Whiskey Rebellion:

The quartermaster corps, [Hamilton] announced, would impress civilian property along the way. Now families watched helplessly as bayonet-wielding soldiers–no longer freelancing thieves but officials, authorized by the president–commandeered hard-won winter supplies of grain, meat, firewood, and blankets on behalf of the government of the United States. A steady, freezing rain meant the arrival of winter. Families whose sustenance was carted away faced grim months ahead (218).

Once the army and Hamilton finally arrived at the target county in western Pennsylvania, they contonued their oppression. They did not care much to follow the due process laid out in the Bill of Rights in new Constitution, despite Hamilton’s assurances to the President.

Many residents had signed oaths of support for the U.S. government. By signing, they risked local vigilante justice. But the U.S. promised that they would be pardoned as punishment was served to the region for failing to pay the new tax, and leading an insurrection against officials of the federal government.

These oaths were ignored and many who had signed them were arrested by Hamilton and the army anyway. A month earlier the first arrests of a few rebels had been made, prompting the most guilty among the rebels to flee. Anyone left in western Pennsylvania had minimal roles in the insurrection, and had certainly not led it. The most violent rebels, who had committed the worst acts against government officials, had already fled.

“The Dreadful Night” began in the middle of the night on November 13, 1794. Hamilton had created three lists of people: those who were not to be arrested, those who would be arrested, and those who were to be brought in as witnesses for questioning. The first list was not provided to the generals. Hamilton gave them the authority to arrest anyone they suspected of having participated in the rebellion, aided the rebels, raised liberty poles, or robbed the mail. He also authorized the troops to arrest local officials who failed to suppress the insurrection. The officers and soldiers who were passed these orders were delighted to finally have some excitement and authority on this trip west.

One particularly unstable officer named White was put in control of  the 40 prisoners which Hamilton thought would give the most valuable intelligence on the whole situation. These prisoners “were brought to a dark log structure” where they were tied up and seated on the muddy floor, and guarded by soldiers instructed to keep the prisoners away from the warmth of the fire. The tavern keeper was told he would be killed if any prisoners received food, and thus for more than two days the sadistic officer in charge:

…starved and dehydrated his shivering, exhausted captives, steadily cursing and castigating them, glorying in their helplessness and describing their imminent hanging. Even White’s troops became concerned about the captives who seemed barely alive (222).

The prisoners were then marched 12 miles in bad weather to be held in another jail, still without being charged with any crime. Following interrogation, most of them were eventually released without any criminal proceedings. This was unsurprising since most of those arrested were indeed innocent.

The arrests and brutality went on for several days throughout western Pennsylvania. This served as a reminder to all residents not to speak out against the federal government. Hamilton made it clear to the presiding judge that regardless of innocence, a good number of detainees would need to be marched back to Philadelphia in order to give the impression that the federal government had accomplished its goal, and put down a violent, unjustified rebellion. The judge held a number of rebels for trial even with what he considered lack of evidence, fearing that the army would revolt if too many prisoners were let go.

The prisoners that remained in custody were marched back to Philadelphia with great show in order to create the illusion of glory. It was essentially a photo op for Hamilton and Washington, who could now say, see, look what we did, look at the problems we solved. The prisoners were paraded on Christmas Day 1794 before 20,000 Philadelphians.

It was a disappointing show to the spectators who knowing that thousands of rebels had marched against the government, were surprised to see only twenty prisoners. Twelve cases went to trial, and two rebels were convicted. The rest weren’t released until 1796. They were left to find their way home if they could afford it. The whiskey tax remained hard to collect until it was repealed in 1801 by President Thomas Jefferson.

From the beginning of this country, the federal government has not been very good at abiding by the Constitution. Clearly, the due process rights of most of the “rebels” arrested were violated. Also violated were the rights of the farmers whose food and property was confiscated along the way in order to supply the army.

Cruel and unusual punishment was used on the prisoners, prior to them even being charged. What a precedent to set at the birth of a “free” country. They tore up the Bill of Rights before the ink had time to set.

With Hamilton’s broad presence in the foundation of the country’s banking and finances, is it any wonder that his vision has led us to where we are today? The government still uses taxes to give some businesses an advantage. The government still levies taxes which are meant to change the way citizens live their lives.

But remember that the government still found it hard to enforce and collect the whiskey tax. And today we can arrange our lives in a similar fashion, and make it difficult for the government to collect their unfair taxes. Let the spirit of rebellion inspire you.

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Ephraiyim

    This is one example I use when speaking to supposed Constitutionalists. That the Constitution has always been irrelevant when it runs contrary or interferes with gubmnt policy or desires.

    • michael32853hutson@yahoo.com

      i think it was Jefferson who said that the government which governs least governs best

      • No, it was Thoreau (in “Civil Disobedience”):

        I heartily accept the motto,—”That government is best which governs
        least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and
        systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also
        believe,—”That government is best which governs not at all;” and when
        men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they
        will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments
        are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

        In turn, Thoreau probably got it from the “United States Magazine and Democratic Review”, which included it in a pretty decent couple of paragraphs in its first issue… this was covered by the WaPo soem time ago (see here -> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/09/06/who-first-said-the-best-government-is-that-which-governs-least-not-thoreau/ )

        The best zinger in “Civil Disobedience” is even better than that, though …

        The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as
        machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the
        militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases
        there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral
        sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and
        stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the
        purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a
        lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and
        dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens.

        • michael32853hutson@yahoo.com

          the WaPo article was by Eugene Volokh-the article starts out in large type on the header”Who said that government which governs least governs best? NOT THOREAU(my caps) and i wish i could remember where i read it but actually Jefferson didn’t SAY it, it was derived from his writings by someone who apparently didn’t credit the idea to Jefferson,which is OK by that time Jefferson(and Adams) were dead,having died on the same day(July 4th if i remember right)

          • That’s why I made it as clear as was possible, that

            Thoreau probably got it from the “United States Magazine and Democratic Review”, which included it in a pretty decent couple of paragraphs in its first issue

            The USM&DR used a slightly different construction – viz.,

            “The best government is that which governs least”

            But slight differences in the expression have been around forever.

            One of the most insightful minds to ever pick up a pen – the great Thomas Paine – wrote phrases to very near the same effect in “Common Sense”:

            Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

            WHEREFORE, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows, that whatever FORM thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

            I think the reason most Americans think it was Jefferson, is that he’s the only historical personage from the period that anybody can actually name – that’s why he also gets credit for a lot of stuff that he never said. The same’s true of Voltaire and Diderot.

            But Paine was the intellectual father of the US and French Republics – without a word of doubt.

            I think it was Jefferson (lol… it was actually John Adams) who said that “without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain”.

            Double-lol… actually Adams (a centrist) never said any such thing.

            As Abraham Lincoln famously said: “A lot of the quotes on the internet are made up”.

          • michael32853hutson@yahoo.com

            i wouldn’t trust anything Lincoln said (regarding the internet or anything else) he was famously all over the map on slavery and got on the Radical(Republican) ticket as a means of furthering his political career-in fact after the last president,i propose a moratorium on Illinois lawyers altogether-as Presidential material-while we’re at it no more professors; the first one,Wilson,got us the Progressive Income Tax(1913) second one,Obamacare(designed to break the system resulting in the adoption of single payer) But i have a question-you say Adams was a centrist-compared to who? from where i sit he was a Federalist of the Northern stripe,which put him diametrically opposed to the anti-Federalists such as Jefferson out of which the Democratic Republican party was formed

          • libertyPlease

            Paine may not be as laconic…but oh how I love his turn of phrase…especially the bit about how we furnish the means by which we suffer.

    • Boysie

      Pricisely

    • Joseph Burke

      To me the Constitution IS relevant it is our government ,Sir, which I find to be increasingly irrelevant.

      • Don Duncan

        Govt. is people with political power, i.e., “brute force, not reason”. But it can’t exist without support from the populace, which does so by forfeiting their sovereignty to rulers (people with political power). So if govt. is irrelevant, as you say, then the majority is irrelevant. Both make no difference? We can be free from them?

        I defy both and the anti-American Constitution. I deny their authority over me. That frees me psychologically, not physically. But it’s an essential start.

        • Col. Edward H. R. Green

          I presume that you have read “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude” by Etienne de la Boetie.

          For me, the truth of what de la Boetie wrote was vividly dramatized the day that Romanians openly defied Nicolae and Elena Ceaucescu, brought them to trial, and executed them.

          Sic semper tyrannis.

    • Col. Edward H. R. Green

      Have they read Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason No. VI. The Constitution of No Authority” ?

      • Spooner’s piece is excellent – Paine showed similar insights in “The Rights of Man” when he demolished Burke’s claim that the British parliament had the power to swear perpetual allegiance of the people to William and Mary, their heirs and successors, in 1688.

        Paine:

        There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the “end of time,” or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void. Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow.

  • n’awlins

    Thus marked the beginning of the end of the United States as a true Constitutional Republic. The last nail in the coffin occurred on Nov. 22, 1963. At least Mr. Burr put an end to Madisons capers once and for all.

    • michael32853hutson@yahoo.com

      well he certainly put an end to Mr.Hamilton! of course Aaron Burr also is said to have had pretensions toward being a de facto emperor of a western empire

      • Don Duncan

        Hamilton’s M.O./polotics was similar to Putin. Was it not for Burr he may have been president. That would have been a dark era for America. Perhaps Lincoln studied Hamilton to use his strategy.

        • michael32853hutson@yahoo.com

          yes 623,000 lives could have been saved had Booth been a little more timely; those of us that don’t care for overweening central government have Abraham Lincoln to thank;the man was a proto-Progressive

          • Millions upon millions of people could have lived free lives, and kept their lands, if slave owning, warmongering, West Point graduate, and hero of the Mexican – American war, Jefferson Davis, hadn’t killed so many men in wars and Northern milita men in an attempt to overthrow the U.S. government in April 1861.

            Lincoln saved the Union just as Jefferson Davis had sworn an oath to do before he turned traitor. Thank god the South lost the war. It would be horrible to live under the Confederate Constitution enslaving document.

          • michael32853hutson@yahoo.com

            i don’t know where you learned you history but your educators did you no favor if they taught you that.South Carolina seceded,then the other states followed-at that moment the Confederate States of America didn’t exist; when the CSA was formed THEN they elected Jefferson Davis;the first capital was in Montgomery, Alabama; NEVER was there an “attempt to overthrow the US government”;Lincoln simply didn’t wish to acknowledge the seceding states’ rights to secede;and called up 75,000 men for the purpose of invading the South

          • No, Lincoln called up 75,000 militia men to save the Union. The second amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” guarantees a free state. The militia saved the Union and people could again live free lives if only the militia was reestablished.

            As the Confederacy was bombing Fort Sumter, Confederate Secretary of War predicted that Washington would fall by May 1st because Jefferson Davis did not expect Lincoln to call for the militia. Davis believed Lincoln did not have the authority to call the militia and congress was not in session. Davis expected to just march to Washington, kick Lincoln out, and take over. Lifelong warmonger, Jefferson Davis, was shocked that Lincoln would call the militia and even stated that fact in his address to the Southern congress. Jefferson Davis stated in that address that Lincoln calling up the militia to defend the Union was an act of war. Yet, he didn’t consider bombing Union soldiers at Fort Sumter an act of war? Jefferson Davis was just upset because Lincoln knew the U.S. constitution better than he did and outsmarted him. Jefferson Davis blew it from the beginning.

          • If by proto-Progressive you mean that he was a forward thinker who gave land owning opportunity to millions of people in the colorblind, gender blind, Homestead Act of 1863, then yes, Lincoln qualifies as a proto-Progressive.

          • Don Duncan

            The label “progressive” was coined by regressive politicians. They were dishonest, authoritarians who wanted to stop the classical liberal, social progress (Jefferson humanism) that was sweeping the nation. But first they took over the label “liberal”, then “progressive liberal”, then just “progressive”.

          • michael32853hutson@yahoo.com

            progressive isn’t a compliment; and Lincoln is considered a war criminal by some folks,certainly his generals especially Sherman but to a lesser degree,Grant were

        • I do not agree that Lincoln had it coming. Lincoln did not like war and did not want war. Lincoln defended freedom for all. At 19 years old Abraham Lincoln went to the Ohio River, cut down trees, built a raft, loaded the raft with livestock, grain, and trinkets, rafted down the Ohio and Mississippi River to Baton Rouge and sold the goods along the way tax free. Lincoln understood freedom better than any man alive today. That is the freedom Lincoln defended when Jefferson Davis and the Southern Confederacy waged war on the U.S. government right after Lincoln swore the oath of office.

          • Don Duncan

            There was no “American civil war” any more than there was a “British civil war” when British subjects declared they were seceding from the union called The British Empire. To have political independence based on a geographical separation was not permitted by King George/Empire. The Declaration of Independence spelled out a desire for a new kind of govt. that was for the colonists, not for all the Empire. Therefore it was not a physical threat, not a civil war, not an attempt to take over the B.E. No historians believed otherwise.

            The successful secession was fought on the premise that everyone has rights, and one such right was association, personal or political. All the people of the newly formed states understood this. Secession was threatened by both North/South states after they united, as the ultimate redress of grievance.

            Southern states, acting as separate political entities, one by one, exercised their right of secession (association). It was no threat to overthrow the federal govt. It was not war. It was a declaration of political dissolution of a previous confederation agreement, political independence, just as the colonies had done before.

            Lincoln, like King George, wanted to keep his control, his kingdom, his empire. Empire (union) trumped the freedom of association for Lincoln. He stated that as if it were a nobel ideal over and over and it was accepted by TPTB because he shared power with an elite. Once assured of victory he confessed openly in his most famous speech “The Gettysburg Address” that he waged war to hold the union together and conflated liberty with union, which is ironic because his war violated the freedom to secede.

          • Nonsense. The I861 war was a true civil war. They even wrote a song “Jefferson Davis in the White House” and Varina Davis sent invitations to her New York friends inviting them to celebrate the overthrow on May 1st. Yes, indeed it was a true Civil War. Unfortunately, for the Southern Confederacy, the war was over the third week of April 1861 when the militia men arrived in Washington to save the Union.

            Thank you Northern militia for saving the Union.
            “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” Yes, indeed, thank you Northern milita for saving the Union from being overthrown by slave owners.

            Lincoln didn’t come to Washington with an army of men. He arrived by himself, found the treasury had been bankrupted, the army was stationed in the West, the Navy had been sent to foreign waters. Lincoln didn’t wage war. Jefferson Davis and the Southern Confederacy waged the war to install the Confederate Constitution as the law of the land.

            What would have constituted a “win” for the Southern Confederacy? If Lincoln would have surrendered the Union that’s what.

        • robt

          Don’t disparage Putin, who is at least directly elected by the people. As he states, in the US you ‘elect’ electors, who elect the president – if they want to.
          Actually Burr was almost president, with the tie in electoral votes with Jefferson. Before the election, Hamilton wanted to nullify the results of the New York elections to elect the electors (sound familiar?).
          Anyway, Hamilton never had a remote chance of becoming president except in his dreams, because his reputation was in tatters for many reasons.
          And hypothetically, yes, a Hamilton administration would have been one of the dark eras, an arch-centralist, the model for the ultimately emergent Federalist government of the US.

  • Bud Butley

    Early Australia had a Rum Rebellion: rum replaced currency. Great Grandad sond the prime iece of Sydney real estate for just one Barrel.

  • Neil

    Why are the Burr/Hamilton dueling pistols at Chase bank??
    https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=burr+hamilton+duel+guns+on+display+at+chase+bank&qpvt=BURR+HAMILTON+DUEL+GUNS+ON+DISPLAY+AT+CHASE+BANK&FORM=IGRE
    Hamilton betrayed the Rothchilds with the “Federalist Papers” and the bankers put anyone they dispise on our currency! Or display the pistols used to get rid of them!!
    “The State of New York was run by the “monied interests”. They were the threat to passage of the Constitution. Hamilton, Jay and Madison effectively neutralized them with the “Federalist Papers”. As I have stated in previous articles, in exchange for America’s Independence, Rothschild and his bankster buddies were given a minority interest in the First National Bank.”
    http://moneyteachers.org/Federalist.Papers.html

  • This is a great discussion on Human Action. A great many Revolutionary veterans supported Hamilton. That’s telling. The Whisky Rebellion rebels resorted to violence in an attempt to achieve their goals. Violence does not work against TPTB.

    Propagana works. They should have remained peaceful, paid the tax, and then challenged the legal system that was in place at the time. Clearly, Hamilton did not have constitutional authority to override Pennsylvania’s citizens, but he had much of the public opinion on his side. Even Samuel Adams supported Hamilton on this issue.

    “In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions.” ― Abraham Lincoln

    • Or, more to the point, a despot will never, ever fail as a result of a failure to find willing trigger-pullers.

      There are always the dregs of humanity who are prepared to shoot and bayonet their own class, in order to gain scraps from the Massah’s table (and/or to give rein to their deep personal desire to wield havoc).

      You can see them in every PD in the world nowadays, with their silly black “Storm Trooper meets Village People” getup driving around in MRAPS, facing literally zero additional life-risk: the risk of dying on the job as a pig, is roughly equal to the all-causes risk of dying if you’re a teenage girl. If you ‘back out’ pig deaths through incompetence (car accidents) and lifestyle choices (cardiovascular disease etc), it’s more risky to be a teenage girl than it is to be a pig.

      Despots only fail when their trigger pullers are outnumbered or outgunned – because generally speaking, trigger-pullers are also cowards.

    • Don Duncan

      You’re correct. The W.R. would have succeeded with a non-violent strategy.

      Part of that strategy should have been a tax revolt, just as in the R.W. Can you imagine the power of “No Taxation Without Local Representation”? If by “local” they meant county approval, it would have been a great move toward individual sovereignty.

  • orion700

    A perfect lesson that the constitution (not the bill of rights) is a tyranical document that created a monster. This is a true testimony to the fact that the flag;the uniforms; the songs and all of the pompous crap that we are expected to give reverence to is nothing but a gigantic mind control operation to convince people to love their slavery to the federal state. I do not fly a flag or stand for the state sacraments, because THIS is what they represent to me. The purpose of the state is to establish and enforce monopolies for those who set it up because they are unwilling to operate and take the neccesary risks in the market. There can be no such thing as a free state, it is an oxymoron and the anti-federalists realized this from day one. The constitution (not the bill of rights) was a closed door coup carried out by Robert Morris so he could force states to pay him taxes for his multimillion dollar war bond enterprise, even though the continental army was a joke and it was the private militias and privateers who broke England’s back. America’s free-est years were those between the end of the revolution and the ratification of the statist constitution.

    • True (and I have written before that the constitution was a scam from the beginning: the Hamiltonians knew that so long as they got the Elastic Clause in to the final document, the Bill of Rights would be irrelevant).

      But it goes deeper than that: the whole thing shows what happens when even the best-intentioned attempts to constraint government happen.

      Think about it – the Revolution; the Articles of Confederation; the Constitutional Convention (or ConCon, or Con² – a con, squared); the Bill of Rights… and everything that happened thereafter.

      The arc is clear: even if you set up a system that seeks to constrain the State, the power that the State represents will be a huge attractor for sociopaths, and they will come to dominate politics because of their preternatural goal-focus and commitment to the long game.

      From the very beginning, those involved fell into two broad camps: those who were trying to build a minimalist government (Paine, Franklin, Jefferson) and those who thought that they were ‘natural aristocrats’ who should be in charge (Hamilton, Adams, Washington and the rest of the centralists).

      Those latter were sociopaths, or at least proto-sociopaths. (Lincoln’s another good example: start a war to prevent your personal Empire from being reduced in size; suspend habeus corpus and a free press; make a grand statement that frees literally nobody… hallmarks of a charlatan).

      There is no mechanism that can prevent a State from falling into the clutches of the most megalomanaical vermin within the State’s borders: that’s because only the worst people want to rule others.

      An early 20th-century French philosopher put it best (I have never seen it put better):

      “Le trait le plus visible dans l’homme juste est de ne point vouloir du tout gouverner les autres, et de se gouverner seulement lui-même. Cela décide tout. Autant dire que les pires gouverneront”

      “The most visible characteristic of the just man is to have no desire whatsoever to rule others, and to govern only himself. That decides everything. You might as well say ‘The worst will rule'”

      To my way of thinking, “les pires gouverneront” (“the worst will rule”) could do with an ‘always’ or ‘eventually’ – because although it might be theoretically possible for good men to found a government, it is impossible to restrict entry into State cadres to good men.

      It’s like the question that everyone should ask themselves whenever they are surprised by the bad actions of a politician, a cop, a judge, a bureaucrat or a soldier: “What sort of person wants that job?“. Again, cela décide tout.

      • Don Duncan

        At 75 I can tell you from personal political experience that it’s worse than you have said, worse than Jefferson imagined. When people forfeit responsibility to run their lives by choosing rulers, they create monsters of even good men. Not all at once, but people given power change. For example, they become addicted to ruling and will do anything to keep it.

        • I’m a bit more cynical than you: I don’t believe that genuinely good men ever find themselves in positions of power.

          Think of the ordeal that one must go through to get to a position of even moderate power that is relatively easy to obtain. A State senator, say – where you get your seat by people voting on party lines.

          The number of steps that you have to go through – the jockeying and conniving for pre-selection to get Party support and funding – means that by the time you’re a candidate for power, you know how the sausage is made, and you know that you have literally zero chance of altering the internals of the sausage machine.

          C.S. Lewis gave a really interesting speech called The Inner Ring which included a lovely little bit about how people ‘become scoundrels’: it’s worth reprising here at length –

          “And the prophecy I make is this. To nine out of ten of you the choice which could lead to scoundrelism will come, when it does come, in no very dramatic colours. Obviously bad men, obviously threatening or bribing, will almost certainly not appear. Over a drink, or a cup of coffee, disguised as triviality and sandwiched between two jokes, from the lips of a man, or woman, whom you have recently been getting to know rather better and whom you hope to know better still—just at the moment when you are most anxious not to appear crude, or naïf or a prig—the hint will come. It will be the hint of something which the public, the ignorant, romantic public, would never understand: something which even the outsiders in your own profession are apt to make a fuss about: but something, says your new friend, which “we”—and at the word “we” you try not to blush for mere pleasure—something “we always do.”

          And you will be drawn in, if you are drawn in, not by desire for gain or ease, but simply because at that moment, when the cup was so near your lips, you cannot bear to be thrust back again into the cold outer world. It would be so terrible to see the other man’s face—that genial, confidential, delightfully sophisticated face—turn suddenly cold and contemptuous, to know that you had been tried for the Inner Ring and rejected. And then, if you are drawn in, next week it will be something a little further from the rules, and next year something further still, but all in the jolliest, friendliest spirit. It may end in a crash, a scandal, and penal servitude; it may end in millions, a peerage and giving the prizes at your old school. But you will be a scoundrel.”

          I bolded the if you are drawn in to indicate that not everyone is drawn in: the genuinely just man is not attracted by the putative blandishments of belonging to the Inner Ring (or the ‘next layer of the onion’).

          And I have seen it in action: it happens at all the big law firms; it happens to political aspirants before they are public figures; it happens in the military (both in the officer cadre and the ranks).

          The offer is on the table: cross this line – show us you are willing to do this to belong.

          If you refuse, your career ends right then, and you may not even know it: good things simply stop happening to you.

          If you go along, the next line you must cross will require you to show even lower principles.

          And that’s why I know that nobody within rifle-scope of a position of genuine power – be it Pope, Cardinal, Judge, General, Senator or Mayor – has clean hands. They must dirty their hands to join the club.

          It happened to a Green Beret just the other week: he was offered a part in a scam being run by the guys from “Government Death Squad Six” (aka SEAL Team 6), and choked to death when he refused.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            It happened to me in my profession in public auctions. My “boss”, a colleague at the C-level at a very prominent international auction house in the US, offered me a promotion and a very substantial raise and bonus if I would agree to keep quiet about his stealing very expensive items from consignments submitted by heirs clueless about their contents. When I replied that I would not be a party to his larceny, he fired me the next day.

            Since then, he has continually done his best to persuade the owners and other decision makers at every auction house not to hire me, and every one of them has chosen to take his opinions to heart, not exercise their own independent judgement, and reject my queries about employment, or even occasional work as an independent contractor.

            So that leaves me being self-employed as an independent consultant to heirs of certain kinds of collectibles, and it’s better for me to be so. I guide my clients through the process of bringing their treasures to market by informing them about what auction houses they can trust, and the ones to avoid because they’ll get robbed. I am not afraid to provide them with the names of the scoundrels, including that of my former colleague and his business partners, and I fear no lawsuits for defamation.

            Why won’t the trustworthy auctioneers hire me ? Because they are cowards who chose to be swayed by my former colleague’s commission of the Fallacy of Poisoning the Well. They admire him and treat his words as gospel; consequently, they keep me at arms length by agreeing to accept my referrals and pay me referral fees, which is customary, but that is as far as they will go with me.

            That suits me just fine. Better to be on my own and ride a financial roller coaster with the threat of penury at every turn than to be financially well-off due to sailing alongside a pack of sociopathic, larcenous scoundrels.

          • Of course, Lincoln did not start the war. The Civil War was foretold before Abraham Lincoln was even born.

            Yet, landownership, standards of weights and measures, and conformity of law were central factors in establishing the General government.

            Homeownership would not be possible if not for the State.

          • Of course, Lincoln did not start the war. The Civil War was foretold before Abraham Lincoln was even born.

            Yet, landownership, standards of weights and measures, and conformity of law were central factors in establishing the General government.

            Homeownership would not be possible if not for the State.

          • “Homeownership would not be possible if not for the State”

            That statist (i.e., anti-freedom) shibboleth needs to die in a fire: it’s nonsense.

            It’s just a variant of the #muhroads trope – the silly idea that in the absence of a State, the provision of public goods would fall to zero. That’s not what economic theory postulates. Economic theory proposed that in the presence of positive (negative) externalities, the market provision of a public good will be lower (higher) than the optimum – nothing more. It also supposes that
            ★ the optimum is adduceable;
            ★ the political class will have no objective other than to drive markets for public goods to the (adduceable) optimum; and
            ★ interference in markets for public goods has no impact on markets for, say, inputs into production of public goods.

            The #muhroads problem has been a ‘solved problem’ for hundreds of years – and has a significant, concrete example to follow… namely, religious organisations. Membership of those used to be compulsory under pain of death: now they’re voluntary subscription services throughout the West.

            There is absolutely no requirement for a state in order to enforce and maintain property rights. All that’s required is for individuals to be free to join (and leave) competitive dispute-resolution organisations (DROs).

            Think of DROs as being similar to insurance companies: competitive subscription-based organisations whose sole task is to negotiate on behalf of their members when their members’ rights conflict with the rights of others.

            Those who claim that DROs would ‘devolve’ into States, fail to grasp the key problem: running a State is mind-bogglingly expensive, and can never be done in a way that provides a satisfactory, society-wide return on investment. Returns from States accrue to a very small slice of the citizenry (the political class, its cronies, and its senior functionaries): the large-scale “net tax recipients”.

            Currently it requires almost 2/3rds of the pure private sector’s income to run a modern State.

            That number sounds astonishingly high, but it must be borne ear in mind that every cost of government, including the after-tax pay of every government employee, must be paid out of taxes taken from a non-government employee or company, or by raising debt.

            In order for the staggering cost to be ‘hidden’ from the citizenry, governments always run debts – which are, of course, repaid at more than dollar-for-dollar – and makes long-tailed promises to individuals for which it is not required to account (unfunded liabilities).

            This is the intertemporal budget problem: Holmström’s Theorem guarantees that no State can ever keep to a budget – it is a mathematical certainty that even a benevolent[1] State will eventually breach any intertemporal budget constraint.

            If membership of DROs is voluntary, nobody would join a ‘proto-State DRO’ that had such terrible intertemporal fiscal dynamics – because they would know that eventually the subscription would rise to 100% of income (or the DRO would fail).

            Add in the right for other DROs to resist an economy-wide takeover by any individual DRO (and the right for DROs to form coalitions to resist), and it’s clear that the DRO system would be the same as the (voluntary, subscription-based) system we use to ‘allocate’ religion nowadays.

            And what’s more: there is an incentive for DROs to resolve disputes efficiently (otherwise their premia will be too high to attract and retain customers). This means that DROs will avoid violent confrontation except as a last resort. War is the most costly way of resolving rights disputes, which is why only governments and government-sponsored entities ‘do’ war.

            Imagine if the international political system consisted of countries of roughly the same size (i.e., with roughly equal ‘market’ shares) and roughly the same level of weaponry: no individual country would get to throw its weight around. The same would be true for an internal DRO system.

            Note that it’s not necessary for DROs to be exactly the same size or have exactly the same defensive capabilities: all that’s required is for them to be free to form coalitions to ‘see off’ any individual DRO that sought to become a State.

            The DRO system would furnish free-market levels of public goods (like security), so there would be a potential ‘free rider’ problem… but that’s to be offset against the capacity (and willingness) of existing States to ‘do’ war – and war is a producer of the largest negative externalities in human experience.

            Three examples:
            ★ there are still large areas of arable land in France that cannot be used at all, and even larger areas where using the land is risky, as a result of wars that ended 99 years ago;
            ★ there are thousands of tonnes of nerve agents and other WMDs that were dumped in the oceans off Europe and Australia after WWI and WWII;
            ★ there are hundreds of millions of bomblets in Laos, Cambodia and Viet Nam left over from the American defeat there in the 1970s – these kill upwards of 150 people a year, even today.

            War is also a predictable and inevitable consequence of the existence of states because state cadres do not bear the full cost of their warring actions (in fact, many political actors profit when wars happen: state power expands).

            The ‘optimum’ level of war is easy to determine (it’s zero), which in turn means that the optimum level of the number of states is likewise easy to determine (again, zero).

            [1] by ‘benevolent’ I mean a State that formulates policy in a way that seeks a Pareto-optimal [Bayes-]Nash Equilibrium – that is, it seeks to arrange things such that no individual can be made better off by a change in policy without making someone else worse off, and that no individual has an incentive to attempt to find a different solution. No State in human history has ever had such benevolent aims.

          • “It’s just a variant of the #muhroads trope – the silly idea that in the absence of a State, the provision of public goods would fall to zero.”

            That is not what I said. I said “Homeownership” is not possible in the absence of the State. Landownership is what constitutes a State. Governance is required in order to own land. The Supreme Law of the LAND.

            That has nothing to do with your “provision of public goods” jargon.

            If you wish to own land, (a home), then you need some sort of proof. That proof, no matter what you, or others, want to call it, is the State.

            In America is is called a deed. The heading of the homeownership deed, AT THE VERY TOP, is the State of “wherever you live”.

          • dauden

            I love your fine comments. It makes me ponder how no earthly man is capable of ruling 100% justly. It legitimizes the Biblical text because God told us this very thing. Man, all of us across the globe, are inherently NOT good. There are flaws in each one of us and we can, any one of us, be tempted towards evil. And no one can say they have done right every time. This is why we needed a Savior who could rightly justify us by his (righteous) blood. It is foolishness to some, I know. But it bears repeating because there has not been a better answer to man’s quest for truth. God preserved His word forever in writing so that there would be a way to know and be convinced in our own minds what God has done by entering the human narrative and solving the problem for us. He only asks that we believe Him. Christ’s earthly ministry (to Israel only) was recorded in Matthew-John. But the outcome of His finished work at the cross was borne out in the Epistles of Paul, Romans thru Philemon. This is the (mystery) message for those today who would learn the truth.

      • orion700

        Absolutly right. I cohost a show on saturdays where we have discussed these very things for years. It’s great to hear from someone so well educated and free minded.

    • Charlie Steward

      [you said] …”America’s free-est years were those between the end of the revolution and the ratification of the statist constitution..”

      Actually, America’s freest years were in the earliest days of America when local communities were formed and operated strictly in accordance to the Laws of God. Please visit http://www.godsendusmen.com then go to the bottom of the page and click the link for the New Haven Colony constitution.

      The Laws of God provide mankind with the greatest level of freedom available. In fact, the amount of freedom afforded by the Laws of God cannot be handled by most men.

      There is a huge difference between America – and the United States of America. America, in many of her early communities was founded on the freedom found in Christ. The freedom Christ offered was not merely spiritual – but was physical – the greatest amount of physical freedom known to man.

      • dauden

        I believe you are correct. The Textus Receptus used in translation of the Authorized King James Bible, the only version not copyrighted, when studied “rightly divided” as in 2 Tim 2:15, does indeed reflect a life of freedom in one’s mind and soul that cannot be denied…..much to the hatred of the popery state and Jesuit mission. This Bible is under attack today even as it was 400 years ago in Europe because it places freedom in Christ at odds with the slavery of the Catholic Church, which would have us kneel at their corrupted power much like the state does in turn.

        • Charlie Steward

          In Dec 2015, I was arrested by the missouri state highway patrol and was told that my “arrest” was because of the “books on my website.”

          My books are nothing but truths found in the Scriptures relating to the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ – which is the greatest advocate of freedom for mankind that the world has ever known.

          Jesus was murdered by the state because of His teachings concerning freedoms delivered to those who will observe the Laws of God in their lives.

          I have never stolen from a man. I have never laid a finger on another man. Yet, this “cop” has promised that I will “never get out of prison” – for what? Simply for preaching and attempting to live according to the Laws of God.

          • dauden

            Not sure what you’re referring to as the “Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ”. Are you referring to the Laws of God which were given to Moses and attempted to be kept by the Jewish nation of Israel in prophecy? Keeping it was part of the covenant between them and God. Would you want to go back under the law when Christ told Paul we were set free from the law? If the Israelites could not keep it, how do you think you will do? We are saved today without the works of the law, Gal 2:16 kjv, but by the finished work of Christ.

          • Charlie Steward

            It is said today, that in the U.S., there are over 45,000,000 statutes. The U.S. and the states fully expect each and every one of you to KEEP those statutes. And if not, they are going to jail you, fine you, etc. So this is acceptable? We somehow believe that 45,000,000 statutes of men are preferrable to a handful of the Statutes of God?

            In the Law of God, there are barely 600 (as you say) – and somehow that is LESS preferred than the obligation to somehow keep 45,000,000 statutes?

            Indeed, without doubt, the blood sacrifices of the OT Law have been done away with. But the Laws for how a society is to conduct itself are absolutely STILL in place and are expected to be observed by God.

            We are as guilty as the children of Israel, in that we have traded the Statutes of God, for the statutes of men. And in doing so, we have done exactly what our Lord said in Mark 7 – “you have made the Word of God of no effect in your lives.”

          • dauden

            I am not guilty of breaking any law; on the contrary, I am redeemed from it! “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:” Gal 3:13. Christ took full responsibility for my sin when He chose to die in my place. This is the exact definition of grace…..that which I cannot earn and which I do not deserve. Spread that gospel around!!! I fully trusted in it when I was 21 yrs old. I am now 54 and moving freely in the grace provided without any works I have to do.

          • Charlie Steward

            So you are free from God’s Law, which clearly defines good and evil – but you are bound to man’s law – which now calls evil that God called Good – and calls good that which God called evil? That simply doesn’t make sense.

            As to Mark 7 – I could not agree with you more. Not ONE word of the Bible was written to you or me, but EVERY word was written for us.

            The principles found in Mark 7 are every bit as much valid today as they were back then. Christ taught that systems such as social security (found in Mark 7) would render the Word of God of no effect in their lives.

            That principle (Law, if you will – “If you love me, keep my commandments”) is absolutely in full force today.

            We break God’s Law because He now lets us, even encourages us to? Dauden, that just doesn’t make sense.

          • dauden

            Yes! I am completely free from God’s law! And you are to if you are saved by trusting in the finished work of Christ who died for our sins, was buried and rose again for our justification. This is the mystery that was revealed to the Apostle Paul in Romans thru Philemon. Its the good news for all the world today! And it is the mystery Paul speaks about throughout his revelations from Christ who spoke to him from Heaven. Get a King James Bible and study Paul. After Christ died and resurrected from the dead, He then revealed to Paul the purpose of His death. Peter and the disciples never knew this during Christ’s earthly ministry. The cross was a curse to them. It is our glory! They had an earthly kingdom to bring in, which was put on hold while the mystery, that Christ could now save anyone who trusted in the gospel of Christ (I Cor 15:1-4 kjv), was proclaimed to all! We don’t have to go through Israel anymore to be accepted with God! Christ made it possible to go directly to the Father by trusting in His finished work on our behalf. It is most wonderful! And truly liberating 🙂 BTW, I am only bound by man’s law in respect to being caught. I live by common law in that I will not harm another person or their property and I will do all I say I will do.
            Beyond that, I will live to be charitable to those in need.

          • Charlie Steward

            In my king James Bible, Paul says the following:

            “…truth [is] in the law.” (Romans 2:20)

            “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” (Romans 3:31)

            “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” (Romans 7:12)

            “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” (Romans 8:7)

            “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.” (1 Corinthians 7:19)

            “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully.” (1 Timothy 1:8)

            And John said this:

            “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.” (1 John 2:3)

            “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” (1 John 3:4)

            “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.” (1 John 5:2)

            “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” (1 John 5:3)

            “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Revelation 12:17)

            “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” (Revelation 14:12)

            And this from Jesus:

            John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

            John 15:10-11 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.

            These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

            You, me, everyone is attempting to keep someone’s laws or statutes.

            Those who would toss God’s Statutes in the trash in order to keep man’s statutes are the reason for everything that plagues the earth today. This is a hard pill to swallow, but it is the truth.

            Somehow, somewhere along the way we got the idea that God is some boogeyman who came up with a bunch a evil Laws and made it impossible for people to obey them.

            Yet, this was said about Abraham in Genesis 26:4-5 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

            Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

            Apparently Abraham didn’t have too much trouble with God’s awful, burdensome Laws.

            David seemed to be very comfortable with the Laws of God.

            (Psalm 119) Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
            Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.
            They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.
            Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.
            O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
            Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.
            I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.
            I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly.
            Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
            With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments.
            Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
            Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes.

            Indeed, the Laws concerning sacrificing lambs were nailed to the cross. And that which remains is perfect, and the knowledge of the Law is what brings men to repentance and to the need of a Saviour.

            Take away the Law and you take away the need of a Saviour.

          • dauden

            OMG, you keep bringing up Israel’s laws to live by today. God knew what kind of world we would be living in today, so He instituted grace which is perfect for you and me….and so relieving! I’m not waking up every day and worrying about what natural fiber to put on or what food to eat to please God. Please! You really must search the Scriptures as Paul says and learn that we live by grace ALONE not by the works of the law! The law cannot save anyone. I could only be married to my husband of 28 years, and have 4 children with him, who does not believe the Bible because I have grace through faith in the Son of God! If my husband does not see the truth, I cannot condemn him! This grace is freely given to all men everywhere! If someone does not wish to receive this free gift, we cannot condemn but exhort him freely to reconsider. Grace is the answer, not the law! The law condemns!

          • Charlie Steward

            Pardon me, what is OMG?

            Never once, not ever, have I said the “Law saves you.” For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

            And, I have never said anything about “Israel’s Laws.” God’s Laws. Christ’s Commandments, yes.

            In fact, quite to the contrary. I have stated, and am emphatic, in our conversation that the sacrificial Law system has been done away with.

            Your OMG response, whatever that is, came because you asked me to read Paul.

            I provided you with 6 passages from Paul regarding the Law of God; 8 passages from John concerning the Law of God; 2 passages from Christ Himself; references to Abraham and references to David and you still do not see that the Law of God is good and required to being men to the knowledge and understanding of their sin, and their need for a Saviour.

            As for staying with your husband….there is a Law in the Scripture, stated by Paul, that if your unbelieving husband wants you to stay with him, then you are required – by the Law of God – to stay with him. Good for you on obeying the Law of God even though you are free to disobey Him. (I Corinthians 7:13)

      • Amen Charlie!

        Following is what Alexis de Tocqueville had to say about New Haven Connecticut’s Constitution:

        “…Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835: ‘They [the 17th-century Colonials] exercised the rights of sovereignty; they named their magistrates, concluded peace or declared war, made police regulations, and enacted laws as if their allegiance was due only to God. Nothing can be more curious and, at the same time more instructive, than the legislation of that period; it is there that the solution of the great social problem which the United States now presents to the world is to be found [in perfect fulfillment of Deuteronomy 4:5-8, demonstrating the continuing veracity of Yahweh’s law and its accompanying blessings, per Deuteronomy
        28:1-14].

        ‘Amongst these documents we shall notice, as especially characteristic, the code of laws promulgated by the little State of Connecticut in 1650. The legislators of Connecticut begin with the penal laws, and … they borrow their provisions from the text of Holy Writ … copied verbatim from the books of Exodus, Leviticus,
        and Deuteronomy.…’23

        “America was exalted in the eyes of the world because of her applied righteousness, embodied in Yahweh’s perfect law. Since 1788, when the United States of America, as a nation, stopped following Yahweh’s laws and began following the laws of WE THE PEOPLE, our legislation has ceased providing righteous instruction to others. Instead, the rest of the world now holds America in disdain. If America hopes to regain her favored status in the eyes of the world, she must return to her original Constitution….”

        For more, see online Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html.

        Then find out how much you really know about the Constitution as
        compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ConstitutionSurvey.html and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.

      • Don Duncan

        “…Christ offered…the greatest amount of physical freedom…”?? How did Christ protect the colonists from taxation, forced board and feeding of troops? Were all the transgressions by the British Empire listed in the Declaration of Independence lies? Why secede when enjoying “the greatest…freedom…”? Are you implying the colonists wanted less freedom? Or they were too stupid to know they were as free as could be? Can you site any records of colonists complaining they were more free under the king and their faith? Secession from British rule does not have anything to do with faith.

        • Charlie Steward

          They had already lost the freedoms that their forefathers were enjoying from the late 1500s and early 1600s.

          The fact that they (colonists) were on the verge of war, was an indication they had traded the freedom found in Christ, for supposed “liberty” offered by obeying man’s laws and statutes.

          Man’s laws and statutes will always lead to tyranny. Not voluntarily following the Statutes and Laws of God will ultimately end in bloodshed.

          Again, what I am referring to goes way further back than what you are talking about. I believe you are referring to the middle to the late 1700s. I am referring to the late 1500s and early 1600s.

          • dauden

            Charlie, no man can follow the Statutes and Laws of God. Wasn’t that proven by the fallen state of Israel in Scripture? God set Israel aside, saved a blasphemer named Saul/Paul and made him the pattern for all who would believe hereafter. Even if you tried to live by the highest moral standards the best you could, the benefits are temporary and ultimately unprofitable. Christ’s finished work at the cross offering grace freely to all men……is the answer. Smiles!

          • Charlie Steward

            Again, there are 45 million + statutes in this country today. You are expected to know and obey all of them. And somehow, that is preferrable to knowing and obeying the miniscule amount of Statutes that God put in place?

            Is it really that difficult not to kill your neighbor? Is it really that difficult not to steal from your neighbor or rape his wife?

            There isn’t a whole lot more to the Laws of God than to simply love your neighbor and love your God.

            But somehow we have the idea that it is better to allow wicked men to create a whole new “code” defining what THEY believe to be good and what THEY believe to be evil. Then, praise men for what they call good, and punish men for what they call evil.

            God ALONE is the definer of what is good and what is evil. When men take that to themselves, they become the epitome of rebellion.

            They said, “This CONstitution, and OUR laws, and OUR treaties…..shall be the supreme law of the land…” This was the final nail in the coffin of America.

            And until God’s people wake up and learn what a real Romans 13, God ordained Government is supposed to look like – it will get nothing but worse.

            Please visit my website at http://www.godsendusmen.com and go to the bottom. Click on the New Haven Colony link and see what a real Romans 13, God ordained Government looks like.

          • dauden

            Have you read the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy? Are you not familiar with the numerous laws God gave and expected his chosen people to follow? When did they get shortened to 10 commandments? God is perfect and cannot allow sin in His presence. This is why the Godhead chose to hide the fact that the 3rd person of the Trinity would come to earth, put on human flesh and die in our stead, I Cor 2:8, “Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.. No, my friend. I don’t rape, steal or plunder because I am risen with Christ and made a new Creature. I have “put on Christ” and have no need to follow the law. Reread the book of Galatians in the Authorized King James and learn how Christ fulfilled the law and made it of none effect for us who trust Him. We willingly do right (though we still fail until we are changed) because of what Christ has done for us. “To live is Christ and to die is gain”, Phil 1:21 kjv.

          • Charlie Steward

            I absolutely have, and a lot of what is in those 2 books is easily discernible as to which principles remain and which principles do not.

            Nonetheless, my point is still this, man, in his rebellion, will say to the death, our 45 million + laws are superior to the God of the Universe’s Laws.

            The Scriptures, as a whole, show mankind what is the Perfect Will of God. And the Scriptures contain everything needed for a society to function – and function well.

            Did you look at the New Haven Colony covenant like I asked you to?

            If you were migrating to a new place and had the opportunity to implement Civil Law, would you take the 45 million + statutes and regulations that man has come up with today and call it good?

            Man says sodomy is good – it’s legal.
            God says sodomy is evil – it is Unlawful.
            Man says abortion is good – it’s legal.
            God calls it Murder.
            Man says we will tax ANYTHING, for any reason we think necessary.
            God says, if you tax labor, I will not hear your prayer.
            Man withholds pay from a man’s labor and says it’s good, and if you don’t participate, we’ll call you evil and throw you in jail.
            God says, if you withhold pay from a man’s labor, I will declare war on you. (New Testament Law)

            So sad that seemingly sincere christians get hung up on the fact that God wants you to wear 100% cotton underwear, and we find that so grievous and burdensome that we trade the Statutes of God – in favor of the millions of statutes of men.

            Serving idols, other gods, is less about statues – and more about statutes.

          • Dauden, you and Charlie are talking about two different things. You’re talking about salvation by works of the law, by which no one can be saved. Charlie talking about legislation by Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments. His comments about the law have nothing to do with keeping the law for justification, what the Apostle Paul depicts as being under the law. We’re under grace, but grace or faith didn’t nullify Yahweh’s immutable morality reflected in His Ten Commandments and respective statutes and judgments. See Romans 3:31 below.

            I think you’ve cherry picked the Apostles Paul and John as it pertains to Yahweh’s moral as it applies under the New Covenant. Following is some of what it appears you missed:

            “…truth [is] in the law.” (Romans 2:20)

            “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” (Romans 3:31)

            “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” (Romans 7:12)

            “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” (Romans 8:7)

            “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.” (1 Corinthians 7:19)

            “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully.” (1 Timothy 1:8)

            “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.” (1 John 2:3)

            “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” (1 John 3:4)

            “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.” (1 John 5:2)

            “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” (1 John 5:3)

            “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Revelation 12:17)

            “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” (Revelation 14:12)

            For more on how Yahweh’s immutable moral law applies and should be implemented today, see free online book “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/law-kingdomFrame.html.

          • Don Duncan

            Can we agree that first & foremost whatever law is followed, the decision must be voluntary? If a bad law is followed a change can be made, until the follower gets it right. If force rules the follower, no adjustment is possible.

          • Charlie Steward

            Absolutely! In the Bible, Joshua told the people, “Choose you this day whom you will serve.” With God, the choice is ours.

            With men’s governments, they love to talk about their phony Dec of Independence – when it suits them – particularly that little statement that says, “governments receive their power from the consent of the governed…”

            If men truly knew what the Statutes of God are – not what the imposters that play “church” refer to – they would see how much better they are compared to what man has come up with.

            With God’s Laws – no tax on labor. No licensing (UNLESS you broke the Law). No property tax. No eminent domain. Most All the things that people complain about with “government” today – are not allowed under God’s Laws and Statutes.

            When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. Prov 2:29

    • Orion700, thanks for you post.

      I agree with except as it pertains to the Bill of Rights. America was sold down the river when the 18th-century founding fathers replaced Biblical responsibilities with Enlightenment rights. See blog article “America’s Road to Hell: Paved with Rights” at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/americas-hell-paved-with-rights/.

      Furthermore, the only one with rights is our Creator. It’s inherent in who He is. It’s also inherent in who we are as the created that we do not have a right to anything. Even life isn’t a right, except for the Creator. For the rest of us, life is a gift and a responsibility.

      For more, see blog article “Rights: Man’s Sacrilegious Claim to Divinity” at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/rights-mans-sacrilegious-claim-to-divinity/

      • Don Duncan

        All authoritarians would agree with you Ted. Next they would claim to know/speak for “the Creator”. Who decides who gets to make manifest on earth “his will”? Why the strongest of course!

        And that’s exactly how the two superstitions fit together, supporting each other, both based on force, not reason or respect for the rights of each of us, as human.

        • See blog series “Ten Reasons Why Romans 13 is Not About Secular Government,” beginning at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/ten-reasons-why-romans-13-is-not-about-secular-government-pt-1/.

          There is absolutely nothing in Romans 13 depicting a secular civil government. On the other hand, everything in Romans 13 describes a biblical civil government. The one word “continually” in Verse 6, amplifying Verses 3 and 4, alone proves the point.

          Consequently, Romans 13:1-7 (along Romans 12:21, 1 Corinthians 6:1-6, 2 Corinthians 10:3-6, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11) is a template for Christian dominion established upon Yahweh’s immutable moral law, governed by biblically qualified men of God who are blessing to the righteous and a deterrent to the wicked.

          • Don Duncan

            And who decides who is “biblically qualified”? In what way will they deter? With force or rational persuasion? How will the outliers (wicked) be dealt with? Death or social boycott? Violence or non-violence?

          • Questions that are difficult for you to answer doesn’t change the fact that Romans 13:1-7 is a template for biblical civil government–i.e., biblical dominion, such as what we had in 17th-century Colonial America.

            What was Christendom (Christians dominionizing society on behalf of their King) in the 1600s has tragically devolved into mere 4-walled Christianity, aka Christendumb. Today’s Christians are best depicted by Christ in Matthew 5:13 as salt that’s lost its savor, good for nothing but to be trampled under the foot of man.

            For more, see blog article “Self-Imposed Impotence” at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/self-imposed-impotence/.

            Then “10 Reasons the Kingdom Here on Earth Isn’t Mission Impossible” at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/10-reasons-the-kingdom-here-on-earth-isnt-mission-impossible/.

          • Don Duncan

            Oh, those questions are not hard for me to answer. I am a voluntarist. I don’t support any initiated violence, ever. That is my “line in the sand”. I consider fraud indirect violence because it seeks to get the undeserved by deception and without respect for others.

          • Well, you’re correct about one thing, they’re not difficult to answer from a biblical perspective. Your perspective however is a rejection of our New Covenant dominion mandate, per Romans 12:21, Romans 13:1-7, 1 Corinthians 6:1-6, 2 Corinthians 10:3-6, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, etc.

      • dauden

        And those rights inherent in who Christ is as the Head belong to each of us who trust Him and become a part of His body. That’s what the text clearly states. Ephesians Chpts 1 & 2

        • Grace and therefore salvation is a gift (Ephesians 1 & 2), not a right. Otherwise, salvation would be what is due us. This would, in turn, mean that Christ was obligated to die for us. Find that in the Bible.

  • Harvey Mitterdorf

    Study the whole history of Hamilton. This guy was as bad a Obama.

  • Don Duncan

    Wasn’t A.H. in league with the bankers to the point of working to get the Whiskey Tax passed expressly for them? He guaranteed passage and they hired agents to go out into the country and buy up all the war debt for about 10%, using their inside man’s influence to reap a landslide profit.

    If it’s good to be king; it’s good to have the king’s ear also.

    This has been the way the citizens were exploited and civilizations collapsed since the beginning of all govt. (See ancient Chinese manuscripts)

  • bocacassidy

    Hamilton was a contemptible fascist gangster …a criminal pioneer of the American political mafia…two centuries later ….. not much has changed ….except possibly for the worse !

  • bocacassidy

    The American government has been a criminal enterprise from the very beginning
    All citizens and their property constructively are owned by the government ..
    All opposition has been crushed by the most powerful network of police systems in human history !….by all means …please enjoy the “American Dream “

    • Col. Edward H. R. Green

      My awareness of that unjust reality is why I get sick at my stomach every time I hear Lee Greenwood’s song “God Bless the USA”.

    • DavidMacko

      It should be noted that the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion and John Adams’ Alien and Sedition Acts, a clear violation of the First Amendment in the case of the Sedition Act, resulted in the election of Thomas Jefferson and the repeal of these violations of the Bill of Rights. The majority of people still believed in liberty then and there was a real choice provided during elections.

      • Indeed. Calling the “American government a criminal enterprise from the very beginning” is bad propaganda. That kind of nonsense is one reason the liberty movement cannot get any traction. Personally, I love liberty but I don’t want anything to do with “Anarcho” anything and neither do 95% of the people. It is quite silly to keep promoting bad propaganda. It was simply not true for most of the founders.

        • Don Duncan

          David was not saying the “criminal enterprise” did not exist. He was saying it was countered by a popular Jefferson’s presidency. But this after 2 bad presidents, hundreds of lives ruined, and many killed. bocacassidy is implying the Constitution did not limit govt. or secure rights.

          The vote can’t fix a rigged system. It only strengthens it. The solution is to boycott all coercive control and support an all voluntary political paradigm.

          • The way forward is to debate the proper role of government. Landownership defines the State and it is necessary for homeownership. The design of the government is what needs to be debated.

          • James Higginbotham

            no country in recorded history ever VOTED themselves OUT TYRANNY but they have SHOT THEMSELVES TO FREEDOM.
            and the way this centralised govt has GROWN over the DECADES, with all of it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL AGENCIES i dare anyone to tell me WERE A FREE PEOPLE.
            we only have the ILLUSION OF A FREE PEOPLE.

          • Don Duncan

            India didn’t shoot themselves free from G.B. They freed themselves by non-violent resistance to the Brits. That is the enlightened way to get free. Violent revolt produces an empty victory when authoritarianism reemerges.

            When people free their mind, physical freedom follows.

          • James Higginbotham

            India is an EXCEPTION TO THE RULE.
            and would NEVER WORK HERE.

          • Don Duncan

            It is working, little by little, individuals and groups are opting out of govt. They are cutting off their reliance in every way possible. Not ever calling the cops is one test of commitment to being free. Putting trust in authority is easy and automatic, but not wise or safe.

            America has the best track record of freedom and respect for the underdog, the outsider, the renegade. That alone speaks volumes along with the culture that gave the world “Yankee Ingenuity”. The pioneer spirit may yet be revived.

        • DavidMacko

          Such a comment as he made also tends to diminish the fact that the American government did become a criminal enterprise from 1861 to 1877 and from 1913 with the exceptions of 1921 to 1929, to some extent.

          • Yes. Interestingly, the demise of the American government coincides with the formation of the Skull and Bones society. Before the Civil War, Americans who were protected by constitution lived free lives. I know that there are some examples of tyranny, like the Whiskey Rebellion and the Alien and Sedition Acts, but by and large people protected by constitution were free. Some of them so free that they claimed the right to own other people and kill them with impunity as many slaveowners did. Some of the men free enough to have several wives. To claim that the American government was formed as a criminal enterprise does indeed undermine the true liberty movement. Anarchy is not liberty and neither is slaveownership.

          • DavidMacko

            I don’t think that God intended polygamy for most men or the sexes would not be almost equal in number. However, if all the wives are agreeable and of age it is not the concern of the government. Those who don’t like such behavior can shun practitioners, as with other behaviors which are not crimes.
            Regarding slavery, it was the White Christian men of the West, primarily in England, northwestern Europe and the United States who abolished slavery which is still practiced in some parts of Africa and Asia, as it has been by all races, nations and tribes for 6,000 years until the principles of the Bible and the Declaration of Independence came into prominence.

        • Nobody

          If they are an enterprise committing all elements that constitute a crime then guess what, they are a criminal enterprise. It is that simple. The criminal cops, ‘courts’, bar and prisons are committing all elements of fraud, extortion, kidnapping, false imprisonment, racketeering, human slave trafficking every single day. When one adds up the tally of criminal acts they have committed and continue to commit the only conclusion is that they are levying war on the people at large which is treason. It really is treason because all elements are present. Screw trying to get peoples’ support for tweaking knobs of tyranny – we need end them permanently. If we did the prosperity that would flood our world would be contagious to the point that people would ask themselves ‘what in the hell were we thinking’. It appears you are another suffering stockholm syndrome. Snap out of it – we are under siege from criminals falsely claiming to be government.

  • Nobody

    Every site needs to drop this commenting service from their site because they keep censoring comments that say what needs to be said.

    Try calling for all out revolution in the most stern and candid terms possible and see what happens- your comments will be censored.

    Yelling “Revolution” in a crowded tyranny is exactly what free speech is all about but this service has determined otherwise.

    • Hackingthealgorithm

      Testing parts of the original censored comment:

      If ‘the People’ weren’t generally a bunch of lemming jellyfish then the only proper government that would be established would be a counter-deception where the ‘government’ would always be hiring and its employment office would simply be a combo guillotine/crematorium – come apply to work for the government to control and terrorize your neighbors where application is admission of guilt with mens rea so that every control freak terrorist is executed as an imminent threat before the injury and terror can occur.

      • Hackingthealgorithm

        I am totally ready for a revolution that will execute everyone who is not willing to voluntarily leave the terrorist organization that fraudulently claims to be government and build this vision for perpetuity. This is the best path I can see for permanently and continually removing the tyrants in a lawful manner before they can injure their neighbors. We could call it a govecidal peoples’ republic for perpetual freedom.

        • Hackingthealgorithm

          Third part was censored.

        • Ephraiyim

          Sounds a lot like the French revolution. That worked out well!

          • Nobody

            What else is going to stop them???

            If they are committing capital crimes then they deserve capital punishment.

  • Joe Jarvis: “From the beginning of this country, the federal government has not been very good at abiding by the Constitution.”

    It obviously didn’t take long for the consequences of the ever-intensifying whirlwind resulting from the wind sown by the constitutional framers to commence:

    “[B]ecause they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law … they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind….” (Hosea 8:1, 7)

    That today’s America finds herself teetering precipitously on the precipice of moral depravity and destruction was inevitable, a direct consequence (numerous consequences) of the 18th-century founding fathers replacing the 17th-century Colonial governments of, by, and for God established upon His immutable moral law for their own humanistic government of, by, and for the people based upon capricious man-made Enlightenment and Masonic traditions.

    For more regarding these two polar opposite forms of government, see Chapter 3 “The Preamble: We the People vs. Yahweh” of “Bible Law vs, the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html.

    Then, find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ConstitutionSurvey.html and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.

    • Mike Schneider

      “the federal government has not been very good at abiding by the Constitution.” — Baloney. The Distilled Spirits Tax was perfectly in accordance with Article 1, Section 8, which is the what the Constitution was build around: stealing your property in full accordance with da law.

    • Grundune

      The framers of the U.S. Constitution did a tremendous job in crafting a document that has protected us from government tyranny for generations. Who are you to criticize them? What have you done for this country except try to destroy the U.S. Constitution so we can live under some tyrant. You’ve got a history of this nonsense, you’d better block your Disqus history so folks won’t see you for what your are.

  • Mike Schneider

    The first ten words of Article 1, Section 8 represent the sum total
    of what the Constitution was expected to do for them by those who wrote
    it in order to rule over you. Everything else about it was scaffolding
    and lies.

    William Lloyd Garrison did the right thing with it.

  • Bischoff

    What a fanciful story………it’s typical of what goes for the view of American history as taught by liberal education establishment.

    I could take this article apart point by point, but it’ll be a waste of time, because these comments will never post anyway. Therefore, I’ll make it short…….

    Yes, whiskey was a form of barter commodity, but the whiskey was produced for consumption, not to circulate as currency.

    Excessive consumption of whiskey leads to drunkenness and a breakdown of law and order, and that is exactly what happened. While the State of Pennsylvania treated the situation in the Western part of their state with benign neglect, the neighboring states found that the social fabric of their states were effected by this widespread trading and consumption of whiskey produced in Western Pennsylvania which consequently encouraged distilling operations in their states, as well.

    The Congress under Section 8, Article I of the U.S. Constitution has the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. As to duties, imposts and excises, Section 8, Article I specifies that they be uniform throughout the United States.

    Excises are a tax on domestic production. They are not a tax on the proceeds from the sale of products, but a tax imposed on the item produced. The founders were concerned that the production of alcohol or otherwise intoxicating substances could not only undermine the good order within a state, but it could also negatively affect
    the good order of neighboring states. It was for that reason that Congress early
    on imposed a tax on the production of whiskey which was to be collected by
    federal revenue officers. When in 1794 the resistance to the collection of the excise
    tax became widespread, George Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send the militia to enforce the tax. With 13,000 militia provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Washington rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency. The rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and a confrontation was avoided.
    Hamilton was Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. While he was George Washington’s Aid-de-Camp during the War of Independence and let a Battalion of Infantry fighting against Cornwallis and the British Army at Yorktown, he had no operational function in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion.
    He did insist that all the promissory notes issued during the War of Independence to soldiers and during raids for provision be honored at face value in order to establish a good record of credit for the United States. It is also true that some holders of these promissory sold them at deep discount only to find that later they traded at face value. This was due to the U.S. Congress chartering the First Bank of the United States in 1791 for the period of twenty years. The charter was not renewed.
    As to all those rich bankers that financed the War of Independence to realize gain, I like to know their names. Is it John Hancock, George Clymer…….??? Who……???
    All those rich individuals who sided with the rebels had a death warrant out for them, and it wasn’t at all clear for years that the rebels would prevail against the British Army.
    The article is composed of too much PC for my taste……I guess you can deduce this from my comments.

    • Excellent! Thanks for this.

      Too many people actually believe that Lysander Spooner’s writings are more valid than those of the founders. Certainly the U.S. Constitution has its flaws, but if the people would understand it, and enforce it, then free people would be protected by it. It was a good document from the beginning and government has been corrupted by people ignoring it. Most of the information coming from the liberty movement these days is anarchical nonsense. It is all about understanding.

      “In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions.”
      ― Abraham Lincoln

      • Nobody

        Lysander Spooner’s writings are more valid than the founders’ writings. Why is this? Because Spooner’s demonstration congruency of logic in equality in application of law is Superior to anything the founders produced. Example – if i get a group of people together who write a document that says we can tax everyones’ wages and we enforce that then we are thieves and terrorists. But the founders doing it are somehow honorable according to your logic. Your logic is not equality in law or logic – your logic is false not true.

        However, Spooner says each is equal and can contract (or not) with whomever they wish and their agreements are what is enforceable by law. See your (and the founders’) error? No other interpretation can be defended. Nowadays the State uses extortion, fraud, theft, kidnapping and warfare to get everyone into contracts and I went through the process to prove it. I realized the fraud and extortion moved to another state and never got a driver’s license or entered into any agreements with the state. The ‘cops’ (criminals) carjacked me, stole my property without compensation, threatened to kidnap and falsely imprison me because I wouldn’t enter into a contract with them that would waive my rights ans consent to them be able to fine me, forcibly draw blood from me and imprison me without accusations that contain all elements that make up a valud cause of action.

        See your error? The criminal men claiming to be ‘government’ are lawless psychopaths who are levying all out warfare on any law abiding man who simply says, “no thanks, you guys are nuts, violent and criminals and I am your accuser who your trespasses against me” – did I ever even get access to a grand jury to seek formal criminal indictments against them even though I tried repeatedly? No, because they also obstruct justice in a building that says “equal justice under the law” written on the walls.

        Spooner is a genius and far superior in congruency of the logic of law than anything coming from the terrorist organization claiming to be ‘government’ including the founders and anyone who can’t see that is totally intellectually bankrupt.

        Let the people awaken from their Stockholm syndrome and let us give all of the tyrants the death penalty en masse so that a lawful, peaceful, supremely prosperous society can be born from freedpm and open competition in free markets.

        • “The ‘cops’ (criminals) carjacked me, stole my property without compensation, threatened to kidnap and falsely imprison me because I wouldn’t enter into a contract with them that would waive my rights ans consent to them be able to fine me, forcibly draw blood from me and imprison me without accusations that contain all elements that make up a valud cause of action.”

          The U.S. Constitution does not allow for any of this behavior from government. Ignoring the constitution is the reason “government officials” violate your rights. You wish to ignore the constitution… you get what you ask. Anarchy sucks.

          • Nobody

            If i am the one going to the grand jury with evidence in hand to bring the perpetrators to justice (including perjury to their oath) and the ones who took the oath are the ones obstructing justice and violating their oath then how am i the one ignoring the constitution or the anarchist???

            The secretary at the grand jury office told me that in 27 years of working in that office I am the only one who has ever come there seeking justice. These crimes happen everyday and criminals claiming to be judges who are committing capital offenses for tender law violations that debase lawful tender are judging the innocence or guilt of people and claim to be “honorable”

            More intellectual bankruptcy from you, the lawless one who blames the law abiding for the criminal enterprise fraudulently claiming to be ‘government’.

            Does everyone see why we are so screwed and why it truly is Stockholm syndrome? Brother Jonathan proves my point perfectly. We live amongst truly insane people who are totally lost and know nothing about how law properly functions and blames the law abiding for tge actions of the lawless.

            I suggest you take lsd every other day for the next 5 years and read 100 pages of law other day starting to cleanse and reset your brain back into a lawfully functioning state of operation.

            You have lost your mind dude…

          • Dude! You live in a state of anarchy! None of our government officials or their enforcers obey the constitution and very few people have even read it to understand what it says. You think that is just fine and even advocate for its abolition, but I work to get people to understand how the constitution protects our natural rights.

            If the constitution was obeyed, if our government officials were required to obey the rule of law, then the 4th and 5th amendments would have protected you against the lawless “government” enforcers. The people who threw you in a cage and fed you slop are people who want to ignore the constitution … just like you do. Anarchy sucks.

          • Nobody

            Anarchy = without rulers. My ruler is God so me being an anarchist is impossible. Yes the state operators are anarchists. I don’t ignore the constitution because it is the agreement those criminal actors in the state who had to take the oath to work there obliged themselves to. Remember I said, Spooner says each is equal and can contract (or not) with whomever they wish and their agreements are what is enforceable by law. Their oath is the agreement that makes it binding law upon them – their oath is not about me but their injury upon me is about remedy to injury upon me – and there will be remedy. Clearly me attempting to hold them to their agreement to constitutional bounds is me not ignoring the constitution – if you can’t comprehend this then you have lost your mind.

            “…advocate for its abolition…”

            I work for the abolition of the criminals existence. Death penalty across the board for those who don’t voluntarily leave under guilty plea of perjury to their oath and tender law violations for accepting a private bank’s mathematically gauranteed to fail devaluing debt note as tender for their pay – at mininum. Direct injurers must compensate also for my time.

            I am indifferent to the Constitution because it is their agreement not mine – i don’t work under that capacity thus it has no application to me. I have unalienable rights under my creator that that entity happened to acknowledge in their organic law but even their acknowledgement of that fact is just more evidence against them.

            “If the constitution was obeyed…” its not and they injure and terrorize honest people daily that’s why those who don’t plead guilty and leave permanently should be tried and executed before tomorrow morning. Abolish their existence. If i want their existence abolished as lawful justice then clearly I don’t think them violating their agreements “is just fine”. Those are your words not mine and not knowing the difference with a clearly written record before you means you are insane. Insanity = not knowing the difference between what is real and what is not.

            Spooner is superior because he understood that holding them to their agreement has failed. Taking up arms against them all should be a serious consideration at this point but we need everyone to converge on grand juries first to bear witness before Nature’s God and while I am the first where I am, one other has done it in TN and was thrown in jail, and I just had a bar certified attorney tell me locally that he wants to go with me now to also be an accuser. So, the trickle through the dam has begun but we need that trickle to turn into a raging biblical flood which it will but its slow pace is governed by God so all is right.

            Before arms is taking up against them (hopefully they will capirulate first) if necessary, we need mass crowdsourced intelligence gathering on where they live, where their families live, where their children go to school, where they hang out at, friends etc. If goes to all out war returned to them by us, it will be scorched earth policy for them with absolutely no mercy. It will be God’s divine wrath levied against their entire seed supporters to purge them from the Earth forever. They are messing with divine forces that shape nature of which their arrogance will flee in a heartbeat upon coming face to face with such fury. But we must first temper in the righteous order of proper lawful justice so that they are properly notified of the reasons that compel their separation from this world – if necessary.

          • Nobody

            This stupid commenting service censored my comment again. They can’t handle the raw uncensored truth.

            It is clear that actual tactics of revolution are not going to get through.

          • Don Duncan

            We all live in a chaotic state with rulers. Anarchy is no rulers. In anarchy people may be ordered, have rules without rulers, cooperate, or not, their choice. There may be chaos in some places, with some groups, but most groups will find that repulsive and cooperate to avoid social conflict. Note: This does NOT require rule, a resort to the initiation of violence. Non-violent association facilitates voluntary social interactions based on reason. Violence does not.

            The current worldwide political paradigm is rulers/ruled. Rulers are not restrained (ruled) by rules. They rule. They are NOT ruled. The populace is the ruled, subjected to the whim of the rulers, exploited, robbed, enslaved, and murdered.

            A written document is cited by the rulers to justify their crimes. The “law” is there as a subtefuge to obtain voluntary self-enslavement. If the enslaved believe they are sacrificing to an ordered social system of justice, they comply. If they believe the alternative is social chaos, they comply. The chief tool of the rulers is fraud, propaganda.

          • Our “rulers” are men with guns. Anarchy is no rulers … so men with guns rule. We live in a state of Anarchy. Lysander Spooner’s philosophy won. It sucks.

            I advocate for rule by law not rule by guns. In other words, men who use guns to subject others to their rule must obey natural law or pay the punishment for misuse of their guns. Rule by law trumps rule by weapon for a free and peaceful society.

          • No Rulers

            The problem is not men with guns. The problem is men with guns who have convinced the rest of us that they, alone, have the right to set the rules for the rest of us. It is because of this monopoly of violence that they rule.

            If anarchy is “no rulers” (i.e., no monopoly of violence) then, by logical inference, we do not have anarchy, but tyranny, because the “rulers” do have a monopoly of violence.

            And, who is going to hold the rulers to obedience to natural law? Only people who are as well-armed as the rulers. This is anarchy. Your approval of a document that purports to grant powers to a government that nobody could logically give to it tells me that you don’t understand Spooner’s reasoning.

          • No Rulers

            In Spooner’s immortal conclusion, either the Constitution has authorized the government we have now, or it has been powerless to prevent it.

            Of course the Constitution allows for that kind of behavior, because it codifies violence in the guise of “law” and “limits on government power” – “limits” to which I have never had the opportunity to consent or reject.

            You may stick with your romantic notions of the Constitution. I will stick with logic and reason. Spooner’s reasoning is airtight and irrefutable. Nobody has the right to rule another without explicit consent. Where and when was this consent obtained?

    • Nobody

      “Excessive consumption of whiskey leads to drunkenness and a breakdown of law and order, and that is exactly what happened.”

      The proper lawful manner to remedy this is for the accuser in each incident of injury to make formal accusations against the accused to their Grand Jury to get indictments for a criminal or civil trial where the accuser will face the accused begore a petit (trial) jury to present evidence of fact that prove or disprove the accusation and if proven then to apply the proper remedy.

      It is not lawful for the government to initiate any court action (or all out warfare against the population) to get their way. The government is supposed to be servants who simply wait for parties seeking remedy to a dispute/injury to make claims and grant jurisdiction to a court to hear the case for non-violently settling their dispute / remedy the injury.

      Blanket warfare against the population by government is not lawful activity. Applying constitutional or statury ‘laws’ that govern an entity to people who are not a part of that entity is unlawful and is extortion. Does the rules made by the executives or board of Walmart have any application to you if you are not working in the capacity of Walmart? No. It doesn’t make any sense to apply rules/laws of an entity to anyone not in that entity.

      More stockholm syndrome and intellectual bankruptcy in your comment. Defending the indefensible is why this country is so screwed. Almost everyone in America is lawless i.e. the ignore the proper application of law.

      • Well, I guess the founding fathers saw it differently. They described the remedy in the US Constitution and the states ratified it.

        BTW, they never banned legal procedure against any individual for drunkenness or disturbing the peace.

    • robt

      The Whiskey Tax was never a morality issue.
      Hamilton’s greatest wish was to have a standing army to oppress the people, and to enforce collection of taxes to finance his centralist government policies.
      He may not have been in charge of the army that marched on Pennsylvania, but he was there, as a ‘civilian advisor’, of great influence. In later years he did attempt to raise a standing army, but it ended in ruins without sufficient financing. Once again, it was about suppressing protest or even revolt against government policies, though ostensibly it was about protecting the States against the French.
      The Whiskey tax, unfairly apportioned to favor large Eastern producers at the expense of small Western producers, was about Federal power, about using an army to enforce taxes, and about taxes to pay Federal debt incurred to reward States that had not paid their debt incurred during the Revolution, and to effectively penalize States that were fiscally responsible and had paid their debt.
      As usual with Hamilton it was about Federal power, and the exercise of it.
      The morality of drinking liquor had nothing to do with it – and the Founders had no such thoughts about it. There was not a peep about it until the tax grab 5 years later. Furthur proof is evident in the fact that drinkers could keep drinking as much as they wanted as long as they paid the higher prices necessitated by the tax.
      It is indeed sadly ironic that the Revolution was supposedly fought in response to British taxation (which had been largely rescinded anyway), and the first military action after the Revolution by the Federal government was against citizens protesting against unfair taxes.
      Anyway, I have always thought the Revolution was about a bunch of slave-holding landed aristocrats who ordered luxury goods from Britain but didn’t want to pay.

      • People

        Eastern producers.. What were the rum distillers doing at this time? Contacts with lawmakers?

        Rum was associated with sugar cane and slave trade, which was associated
        with a certain people, who are also associated with banking. Who also loaned money for revolution.

        Whisky by comparison was an individual affair, widely dispersed.

        Certain people have a history of securing monopolies from gov’ts in exchange for access to capital.

        Instead of circular arguments concerning the theoretical, why not look at communications surrounding law makers at the time? Who precisely?

loading