A Re-Declaration of Independece

A Re-Declaration of Independence

A lot of people say that the US government should return to the principles of the original US Constitution. Going back to the US Constitution is pointless. The US Constitution is already a failed and discredited model of government, because it led to the current corrupt system. Suppose it were possible to return to the original US Constitution, with a sharply limited government, no central bank, no income tax, and sound money. After another 20-50 years, the situation would again deteriorate to the system in place now.

Once you allow *ANY* legitimacy to government and taxes, then the State grows to the point where it consumes practically everything. Suppose you accept that another person has the ability to use violence to forcibly take 1% of your property. Then, eventually, that person will be able to use violence to take 99% of your property.

Instead of returning to the principles of the original US Constitution, people should return to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. At some point, people should say "This government isn't working for me. It's time to try something else."

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

At some point, it's necessary to get rid of your government. If you never do this, no matter what abuses occur, you're a slave.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Notice the sharply different attitude compared with the way the State presently works. People have intrinsic rights. In the present, people believe their rights derive from the State. For example, the 1st amendment says that people have a right of freedom of speech. In the present, people believe that they have the right of freedom of speech because the first amendment says so. In 1776, if you asked someone, they would say freedom of speech is a natural human right. Any government that denies people freedom of speech is obviously illegitimate (as England did in 1776). They put that in the Bill of Rights, because they were worried that people in the future would have stupid ideas about disallowing freedom of speech.

The Bill of Rights is *NOT* a list of rights that people have. The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions on what government is permitted to do. Originally, the Federal government was sharply limited and only had specifically enumerated powers.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

This is the current "illegal immigration" debate. There's enough material on that for a separate post.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

Judges have an inherent conflict of interest, especially in cases involving taxes or cases where a policeman is the defendant.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

I read that the Department of Homeland Security has more pork and political appointees than any other government agency. Most government jobs are sinecure; they're rewards for political donations or other favors.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

The increasing militarization of local police is the equivalent of a standing army.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation.

In many cases, international treaties take precedent over US laws. Such treaties are passed directly or indirectly. For example, political leaders may agree to a treaty, but implement it by passing laws rather a formal treaty ratification.

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.

People are forced to pay the cost of the military via income taxes. It isn't as blatant as quartering the troops directly in your house, but income taxes are equivalent. Approximately 25% of the US economy is spent on the military.

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states.

When police are on trial for abusing their power, the result frequently is a slap on the wrist. This is what happened in the Sean Bell incident, but that's just one example of many abuses.

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world.

The USA's primary export is money supply inflation. US manufacturers cannot compete with a piece of paper.

For imposing taxes on us without our consent.

I don't consent to the income tax and all other taxes. What right do other people have to steal from me, even if a majority or supermajority consent to it.

The slogan of the US Revolution was "No taxation without representation." This time, the slogan will be "Taxation is theft!" or "No taxation at all!"

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury.

Trial by jury has been effectively repealed.

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses.

This hasn't happened to US citizens (yet). Guantanamo Bay is an example of inappropriate transportation of suspected criminals.

Sometimes, a criminal trial will be moved to another jurisdiction, if it is believed that local jurors would be sympathetic to the defendant.

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies.

Common law was effectively repealed by a US Supreme Court decision in 1938. Only criminal law, contract law, and military law may be argued in a court. If you're facing criminal charges for tax evasion, a "common law" defense is inadmissible. If you argue "Not paying income taxes is not a crime; I didn't directly injure anyone", then the judge would hold you in contempt of court for saying that.

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments.

The income tax and Federal Reserve completely altered the original aspects of the US Constitution.

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

In many cases, Federal law has usurped state law. For example, many people in California want to decriminalize marijuana, but are barred by the Federal government.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

As above, the increased militarization of police is effectively war waged on ordinary people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the head of a civilized nation.

Private military contractors, such as Blackwater, are mercenary armies that aren't subject to the rules that normal soldiers face.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Whenever a large group of people try to assemble peacefully, State agent provocateurs will join the group. There's a joke circulating: "How can you tell who is the Fed spy planted in your group? He's the guy suggesting you blow stuff up!"

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Voting is pointless. Peaceful protests are a waste of time. Violent protests are a waste of time, because the State has superior resources. Violent protests create sympathy for the State, and violent protests are a violation of the Non-Aggression principle.

What happens if you petition the government for redress of grievances, and the government's response is "Go **** yourself!"? Plenty of people have petitioned about the immorality/illegality of the Federal Reserve and income tax, and they have been ignored.

We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

The bad guys had given plenty of opportunities to correct the abuses of the current economic and political system. They have ignored their responsibility.

At what point do you say "This government isn't working for me. It's time to try something else."? If you don't conclude that already, what further abuses are you waiting for?

People who say "Return to the original US Constitution" are placing the debate in the wrong frame. "Return to the Declaration of Independence" is more appropriate.