Comments (13)

• David Barrett

  I agree with the heart and conclusion if this article, and I would only take exception with the beginning in regard to the foundation of equality. For this we must go to an unpopular philosopher, but one which I believe has been widely misunderstood due to the circumstances under which he had to write--Thomas Hobbes. When laying out his formula for natural rights, which were subsequently advanced by Locke and Jefferson, Hobbes found the source of equality, not in otherworldly metaphysics, but in the fact any man can kill another (whether through brute force, conspiracy, or secret machinations). And it was this realization that led to Jefferson's fear of releasing the tail of the wolf (slavery).

  Published: July 3, 2007 9:57 PM

• Vince Wallgren

  Wholeheartedly concur with Mr. Chodorov's premise. I would, however, like to point out—lest we forget—that the principle beneficiaries of the product of the 16th Amendment are those who own the Federal Reserve Banks. Isn't one of the first rules of war/revolution: "know your enemy?"

  Published: July 3, 2007 10:21 PM

• Jason

  I agree with the premise. It seems to me that modern man fears each other and thus the state too much for revolution to occur.

  Published: July 4, 2007 1:00 AM

• bill wald

  Time to repeal the Constitution and reise the Articles of Confederation to meet the present geological situation of 50 sovereign states.

  By the way, any "profit" from the Fed goes into the U.S. Treasury.

  Published: July 4, 2007 12:15 PM

• Joe Stoutenburg

  I appreciate Mr. Chodorov's essay and agree with his analysis. His final suggestion that a new revolution is in order is complicated however. In the Revolutionary War, it was more of a sense of "us against them". The colonists wanted to be independent of King George.

  From whom do we wish to be independent now? The practice of democracy and secret voting obscures who we are really fighting.

  I recently discovered an excellent essay by Lysander Spooner (url below). It's a lengthy and sometimes challenging read but well worth it in the context of defining (or not) who is the enemy. Keep in mind that he wrote this shortly after the War between the States. What might he have written after 1913???

  http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/spooner1.html

  Published: July 4, 2007 12:34 PM

• Mark B.

  bill wald:

  I have actually drafted a revived "Articles" that would fix the weaknesses of the original but retain the loose confederacy structure of the original. Most importantly, it strips both the central confederacy and the individual states of the ability to inflate the economy, which would on its on strip a lot of potential for abuse.

  Published: July 4, 2007 4:42 PM

• country mouse

  the arguments are all very well and good but you do not answer a few important issues. The one foremost on my mind is the issue of unelected governance. In theory, one can negotiate any contract but that theory is predicated on the assumption that both parties are of equal or comparable power. If you're purchasing a home and the only choice you have is to buy a home with a homeowners association or to not buy, that's no choice and you have no recourse to this unelected governance.

  I'm also wondering about corporations. They are notorious for abusing people (there's a reason why they call it wage slavery) yet there is no recourse for misbehavior except maybe going to the courts. Again, unequal power makes it highly unlikely you will prevail when right.

  The third form is the criminal element. Again, unequal power makes it unlikely you can stand up to them and survive. They will just bully you into paying what ever protection money they can get and there are no guarantees that your private protection force won't be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the criminal organization.

  Yes, government abuse but private parties have more significant and far ranging abuse with pollution, physical degradation, and toxic products (see Chinese food, toothpaste etc) not to mention restrictions on product use.

  revives away but it won't minimize abuse until nobody has any more power than anybody else.

  Published: July 4, 2007 6:33 PM

• Mark Brabson

  country mouse:

  I would assume by the criminal element, you are refering to the organized portion of that element.

  Organized crime is merely a creation of government. Eliminate drug laws and all vice laws and you will eliminate organized crime. Black markets cannot exist in the presence of free markets, so organized crime cannot exist.

  Published: July 4, 2007 7:20 PM

• Anthony

  The corporate charter (its limited tort liability element) is an excellent way to foster irresponsible attitudes. Blame this on the government. Cartelization and heavy regulation weakens competition. Blame this on the government. IP laws foster inefficiency. Blame this on the government. Competition in free markets limits abuse. Not government.

  Published: July 4, 2007 9:29 PM

• TGGP

  there's a reason why they call it wage slavery
  The reason is that "they" are idiots.

  The government has a monopoly on the use of violence within its geographic territory. Corporations are not comparable. The amount of people killed by their governments in the 20th century ("democide" as R.J. Rummel calls it) far exceeds that of anything governments protect us from.

  You frequently discuss "power", but you have not defined the term. You are not using it as a physicist might, as in energy per second. You talk about "equal or comparable", but in what unit are you measuring this "power" and how would you ever know whether it was "equal or comparable"? It is as if you are using a metaphor from physics or math and attempting to apply it to social interaction, but leaving it too vague to actually operationalize it and say anything!

  Published: July 5, 2007 8:11 AM

• E Roberts

  We need a full scale revolution. We need to convince the military to take the lead. If the members of the military were simply properly informed of the farce of the Iraq war - I think it would be enough to push them forward. The Iraq war is a war for profit only. It is meant to be SUSTAINED - not won. That region is meant ot be divided up, control of the oil maintained and permenant military bases established to launch more wars on surrounding oil bearing countries. If the military understood how much pawns they have become - it would help to convince them to storm the white house, drag the criminals out by their hair and put them on trial for murder and treason. I saw an incredible film recently called "Zeitgiest" - google search for it or go to zeitgeistmovie dot com to see it free. It changed my whole outlook.

  Published: July 5, 2007 3:22 PM

• billwald

  Generally the people behind a successful revolution are a new and increasing middle class. As the high paying middle class jobs move off shore and the service industry grows there is less and less chance of any kind of revolution.

  The ability to plan ahead depends upon one's event horizon. As the middle class increasingly worries about the future of their jobs, their event horizon shrinks.

  The NEA plus the AARP can swing any election. No one will be voted in in any national position who proposes to reduce the financial security of the retired people and the teachers.

  
  

  Published: July 9, 2007 1:28 PM

• jomama

  Indeed the state is an unwanted predator yet so
  few 'get it', which means to me they're either
  ignorant or figure the predation is worth it or
  habits die hard.
  
  
  I'm surprised it and its victims have survived this
  long.
  
  
  But, revolution? Why? To install a new set of
  predators? What a waste and unnecessary.
  
  
  Let it collapse of it's own weight while helping
  in your own small way.
  
  
  
  Won't be long now, I expect.

  Published: July 20, 2007 11:44 AM