Political Theft, Constitutional Edition

While reading another American Vision article, I came across this:

The problem is, as I have written elsewhere, this power enshrined in the Constitution was only ever intended to be a revenue generator for the Federal government. It was about money, control, and corporate welfare, period, and John Marshall openly said so. In Gibbons v. Ogden (1821) he wrote:

Few things were better known, than the immediate causes which led to the adoption of the present constitution; and he [the plaintiff, on the nationalist side of the case] thought nothing clearer, than that the prevailing motive was to regulate commerce. . . . The great objects were commerce and revenue; and they were objects indissolubly connected.

Likewise, Madison admitted in a letter that one of the chief ends of the Constitution was “to take from that State [New York] the important power over its commerce.” In other words, the purpose was to create a federal level of government which could take control over state’s revenues and commerce—thereby taxing and controlling people and businesses at will.

The political drive to steal from people you don’t like, to give to yourself and your friends, is the fundamental reason why today’s state exists. Gary North recently wrote on how much freedom we have lost since 1913 – and noted that, in order to get back what we lost, we will also have to give up some of our stolen goods. Too bad nobody is interested in this.

And the key reason nobody is interested in this? Why freedom has become simply unimportant, worthy only of lip service? It is because Christians have chosen other political gods to kneel to, instead of King Jesus.

As Marc J Victor put it, in a recent post to legalize meth production and usage:

The relevant question is whether our society would be better served if meth was manufactured, distributed, bought and sold legally.  The answer is yes.  There are two related but separate reasons why ending the drug war is critical.  First, a free society requires that the drug war end.  I refer to this argument as the freedom argument.  Second, the consequences of ending the drug war would yield economic and other benefits which would greatly benefit our society.  I refer to this argument as the consequentialist argument.

Most readers will not be persuaded by the freedom argument.  This fact is disturbing to me.  In fact, many of the issues which plague our world will persist unless and until people come to respect the principles embodied in terms such as individual responsibility, self ownership and freedom.  These concepts are what our country was founded upon and the very reason why America prospered.  Now, they are given mere lip service if they are considered at all.  If you shrug your shoulders and brush off the freedom argument, you should be ashamed of yourself.  Whether you realize it or not, you are the problem.

Also, read this lawyer’s article recommending the end of the “DUI” offense. Yes, drunk driving should be legal, as it isn’t a crime to be drunk… but only to harm people and property. If someone can drive safely fully loaded, then let him drive.

Yes, drunkenness is a sin, but it simply isn’t a crime to be punished by the magistrate, so far as the Bible is concerned. But Our Moral Betters – HA! – hate the freedom and liberty of Christ, so…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s