Posted on 12/21/2009 10:05:52 AM PST by NewJerseyJoe
On June 21, 2000, a 39-year-old California businessman, Stuart Alexander, shot three government meat inspectors to death. Alexander’s sausage plant had just re-opened after losing its federal license in January. The two federal inspectors and state inspector were reportedly there to serve another citation. The bureaucrats said his products didn’t conform to health regulations; Alexander said not a single customer had complained about product quality in the 79 years since his great-grandfather started the business.
On June 21, 2000, a California businessman shot three government meat inspectors to death. In the wake of the shooting, friends called Alexander a good, but troubled man who felt he was being persecuted. One, Ellen Luque, commented, “[He] got a bad deal from the very beginning. Maybe too much came down on him all of a sudden.”
Others, however, spoke of a hothead who hated following rules and who’d once been accused of beating up an elderly neighbor for snapping photos of his messy backyard. A widely reprinted report from Knight-Ridder Newspapers opened with a comment about Alexander’s “anti-government wrath” and noted:
“…acquaintances say he also carried a grudge against fire marshals, police, building inspectors and nosy neighbors — anyone he felt was burdening him with unnecessary red tape. …”
“I don’t think he was trying to get away with wrongdoing — he was just somebody who doesn’t have a lot of patience for the government process or regulations,” said San Leandro City Councilman Gordon Galvan, who grew up with the man accused of fatally shooting three inspectors Wednesday at his meat plant. “He thought the bureaucrats were putting too much burden on the small-business owner.”
This shooting eerily echoed one committed by New Hampshireman Carl Drega in 1997. After years of trying to “fight city hall” in the courts over property rights, Drega finally reached his line in the sand after state troopers stopped him for having rust holes in the bed of his pickup truck. His toll: two troopers, a newspaper editor and a judge he believed was persecuting him.
After the California killings, a newspaperman tracked me down and asked me to comment. What, me? How did a mainstream reporter even know of my existence, and what could I possibly say about a shooting a thousand miles (and a whole world) away? But I didn’t have to ask what made him think of me.
America is at that awkward stage.
It’s too late to work within the system,
but too early to shoot the bastards.
Since then, I’ve heard those words quoted thousands of times. I’ve watched people argue about whether it is or isn’t “time.” Whenever some new government abuse makes the news, someone is bound to wisecrack, “Is it time yet, Claire?” Most alarmingly, I receive occasional glassy-eyed e-mails from strangers assuring me that the instant I issue the order, my Faithful Self-Appointed Lieutenant will remove any nearby oppressors from the face of the earth. (No such orders shall be forthcoming.)
Morally, of course it’s time to shoot the bastards.
Obviously, I voiced something a lot of people have been thinking about. Four years have passed since I flippantly said it’s too early. Is it time yet to shoot the bastards? At least it seems time to take keyboard in hand and give a straight answer — yes, no, maybe and whatever turns your crank.
Morally, of course it’s time to shoot the bastards. It has been since long before I wrote those sentences — before I learned my ABCs, before anybody reading this was born.
It was time the first day the first court upheld the first blatantly unconstitutional law for the sake of political expediency. It was time the first day the fedgov got the notion to use regulations or executive orders to control We the People, rather than merely the internal workings of agencies. All the abuses since – ninja raids, confiscatory taxation, rules too obscure to comprehend, bullying bureaucrats, millions imprisoned for victimless crimes, burgeoning nanny state, ever-increasing centralized control – are government gravy. The truth is, morally it’s been “time” since at least Lincoln’s day. And it’s time now.
It was time the first day the first court upheld the first blatantly unconstitutional law for the sake of political expediency. It’s past time, since all those earlier Americans failed to get out the tar, the feathers or the M1 Garands because they were too quiescent, or too persuaded that justice would prevail. Or because — like us — they valued due process and knew the chaos that disregard for it could bring. Or because — like us — they feared the personal consequences. Or because — like us — they weren’t ever sure whether that moment was the right moment.
Whenever it becomes impossible to get justice or have freedom “within the system” of course it’s morally right to fight back. Even Gandhi recognized that, saying:
“He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”
Maybe it was even “time” on the day federal inspectors tried to close down a little, family-owned sausage plant whose product had been safely used by consumers for eight decades. I don’t know. Stuart Alexander thought it was.
But is it practical? Sensible? In that sense, no. And no surprise. It’s not time to shoot.
And for all the individual injustices or perceptions of injustice that always exist in the world, have things gotten any worse in the last four years?
Too bad there’s no Tyran-O-Meter — a gauge, like the atomic scientists’ Doomsday Clock — that could provide a measure of just how close we are to reaching some critical mass of tyranny. If there were, it might show that some things have actually improved since 1996. Back then, the abusive IRS seemed to be going strong despite a lot of talk about alternative tax systems. Today, the IRS is on its knees. The agency openly acknowledges that 65 million Americans scoff at filing requirements (though most, of course, still “contribute at the office,” even if they don’t file their 1040s). Bill Benson’s research showing that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified has within the last year gotten airings in such public forums as C-SPAN and USA Today. And lo and behold, in 1998 Congress passed a Taxpayers Bill of Rights that wasn’t merely a toothless tiger.
In 1996, the 104th Congress regurgitated one law after another designed to bring Americans’ activities under the microscope (if not the immediate control) of federal bureaucrats. Today, under extreme public pressure, Congress is making serious noises about protecting privacy – including undoing some of their own legislation.
A newly aroused public threw monkey wrenches into the FDIC’s Know Your Customer bank-snoop regulations, invasive home health care questionnaires, SSN-based drivers licenses, “unique identifying numbers” for everyone visiting a doctor, and drove the USPS back from the worst of its efforts to control private mailbox holders. Things got so hot that when once-all-powerful OSHA tried to extend its authority into the homes of telecommuting workers earlier this year the agency was forced to retreat in a single weekend — no hearings, no lengthy debates, just a whimper. (God bless the Internet and several key groups of activists who used it so well.)
As of August, a new law put the burden of proof on government in civil forfeiture cases, protecting the property of many innocent owners.
While Australia and Britain bowed meekly to confiscation of firearms, American citizens stood adamant. Congress dared pass few new anti-gun laws. Even our polite Canadian neighbors — too genteel even to rebel against King George III — have rebelled against their 1995 universal registration law, making enforcement almost impossible.
In the rowdy West, when the Forest Service refused to re-open a washed-out road to a recreation area, thousands resisted, forming the Jarbridge Shovel Brigade — and re-opened the road themselves, to nationwide cheers and support. The fedgov may yet have the last word — but this time they knew better than to come in with tanks, helicopters and ski masked faces. Some of these are very, very big things. All are encouraging signs that Americans may yet be able to take back freedom without shooting. In light of that, maybe some would think I should be revisiting the other part of my statement, that it’s “too late to work within the system.” Aren’t all these advances evidence that “the system” can still work for freedom?
I still don’t think so.
On the other hand …
Aside from a heightening of public consciousness on privacy issues, there hasn’t been a single actual improvement in freedom’s circumstances. At best, activists have merely slowed the advance of tyranny. Even at that, the meaning of some apparent triumphs is unclear. The IRS’s collapse may be merely a PR ploy to prepare the way for yet another giant federal tax system. Federal revenues (including income tax revenues) haven’t suffered. On the contrary, according to 1999 Congressional Budget Office figures, “During the past five years, federal revenues have increased at an average rate of 8.3 percent a year … Consequently, revenues as a percentage of GDP have risen from 18.4 percent in 1994 to 20.5 percent in 1998 and will reach a postwar high of 20.7 percent in 1999 …”
Some of the so-called privacy protection measures Congress is considering would make matters worse — for instance, by giving a federal “privacy czar” regulatory power over private databases.
Some of the so-called privacy protection measures Congress is considering would make matters worse — for instance, by giving a federal “privacy czar” regulatory power over private databases. The number of wiretaps is soaring, cell phones have been mandated into tracking devices, the CIA admits to backing snoop technology firms, and the FBI has announced numerous initiatives to spy upon the innocent and guilty alike.
The public beat back many invasive regulatory proposals — but often not until the damage had been done. And regulatory proposals are still coming at us like something from a John Carpenter movie. (As James Bovard writes in his book I Feel Your Pain, during the Clinton administration “…Federal agencies issued more than 25,000 new regulations — criminalizing everything from reliable toilets to snuff advertisements on race cars.”)
The drug war still rampages on, having ravaged lives, property rights and the ideal of honest law enforcement beyond repair. Prison populations continue to bloat.
The drug war — though increasingly losing its moral sanction — still rampages on, having ravaged lives, property rights and the ideal of honest law enforcement beyond repair. Prison populations continue to bloat.
If Congress didn’t act against gun-rights, the executive branch did. The FBI has learned (no doubt to its bureaucratic glee) that it can halt all dealer gun sales in America, simply via a computer system glitch — as it did for three days earlier this year, during the height of weekend gun shows. Though entitled by law to go on selling when the “instant background check” database is unreachable, dealers are too terrified of federal enforcers to do so. And the Clinton administration has used federal clout and lawsuits to pressure, if not cripple, the firearms industry.
The courts have already held, in Paladin Press’s Hit Man case, that the mere act of selling a book to a stranger can be culpable.
It is now a federal crime — with Draconian prison sentences to publish details about “destructive devices.” Theoretically, the punishments only pertain if you have reason to believe your audience intends to commit a crime. The courts have already held, in Paladin Press’ Hit Man case, that the mere act of selling a book to a stranger can be culpable. Congress is now considering a bill with virtually identical language forbidding anyone to teach, publish or otherwise convey information about “controlled substances.”
In 1996, the federal government gobbled up $1.538 trillion of our substance. The OMB’s estimate for fiscal year 2000 spending is $1.766 trillion, and for FY 2001, $1.835.
Although federal civilian employment is actually down, the number of federal police has increased by 21 percent.
Although federal civilian employment is actually down (2,799,000 today vs 2,895,275 in 1995 — with no figures available for 1996), during the same period, the number of federal police has increased by 21 percent (86,087 to 104,096). Anyone wonder why they’re needed — when actual crime nationwide has been dropping?
Is America still “at that awkward stage”? More than ever. The movement to reduce government’s grasp is certainly at a more awkward stage than it was in 1996. We’ve fought for liberty — some of us for years, some for decades. Nothing great has happened. But neither — lately — has anything catastrophic — just the usual crawl toward total government domination. And the nation is content. Even we have trouble sustaining our sense of urgency. What are we malcontents shouting about? Things aren’t so bad. Eventually, we begin to feel a sense of unreality, of sensory deprivation from our lack of connection to what our neighbors and the media tell us is the real world. We become uncomfortably numb. On top of that, many of us threw a lot of energy into preparing for The-Y2K-That-Wasn’t. Though we all officially dreaded Y2Kaos, the truth is we needed a crisis that would bring matters to a head. When nothing happened a lot of us felt like the girl who’s gotten all dressed up for the dance, only to have her date not show.
But now we’re just exhausted and dispirited. If some Prince Charming showed up and offered to sweep us off to the Freedom Ball in his coach, we might just say, “Not tonight, Prince Baby. I’m tired.”
Unless some unforeseeable trigger event strikes, we may remain at that awkward stage for a long time (maybe decades). Liberty will continue to erode, but not so fast we’ll jump out of the boiling pot. Freedom lovers will continue to shout that they’d rather die on their feet than live on their knees — but will go on living on their knees. Congress and regulators will make minor adjustments when angry people make things hot for them, but will always gradually work toward total control. And the few poor saps who take action to halt it will languish in prison or the grave.
In his Sept. 21, 1997 column on Carl Drega, Vin Suprynowicz pegged the whole situation:
“The problem … [is] that our chemical castration is so gradual that there can NEVER be a majority consensus that this is finally the right time to respond in force. In this death of a thousand cuts we’re ALWAYS confronted with some harmless old functionary who obviously loves his grandkids, some pleasant young bureaucrat who doubtless loves her cat and bakes cookies for her co-workers and smilingly assures us she’s “just doing her job” as she requests our Social Security number here … our thumbprint there … the signed permission slip from your kid’s elementary school principal for possessing a gun within a quarter-mile of the school … and a urine sample, please, if you’ll just follow the matron into the little room …”
It doesn’t take an oracle to know that anyone who starts shooting government agents now is going to hurt himself more than the system. And no Minutemen are going to rush to the aid of Stuart Alexander. No members of the “Henry Bowman Brigade,” inspired by John Ross’ novel, Unintended Consequences, are going to take some future Carl Drega’s act as a signal to follow suit.
Still, an increasing number of Alexanders and Dregas, standing on their own individual Concord Greens, will decide: No more. And I can’t by any means declare that it will never be me, or thee, or my next door neighbor who discovers one day that it is time to shoot, even if the entire rest of the world disagrees.
But am I gonna say you should turn meat inspectors into meat? Am I going to suggest you rig a bomb to the engine of your local tax man’s car? No way, not me. (If you do, make sure his wife and kiddies aren’t the next ones to get into the vehicle, though. That isn’t playing nice.)
Is is time? Morally, yes. Absolutely. If you do it, and if there’s a heaven, I hope you get a good seat. Is it time? Morally, yes. Absolutely. If you do it, and if there’s a heaven, I hope you get a good seat. But if you pot a bureaucrat figuring it’ll light some fire under the cold, dead butts of a complacent nation … good luck.
As long as we have a chance of electing Sarah in 2012, it’s no time.
If you still believe changing the figurehead will change anything..
WEPIN Store.com is still in business? Amazing. I remember downloading the complete site back around 97 or so.
Claire has moderated quite a bit lately. Become more of a community oriented activist than an outright revolutionary.
I remember I was deeply honored when she published one of my pieces on her website.
You either don't know or reject the purpose of government as espoused by the Founders. You are pure bluster. I enjoy toying with you at this forum.
I think Masison was worried about the young Republics survival on a financial and organizational basis. I have read about the post revolutionary debt turmoil leading to Shay’s rebellion and similar incidents. The states were only looking after their own interests and letting the larger republic flounder.
Many felt we would soon fall apart and be devoured piece meal.
I often wonder what might have been different if his friend Thomas Jefferson had been in the country for the framing--if he'd been there. Jefferson surely demonstrated a greater mistrust of government than Madison. TJ trusted Madison, and seems to have somehow been a bit of a centrist on the issue of the Constitution, but I wonder if he'd have had a different view if he'd been there. I even wonder if it was an accident or not that he was out of the country at the time.
The state Constitutions were a prelude to the federal Constitution. There is hardly a single idea or article contained in the federal Constitution that was not proposed or essayed in a state Constitution.
Are you saying that Jefferson would have demanded staying with the Article? Since you despise the Constitution and admire the Articles, how can you support someone who supported the Constitution?
A sensible person might say that such a government would have too much power. They might say that such a government is too large, its officeholders too far removed from the people to be just and fair. They might say that given the tendency of governments to accrue power, they might construe their power in such a way as to obliterate the powers, rights, and sovereignty of the nations under it. They might say that a republican form cannot properly function over so vast a territory, over a population with such varied and disparate interests. They might say that centralized power is mortally dangerous, and that once it grabs hold of power, it is extremely difficult to overcome. They might say that small, state-governments, representing small, parochial territories, and more likely to be just, and less likely to expand their power beyond all bounds. They might say that numerous smaller republics provide a safeguard against tyranny, whereas under one unified supreme system, there is nowhere to turn. They just might say these things.
Liberty is the objective. Not republicanism. Liberty is the end. Republicanism is the supposed means to secure that end. And as we have seen, republicanism, when improperly employed, can become an instrument of tyranny.
I'm saying that my impression of TJ is that he had a much fiercer, more pronounced mistrust of government generally than his friend Madison did, and that his presence might have made some bit of difference.
It's not a question of "support." You continually revert to this sort of emotionalism, as if the choices are blind loyalty or ad hominem. I'm talking about the ideas they espoused, the documents they produced, the arguments they made. It's not personal. But with you, nothing short of reverence will do. They were men, not gods. Their ideas were written on paper, not etched in stone beside a burning bush.
You're entitled. Personally, I wish you would bring something substantive and challenging to the discussion, rather than just sappy emotionalism and petty needling. I truly enjoy real debate and discussion and always learn from it. It is the fire that forges one's ideas. You offer none of that. But if you like being a source of white noise, I can't stop you.
You still don’t know the purpose of government.
So you don’t think the US government should include a judiciary?
You are pure emotionalism. Constitution = bad, therefore those who supported it were “bad.” Madison, Washington, Hamilton, Jay, Jefferson = bad.
Confederacy = good, Henry = good.
You do not provide evidence of the superiority of confederacies because their benefits are grossly outweighed by their deficiencies. You only criticize and demean the remarkable work of brilliant men. It must be horrible to be you, to despise your country.
From the article:
In 1996 I scrawled a pair of sentences that resonated with a lot of freedom activists.
Four years have passed since I flippantly said it’s too early.
[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
And who was it that wrote the opinion? Framer and signer of the Constitution, John Marshall. Here we see Jefferson, like his pal Madison, seemingly non-plussed by the utterly predictable and logical application of the Constitution.
He had been out of the country, so I guess he hadn't had the chance to read Antifederalist 80:
They [the courts] will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution that can correct their errors, or control their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal. And I conceive the legislature themselves, cannot set aside a judgment of this court, because they are authorised by the constitution to decide in the last resort. The legislature must be controlled by the constitution, and not the constitution by them. They have therefore no more right to set aside any judgment pronounced upon the construction of the constitution, than they have to take from the president, the chief command of the army and navy, and commit it to some other person. The reason is plain; the judicial and executive derive their authority from the same source, that the legislature do theirs; and therefore in all cases, where the constitution does not make the one responsible to, or controllable by the other, they are altogether independent of each other. The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.
Or Antifederalist 82:
They will be able to extend the limits of the general government gradually, and by insensible degrees, and to accommodate themselves to the temper of the people. Their decisions on the meaning of the constitution will commonly take place in cases which arise between individuals, with which the public will not be generally acquainted. One adjudication will form a precedent to the next, and this to a following one. These cases will immediately affect individuals only, so that a series of determinations will probably take place before even the people will be informed of them. In the meantime all the art and address of those who wish for the change will be employed to make converts to their opinion.
Or maybe he simply trusted the arguments set forth by his dear friend Mr. Madison. Fitting, in a way, that Madison should have been a party to the case that officially announced the death knell of his ideas.
What remains for us, those living under the system, is to figure out how to correct the problem. Jefferson himself had no answer. He tried to form one, with his Kentucky Resolutions, but that was improvised, and didn't work. Elsewhere he suggests that judges should be impeached, but that doesn't work either, for the power of impeachment lies within the same national government, and the branches usually are in agreement when power is expanded. He suggested the legislature should be the final decider of the Constitutionality of the laws it passes, but that ignores the power inherent in the other branches. The SCOTUS, as the last resort, trumps all. Some have suggested occasional conventions of the people to decide such questions. Others believe the SCOTUS should have a jury.
There has to be some form of federal judiciary, to decide strictly federal questions. In the old confederacy, judges were temporarily appointed by the Congress for that purpose, and their jurisdiction was quite limited. I think if it were truly a federal system---a confederacy---you could let the Congress decide for itself on questions of "constitutional" meaning. What rules one might want to govern such decisions, I'm not sure. Unanimous consent? Majority? Super-majority? Maybe first the Congress, then the state legislatures? It's an interesting question. What is clear is that what we have is, as Jefferson described it, despotic. Pity he and his friends didn't see it coming.
So how would you have modified the Articles?
Not at all. It shows that he had a keen perception of what was happening, and didn't want his name and reputation co-opted by the nationalists.
At the time, the correct thing to do was to make only those changes that they had been asked to make.
What should they have done?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.