Writing the New Texas Constitution: Avoiding Inherent Flaws

I hear a lot these days about the constitutionality of secession. In this article, I will prove that the Constitution is without authority and that the subject of secession related to the Constitution is entirely irrelevant, and that any states need not concern themselves with the constitutionality of secession.

A constitution, or any document organizing a government, must have authority and validity. But the US Constitution has no inherent authority or validity and has never had either. If we can learn what the US Constitution is and what it is not, we can understand the flaws in the old constitution and then craft a new Texas constitution with authority and validity.

I believe that one of the major reasons that Washington is able to operate as it does, outside the strictures of the Constitution, is because those persons in power know that the Constitution is not legally enforceable. Absent a restraining legal document, they do exactly what they wish and what they can get away with.

The US Constitution has the following words in its Preamble, showing the intent of the Framers:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the united States of America.

So what exactly is this Constitution?

I think it could only be called a “loose agreement” between certain people at the time that it was written and ratified. It is not a treaty ratified between sovereign states, which would have the weight of law. It cannot be considered a legal contract, since legal contracts have characteristics that the old constitution does not have.

It was ratified by votes in the several states. But ratification in any form didn’t turn it into a legal document with enforceability and authority.

The old constitution’s sentiment seeks to secure blessings to themselves and their posterity, meaning future generation of citizens. But a loose agreement cannot by law or reason bind any future person to its details. Contracts cannot obligate persons who will live in the future, either. They can only obligate persons who are living presently and who sign and receive the contract.

The old constitution is not a legal contract. The Constitution never bound any two or more parties in a legal way, nor did it ever purport to bind anyone. A timeless principle in contract law is that the contract is not valid until the contract is signed by all parties and delivered to the parties, or the representative of any signatory party. Any party may refuse to sign or deliver a written instrument and thus invalidate the contract. The US Constitution was not signed by anyone or anyone’s legal representative. It was not delivered to anyone or their representative. No one in the USA, either alive or dead, has ever signed the Constitution as a legal contract between parties. So how could it be a legal document with binding authority or validity?

Contracts are also voluntary. The parties come together for a purpose, but are free to dissolve the contract based upon the terms of the contract. Even if they leave contrary to the contract terms, there can be consequences, but they can still leave.

Lincoln was completely right in this matter. His position was that, once in the Union, no state can ever leave. And if the US Constitution was an enforceable contract between parties, his position would have been rejected instantly and laughed out of any court in the land. But in light of the unenforceable nature of the Constitution, Lincoln was free to do what he pleased as it related to the Confederate States of America and war. But the Confederate states were also right to secede from a Union that could not bind them. Constitutionality was irrelevant.

Even though the old constitution wishes to bestow blessings and liberty on their posterity, it has no power whatsoever to achieve this goal. Further, it never showed any intention toward future generations other than to offer useful recommendations to their posterity toward the blessings of liberty. If they were in some way able to bind future generations to the Constitution, they would not have bestowed liberty but slavery upon their posterity, since their children would be bound to it from birth, like it or not.

The Constitution is not a perpetual corporation. The perpetuity of a corporation would require that new members voluntarily assent to its laws and by-laws as old members die off. New members must sign on because without their legal signatures, they would not be members and could not vote on corporate issues. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Framers intended the US Constitution to be a corporation’s organizational document.

So we can see that the Constitution is not a contract. It binds no one, and never did bind any persons. We see that all those who pretend to operate under its perceived authority act without any legal and legitimate authority.

Those who support the Constitution fall into three classes:

1. Parasites who see the government as an instrument they can use to further their own desires or increase their own wealth.
2. Credulous dupes. Credulity is defined as willingness to believe, especially on slight or uncertain evidence. Dupes believe that they are “free men” living in a “democracy” in the greatest country on earth. Dupes vote for the very agents who enslave, rob and murder themselves and their fellow citizens.
3. Bystanders who are aware of the evils of the government but are unwilling to place their own interests at risk to work at making a change.

But we voted and elected these Representatives and Senators. They are our duly elected officials, aren’t they?

Are our elected representatives our personal agents with legal authority to bind each of us individually and collectively? No they are not. In order for you to have a legal representative, you must sign your name to a document that gives the representative the power to act in your behalf. This document is commonly known as a “power of attorney.” You must also deliver the document to the agent.

Did you ever sign a power of attorney so that any elected officeholder could make binding decisions on your behalf? Did you authorize any person to obligate you to laws, regulations or the payment of taxes to any governmental body? I know that I have not done so.

And the secret ballot makes the concept of any elected representative acting as your agent even more ridiculous. How could secret voters hire an agent? How could secret voters enter into a power of attorney agreement?

So we see that those persons acting as our elected representatives are acting unlawfully, and that we have both the right and duty to treat them as usurpers and frauds.

Then upon what authority does the Federal Government operate? Who gave them the authority to enact laws, tax, confiscate men’s property and kill other men who resist their machinations?

You could say that voters select their representatives by ballot, and so bestow authority upon them. But in matter of law and reason, this is not true. It would not be upheld in a court of common law. If you and three of your friends voted in favor of a proposal in which a fourth friend would take it upon himself to deprive me of my property or my life, he would be a robber and/or a murderer. If he presented himself at my door to do his work, he would be unable to produce any legal authority to complete his task. Absent legal authority, I should treat him as a robber and murderer and resist his efforts even unto deadly force.

In a courtroom, a judge would ask to see your representative’s written authority to act in your behalf. You would be unable to produce such written authority.

So voting is neither a contract nor a power of attorney. And secret ballots should never be considered legally binding, since no signed contract between parties ever existed. Further, if voters authorize another person to act as their agent, they should do so in an open manner so to accept responsibility for the agent’s acts. That’s called “liability,” and that’s what happens out here in “the real world.” But the US Constitution, in Article I, Sec. 6, says that “for any speech or debate (or vote) in either house, they (Senators or Representatives) shall not be questioned in any other place.” So your agent cannot be held responsible for any laws they make…and neither can you. So, if no one is responsible, who is responsible?


And let’s return to the subject of legal authority. The Constitution has no legal authority to bind any two or more persons. If it did, you would possess a copy upon which you would find your own signature and at least one other person’s signature. But that document does not exist in any form and has not existed in over 235 years. So, absent that authority, voting is only theater. It is an exercise in making the citizen feel that he is participating in a legitimate government.

The Federal Government in Washington has been illegitimate from its origin. There is no enforceable law to restrain it from any act. It was only the morality and ethics of the earliest founders that restrained them from tyranny. Unfortunately for Americans, that morality and ethical restraint are a quaint memory.

OK. Convinced that the old Constitution is a cruel joke? Then, how can the new constitution be crafted to guarantee legitimacy and legality? If the framers of the new constitution just write one like the old one, it will suffer the same illegitimacy issues as the old one.

Here’s a suggestion on how to write a new Texas Constitution.

Form the new Texas as a Non-Profit Corporation…Texas, Inc. The Constitution can be its laws and by-laws. Each person will be given the option to subscribe to Texas, Inc. and become a citizen. That person would have to be presented with a copy of the Constitution. Each person would have the choice to accept the Constitution in writing. Once accepted, each citizen would be, in essence, a shareholder in the corporation, since a person could not be a citizen/shareholder without signed consent. Each citizen would be issued one share of common stock. That would also mean that those rejecting the constitution could not be Texas citizens. Minors could not be Texas citizens until they were of legal age to enter into a contract, usually eighteen years of age.

Texas Inc. might instead choose a for-profit corporation as its charter entity. In that situation, the general public might be issued one share of common stock when they sign their Constitution. The shareholder/citizens could actually invest their own money in preferred stock. This would provide the new nation with capital. Shareholders holding preferred stock might receive dividends if Texas Inc. makes a profit.

As either corporate structure would be closely-held private corporations, the charter could specify that the stock could not be sold to non-citizens. Only Texas citizens would be eligible to be investors.

The founders of Texas, Inc. would have the right to present the offer of citizenship to anyone anywhere on the planet. They could cherry pick the world for the best and brightest talent! It would be a component of immigration policy.

Voting could be done by proxies, and the citizen could designate his elected representative as his proxy in writing. Or he could vote himself on any issue.

Think this is unworkable? The largest corporations on the planet have been running this way for over a hundred years. GM (pre-nationization), Exxon, Standard Oil, all of the Dow Jones top 30…they all work this way just fine. Many have millions of shareholders, just like Texas Inc. would have.

There are many details that must be worked out that are not listed in this article. But this article was not written to form a new government. It was written to get you thinking about constitutions and how they directly affect YOU.

Thomas Jefferson’s shining jewel, the Declaration of Independence, states that when a government shows a long train of abuses meant to reduce the people under absolute despotism, it is the people’s right and duty to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security. Texas Incorporated could be that new guard that secures the future of a New Texas nation.

Texas, Incorporated. An idea whose time is come.

© Copyright 2009, Russell D. Longcore. All rights reserved.

Thanks and honor go to Michael S. Rozeff, retired Professor of Finance, for his wise counsel and comment. You can read his brilliance at http://www.LewRockwell.com in the Archives.

For a wider analysis of this constitutional issue, read “No Treason,” by Lysander Spooner, 1870.

40 Responses to Writing the New Texas Constitution: Avoiding Inherent Flaws

  1. Mike Wallens says:

    What’s interesting is that it was a Texan, George W. Bush, who instituted many of the policies that threaten to impose fascism on the USA. The Patriot Act was a massive over-reach beyond constitutional authority and yet so-called Conservatives embraced it. Wiser people at the time noted that the Patriot Act could be used against someone in the next administration, an administration not so friendly to conservative values. This doesn’t include Bush’s ridiculous wars that have wasted trillions.

    Texas is currently quite parasitic to federal dollars-numerous DOD facilities, NASA and defense contractors.

    Texas seceding? I dont see it.

  2. dumpdc says:

    GHWB is not a Texan. He is a Connecticut scion of a Congressman. Just because I go stand in the garage doesn’t make me a car. Besides, the level of tyranny you embrace and promote has almost nothing to do with where you live.

  3. Ralph says:

    Your statement on “power of attorney is interesting.

    I ran for state office a few years ago and was given forms requesting information that no citizen can be required to give under 4th and 5th amendments.

    I found that there is another form called “Committee To Elect…” which is also given to candidates to sign.

    In effect, this is little more than form giving power of attorney of the candidate my making him a member of a committee instead of a citizen, thus empowering the state to threaten him with punishment if he fails to inform them of his campaign spending.

    This actually creates a conflict of interest, because the candidate has entered into contract with the state where he runs for election, surrendering power of attorney to the state, and likely considered to have that same power over voters who elect him as their representative.

    I looked at my campaign book for a law granting authority to request that we sign such a form, but there is no such law. The reason being that it is a direct violation of 4th and 5th amendment citizen’s rights.

    Quite simply, this means that all state legislatures are illegal, basing their election of fraud.

  4. DAK says:

    Finished reading Mr. Spooner’s No Treason just last month myself. Found it quite eye-opening. Made his “unfit to exist” quote a sig-line on one of my emails…

  5. Dean Striker says:

    The first half of this paper is fascinating. So we have an illegal Constitution? I think that’s correct.

    The last half deals with thoughts about a way of doing this as a corporation, something with which I have been toying with for quite some time. That could be applied to any “govern”ment anywhere.

    The happy result of that approach would be the keyword “voluntary”, IOW eliminating Force which is effectively the root of all wrongs.

  6. wedeclare says:

    I’ve got three problems with your otherwise very interesting suggestions:
    1. corporations are government creations, aren’t they? Who says what’s “for profit” or “non-profit,” who enforces the distinctions?
    2. Who says what’s a contract/legal and what’s not? Once we invoke the genie of violence (politics/government), doesn’t that violent agent become the decider?
    3. What about the Texans who don’t sign on the dotted line? What rights do they have, and what rights are denied…and by whom?
    I’m very interested in what you’re saying, because I’ve started a little group to write a constitution for a new nation like, you know, Texas.
    (see http://wedeclare.wordpress.com)

    • dumpdc says:

      There is no practical way to have a society and culture without government. Anarchism is too high an ideal for most people. So, we must create rules and regs. The idea of Texas Inc is proffered to bind a government as tightly as possible in a legal way, which the US Constitution never did. Nothing’s perfect, but this might work, and beats the hell out of whatever else is out there.

  7. Dean Striker says:

    okay, so we secede, but but but…
    Texas, like all states, has it’s constitution, and that would be likely to continue. Every level of government has such, and if we wish true Liberty, there is much more to do than merely negate DC.

    We need to work on having people understand that any and every government throughout history has been the tool of Force, and every one has failed because of Force. An awful lot of people have died over this.

    • wedeclare says:

      Agreed, but all constitutions are voided by abrogation/violation already. And without that contractual problem, secession would make both state and federal constitutions irrelevant to the new situation of state. You’d need a new constitution for a new state. Hopefully, that new state would be created on the determination that a sufficient number of citizens want a new state; and hopefully, those citizens would choose to live under Rule of Law as opposed to Rule of Violence.
      The restraint of violence is what my little crew is all about.

      • Dean Striker says:

        A couple of points. While I agree that all constitutions are invalid, what we all observe today is that the powers-that-be will continue to use those as their excuse for continuing the status-quo. Their remaining in control of the vast bulk of tools of force, e.g. armed forces, customs, border patrol, national guard, etc etc seems certain to lead to blood.

        I would be happy to learn that I’m wrong, but all the signs point to an inevitable and total collapse, at which time governments will disappear and anarchy will prevail. Then, assuming humanity doesn’t blow itself to bits on the way down, there will be more realization by those remaining that Liberty must be the priority in anything which might be formulated as a voluntary entity to replace “govern”. Your idea of a corporation seems sensible. When there is no government to dictate or define a corporation as a voluntary association of free people, approval runs to the people directly, and becomes merely an an investment in morality.

        I’m with you, not against you, and hope to be helpful in proceeding to a common objective.

  8. wedeclare says:

    Anarchy will not prevail. We are a species composed of idolaters, sheep, tories, proles and sharks. Our history shows nothing so clearly as an unbroken history of failure at the hands of authoritarians. The few, short-lived bright spots are periods of some degree of Rule of Law. Urukagena, Hammurabi (hey, it was ONLY ONE eye for an eye!) the Magna Carta and our once-precious US Constitution are examples of legal abstraction being publicly held above the abstraction of politics…for just a while.
    I don’t think constitutions are any more invalid than any other abstraction. In fact I’d argue that these golems are more powerful than any of our other idols. And, to whatever degree we believe in them (yes, it’s a little like Tinker Bell), they work better than anything else yet tried.
    Anarchocapitalism sounds great, but it has never happened, and will never happen as long as human beings are in any way involved.

  9. Dean Striker says:

    I predict there will be a period ahead when governments will be rejected and “No Ruler” will be the fact of the day. A voluntary system (“govern”ment would be a misnomer) is possible for reaching a consensus about the relationship between men and the autonomy of all men, which does not need to include Force.

    But we digress, there is an objective ahead, and we’re all here to find the path toward true liberty.

    BTW, Somalia has progressed quite well without government since 1991. The interesting aspect is that the UN and the USA don’t have a clue how to function without Somalia having a government which they can manipulate and control. Actually humorous in it’s own way!

  10. wedeclare says:

    Dean, if you’re right then there’s little for us to do now, and there’s no harm in coming up with a Plan B. If I’m right about what’s coming, however (and I think Human History will back me up), then we’d be sorry indeed if we let human tendencies take the reigns.
    Who wants to rule Somalia? The USA, however, has a growing list of creditors, owners, and aggressors hoping to carve us up like a Christmas Goose.
    If non-government-sanctioned betting were legal in Texas, I’d bet you that we’re headed for much worse than Somalia’s tribalism (it’s not really anarchy at all). But then, I don’t know how I’d collect on the bet; we’ll likely be trading in chicken eggs and haircuts by then.

  11. […] is the full article, by Russell D. Longcore at LewRockwell 24 October 2009 See ditto at DumpDC.com, which is Longcore’s own website, where commenting is […]

  12. Dean Striker says:

    Sorry for my delay, this has been interesting discussion and perhaps we can continue struggle toward a solution, which is sorely needed.

    What I foresee is total economic collapse and USA bankruptcy before much longer. Then we will have anarchy for at least some time-period. That will probably be our ONLY chance to re-establish with a voluntary system which denies Force. Failing that could well mean some fool (there are so many!) starting a war which is likely to quickly become global-nuclear…
    The End.

  13. Dean Striker says:

    wedeclare, I’m off looking over your article and your website, and see we’re of similar mind as I had anticipated. We definitely need to get into gear very soon, the Q is how and what?

    My own Plan B is Personal Secession, posted as
    http://no-ruler.net/blog/secession/ and being fine-tuned for mass distribution.

  14. Tom Utley says:

    This sounds like a great idea but I would only sign onto such a corporation if in it’s charter it included an exact definition of individual rights and that everyone within the geographic area of Texas, Inc. would have their individual rights protected. Citizens could be investors and noone else, but non-citizens would still receive protection of law from the initiation of the use of force.

    Methods of revenue generation could be totally voluntary. Stock sales, lotteries, donations, etc could all be used, but legalized theft (taxes, tarrifs, etc) should be totally abolished.

  15. Dean Striker says:

    Tom, in a more-free society in which you retain the right of choice, then

    You like the corporation, or association, or co-op, you sign on and join in the costs and the benefits.

    Or not, in which case you’re on your own, and should be free to associate with another group which competes for your consent.

    In either instance, at least you are not subject to the Force of government or groups which purport to control you and usurp your means of sustenance for their own purposes.

    The first hurdle we must all overcome is the rejection of existing governments which use their constitution or “law” inappropriately. It’s nice to talk about, but we know they are unlikely to accept our withdrawal without hostility!

  16. Tom Utley says:

    I just won’t support any government (willingly) that will initiate the use of force. In other words, if you get Texas, Inc, in place, and some Texans don’t join, then you can’t just take their money or property or whatnot, and you can’t allow the members of Texas, Inc to do so either.

  17. wedeclare says:

    One of the saddest realities this old anarchist has had to face is that most people really do want oppression. You can’t force freedom on them. And there are only about two percent of us anywhere (and sometimes only two percent within a single family), so that pretty much rules out a truly free state anywhere, any time.
    I think the best we can do is to put a leash on our oppressions in the form of written law.
    I’ve been trying for decades to find people who’ll commit/agree to ANYTHING AT ALL…and so far I’ve failed.
    So as much as I grumble about the problems in our constitutions, I am now forced to admit that they were probably a lightning strike of wisdom that will never happen again in the same place.

  18. Dean Striker says:

    Done right, no Texas Inc or whatever name cannot take money or property, which is of course not the case today.

    We can envision the formation of other corporations for socialists; I’ll love it when they can only redistribute their own assets!

    As it has never been a characteristic of corporate charters to allow it to steal stockholder’s assets (actually, who would sign onto any such??) The sheeple submit readily to government, but never to private corporations. In the free market, which of course includes all corporations “ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances” but Force is not part of the equation, which is why it works!

  19. Dean Striker says:

    @wedeclare, I could not help but chuckle at your…

    “… people really do want oppression. You can’t force freedom on them”

    I have registered the same problem and for many years just pretty well set Action on the back burner. It’s so true, but we must remember that kind of force is no better than any other kind.

    Also an anarchist in principle, but realize it would take 3 generations to un-brainwash the people, and there’s simply not enough time left, hence some Plan B is essential. My own philosophy has shifted toward Voluntary, however that might be accomplished. That brings a need for a word other than “govern”ment, right?

    And in all cases, it must begin with secession, refusal, withdrawal, and ditching our habitual or customary acceptance of oppression by any others, realizing they are humans just like ourselves. Governments on all levels must be rejected – the taxes they all collect for their different modes of oppression must be refused. They’ll all have to go home and get a real job participating in Freedom!

    If we can’t get together on that track, we have probably reached the end of the path. We have seen milleniums of governments fail or be thrown out, so the next wave must be voluntary and sans Force. Nothing else has ever worked, so it must be time to give Liberty a real try.

  20. wedeclare says:

    Dean, if you can find more than six people to create such a society, I’ll join you. But in my years of trying I’ve failed to find more than five who can agree on anything like that…though strangely enough, I’ve had lots and lots of people tell me they’d gladly live under MY governance!
    Most people want to be told what to do. Even more than that, they want somebody to tell their neighbor what to do. They’ll vote for whoever they feel will be most likely to make that neighbor grovel before the great golem of state. What are we to do about that? If those who love liberty don’t shove at least a handful of freedom down unwilling throats, then they’ll turn to despots who’ll think only evil all the time.

    • Dean Striker says:

      WeDeclare, you got me thinking for a bit there, and ya’ know what? I don’t really care much about starting a society; I care more about being free from existing dictatorships rather than about starting new ones.

      Capitalism and free markets don’t require “structure”; we merely allow them space to survive. People can, and will, form voluntary associations, and will formalize those to whatever extent desired.

      Our circles are usually family and very close/true friends. To intrude upon (or to allow to be intruded upon) such circles is the ultimate act of stepping across a forbidden line. Simply knowing and understanding that simple principle means peace.

      • wedeclare says:

        I’m not sure I understand what you’re talking about. Are you saying that you don’t care if the society around you robs you and your loved ones blind? Surely you don’t believe that you can be free of dictators. Unless you find a spot that nobody claims, and find a way to evade detection, you’ll never be free. We The People won’t let you.

      • Dean Striker says:

        Absolutely NOT saying anything of the sort. This website is about secession. This article makes crystal clear that “legal” governments require consent of the governed, that such consent in fact rarely if ever exists. Thus it follows that ‘govern’ments are involuntarily imposed upon the citizenry, which is always cause for secession.

        All ‘govern’ments are supported by usurping the property of it’s citizenry, and exist not by Reason, but by fear. This is true at all levels, from the UN down to the smallest of towns. One cannot “evade detection, nor should one bother. It is not “we the people” who will attack you, it is your Ruler, who can attack only using the resources stolen from you and your family, friends and neighbors.

        Think about it — in all of history no ‘govern’ment has survived indefinitely. All eventually become so oppressive that the people overthrow them. Sadly, then yet another ‘govern’ment is formed, only to become a failure of the future.

        The philosophy of true Liberty is expressed in http://morality101.net/blog/Morality/ plus pages /Force/ and /Sacrifice/. In essence, one cannot have true liberty except by rejecting Force by himself or by all others.

        The moral replacement for ‘govern’ment will be Voluntary.

      • wedeclare says:

        Sigh…I wish I could believe that, Dean. I’m with you in spirit, but we’re outnumbered by at least 98% of the populace.
        I believe as some of the founders did, that even a modicum of liberty must be forced on people.
        But I also believe that many, including Spooner, made a significan mistake about the nature of the constitutional contracts.
        These contracts are republican contracts. The federal contract, for example, applies to federal government, and not to citizens directly. It’s a leash on federal power, not on citizen rights.
        While the constitutional convention was in fact a power grab (the delegates were authorized to only amend the Articles of Confed.), it was still signed by representatives of the people as a restraining order on government.
        That’s what I’d like to do…make a clear restraining order on political power that minimally fulfills what people will demand (oh yes, they’ll demand it), but denies everything else.

      • Dean Striker says:

        Well of course there is as yet no way of being certain, but today we are seeing increasing numbers of people who cannot accept the direction toward collectivism and other Force being paid for by unmanageable debt, so I’ll challenge your 98%.

        We will either accept oppression and die with more of the same, or at this point we will set forth to shed the Force. I’m not trying to convince anyone of exactly the best way of getting there, but we can all see that more politicians and more elections and “majority rule and screw the minority” will accomplish exactly nothing.

        So if not now, WHEN?

      • wedeclare says:

        Don’t overestimate your fellow man. Look at our history…
        If people like you and I are not part of the planning for a new way forward, then who will be?
        Look at how easy it is for GOP flaks like Sarah Palin to grab the keys of the Tea Party and then endorse candidates like Rick Perry and John McCain.
        Don’t confuse voters’ disgust with political arrogance for a libertarian epiphany.
        But then, I hope you’re right and I’m wrong.

  21. Read Starving The Monkeys today!

    Quit feeding the Mobocracy Looter Minions and their hordes of tax-feeding bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries. Quit funding and forging your own chains and shackles. Quit funding, supporting, and turning a blind eye to the perpetual perpetration and jackbooting of your family, friends, associates, and acquaintances.

    Stop funding the welfare. Stop funding the warfare. Stop voting for the lesser tyrant and let all the candidates know that they don’t have your support or your vote or your obedience…regardless.

    Ask those receiving GUNvernment checks for welfare, bureaucracy, jackbooting, and warfare if…to harvest their checks…they are willing to shove a machinegun in your face to get their loot and booty and to continue their gravy train at the tax-feeder trough.

    The honest truth of the matter is that less than one third of the human beings in Amerika are even working at all. Then, a third of those are only in bureaucratic compliance paper pushing jobs that would virtually disappear in the voluntary marketplace.

    So it all comes down to what your neighbors…what your townspeople…what your fellow parishoners are willing to do to you to continue their loot and booty gravy train for just one more day.

    Hey, we didn’t say it would be easy…

    We only said it would be the terrifying truth…

    The soapbox hasn’t worked…what part of NO don’t they understand.

    The ballotbox hasn’t worked…what part of SHALL NOT INFRINGE don’t they understand.

    The jurybox hasn’t worked…what part of FULLY INFORMED JURIES and putting yourself in the accused’s shoes don’t they understand.

    History has repeated proven that those who don’t understand the necessity of BOTH the plow AND the sword…are doomed to plow for others at swordpoint.

    So why not enjoy the shrieks, cries, and gnashing of teeth as you share, promote, and distribute Starving The Monkeys to everyone you can.

    Guaranteed that telling them NO and handing them a business card with http://WWW.STARVINGTHEMONKEYS.COM on it will be much more productive and satisfying than slinging heavy metal.


    There are only two types of human beings

    One type just wants everyone to leave everyone else alone

    The other type refuses to do so while they still breathe

    Sooner or later you will choose the one, or the other

    Hey, what are you waiting for? Start starving the monkeys today!

    Starving The Monkeys Continually And Forevermore,
    John and Dagny Galt
    Atlas Shrugged, Owners Manual For The Universe!(tm)


  22. Dean Striker says:

    Okay Galts, while I’m philosophically with you, your spam is unappreciated and works against you. This forum is working for the way to freedom; join us in the effort toward action!

  23. wedeclare says:

    Guys, this is really simple:
    If those of us on this thread can’t agree on anything, then we’re doomed to humanity’s default state of oppression, slavery, genocide and war.
    We will not change our nature and ascend to anarchic nirvana.

    • Dean Striker says:

      Yes, in a way you’re right. We need agree only that the elements of Liberty are being crushed, and that in some way we must withdraw from and reject the system and start over with a clean slate.

      Who here has a problem with “Voluntary”?

    • wedeclare says:

      My problem with it is that it won’t work, not that I don’t want it.
      We have to come up with a plan. We have to.
      I’ve thrown down a gauntlet here. Anybody game?
      We can discuss ’til we’re blue in the face. But without something we can present to the public, the media, and …get it past ourselves, we’ve got squat and we’ve done squat.

  24. Dean Striker says:

    Okay, you have presented Plan B to the public, and it’s okay. What/how will you tackle the huge task of writing and instituting Plan B as the replacement for a failed Constitution?

    I have presented Personal Secession to the public,
    and I WILL spread that very soon as far as I can reach with the internet, but will that be enough to set the wheels in motion?

    Many do nothing but talk talk talk, but never grab the bull by the horns and ACT.

    Secession, withdrawing, refusing to support bad laws, bad morals, bad politicians and all the rest of Force is the only alternative to revolution in sight.

    e.g. Texas secession if ever successful will leave Texans with a different set of rulers and a lengthy Constitution which fails to deny Force. There are FIFTY states, all with similar flaws. How long with it really take to fix all that? How much time do we have before we’re plunged into the abyss?

    So we ACT, NOW, in whatever way we see fit. That worked in 1776. We must have faith that the cause is right and will bring us far better than what we have! Me? I’m with Patrick Henry!

    • Went to:


      Glad you have established an internet home but for those you meet face to face…those who don’t have and/or those who don’t want to do the internet/online thing…for those folks we have physical copies of Starving The Monkeys in hand to sell/gift/donate/etc. to those we seek and desire to reach and enlighten.

      Again, thank you for contributing your most valuable, precious, and finite asset…YOUR TIME…and thanks for the real-world and interwebs presence and advocacy!

      Keep cutting them from the herd!

      Lighting The Fires Of Liberty One Heart At A Time!

      Starving The Monkeys Continually And Forevermore,
      John and Dagny Galt
      Atlas Shrugged, Owners Manual For The Universe!(tm)


  25. […] is the full article, by Russell D. Longcore at LewRockwell 24 October 2009 See ditto at DumpDC.com, which is Longcore’s own website, where commenting is […]

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: