A Note on Magic Words and Secret Formulas
Posted by Thomas L. Knapp on Mar 10, 2010 in Commentary • 4 commentsLast Sunday, I was invited to appear as a guest on “Anarchy Time,” an Internet Radio talk show. Three guesses as to the topic. I had a great time and look forward to future appearances, but I’d like to revisit the particular topic that a caller pointed this episode toward.
The caller claimed that it’s not necessary to eliminate the state because those who desire freedom can get what they want by doing what he’s done: Filing paperwork declaring one’s self a “sovereign,” after which one is immune to those depredations of the federal government which violate natural law. The details were kind of fuzzy, but that doesn’t really matter — the idea is of a general type which is worth discussing.
The general type I’m speaking of is the “magic word” or “secret formula” scheme, under which adherents claim that government can successfully be held to a particular interpretation of laws which restrains its powers to those which are “legitimate.”
The particular interpretation and the set of “legitimate” powers varies from theory to theory, but all of the schemes have something in common: They assume that there’s some standard to which government can be held merely by invocation of that standard.
I’m not going to go into the details of these various theories, which run the gamut from “the 14th Amendment created a new type of citizenship, and I’ve declared myself an old-style citizen” to “the 16th Amendment wasn’t ratified” to “this or that section of the tax code proves that I don’t have to pay.”
I’m not going to go into those details because there’s no reason to. The assumption on which all such schemes operate is a false assumption, and therefore all such schemes fail before the details become important.
One of the theories underlying the American system of governance is “separation of powers,” which supporters of the Constitution assert creates a system of “checks and balances” which ultimately serve to secure our liberty. If the President becomes a tyrant, Congress or the Supreme Court can put him in his place. If Congress passes unconstitutional laws, the President can veto them or the Supreme Court can overturn them. If the Supreme Court upholds bad law, Congress can pass better law or the President can appoint wiser judges when vacancies occur.
It’s a nice theory … but one that simply doesn’t describe the real world. In the real world, politicians have more in common with each other than they have in common with those whom they claim to rule. They’ll occasionally limit each others’ power, but only by way of striking a balance of power that leaves them all more, rather than less, powerful … and you a little or a lot less free.
America’s jails and prisons are overflowing with defendants who’ve broken no law which the US Constitution could conceivably be interpreted to authorize.
The obvious example of that is marijuana smokers and dealers. There’s no specific constitutional provision for outlawing marijuana, nor is there any reasonable argument for “original intent” allowing it to be outlawed (George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention of 1787 before he presided over the nation that convention created, grew the stuff himself). Yet hundreds of thousands are arrested each year on marijuana possession or trafficking charges.
Another obvious example is prosecution on “gun charges.” The text of the Second Amendment is not unclear, nor is there any serious question as to its original intent — what’s there to misunderstand in “shall not be infringed?” Every last “gun control” law on the books is plainly and irrefutably unconstitutional. And yet gun sales and possession are held hostage to “permit” schemes and “violators” receive long vacations in the Graybar Hotel.
The idea that invoking “the rules” against a government will force it to lie down obediently at one’s feet and accept a leash around its neck is beyond superstitious — it’s foolhardy. There are no magic words. There is no secret formula. The relationship between government and governed is inherently adversarial. Even the most determined efforts to make it otherwise have historically failed (usually sooner rather than later). Appealing vainly to those efforts rather than accepting the reality (that it’s them or you) and acting accordingly is a fool’s errand.
Thomas L. Knapp is Senior News Analyst and Media Coordinator at the Center for a Stateless Society (c4ss.org).
The most amusing of these that I've seen recently is "de jure postal service." Apparently some clowns think they can mail a letter for two cents if they use the "de jure postal service" instead of the corporation USPS. Heh. Something tells me a lot of "postage due" letters are showing up.
There is a constitutional provision for treaties, and there were treaties relating to trafficking in narcotics which were signed and ratified by the Senate in the 1920s. You could look these up. The focus of these treaties and the laws to enforce them was the essentially racist Progressive Era doctrine that blacks, Asians, Mexicans, etc. must be forced to work, else they would smoke pot, or opium, or chew peyote, or what have you. Like many of the other problems inherent in the state, such as gun control, marriage apartheid, the drug laws result from a period when racism was ascendant. Saying that the government's laws are unconstitutional is interesting, but kind of a labyrinth for the mind.
It is because there is no magical formula to free yourself from government control – no set of hoops they give you that you can (or should) jump through, that makes being a sovereign individual very easy. All you have to do is declare yourself free. As Etienne de la Boetie noted almost 500 years ago, you can relieve yourself from burdens that the beasts themselves would not bear, simply by declaring yourself free. Withdraw your support from the system, and encourage your friends and neighbours to do likewise, and you'll see it falter and sway.
For the system depends on people to impose the tyrannical requirements of the system. It is not the president's fists that beat up suspects, it is not his eyes that spy on everyone, it is not his ears listening in to every phone call simultaneously. Without taxes, soldiers, tax collectors, thugs, spies, pigs, bullies, the system wouldn't work.
Meanwhile, no matter what you declare, no matter what you believe, the system exists and is in everyone's faces all the time. So it would be well to get off the grid as much as possible. Agorism has a Taoist component to it, of reducing what you desire so it is easier to get those things without being a part of the system and contributing to your own oppression.
The relationship between the governed and the government is war. The war on drugs and the war on terror are the explicit declarations of war by the government on the American people.
Great pieces both Tom and Jim. Just my two cents on the DRug War, look how in 1919 the Pols thought they needed a constitutional amendment to ban liquor — and then another one in 1933 to repeal the ban. In a mad dash to save the former liquor agents' jobs, however, in 1937, they wordlessly eschewed that amendment process — and the Drug War's been going on ever since. Hell, now Congress doesn't even both to declare war, they just give the Executive a rubber stamp. Needless to say, it ALL HAS TO GO, PERIOD.
It makes one nostalgic for that bygone magic word (and lost countervailing power) "Stop! In the name of the Queen!":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYLRAUiZ_Ms
Thanx Alex. I would like to say that there is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. It is most excellent that you and many others here in this site say "it all has to go." And it does.
But it doesn't tell us how to get there. And I'd really like to get there.