I don’t even know where to begin in responding because it is obvious you haven’t remotely thought this through and I don’t have the time or the desire to go through the entire analysis. The EU example proves the opposite. The EU involved long separate and distinct state entities voluntarily coming together to strengthen their political situation (reduce the risk of future wars between the nations) and slowly economically integrate to collectively raise standards of living. It was the result of centuries of wars and political disputes and it took decades to get to the current structure. The USA cannot simply separate after 250 years as a nation without disastrous consequences for everyone except perhaps a few wealthy people, various demagogues, and China and Russia and various bad actors. The reality is that small nations are at risk from large ones and the citizens of the USA benefit greatly economically and militarily from being part of a large, powerful nation, despite the many flaws. We need to concentrate on improving the current structure and not throwing caution to the wind with magical thinking about the purported benefits of a breakup of the most successful nation in the history of the world. I would respectfully suggest you focus on other topics.
I’m very surprised to see your comment here. I think Max’s views on decentralization are well-known among his readers, and I’m sure most of us would agree with hm. Given your comments, I’m curious as to what attracted you to his blog in the first place.
> "it is obvious you haven’t remotely thought this through and I don’t have the time or the desire to go through the entire analysis."
Anyone who has looked seriously at the idea of a national divorce would know that there are some serious books and essays with compelling reasons for why it is necessary and with practical proposals for achieving it. I’m pretty sure Max is very well-read on this subject and has given the topic more thought and consideration than almost anyone.
> "I would respectfully suggest you focus on other topics."
The current state of affairs isn’t sustainable, and I think some kind of divorce is inevitable anyway. The question isn’t whether it will happen; it is how and when. The more this topic is discussed ahead of time, the more knowledgeable people will be about the options and the better prepared they will be.
Are you aware of the great manure crisis in London 1890s? So many people were moving to London the city streets were filled with horse manure. It was estimated to be 9' deep in like 10 years. But what they didn't see coming was the invention of a new technology - the car. And the manure went away.
We need this. The people in power will never allow a divorce. Not without a war anyway.
Our computer system is corrupted. It is hacked. We have a new way we can fix this (and more) using Human Swarm Intelligence systems - collective intelligence - to run high trust Network States and then run businesses, governments and all systems as swarms.
I don't know a lot about swarm intelligence, but I'll visit your website and read more about it when I'm less busy. In the meantime, I'll just point out that there are numerous historical examples where countries have broken into smaller pieces without a war.
IMHO the EU, while it has of course had some good consequences, is overall an example of the harms of over-centralization. Economically, it has lagged behind the rest of the west. And the heavy-hand of the Brussels bureaucrats becomes more and more felt, as innovation in the EU lags and over-regulation increases.
Although Britain still suffers from its socialism, Brexit happened for a reason. Decentralization is good for the people; centralization is good only for the elites and the rulers.
Decentralization is half the answer. No decentralized system works without transparency though. And collective intelligence also thrives in these two atmospheres so that is what we need to do: Build new transparent and decentralized systems and plug them in to our current corrupted ones.
Also, we edited these statements from the article to more accurately describe the real cause:
Our socio-economic models are corrupted by colluding entities.
Our state and corporate hierarchies are corrupted by colluding entities.
Our belief in the founding ideals is corrupted by colluding entities.
Our systems of mutual aid are corrupted by colluding entities.
Our collective intelligence is corrupted by colluding entities (but VERY fixable with swarm Intelligence ecosystems and network states).
Our civil discourse is corrupted by colluding entities.
Our government is corrupted by colluding entities.
Respectively, we needn't "break up" to achieve the worthy goals you mention.
We need only understand how those who seek to destroy society so we give up the Constitution because we're convinced it "doesn't work" (because it has been ignored or neutered) succeed.
I argue the Constitution is the only thing that stands in our political opponents' way, IF we knew how to call again on it.
Only because it's so powerful and can end The Make-Believe Rule of Paper Tyrants so completely and permanently (outside the election process), does the other side work so diligently to make us believe the Constitution is worthless so we'd willingly give it up.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
That the Constitution has "authorized" "such as government as we have had" or is possibly even currently "powerless to prevent it" ALL ON ITS OWN does NOT mean that with the smallest of help from us now, that it cannot stop all the nonsense going on all around us, outside even the election process (voting and elections--Democracy--isn't going to save our American Republic).
I argue that if we current Americans cannot perform the smallest portion of duty to be informed, that we cannot place the entire blame on those who came before us.
It is our own responsibility to figure out how federal servants successfully act as our political masters and respond accordingly.
We who desire individual liberty and limited government must step up and look behind the curtain, of those who claim the ability to be able to redefine words and phrases of the U.S. Constitution, after they have sworn a binding oath to support it.
In other words, if we don't question those people who claim to be all-powerful wizards, of magical powers, we can't blame only the Framers.
I just visited your blog. I think we’re generally on the same page as far our desire for more liberty. If there were only a few unconstitutional abuses, it might be possible to make some course corrections, but the abuses have become so ingrained in our political institutions, that attempting to disentangle the mess would be impossible, even if we assumed the purest of motives. However, those entrusted with interpreting/misinterpreting the constitution were appointed based on their fealty to the worst abusers, and they seldom forget it.
Respectfully, we face but one political issue federally--which is how those who swear an oath to support the Constitution (which oath necessarily signifies their subservience to that Constitution) so they may exercise its delegated powers may ignore or bypass their normal constitutional parameters, with impunity.
Resolve that, and we may throw off their false rule.
The four issues of my Substack page dated August 16-19 (the four SNIFF videos/pdfs) cover all that, if you'd look closer.
Yes, I agree with your last sentence, but we needn't stand idly by, just like we may fight back against those who would seek to rob us.
We do not face all-powerful wizards we dare not challenge--we may expose their fraud and remove all their false authority.
Nov 16, 2023·edited Nov 16, 2023Liked by Max Borders
"Some might object that the Articles of Confederation were tried and failed."
Indeed, the Federalists claimed that, but the Anti-Federalist claimed the opposite, and predicted that the Constitution was plan for a powerful centralized government.
The Constitution, according to Madison and the other Federalists, included elements intended to prevent exactly the reality that we face today, the deep state, the concentration of illegal powers in Washington DC, and so on. The Constitution failed, so in what sense can we claim that it was not flawed? I.e. the Anti-Federalists were right to oppose the Constitution as a bad plan.
"The evils of anarchy have been portrayed with all the imagery of language in the growing colors of eloquence; the affrighted mind is thence led to clasp the new Constitution as the instrument of deliverance, as the only avenue to safety and happiness."
George Clinton, "Antifederalist No. 6, The Hobgoblins Of Anarchy And Dissensions Among The States", Anti-Federalist Papers (1788)
"Here [in the Constitution] is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain... revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe; similar examples are to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome—instances of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few."
Patrick Henry, a speech at the Virginia Ratification Convention, opposing ratification of the new Constitution (1788)
I would argue that there isn't a concentration of "illegal powers" in Washington, D.C., not when Art. I, Sect. 8, Clause 17 allows Congress to specifically exercise "exclusive" legislation authority therein "in all Cases whatsoever."
Ratification of the U.S. Constitution DIVIDED allowable governing powers in the Union into enumerated federal powers and reserved State powers.
However, Clause 17 CONCENTRATED all governing powers within D.C., for D.C., so no governing powers are there ever shared with any State of the Union.
All that we face therefore beyond the spirit of the Constitution is an allowed special authority deviously exercised beyond allowable boundaries.
So, we need to quit calling all these federal actions within the letter of the Constitution FOR the District Seat (facially) "unconstitutional" or "illegal."
We simply need to get precise enough to accurately diagnose what we face, so we may prohibit the false extension of an allowed special authority beyond allowable boundaries.
The anti-federalists haven't actually named the government we face today, except as they specifically pointed to Art. I:8:17.
When 98% of current federal action exists under the special 1% of the Constitution for the highly-unusual exception to all the normal rules, we've got to understand what they are doing, so we may stop them.
They are only all-powerful, where they may exercise all governing powers (in D.C., and other exclusive legislation parcels). Everywhere else, their powers only extend to the named powers, exercised using necessary and proper means.
Corruption authorized it. The Constitution and federalism and the power of separate states WAS decentralization for the time. But it is all corrupted now.
We need to make new systems that make the old ones obsolete.
"Corruption" doesn't and can't "authorize" anything.
The only thing to figure out is "how" the Constitution appears to be "corrupted," when it cannot be, and finally respond accordingly.
In other words, we don't "need" to "make new systems" that make "the old ones obsolete" (that is precisely why our political opponents seek to destroy society, to get us to conclude that, so they may co-opt that effort, and put in what they have always sought [inherent power])--we need instead figure out how those who do as they please are able to pull off their spectacular political coup, given their sworn oaths to support the Constitution and finally end their false reign.
Which we can do, outside the election process--because all who exercise delegated federal powers must swear an oath to support the Constitution, which signifies their subservience to it.
All who exercise delegated powers are therefore powerless to change the Constitution or their allowed powers they may everywhere directly exercise.
Instead, they merely bluff their way, using the highly-unusual exception to all the normal rules of the Constitution in such a way, that we don't understand what they are doing. We must learn and respond.
Quite frankly, this is nuts. A separated United States would be weaker economically and militarily. Our collective standard of living would collapse as the dollar would no longer be the reserve currency. There would be tariff wars between states and complete economic chaos. Forget Social Security or Medicare and unified defense. This is poorly thought out without thoughtful consideration of adverse consequences.
First, ask yourself whether the European Community (EC) was economically weaker than the EU. I would argue that the EU is weakening by the day, but the EC was an economic bloc dedicated not to currency harmonization and authoritarian control, but rather trade and loose interdependence. Next, ask yourself whether Switzerland is weakened by its canton system and its unwillingness to join the EU. It would seem like Switzerland is the healthiest country in the EU, apart from little Liechstenstein, which is also not a member. I am all for the conservative idea of Chesterton's Fence, or "if it ain't broke don't fix it," but America is broke in myriad ways.
Second, the dollar will soon not be the world's reserve currency. Why anyone would think that would or should last forever is baffling to me. The BRICS nations are quietly forming a bloc and a reserve currency. And dollars will resume being printed out of thin air very soon as the federal government can't stop itself from spending. The dollar is still king because every other currency is even more debased. But that is not an argument for preserving the dollar regime -- even if the rest of the world cared to, which it does not.
Finally, whether and to what extent there would be trade and tariff wars among the states is an open question. I would hope that that would not happen. As with the EC, you could have a relative free trade bloc among states. In other words, this breakup could happen on a continuum. I'd be happy if we went back to, oh, I don't know, enforcing the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, which proscribes 90 percent of what the federal government does.
In any case, I assure you I have thought this out -- far more than this exercise in pamphleteering would suggest. But if you think this is poorly thought out, I would say: let's come up with a friendly wager. If you think preserving the status quo is a good thing, we could do a bet of some sort. I realize timing and luck are big factors, but I'm not sanguine about the future of this country absent some means of decentralization. I'm a writer, so don't have that much to wager. But I could be something. Whattya think?
I think Hoppe does a decent job of explaining why smaller nations must be freer, both with their policies toward their own citizens and with regard to trade. Autarky is difficult for small states to pull off, and starting trade wars is not in their interest…any more than it is in their interest to drive off their best and brightest with oppressive tax and regulatory regimes.
The only marchers holding Tiki torches are "undercover" FBI agents, like the ones who occupied the Capitol Building on Jan 6th.
It's sure starting to look that way. Michael Shellenberger is doing yeoman's work to reveal this utter rot.
To continue the divorce analogy…
I do not feel like one of the married couple in this abusive relationship. Rather, I feel like a teenage child of those squabbling parents:
"Mom, Dad, you'd be a lot happier if you'd just break up already. But even if you don't…it's only a matter of time before I am outta here."
I don’t even know where to begin in responding because it is obvious you haven’t remotely thought this through and I don’t have the time or the desire to go through the entire analysis. The EU example proves the opposite. The EU involved long separate and distinct state entities voluntarily coming together to strengthen their political situation (reduce the risk of future wars between the nations) and slowly economically integrate to collectively raise standards of living. It was the result of centuries of wars and political disputes and it took decades to get to the current structure. The USA cannot simply separate after 250 years as a nation without disastrous consequences for everyone except perhaps a few wealthy people, various demagogues, and China and Russia and various bad actors. The reality is that small nations are at risk from large ones and the citizens of the USA benefit greatly economically and militarily from being part of a large, powerful nation, despite the many flaws. We need to concentrate on improving the current structure and not throwing caution to the wind with magical thinking about the purported benefits of a breakup of the most successful nation in the history of the world. I would respectfully suggest you focus on other topics.
I’m very surprised to see your comment here. I think Max’s views on decentralization are well-known among his readers, and I’m sure most of us would agree with hm. Given your comments, I’m curious as to what attracted you to his blog in the first place.
> "it is obvious you haven’t remotely thought this through and I don’t have the time or the desire to go through the entire analysis."
Anyone who has looked seriously at the idea of a national divorce would know that there are some serious books and essays with compelling reasons for why it is necessary and with practical proposals for achieving it. I’m pretty sure Max is very well-read on this subject and has given the topic more thought and consideration than almost anyone.
> "I would respectfully suggest you focus on other topics."
The current state of affairs isn’t sustainable, and I think some kind of divorce is inevitable anyway. The question isn’t whether it will happen; it is how and when. The more this topic is discussed ahead of time, the more knowledgeable people will be about the options and the better prepared they will be.
Are you aware of the great manure crisis in London 1890s? So many people were moving to London the city streets were filled with horse manure. It was estimated to be 9' deep in like 10 years. But what they didn't see coming was the invention of a new technology - the car. And the manure went away.
We need this. The people in power will never allow a divorce. Not without a war anyway.
Our computer system is corrupted. It is hacked. We have a new way we can fix this (and more) using Human Swarm Intelligence systems - collective intelligence - to run high trust Network States and then run businesses, governments and all systems as swarms.
Like a plug in to fix a corrupted computer.
I don't know a lot about swarm intelligence, but I'll visit your website and read more about it when I'm less busy. In the meantime, I'll just point out that there are numerous historical examples where countries have broken into smaller pieces without a war.
Look at the top 20 freest economies in the world. Which ones are big?
Heritage.org/index
IMHO the EU, while it has of course had some good consequences, is overall an example of the harms of over-centralization. Economically, it has lagged behind the rest of the west. And the heavy-hand of the Brussels bureaucrats becomes more and more felt, as innovation in the EU lags and over-regulation increases.
Although Britain still suffers from its socialism, Brexit happened for a reason. Decentralization is good for the people; centralization is good only for the elites and the rulers.
All centralized systems can be corrupted.
Very true. Decentralized, spontaneously organizing systems, such as 'swarms', are not controlled and so are immune to corruption by controllers.
Stunning image that sticked me on an emotional level (like the child of these two), and which uniquely compliments the article.
Decentralization is half the answer. No decentralized system works without transparency though. And collective intelligence also thrives in these two atmospheres so that is what we need to do: Build new transparent and decentralized systems and plug them in to our current corrupted ones.
Also, we edited these statements from the article to more accurately describe the real cause:
Our socio-economic models are corrupted by colluding entities.
Our state and corporate hierarchies are corrupted by colluding entities.
Our belief in the founding ideals is corrupted by colluding entities.
Our systems of mutual aid are corrupted by colluding entities.
Our collective intelligence is corrupted by colluding entities (but VERY fixable with swarm Intelligence ecosystems and network states).
Our civil discourse is corrupted by colluding entities.
Our government is corrupted by colluding entities.
Also
Science is corrupted by colluding entities
Academia is corrupted by colluding entities
Food supply is corrupted by colluding entities
Medicine is corrupted by colluding entities
and more
Respectively, we needn't "break up" to achieve the worthy goals you mention.
We need only understand how those who seek to destroy society so we give up the Constitution because we're convinced it "doesn't work" (because it has been ignored or neutered) succeed.
I argue the Constitution is the only thing that stands in our political opponents' way, IF we knew how to call again on it.
Only because it's so powerful and can end The Make-Believe Rule of Paper Tyrants so completely and permanently (outside the election process), does the other side work so diligently to make us believe the Constitution is worthless so we'd willingly give it up.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
Lysander Spooner
That the Constitution has "authorized" "such as government as we have had" or is possibly even currently "powerless to prevent it" ALL ON ITS OWN does NOT mean that with the smallest of help from us now, that it cannot stop all the nonsense going on all around us, outside even the election process (voting and elections--Democracy--isn't going to save our American Republic).
I argue that if we current Americans cannot perform the smallest portion of duty to be informed, that we cannot place the entire blame on those who came before us.
It is our own responsibility to figure out how federal servants successfully act as our political masters and respond accordingly.
We who desire individual liberty and limited government must step up and look behind the curtain, of those who claim the ability to be able to redefine words and phrases of the U.S. Constitution, after they have sworn a binding oath to support it.
In other words, if we don't question those people who claim to be all-powerful wizards, of magical powers, we can't blame only the Framers.
Matt,
I just visited your blog. I think we’re generally on the same page as far our desire for more liberty. If there were only a few unconstitutional abuses, it might be possible to make some course corrections, but the abuses have become so ingrained in our political institutions, that attempting to disentangle the mess would be impossible, even if we assumed the purest of motives. However, those entrusted with interpreting/misinterpreting the constitution were appointed based on their fealty to the worst abusers, and they seldom forget it.
Respectfully, we face but one political issue federally--which is how those who swear an oath to support the Constitution (which oath necessarily signifies their subservience to that Constitution) so they may exercise its delegated powers may ignore or bypass their normal constitutional parameters, with impunity.
Resolve that, and we may throw off their false rule.
The four issues of my Substack page dated August 16-19 (the four SNIFF videos/pdfs) cover all that, if you'd look closer.
Yes, I agree with your last sentence, but we needn't stand idly by, just like we may fight back against those who would seek to rob us.
We do not face all-powerful wizards we dare not challenge--we may expose their fraud and remove all their false authority.
"Some might object that the Articles of Confederation were tried and failed."
Indeed, the Federalists claimed that, but the Anti-Federalist claimed the opposite, and predicted that the Constitution was plan for a powerful centralized government.
The Constitution, according to Madison and the other Federalists, included elements intended to prevent exactly the reality that we face today, the deep state, the concentration of illegal powers in Washington DC, and so on. The Constitution failed, so in what sense can we claim that it was not flawed? I.e. the Anti-Federalists were right to oppose the Constitution as a bad plan.
"The evils of anarchy have been portrayed with all the imagery of language in the growing colors of eloquence; the affrighted mind is thence led to clasp the new Constitution as the instrument of deliverance, as the only avenue to safety and happiness."
George Clinton, "Antifederalist No. 6, The Hobgoblins Of Anarchy And Dissensions Among The States", Anti-Federalist Papers (1788)
"Here [in the Constitution] is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain... revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe; similar examples are to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome—instances of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few."
Patrick Henry, a speech at the Virginia Ratification Convention, opposing ratification of the new Constitution (1788)
I look to the worries of Jefferson and Yates, too. Brutus I is, well, brutal in its foresight.
I would argue that there isn't a concentration of "illegal powers" in Washington, D.C., not when Art. I, Sect. 8, Clause 17 allows Congress to specifically exercise "exclusive" legislation authority therein "in all Cases whatsoever."
Ratification of the U.S. Constitution DIVIDED allowable governing powers in the Union into enumerated federal powers and reserved State powers.
However, Clause 17 CONCENTRATED all governing powers within D.C., for D.C., so no governing powers are there ever shared with any State of the Union.
All that we face therefore beyond the spirit of the Constitution is an allowed special authority deviously exercised beyond allowable boundaries.
So, we need to quit calling all these federal actions within the letter of the Constitution FOR the District Seat (facially) "unconstitutional" or "illegal."
We simply need to get precise enough to accurately diagnose what we face, so we may prohibit the false extension of an allowed special authority beyond allowable boundaries.
The anti-federalists haven't actually named the government we face today, except as they specifically pointed to Art. I:8:17.
When 98% of current federal action exists under the special 1% of the Constitution for the highly-unusual exception to all the normal rules, we've got to understand what they are doing, so we may stop them.
They are only all-powerful, where they may exercise all governing powers (in D.C., and other exclusive legislation parcels). Everywhere else, their powers only extend to the named powers, exercised using necessary and proper means.
Ha! You beat me to the Spooner quote.
His logic is inescapable.
Corruption authorized it. The Constitution and federalism and the power of separate states WAS decentralization for the time. But it is all corrupted now.
We need to make new systems that make the old ones obsolete.
"Corruption" doesn't and can't "authorize" anything.
The only thing to figure out is "how" the Constitution appears to be "corrupted," when it cannot be, and finally respond accordingly.
In other words, we don't "need" to "make new systems" that make "the old ones obsolete" (that is precisely why our political opponents seek to destroy society, to get us to conclude that, so they may co-opt that effort, and put in what they have always sought [inherent power])--we need instead figure out how those who do as they please are able to pull off their spectacular political coup, given their sworn oaths to support the Constitution and finally end their false reign.
Which we can do, outside the election process--because all who exercise delegated federal powers must swear an oath to support the Constitution, which signifies their subservience to it.
All who exercise delegated powers are therefore powerless to change the Constitution or their allowed powers they may everywhere directly exercise.
Instead, they merely bluff their way, using the highly-unusual exception to all the normal rules of the Constitution in such a way, that we don't understand what they are doing. We must learn and respond.
Quite frankly, this is nuts. A separated United States would be weaker economically and militarily. Our collective standard of living would collapse as the dollar would no longer be the reserve currency. There would be tariff wars between states and complete economic chaos. Forget Social Security or Medicare and unified defense. This is poorly thought out without thoughtful consideration of adverse consequences.
First, ask yourself whether the European Community (EC) was economically weaker than the EU. I would argue that the EU is weakening by the day, but the EC was an economic bloc dedicated not to currency harmonization and authoritarian control, but rather trade and loose interdependence. Next, ask yourself whether Switzerland is weakened by its canton system and its unwillingness to join the EU. It would seem like Switzerland is the healthiest country in the EU, apart from little Liechstenstein, which is also not a member. I am all for the conservative idea of Chesterton's Fence, or "if it ain't broke don't fix it," but America is broke in myriad ways.
Second, the dollar will soon not be the world's reserve currency. Why anyone would think that would or should last forever is baffling to me. The BRICS nations are quietly forming a bloc and a reserve currency. And dollars will resume being printed out of thin air very soon as the federal government can't stop itself from spending. The dollar is still king because every other currency is even more debased. But that is not an argument for preserving the dollar regime -- even if the rest of the world cared to, which it does not.
Finally, whether and to what extent there would be trade and tariff wars among the states is an open question. I would hope that that would not happen. As with the EC, you could have a relative free trade bloc among states. In other words, this breakup could happen on a continuum. I'd be happy if we went back to, oh, I don't know, enforcing the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, which proscribes 90 percent of what the federal government does.
In any case, I assure you I have thought this out -- far more than this exercise in pamphleteering would suggest. But if you think this is poorly thought out, I would say: let's come up with a friendly wager. If you think preserving the status quo is a good thing, we could do a bet of some sort. I realize timing and luck are big factors, but I'm not sanguine about the future of this country absent some means of decentralization. I'm a writer, so don't have that much to wager. But I could be something. Whattya think?
I think Hoppe does a decent job of explaining why smaller nations must be freer, both with their policies toward their own citizens and with regard to trade. Autarky is difficult for small states to pull off, and starting trade wars is not in their interest…any more than it is in their interest to drive off their best and brightest with oppressive tax and regulatory regimes.