As the US slides toward $40 trillion in debt, we have very little time to act. And by "we" I mean We the People acting through our state legislatures to invoke Article V.
I don't place much stock in the idea of a convention of states. At best, it would fail to get the votes do propose anything. At worst, it would have the votes to propose a lot of bad stuff.
When the US government defaults on its debt, we'll all get hurt. But that is a when, not an if.
I wish I could disagree with this more but I don't. So let's assume you're right. What do we (those who anticipated it) do when the default-and-collapse happens?
I wish I had good answers for that, but I don't. I expect the formally constitutional (but in practice ad hoc) regime to collapse and be replaced by something else ... but likely with a chaotic interregnum. Off-the-cuff analogy: Russia, 1917-1923.
Would it be nice if there was a well-organized anarchist bloc capable of preventing new statist formations? Sure. But highly unlikely. I'm not wealthy, but I keep a certain amount of valuable metal around, and occasionally get off my ass and plant a garden. I need to get better at that last one, though.
The key to it all is the Commerce Clause. The ‘original intent’ of the Commerce Clause was to prevent states forming gangs and restricting trade among the states. The ‘original intent’ was to create The Free Trade Zone of The United States.
It turns out this was a power Congress never needed because the states were so busy making money nobody imagined collusion might increase their take. Yet it’s soooo convenient. Look: we can tax firearms when they move interstate (NFA-34); we can charge license fees for trucks that cross state lines (ICC); we can ban marijuana because being stoned negatively affects how much money is made in interstate commerce (WarOnSomeDrugs); we can control your garden because those tomatoes are taking bread out of the mouths of farmers-who-ship… you get the idea.
Fix that and you've cleared the problem. Fail to fix that and you will get to do it all over again.
A dangerous path forward? Hopeless? Too late? The law of unintended consequences? The potential to corrupt the process and twist it exactly the opposite way of the intended good?
It seems undeniable that something like this should occur. It is playing within the rules. And good for the cause of civilization, in my opinion. What emergent drive can set this in motion? Do we have it within ourselves?
I try to stay optimistic, but the mathematical realities behind the federal debt are staggering. I didn't even go into unfunded liabilities into the future.
Personally, I am rather nervous about what happens if we were to convoke the States (I say 'we' as a resident, not a citizen). Don't get me wrong, it would be fascinating and the potential is palpable... but I'm not sure we can take this path without securing free and open discourse first. There are a lot of people out there keen to pursue amendments for their own purposes... and fiscal responsibility is a low priority for a great deal of politically active folk in the US, who don't seem to have wrapped their heads around this 'money' concept.
How confident are you that taking this path would lead to the destination you're proposing...?
I view it as a desperate move and unlikely to succeed, yet I don't see why doing so would be contingent on securing free and open discourse, particularly when debt spending is exactly what feeds Big Brother and the Censorship Industrial Complex.
Just a pragmatic concern about what happens if the tribes collide without having had the conversation first. But you're quite right that the effort to shut down the conversation is part of the deeper problem. It's a true Gordian knot, this one, alas.
Too late. Secession, and the concomitant abolition of the so-called union, is the only hope.
I almost 100 percent agree. This is what you might call an Overton Hail Mary. When the proverbial hits the fan, secession will be all that is left.
I don't place much stock in the idea of a convention of states. At best, it would fail to get the votes do propose anything. At worst, it would have the votes to propose a lot of bad stuff.
When the US government defaults on its debt, we'll all get hurt. But that is a when, not an if.
I wish I could disagree with this more but I don't. So let's assume you're right. What do we (those who anticipated it) do when the default-and-collapse happens?
I wish I had good answers for that, but I don't. I expect the formally constitutional (but in practice ad hoc) regime to collapse and be replaced by something else ... but likely with a chaotic interregnum. Off-the-cuff analogy: Russia, 1917-1923.
Would it be nice if there was a well-organized anarchist bloc capable of preventing new statist formations? Sure. But highly unlikely. I'm not wealthy, but I keep a certain amount of valuable metal around, and occasionally get off my ass and plant a garden. I need to get better at that last one, though.
The key to it all is the Commerce Clause. The ‘original intent’ of the Commerce Clause was to prevent states forming gangs and restricting trade among the states. The ‘original intent’ was to create The Free Trade Zone of The United States.
It turns out this was a power Congress never needed because the states were so busy making money nobody imagined collusion might increase their take. Yet it’s soooo convenient. Look: we can tax firearms when they move interstate (NFA-34); we can charge license fees for trucks that cross state lines (ICC); we can ban marijuana because being stoned negatively affects how much money is made in interstate commerce (WarOnSomeDrugs); we can control your garden because those tomatoes are taking bread out of the mouths of farmers-who-ship… you get the idea.
Fix that and you've cleared the problem. Fail to fix that and you will get to do it all over again.
No successful socialist system has been implemented. Destruction of the state is necessary but not its replacement.
A dangerous path forward? Hopeless? Too late? The law of unintended consequences? The potential to corrupt the process and twist it exactly the opposite way of the intended good?
It seems undeniable that something like this should occur. It is playing within the rules. And good for the cause of civilization, in my opinion. What emergent drive can set this in motion? Do we have it within ourselves?
Thanks for the thought provoking article.
Chris
I try to stay optimistic, but the mathematical realities behind the federal debt are staggering. I didn't even go into unfunded liabilities into the future.
Hi Max,
Personally, I am rather nervous about what happens if we were to convoke the States (I say 'we' as a resident, not a citizen). Don't get me wrong, it would be fascinating and the potential is palpable... but I'm not sure we can take this path without securing free and open discourse first. There are a lot of people out there keen to pursue amendments for their own purposes... and fiscal responsibility is a low priority for a great deal of politically active folk in the US, who don't seem to have wrapped their heads around this 'money' concept.
How confident are you that taking this path would lead to the destination you're proposing...?
I view it as a desperate move and unlikely to succeed, yet I don't see why doing so would be contingent on securing free and open discourse, particularly when debt spending is exactly what feeds Big Brother and the Censorship Industrial Complex.
Just a pragmatic concern about what happens if the tribes collide without having had the conversation first. But you're quite right that the effort to shut down the conversation is part of the deeper problem. It's a true Gordian knot, this one, alas.