If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
SOVEREIGNS VS. SUBJECTS
by Gunnery Sergeant John McClain, USMC, Retired, ©2013, blogging at Gulf1
(Mar. 3, 2013) — [Editor’s Note: Please see Part 1 of this series here.]
Capital is the single most critical aspect of “enterprise” in any venue, because it is the sole difference between “tribal living nomadic, hunting gathering life-style” and the “settled, chosen field for agrarian work, chosen for its natural value, and its future prospects.” The first demands acceptance of minimal accumulation, maximum focus on readiness to move on, and the constant threat of confrontation with other, similarly focused nomadic groups. The second can only succeed with the constant repetition of “capital investment,” as stationary without this aspect wears out the “infrastructure;” in this case, the ground, and its nutrients.
Man has learned about “allocation of resources” by the accumulation of experience and well recorded it in our history, back seven millennia. History shows capital allocation is best chosen by those on site, working in the time and place, because they alone can know the multitudinous factors which affect production and productivity; they alone can alter plans on the moment, allocating according to immediate dictates.
The choice man makes in expanding from extended family into “Tribal,” and from that into “culture of common practice” is done as a means of improving productive output, because people can readily see “many hands make light work,” noting differing abilities, and the fact we do best pursuing that which we have talent for and expecting the same from others, open-eyed, intent on a better life for their children.
We establish government because man inherently must confront his fellow man, those who look, see opportunity to take by force, and save labor, and we must organize our defenses no less wisely than those who would wage war and take.
The problem arises because we all have to choose whether to work, or steal. We must have “government” to establish our security, but those who find it satisfying are prone to see it as their way to advance themselves, not caring it is to the detriment of the society. The founding of our own government was a deliberate process, with the sole intention of providing the exact necessities, and precluding any expansion except by the “Will of The People.”
It is the work of the productive which provides all the resources which in turn provide a better life as “society” than was possible as “tribe.” At the same time, it is absolutely true that those who become “representatives” must focus on the known threats and make recommendations for the defense, and since in doing so, we deprive the raiders of their means, we must expect them to adapt tactics and practices to overcome our defenses, so “government” must be proactive and it must change to meet with the challenges it faces.
The difficulty lies in separating real threats from imaginary threats, which are usually the desire to wield more power and influence. In a dynamic world, separating truth from the desire for power becomes more difficult, and we end up with expanding government, constrained only by the active thinking productive society member, living at the front edge, best knowing the issues of the moment.
We were established as “Sovereign Citizens,” bearing the whole responsibility of government, including not only security, but the full cost of government. It is always our responsibility to set out our priorities, expecting our elected servants to fulfill our demands. When they cease to “serve” and rule instead, it is because we have failed as Sovereigns.
When a Nation reaches the size and scope of ours, the cost of surrendering our Sovereign Responsibility is allowing government to assume all authority and power and dismiss any constraints. Those who fill it will serve themselves, not having good cause to do otherwise.
Government has historically been the direct result of war waged, and a winning leader assuming authority over all. It has been effective when such figures have the interest of what they perceive as their Nation in growing for more than mere expansion of power. It always becomes destructive when accumulation of power becomes the principal reason for expansion. Tyranny is always oppressive, and I believe our founders were absolutely correct when they suggested tyranny by a tyrant is more easily acceptable than the tyranny of the majority, because at least “the tyrant” must sleep sometime. We have a tireless central government, and it denies all constraint. Sovereigns make choices; subjects follow the order imposed upon them.