Pocket Gofer 20
Download the Pocket Gofer 20 Here
ON LIFE IN A DEMOCRATIC COMMUNITY
- INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS
- CITIZENSHIP
- INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS
- THE FEELING OF PARTICIPATION IN NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT
- PRACTICING DIRECT DEMOCRACY
- CONCLUSION
- A PAUSE
LOOK TO THIS DAY FOR IT IS LIFE,
THE VERY LIFE OF LIFE!
IN ITS BRIEF COURSE LIE ALL THE
REALITIES AND TRUTHS OF EXISTENCE:
THE JOY OF GROWTH
THE SPLENDOR OF ACTION
THE GLORY OF KNOWLEDGE.
FOR YESTERDAY IS BUT A MEMORY
AND TOMORROW IS ONLY A VISION.
BUT TODAY WELL LIVED MAKES EVERY YESTERDAY
A MEMORY OF HAPPINESS AND
EVERY TOMORROW A VISION OF HOPE.
——– ancient Sanskrit poem
Publius II’s vision has individuals living in a moral society while guided by democracy and this philosophy. Each citizen would bring to his/her day a unique passion.
There is above a slight change from the original: substitution of “knowledge” for “power” in line #7. In ancient days power emphasized force. Today we assign glory to something very different.
In writing this 20th edition we rely on previous Pocket Gofers as a guide to our efforts. (They include a lot on how not to do it.) We remind ourselves that what we will cobble together here is but a preliminary go.
Each neighborhood or community government who interprets this guide and puts it into practice will come out the other end with something different. Because freedom of choice is a part of the essence of democracy, we have no problem with this.
David Hall (News & Observer 11/2010) indirectly argued that human nature does not change with passing centuries. “In 1648 Massachusetts became the first place —– to publish a code of laws ——-.
“Believing that the rule of law protected against arbitrary or unjust authority, the civil courts practiced speedy justice, empowered local juries and encouraged reconciliation and restitution.
“Overnight, most of the cruelties of the English justice system vanished. Marriage become secularized, divorce a possibility, meeting houses (churches) town property.
“Why does it matter whether we get the Puritans right or not? The simple answer is that it matters because our civil society depends, as theirs did, on linking an ethics of the common good with the uses of power.” Friends, this is a heavy one.
Why is democracy so difficult to accomplish, and equally difficult to sustain? Lane in her brilliant book The Discovery of Freedom explained that from babyhood we are programmed to look to some “Authority” other than ourselves for guidance. This is the way it has been for at least 6,000 years, excepting just three attempts by man to exercise his naturally free energy.
The third attempt was the US Revolutionary War. Immediately afterward an infant nation called the United States of America cast about among its leaders for guidance.
Its timing coincided with the Industrial Revolution. This was indeed fortuitous. Also fortuitous was the lack of need to displace a central power in the New world.
John Jay put his thoughts into a letter: “The knotty question of sovereignty — did it reside in the states or the federal government? —— might be ingeniously resolved by locating it in the fountainhead of all authority, ‘The People.’”
From Lapham’s 2004 book Gag Rule: “The Bush administration owes its existence to our apathy and sloth. The successful operation of a democracy relies on acts of self-government by no means easy to perform, and for the last twenty years we have been unwilling to do the work. Our prosperity has financed the habit of indolence.”
So, is democracy difficult to obtain? Yes. Impractical for us today? No. Our forefathers and mothers built representative democracy and enjoyed it for about 150 years, before it was gradually stolen from us.
We can retrieve and modernize it. But the task will require a coordinated effort among some 200 million adult citizens.
Friends, this is what we are about; this is the work we are in. We are convinced that the result will be more than worth the effort.
We want this, and not just for ourselves. We want it for our children, and their children. Trite but nonetheless true: they are the future of the United States of America.
INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS
Jim Powell (in his book The Triumph of Liberty) quoted William Graham Sumner: “All institutions are to be tested by the degree to which they guarantee liberty ——. The history of states (nations) has been a history of selfishness, cupidity, and robbery ——.” This is no surprise; institutions consist of people, and we are not perfect.
Against this accurate observation, it is intriguing to note how Calvin Coolidge operated as president of the US. “Not only did he keep no press secretary and refuse to hold on-the-record press conferences; ——-. But if written questions were submitted in advance —— would write the answers himself: short, very dry, but informative and truthful.”
What a stark contrast with current practice! He eliminated the baloney. (Imagine Bill Clinton with his mouth taped shut.) Robert Benchley: “Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.”
Powell continued: “Journalists also sensed he was wholly uncorrupted by power. ——–. ‘Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration,’ he snapped at the press, ‘has been minding my own business.’
“Yet if Coolidge was sparing of words, what he did say was always pithy and clear, showing that he had reflected deeply on history and developed a considered, if somber, public philosophy. ——-. There were very severe limits to his political ambitions, just as (in his view) there ought to be very severe limits to any political activity (our emphasis).” We heartily agree.
Many of us don’t like to admit it, but it is human nature to want security. It seems that life is an eternal inner conflict between the desires for risk and adventure and security: life on the edge versus life in the cocoon. As we grow older our thinking tends toward the cocoon, simply because we don’t have the old zip anymore.
This is why groupings of people called institutions and organizations tend over time to become less dynamic. They slow down with advancing years, just as we do.
The people in these organizations naturally tend to think of their own security as they age. Bungee jumping is for the young and foolish.
Gradually they feel more comfortable as surprises hit less frequently. They act to minimize these unpleasant events. The organization gradually acquires a hardening of the arteries.
Folks begin to look past and work around the outfit as they seek services elsewhere that better suit their changing needs. Its mission or reason for existence eventually becomes irrelevant.
This process happens in the private sector as well as the public, because it is human nature. The key difference is that in the private sector any organization that does not remain dynamic and change with changes in the needs of its customers is soon out of business. Thinking and flexible competitors take them away.
The Economist (3/01) reported an interesting and at once encouraging trend in the impact of advancing technology. The writer reached backward to the Industrial Revolution to make his point.
“Since its emergence in the 19th century, modern technology has been a centripetal force. Innovations have been pushed from the periphery to the center, from the small to the large, from a personal preoccupation to the prerogative of the enterprise — as one emerging industry after another sought to capitalize on economies of scale.” Bigger was better, and America set the pace.
“No question that technology is now driven by a centrifugal force, pushing power out from the center to the edge. Arguably, it started with the development of the personal computer more than two decades ago. More precisely, it was the introduction of the client-server style of computing in the late 1980s that put networked processing power on people’s desks, freeing them to use their own initiative (our emphasis).
“This dispersal of control to users on the network’s edge cut out whole layers of middle managers whose job had been to shuffle questions and answers between bosses and staff. That was the start of the productivity boom that America enjoyed in the 1990s.”
Competition forced this movement in the private sector. But that powerful force is lacking in the public sector. Hence the great difficulty with bureaucratic hardening of the arteries.
INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT: In the case of government organizations there is essentially no competition, except at budget time when all agencies engage in a mad scramble for more money.
But even with more taxpayer money there is no change in the way they operate. Therefore they usually go on existing long after any practical use for them has vanished.
The bureaucrats in them exercise impressive creativity, not to serve customers (taxpayers) but rather to demonstrate that the outfit is still relevant and useful. Therefore it should receive a bigger slug of taxpayer money for the fiscal year coming up.
We have heard from our friend of liberty, Thomas Paine, in previous Pocket Gofers. Here we wonder whether government organizations might fall ill sooner than otherwise because of our legal system.
Back in 1792 he wrote: “Government by precedent, without any regard to the principle of the precedent, is one of the vilest systems that can be set up. In numerous instances, the precedent ought to operate as a warning, and not as an example, and requires to be shunned instead of imitated; but instead of this, precedents are taken in the lump, and put at once for constitution and for law.”
Paine referred here to English common law, which even today remains the basis of our legal system. He wondered whether any society that wishes to move forward could do so while laboring under a legal system that constantly looks backward.
He suggested that many, many bad judicial decisions were made in the past under equally bad governments. Today’s lawyers constantly refer back to these bummers as they make arguments in courts of law. Ditto judges when making decisions.
Why so many bad laws long ago, and more recently? We think this is because they were created by top-down decision making.
Therefore they didn’t fit the needs of ordinary citizens when they were put into law (Pocket Gofer 4). Needless to say the fit is still worse today, as society keeps changing and government institutions don’t.
Friends, we put this one in our pipe and puffed on it for a while. We concluded that the negative implications are immense. We now wonder whether a society dragging a sea anchor called common law can learn from history.
Our million-lawyer legal community has its training based in common law, and many lawyers are profiting immensely at our expense. We can imagine the squawks when we begin making our own laws without them.
Is this why our politicians and policy makers seem unable to benefit from history’s mistakes? Someone said that those who cannot or will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
When more and more issues are centralized in Big Government, power also centralizes. The political process is strained, as naturally more and more thinking citizens differ deeply with top-down policies but have no voice. We conclude that Big Government is sticking its long schnoz into places where it has no business.
Frustration can turn into aggression. We come home, kick the dog, cuss out the spouse, kids, and lose ourselves in some fluff on the tube or IPhone.
To us the extent of today’s Grand Deception is truly amazing. Even The Economist can be fooled (6/95): “In time, telephone and cable will provide ways for viewers to send and receive torrents of facts and ideas.
“Such changes will inevitably affect the nature of political debate. Might they improve, even save, democracy?”
We have been into the pocket gofers, so now we know this is the wrong question. Rather, what is needed, and what we are aiming for, is the creation of democracy. We cannot improve or save what we don’t have.
And we wonder how those torrents of facts and ideas will affect political debate among citizens. We don’t have that either, at least at the national level.
REACTING TO STALE INSTITUTIONS: In 1792 Paine wrote about the British government as follows: “Government with insolence is despotism; but when contempt is added, it becomes worse; and to pay for contempt is the excess of slavery.”
Friends, this is us today. Big Government in Washington holds us peasants in the utmost contempt, and we return the “compliment.” They think we are riffraff, and we think they are a bunch of thieves.
Who can call this arrangement democracy? Well, the government and their news media lackeys can, and do. Some of us actually believe this hawgwash.
And, worst of all, we are paying for this stupendous fiasco. We don’t like to face it but this is the reality, and reality and truth are what we are seeking as we discuss and debate the contents of our Pocket Gofers.
Paine said that English citizens were “—— a deluded people.” Here we are, 200+ years later and human nature has done it again. We have thus grimly demonstrated the truth of the old saw: What goes around comes around.
Friends, we are not alone in this. There are millions of citizens in the 27 countries of the European Union who are voting heavily against their governments.
Just perhaps when we win democracy here there will be, not a ripple effect, but rather a tidal wave hitting European shores. Our imagination runs wild as we think about the change of attitude toward our country that would take place.
Many years ago citizens argued the merits of their own ideas, and policies that came out of these arguments. Today new ideas are suppressed. One seer recently described the US senate as “—— a place where ideas go to die.”
Isaiah Berlin in his book Four Essays on Liberty: “All the errors which a man is likely to commit against advice and warning are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem is good.”
Why didn’t our grandparents smell this one a-coming? Some did, but Big Government had even by then already got so big that it was able to brush off complaints and criticisms.
Now it is even bigger, but nevertheless we are betting our bippy that our will can prevail in the coming struggle. What other choice have we?
Recall that the signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged “—– our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” We will keep this revolution nonviolent, although we know the way ahead will have some rough spots.
John Gardner in his book Self Renewal: “The truly modern dictator achieves his goals through the people. He rides their aspirations to power.
“He manipulates their hopes and fears and is ushered into office with their joyous shouts. He may then construct, with the consent of the people, precisely the same machinery of control that he would otherwise have had to construct over their opposition.”
Gardner’s remark applies as well to a ruling elite (oligarchy). Of course the manipulation must be subtle (sneaky; see Pocket Gofer 19).
Democracy is questioning; it is criticism. It is also sloppy and inefficient. It is the confused cries of a thousand citizens.
But we are not happy without it. Gardner again: “Neither uncritical lovers nor unloving critics make for the renewal of societies.”
The first is blind acceptance by unthinking people: sheep. The second is free and unfettered bitching, which by itself accomplishes little. Food for thought here.
CITIZENSHIP AND MORALITY
Andhra Pradesh is a state in India. Its chief minister hired McKinsey & Co. and worked with it to develop VISION 2020.
The societal outcome intended to exist by 2020 is a SMART government: Simple, Moral, Accountable, Responsive and Transparent. We can see but little difference between this outcome and a society guided by democracy.
In a moral society the act of confession is perceived by a citizen as accepting responsibility for his/her actions, and as an opportunity for self-improvement. He learns from bad thoughts and deeds so he can guide his life forward and upward more effectively.
In terms of the society others see these civic acts and are encouraged to do likewise. In this way a trend is established that helps to create a virtuous cycle. If a moral society is the result of minimal government, such would be.
In an immoral society confession reduces guilt. Unburdened, the confessor then feels free to misbehave again. In terms of the society, this creates a vicious cycle of moral degradation.
The government of a moral society would be minimal: citizens would take responsibility for their actions and avoid harm to others as they freely pursue their dreams. They would actively support the government that they have created.
Few laws would be needed. Citizens would see the inherent good in people and engage in civic acts intended to bring forth that good.
Humorist Will Rogers said “I have never met a man I didn’t like.” He would have enjoyed life in a democracy.
Publius II sees every man he meets as a gentleman unless he later proves otherwise by his words or actions. Now, a good person might occasionally stray, especially when confronted by temptation. Trust but verify.
On the other hand, a top-down government finds citizens chafing under restrictive laws. So the government passes more laws in order to maintain control from the center. Top officials see no alternative but to buy into the PANG principle: People are no good.
The kicker is the more laws the more crime; hence the vicious cycle and eventual rebellion. Quite possibly we have here the most concise summary of world history that exists.
Note how these two opposing situations connect to the two sides of human nature. The insight revealed here could provide citizens with a rationale for maintaining their belief in a democratic society.
Without this insight, people might perceive a society comprised almost exclusively of sinners. This perception suggests in turn a need for dependency and, by logical extension, a top-down, paternalistic, and overbearing government.
These remarks are not intended that Christians, Muslims and others abandon God or an alternative Supreme Being. God and Allah represent perfection.
Being only human, we occasionally fall short. But if we totally succumb to the spiritual we may neglect the thinking and reflection that is necessary to exist in the secular part of our being. We would risk becoming sheep.
Put another way, God helps them who help themselves. If we allow democracy to live in a vacuum PANG will rule.
“Consent of the governed” is a notion that enters into discussions of democracy (which don’t occur very often among citizens these days). The reality is that this by itself doesn’t cut it, as the elites will jump on the negative option.
That is, unless we shout “No!” at least three times they will assume that we concur whenever they propose an action. Any such action is all too often deceptively aimed at enhancing their power over us.
This means that we can indirectly choose to be ruled rather than led, and we may not realize it. If and when we do we might be inclined to do something about it.
In this event the elites would come right back at us, exclaiming: “But, you had a choice! Democracy is freedom of choice and you are enjoying it, so what’s the beef, jerky?”
Alexei de Tocqueville: “A great man has said that ignorance lies at both ends of knowledge. Perhaps it would have been truer to say that deep convictions lie at the two ends, with doubt in the middle.”
The dummy’s ignorance is obvious, and becomes more so each time he/she reacts defensively to a complex question instead of asking for clarification. The smart cookie’s ignorance shows up when we realize that since he/she is already an expert he sees no need to listen to any opinions, surely not any that don’t agree with his position.
Due to unwillingness to listen his position is static. It cannot accept the dynamic nature of democracy.
Tocquie again: “One may count on it that the majority of mankind —— will either believe without knowing why or will not know precisely what to believe.
“But only a few persevering people will ever attain to that deliberate and self-justified type of conviction born of knowledge and springing up in the very midst of doubt.”
This requires thinking, which takes effort. Therefore good citizenship takes effort. And it also partly explains the worldwide absence of democracy.
It takes open minds, as no one can evaluate another’s opinions and ideas until he/she understands them thoroly. Good constructive criticism is impossible in the absence of such understanding, and we already know that an idea rarely becomes a good idea without criticism (Pocket Gofer 13).
We complete this section with a quote from an ordinary citizen. It goes a way toward convincing us that just plain folks like Ada Tredwell can thru reflection develop deep wisdom.
Therefore such people are useful resources to tap into for ideas and suggestions when governing a community in a democracy. Ada Tredwell’s father had been a sharecropper in the South before coming north to work in a meat packing plant.
“The way values keep changing, young people don’t know what the rules are. There was a time when, if a boy got a girl pregnant, he had to marry her. That was the way we were brought up.
“Now you look at television and say, ‘Hey, that’s okay. This is okay.’ And you find yourself changing your life, your standards, your values.
“It keeps getting foisted on you. You see it enough times, you keep seeing it over and over. And you think: what’s wrong with that? So we accept it.
“There was a time you protested, ‘Oh, I think it’s terrible these kids are getting pregnant or these babies are having babies.’ Now people criticize you for even objecting.
“And naturally, the more you accept it, the more acceptable it becomes. And you lose your values. That’s what happens.”
Probably Ms. Tredwell hadn’t thought of the fact that Adolf Hitler operated in precisely the same way. He lacked the “assistance” of television, but he was a powerful and persuasive speaker and too many German citizens remained silent.
They remained silent until past the point where people criticized a citizen if he/she spoke out against what Hitler was selling. Enter World War II.
Ms. Tredwell is probably not an intellectual giant. Nevertheless this neighbor’s wisdom came forth.
She has acquired insight into the erosion of moral values from which our country suffers today. We think there are many others like her.
These are the concerned citizens whom we want to reach through the Pocket Gofers. We need all the Ada Tredwells we can get in spreading democracy thruout the land.
Wherever you are, M’am, Publius II salutes you.
Friends, we have not really paused to think this issue thru. Let’s dive into the mentality of the typical upper-level television executive.
This cat’s career waxes and wanes with fluctuations in ratings, which tell him/her and those with power over him and his job how many people are watching what his company puts on the screen. This is because the signal arrives in our homes almost cost-free, so his company’s survival depends heavily on advertising revenue. If ratings drop advertisers take their money elsewhere.
He knows that sex grabs and holds viewers’ attention. This applies as well to any kind of violence, such as war, murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, fires, floods, car crashes, etc.
Competing television companies are fully as aware of these tools for attracting and keeping viewers. With something like 500 channels available, the competition has got fierce (even more so with social media).
Therefore each company is tempted to outdo the others in these grisly and morally depraved elements of the human experience. A discriminating viewer might observe that there is very little emphasis on marital sex, but marital violence is a money-spinner.
That said, why doesn’t the executive authorize unlimited sex and violence? Most viewers still retain a semblance of morality, so he must walk a tight wire: Outdo the competition but don’t turn off his customers.
These are the forces that determine what we watch. A moment’s reflection will reveal that Ada Tredwell’s observation is accurate.
Television causes our morals to gradually decline, even when we don’t realize it. Project this trend over 50 years, and we can appreciate the wisdom in Ms. Tredwell’s observation.
On balance, 70 years of television has done great damage to society. And not only this vicious cycle. TV robs us of vital thinking time.
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, 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 of the United States of America.”
Every citizen likes liberty, so why when forming a new government did the Founding Fathers see fit to insert “secure the blessings of liberty” in the preamble to the Constitution? They included this phrase, not just because they had endured a crushing lack of freedom under King George III. They knew their history.
Friends, few of us really understand the full history of man’s struggle against oppression. It goes back almost as far as does recorded history, according to Powell’s book The Triumph of Liberty.
This incredibly long fight has been necessary due to human nature: the seeking and holding of power over other people by public officials. The inescapable lesson is, guard your freedoms, as someone is constantly nibbling at them. George Washington was world history’s first top leader to step aside voluntarily.
Powell: “Marcus Tullius Cicero expressed principles that became the bedrock of liberty in the modern world. He insisted that law is legitimate only when it is consistent with standards of liberty and justice, ——-.
“—— he defended civilized pursuits like reading. ‘No other pleasure —— suits every occasion, every age, or every place.
“’But the study of letters is the food of youth, the delight of old age, the ornament of prosperity, the refuge and comfort of adversity, a delight at home and no burden abroad; ——.’” Powell traced the lives of around 20 fighters for liberty. All are treasured reading.
Time machine to 1650. “—— the pen of John Lilburne. In more than 80 pamphlets, he attacked intolerance, taxes, censorship, trade restrictions, and military conscription. He championed private property, free trade, freedom of association, ——- religion, —— speech, —– press, a rule of law, —– and a written constitution to limit government power.
“Moreover, he risked death to put them into action. ———. —— imprisoned most of his adult life, enduring brutal beatings, and four times he faced the death penalty. —–. He observed that the longer politicians remained in Parliament, the more corrupt they became, ——–.” We can dig that one; see Pocket Gofer 3.
About this time William Penn “—— used his diplomatic skills and family connections to get large numbers of Quakers out of jail and saved many from the gallows. ——. ——questioned the Catholic-Anglican doctrine of the Trinity, and the Anglican bishop had him imprisoned in the Tower of London.
“Ordered to recant, Penn declared from his cold isolation cell: ‘My prison shall be my grave before I will budge a jot; for I owe my conscience to no mortal man.’”
In the late 17th century Algernon Sydney “—– stirred up opposition to the English king, Charles II, for which he was hunted by assassins. ——–.” In 1683, “—– charged with treason. ——-. —– sentenced to death.
“’I had from my youth endeavored to uphold the common rights of mankind, the laws of this land, and the true Protestant religion, against corrupt principles, arbitrary power, and Popery, and I do now willingly lay down my life for the same.’
“In England, —— philosopher Jeremy Bentham ridiculed natural rights, proposing that public policy be determined by the principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. But —— proved intellectually helpless when governments demanded more power to rob, jail, and even murder people in the name of doing good.”
Time machine forward to 1776 and our friend Thomas Paine. “On January 10, 1776, Common Sense, written anonymously ‘by an Englishman,’ was published. Paine signed over royalties to the Continental Congress.
Powell continued: “With simple, bold, and inspiring prose, Paine launched a furious attack on tyranny. ‘We have every opportunity and every encouragement before us to form the noblest, purest constitution on the face of the earth.’”
Among other stirring statements: “’O! Ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose not only the tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth!’
“It was read by public men, repeated in clubs, spouted in schools, and in one instance, delivered from the pulpit instead of a sermon ——-. George Washington declared that Common Sense offered ‘sound doctrine and unanswerable reasoning.’”
Copies circulated throughout Europe, including Russia. “—— historian Bernard Bailyn, ‘—– is the most important pamphlet written during the American revolution, and one of the most brilliant pamphlets ever written in the English language.’” Paine had almost no formal education, but his mind and heart embraced freedom.
“On Christmas Day 1776, George Washington read the pamphlet to his soldiers, untrained, poorly paid Americans, ——. ‘These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.
“’Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph.’ Within hours, —— fired-up soldiers gained a much-needed battle victory —— in Trenton.”
In 1791 Paine dedicated his Rights of Man to Washington. It was published on the great man’s birthday.
“The first printing sold out in three days, and second printing within hours.” But the British elites flipped out, as Powell continued:
“On May 17, 1792, —– charged Paine with seditious libel, which could be punished by hanging. Paine fled to Dover and boarded a boat for Calais (France), —– twenty minutes before a warrant for his arrest reached the port.” See the essay “Common Sense II.”
Besides Alexis de Tocqueville, we owe another Frenchman, the Marquis de Lafayette, who gave so much to the Revolutionary War. “In middle age, living under the barely concealed dictatorship of Napoleon, a regime he detested, he recalled how he had been wounded, denounced, condemned to death, despised, imprisoned, beggared, and exiled —— all in the service of human liberty.
“Poor, powerless, and with no prospects at that time, Lafayette asked ‘How have I loved liberty? With the enthusiasm of religion, with the rapture of love, with the conviction of geometry; that is how I have always loved liberty.’”
In 1824 he went on a farewell tour of this country, visiting all 24 states. “—— he commended Americans for what they had accomplished: ——–.”
Powell quoted him: “Ten million people, without a monarchy, without a court, without an aristocracy, without trade-guilds, without unnecessary or unpopular taxes, without a state police, a constabulary, or any disorder, have acquired the highest degree of freedom, security, prosperity, and happiness, which human civilization could have imagined ——.”
Eventually two of the most ardent lovers of liberty met. “And Lafayette reached Monticello.” This was the home of Thomas Jefferson, and this historic meeting took place two years before he died at age 83.
“The two old men broke into a shuffling run. ‘Ah, Jefferson!’ ‘Ah, Lafayette!’ They burst into tears and fell into each other’s arms.” (Publius II writes this thru tears.)
Friends, there are risks to this vital mission. But courage and risk go forward together. Have we the courage to stand forth at this time, when our recent ancestors did not?
The time machine did not move: “—– bold Mary Wollstonecraft, who caused a sensation by writing A Vindication of the Rights of Woman ——. She declared that both women and men are human beings endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. She called for women to get educated, and insisted that women should be free to enter business, pursue professional careers, and vote if they wished.
“In late 1813, (Benjamin) Constant —— pamphlet, The Sprit of Conquest, which told how a police state crushes private life.
Ex-slave Frederick Douglass “—— educated some 40 slaves with his Columbian Orator, and a copy of Webster’s spelling book ——-. ——. ‘Every moment they spent in that school, they were liable to be taken up, and given 39 lashes.
““They came because they wished to learn. Their minds had been starved by their cruel masters ——. The work of instructing my dear fellow-slaves was the sweetest engagement with which I was ever blessed.’”
Ahead to ca. 1840 and American lawyer Lysander Spooner. “—— a jury must be able to nullify an unjust law. ——-. Without jury nullification, Spooner warned, ‘The government will have everything its own way; the jury will be mere puppets —— and the trial will be, in reality, a trial by the government ——.’
“Spooner argued that jury nullification would help reduce the volume of legislation, which so often inundates a society and which creates massive uncertainty. ‘—— that nearly all men, learned as well as unlearned, shun the law as their enemy, instead of resorting to it for protection.’”
This intriguing notion would not only come close to stopping the annual avalanche of laws coming at us from Washington. It would also function as a check on the Supreme Court, which is charged with striking down unjust laws and all too frequently does not do its job. (And we have not forgotten the idea that citizens might make their own laws.)
Henry David Thoreau was an individualist. “He insisted that to achieve human dignity, people must take responsibility for their lives and maintain independence, which is undermined by government handouts.” We learned in previous pocket gofers that by this sneaky tactic citizens become dependent on government.
“He added: ‘There will never be a really free and enlightened state until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.’”
“Literary lion Victor Hugo inspired an outpouring of generous sympathy for wretched people oppressed by government. ——–. —– he publicly defied tyrannical Emperor Napoleon III. As a consequence, he lost his luxurious homes, his vast antiques collection, and his splendid library of 10,000 books, but he emerged as an eloquent exile who championed liberty for people everywhere.
“—— declared himself Emperor Napoleon III. Hugo formed a Committee of Resistance, but —— soldiers crushed all opposition and went hunting for Hugo. ——–. Juliet Drouet arranged a safe house, disguised him as a shabby laborer, provided a passport for a new identity, —— night train for Brussels.”
In exile, his pen flew over the paper. “The NY Herald Tribune added, ‘His voice is that of free men everywhere.’
Hugo: “Liberty —– is the most precious possession of all mankind. Food and water are nothing; clothing and shelter are luxuries. He who is free stands with his head held high, even if hungry, naked and homeless. I dedicate my own life, whatever may be left of it, to the cause of liberty —— liberty for all!”
Time machine forward to the 1940s and 50s. Friedrich Hayek’s writing and thinking inspired economists like Milton Friedman to earn Nobel prizes. In his famous 1944 book The Road to Serfdom, Hayek observed that “—– power attracts those who don’t have scruples about imprisoning or even executing people.” That’s why “the worst get on top.”
“Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ——-. —— attacking segregationist laws. Doing this required considerable courage, since he was jailed 14 times, was the target of countless death threats, was stoned, was stabbed, his home was blasted by a shotgun, his home was bombed, ——– before he was assassinated.”
The establishment was afraid of his movement. “So-called liberals like —— JFK were concerned that he would provoke disorder, and —— RFK approved FBI bugging of King’s home, office, and hotel rooms across the country.”
Today we have people who care about liberty. “CEO Helps Young People Find Direction in Life,” News & Observer 7/2017: “The debate led to six core values, etched in glass on the XSInc. Building at Perimeter Park: DREAM BIG, WORK HARD, PLAY FAIR, HAVE FUN, SPEAK OUT, STAY SHARP.”
Young people engaged in debate with the action coordinated by a battle-scarred CEO. We think this is a powerful statement concerning individual values that, when spread evenly, would take our country forward much like the desires of those heroes we discussed above.
Friends, here we have our legacy. We either stand forth or we cave, in hopes that others with courage will, like the heroes described above, do what is vitally necessary.
Each citizen should reach inside his/her conscience and think. Turn off the TV, the iPod, and cell phones. We have before us some serious business.
We return to a discussion of the new Constitution of the USA. Just 37 of the 55 delegates from 12 states were present on the date of proposal: September 17, 1787. Travel was not easy then. (Quite aside from that, Rhode Island chose not to attend.)
The document was purposely left vague, as delegates did not want to wish restrictions on the liberty of their “posterity.” Therefore they did not spell out just what they meant by liberty.
The main purpose of the Constitution was to guarantee individual freedoms by restraining government from interfering with them. Included was the Bill of Rights, sometimes referred to as a group of “negative” freedoms. This was a first in government, although not in history as we see here (from Rose Wilder Lane: The Discovery of Freedom).
“At last Moses yielded so far as to give them Ten Commandments. Not one of these tells a person what to do. They are negatives, addressed to the motives of an individual’s acts.
“When slaves want a master to give them orders, what are they to make of such an order as, ‘Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods?’” This order relates to freedom, not slavery.
The Bill of Rights permitted a citizen to speak out on any topic and have it printed, to worship any spiritual being of his/her choice, and to peaceably assemble with other citizens. He/she was protected against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Government could not take property away from him without compensation.
In the event of suspicion of criminal activity he could have a speedy jury trial after being told of the nature of the accusations. He could call witnesses, and he could not be tried twice for the same offense.
He was entitled to a lawyer. Excessive bail was out, as was cruel and unusual punishment.
Powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution were reserved to the States and their people. There is nothing in the Constitution about the government regulating business activity, nor is there any authority for farm or welfare programs and a bunch of other things.
Few of us fully understand a towering truth: Under the Constitution government does not hand down rights to citizens. Rather, government exists to protect our natural rights. These have existed since man first walked upright.
Amendment Nine: THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE.
Amendment Ten: THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE US BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.”
These parts of the Bill of Rights emphasize the principle that the federal government has no powers except those granted to it by the people and expressly stated in the Constitution. That is, in democracy we citizens grant powers to the government, not the reverse. We have learned that we are well advised to be very stingy with these grants.
The authority for this restriction on Big Government lies in the 10th amendment. The elites would love to repeal this one, but they know that if they tried we would find out about it (no way to do it secretly).
In this event we and they all would know what and roughly how much would hit the fan. This action would blow the lid off the Grand Deception.
We observe here that the original use of the term “welfare” was lifted from the first sentence of the Constitution’s preamble, above. In 1933 its meaning was distorted in an attempt to prevent the Supreme Court from invalidating social engineering laws as unconstitutional.
Taking up where Powell’s comprehensive history leaves off, Schumacher wrote a book called Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. In it he does not castigate capitalism, but he thinks the concept can be misused if people pursue a narrow-minded preoccupation with accumulating wealth.
“The exclusion of wisdom from economics, science, and technology was something which we could perhaps get away with for a little while, as long as we were relatively unsuccessful; but now that we have become very successful, the problem of spiritual and moral truth moves into the central position.”
People do not pause long enough to think about their situation; they only rush into more acquisitions. This problem dogs the culture today. “It is not wealth that stands in the way of liberation but the attachment to wealth; not the enjoyment of pleasurable things but the craving for them.”
When this problem is matched against centuries of violent repression of citizens thruout the world, humankind has surely made progress. Quite possibly now the time has come to rethink the impact of wealth on society.
“But what is wisdom? Where can it be found? ——- can be found only inside oneself. To be able to find it, one has first to liberate oneself from such masters as greed and envy. The stillness following liberation — even if only momentary — produces the insights of wisdom which are obtainable in no other way.”
In its essence, Schumacher criticized today’s age of specialization. “Science and engineering produce ‘know-how,’ but ‘know-how’ is nothing by itself; it is a means without an end, a mere potentiality, an unfinished sentence. ‘Know-how’ is no more a culture than a piano is music.” A narrow-minded specialist over time knows more and more about less and less until eventually he knows everything about nothing.
President Woodrow Wilson warned against government by experts. Schumacher continued: “The physical sciences and mathematics are concerned exclusively with convergent problems. That is why they can progress cumulatively, and each new generation can begin just where their forbears left off.
“The price, however, is a heavy one. Dealing exclusively with convergent problems does not lead into life but away from it.”
People trapped in a techno-mentality often don’t realize they are trapped. They have no practical way of knowing this. The notion of personal freedom has been slowly squeezed out of their thinking; this squeeze is an important component of the Grand Deception (Pocket Gofer 19).
“Experience shows that when we are dealing with large numbers of people many aspects of their behavior are indeed predictable; for out of a large number, —— only a tiny minority are using their power of freedom and they often do not significantly affect the total outcome. Yet all really important innovations and changes normally start from tiny minorities of people who do use their creative freedom.”
This observation ties in closely with our argument in Pocket Gofer13. All ideas, good and bad, originate in the tiniest minority: one thinking and concerned citizen.
Let’s complete this section with an observation by Taylor (10/01). “We think we are the most free people in the world and yet, according to various indexes of economic liberty, we trail countries like Singapore, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
The Heritage Foundation and the Wall St. Journal have combined with data from the World Bank to compile an index of economic freedom. It found that the three least prevalent freedoms are freedom from corruption, property rights and investment freedom.
Singapore and Hong Kong ranked equal or higher than America in all three. Investment freedom depends on corporate tax rates. Including state and local, US tax rates are increasing while those in European countries are decreasing.
Freedom House was founded in 1941 by people concerned about the advance of fascism. It has become the world’s leading watchdog of liberty.
Economist (5/08): “But the verdict on the Bush years is nevertheless sharp. ‘How Free?’ not only details ——- from Guantanamo to extraordinary rendition to warrantless wiretapping.
“It reminds readers of its aversion to open government. The number of documents classified as secret has jumped from 8.7m in 2001 to 14.2m in 2005 — a 60% increase over three years.
“Government whistleblowers have repeatedly been punished or fired ———-.” During the GW Bush era the law protecting whistleblowers was ignored as often as was the Freedom of Information Act.
“A pervasive political correctness — often reinforced by law or litigation — also makes public debate in the US less candid and refreshing than much of Western Europe.” America is horribly over-lawyered and over-litigated. These are major constraints on both economic and personal freedoms.
THE NOTION OF INDIVIDUALISM: Democracy is bottom-up. We would keep issues local, where we have the strongest voice. Any public official who doesn’t listen to that voice is probably a politician.
Democracy is also individual human rights. When these are taken away by government instead of protecting them as the Constitution specifies, the natural reaction is to form groups in an attempt to get them back.
This creates a society of group rights, with one group fighting another. Concern with those responsibilities that must accompany exercise of rights gets shoved aside during the ferocity of battle.
We like freedoms and rights. But we realize that if everyone exercised his/her rights willy-nilly we would have a willy-nilly society.
This gem from Robert Samuelson’s book The Good Life and its Discontents: “Responsibility poses choices, recognizes limits, and clarifies accountability. Entitlement denies choices, ignores limits, and muddles accountability.”
In an entitlement culture a young couple not yet on its feet gets into some marital difficulty. Neither spouse having been brought up to face a serious challenge, they give up all too easily and head back home to parental blankets, cookies, and warm milk.
No society can function if citizens concern themselves only with rights in the absence of concern with responsibilities. In a democracy individual citizens accept responsibility for their actions. Knowing this, a person will look before he/she leaps.
When a citizen makes a mistake he should reach for his conscience and not his lawyer. In such a society there is little need for lawyers.
Some writers argue that it is not our nature to be rational. Clearly, this is a judgment call. We believe that with intellectual progress citizens learn about themselves and hence can learn to discipline themselves.
Self-knowledge enables self-discipline. This discipline integrates into a moral society to maximize individual personal freedom, because in this type of society few laws exist to restrain freedom. A citizen receives more guidance thru moral suasion and self-created institutions than thru force of law.
How does law fit into a moral society? With difficulty, because law is force and morality is persuasion. Therefore moral and contributing citizens would make very few laws, and because people support what they help to create they will obey them.
The result of our thinking is a paradox: freedom thru discipline. A citizen earns economic freedom thru discipline of money spent. He/she earns political/personal freedom thru discipline of government.
These are rational processes. Once ongoing, discipline in government is but a step further along toward the Age of Reason in this country and elsewhere (see Pocket Gofer 18).
If we consciously decide to become a nation of individual, self-reliant citizens, we can build a democracy. If we do not so decide, we would just become more and more frustrated, more and more aggressive, kick more undeserving pooches, shoot more people, until the central government installs a police state in the interest of law and order. See Pocket Gofer 19.
Some flimflammed and unthinking citizens would call for this, and that will be all the government needs as a cover. This is what the PANG-ers in Washington want anyhow.
With a police state restless natives could be controlled more easily. Here we refer again to the fork in the road mentioned at the beginning of Pocket Gofer 16. One road leads to democracy, the other to tyranny.
In a democracy an individual may feel empowered through free expression of his/her will. In Washington courtier power is false and temporary. Empowerment morphs into destroying people, as former FED chairman Alan Greenspan mentioned in his bio.
We would keep issues local, under a microscope. We would know what is closest to truth, or through the democratic process we would learn it. We are tired of smoke and mirrors.
Tom Paine on liberty: “Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others. Civil rights are those which appertain to man in light of his being a member of society.”
We interpret this to mean that nothing is unthinkable. As long as an individual citizen exerts neither force nor fraud against others he/she is free to think and do his own thing.
Our thoughts and beliefs are our own, but unless we live the life of a hermit our actions must be carried out in consideration of others’ rights. The Golden Rule comes to mind.
Note the absence of lists of natural and civil rights. This means each community can exercise its own unique discretion in choosing and specifying rights, and the appropriate responsibilities that must accompany them.
Paine on honesty in government: “Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.”
Jefferson: “The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest.”
We think we deserve honesty in government as a basic civil right. But, knowing human nature, we know this right will not drop into our laps.
This section is about individual freedoms. Let’s include freedom to hold our heads high. Let’s also include freedom to succeed or fail, and to try again having learned something important from failure.
We have looked into ourselves, and concluded we are not the “blankets, cookies and warm milk” type. Cocoons are for larvae (children) of moths and butterflies.
Individual freedoms should include news media. Today’s media are not free, in that they don’t feel free to help us goad the government into shaping up.
A newspaper (or radio or TV station or blog or tweet) is a voice. If an issue gets serious enough, just like people in a town meeting (see below) this voice can unite citizens toward getting positive action. It and we can stay camped out on it until there is desired action.
We call this the bull terrier tactic; grab onto an issue and turn it every way but loose until there is constructive action. Today’s news media remind us more of hummingbirds than bull terriers.
If the issue or idea is not big enough to get unity of voice among the citizens, then it will be cussed and discussed until it either gets big enough or drops by the wayside in favor of another. Se PG13.
This is how democracy works. People enjoy the cussing and discussing. If the issue dies they still retain the feeling of having contributed to good government.
Friedrich Hayek’s book The Constitution of Liberty, “Democracy, above all, is the process of forming opinion. Its chief advantage lies not in its form of selecting those who govern, but in the fact that, because a great part of the population takes an active part in the formation of opinion, a correspondingly wide range of persons is available from which to select.
“It is in its dynamic, rather than its static, aspects that the value of democracy proves itself.” This brilliant theoretician tells us that democracy is a continuing work in progress.
In a democracy it is easy to start a news medium whenever someone sees a lack of investigative reporting of the doings (and misdoings) of government. Starting a website, blog, twitter or instagram is a piece of cake.
The media are members of the community and therefore are just as interested in good government as are we ordinary blokes. Some may run for election to jobs as public servants, if they think they can stand the heat in the kitchen.
Intelligent people generally feel more secure in themselves. They perceive change as challenge so they do not fear it. Therefore they feel more free as individuals, as freedom from fear is one of the more important freedoms.
A lot of formal education may not make a citizen intelligent. Security in oneself is a matter of perception.
TOLERANCE: With self-security comes that vital ingredient in any democracy: tolerance. Others who look, speak, think, and act differently from us pose no threat.
We are not uncomfortable in reaching out to them. When we do we will nearly always discover a shared interest in good government. This is because good government means a good life for everyone, no matter what he/she looks like or believes.
Isaiah Berlin: “But without tolerance the conditions for rational criticism, rational condemnation, are destroyed. ———–. We may argue, attack, reject, condemn with passion and hatred. But we may not suppress or stifle: for that is to destroy the bad and the good, and is tantamount to collective moral and intellectual suicide.”
If we tolerate citizens of different backgrounds and don’t suppress their efforts to contribute to good government, democracy will flourish. People of all stripes will want to contribute.
Apparently there are still votes in racism. Either that or those who have for years staked their reputations and livelihoods on this issue don’t want to turn it loose.
In a Gallup poll taken in June 1997, poor blacks said money was their biggest headache. Three quarters of them said their relations with whites were good. The same poll showed 53 percent dissatisfied with their incomes.
But good news on an emotional issue makes poor press copy. Therefore the news media don’t provide much air time or ink.
But members of minority groups screwing up make excellent copy. Due to the psychological “halo effect” people tend to generalize from one or a few instances and therefore condemn the entire group.
The elite class and their lackeys in the news media want to keep us hunkered down and playing the “Ain’t it awful!” game. Yep; misery surely does love company.
Blacks disproportionately score poorly on tests. The vast majority of low scorers are poor whites. But government chooses to make this a black issue, which suggests that intervention on behalf of these folks can solve the problem.
It cannot. In Pocket Gofer 16 we show that groupthink is a danger to our individual freedom. Many blacks agree.
In education the government has forced lower admissions standards onto colleges in order to receive more blacks. But the real problem lies in sick elementary and high schools, especially in low-income areas of cities (Pocket Gofer 10).
We just recently saw the results of a study of the human genome, which consists of about 3 billion genes. Apparently several thousand years ago there was a mutation in just one of those 3 billion genes, and this accounts for white skin today. Like beauty, race is only skin deep.
The press doesn’t discriminate only against blacks. We recall that without a shred of evidence news bulletins immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 pinned the blame on Muslims.
Well, now. Aren’t all Muslims terrorists? Judging by the news copy available during the past 20 years, we would be inclined to agree.
And not just the press. During that same time period 20-25 major movies have been released which show the American military killing Arabs and Muslims.
This kind of press has most of the nation paranoid about terrorism. The bureaucrats love this; Congress increased the budget of the FBI 142 percent over three years, to $286 million of taxpayer money.
Fall 2010 during 9/11 season. But not all news coverage bashed Muslims, so we saw some progress here.
Discussion of initiatives from citizens as individuals or in groups requires a climate of freedom of expression. Both initiatives and discussion are required for democracy to function. We shall have more to say below about these vital subjects.
THE FEELING OF PARTICIPATION IN NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT
What we need in our community is an enabling environment for volunteerism to flourish. This would awaken incentives long dormant within us (Pocket Gofer 2).
Today everyone is very busy, pursuing his/her own unique lifestyle (or fighting the system). We avoid interaction with neighbors, as we are afraid of getting hung up with one and nothing in common to discuss besides the weather.
If we had something in common to discuss, about which we know our neighbor is just as concerned as we are, there would be stimulating interaction. Time is a simple matter of priorities.
If we are vitally interested in an issue that will affect our lives and we know it will also affect those of our neighbors we would surely worry much less about getting hung up. On the contrary, we would look forward to the next meeting.
If this comes to pass we would have recaptured a vital component of democracy: building and enhancing community life through interaction on political issues of keen interest to each of us. We would enjoy the feeling that what we say and do actually has influence on our local government and its services on our behalf. (Most of today’s blather about “Be a difference!” rings hollow.)
This, friends, is a vitally important part of the American dream. We have lost it in favor of the tube, the car and waving through closed windows, and turning inward on ourselves. BIG GOVERNMENT has programmed us to roll with the punches.
Hempel elaborated (2/00). “———- screen to screen is not the same as face to face. Spontaneity and body language have been replaced by messages written in isolation and symbols that are supposed to connote happiness, ——. Some say it’s a network of networks —— that functions as a vast community, or even a series of neighborhoods.
“Others say it merely masquerades as community, that it can’t compare or even compete with the real thing. ——–. —— once, people had to go places — to work, to the movies, to the library, to church — to access what they wanted. Today, telephone lines and high-speed fiber-optic cable deliver most of what they need.”
There seem to be no favorite gathering places, such as the local general store, coffee bar or beer hall. Public life seems to be fading.
Hempel referred to Putnam’s famous book Bowling Alone. “—— because no matter how many hours are filled with work, or commutes, or watching television — which Putnam considers Public Enemy No. 1 as far as declining social connectedness is concerned — people are hard-wired to crave community.”
When fulfillment of this craving is diverted to online activities: “The freedom to embellish a touch, or fib a little. —— the mix of truth and fabrication jumbled together so seamlessly that the viewer can’t tell the difference.”
The Internet has exerted a powerful force on the culture, and it seems that few of us have paused long enough to reflect on the social implications of this force. But society’s successful adjustment to any major force depends on people doing this.
Historically, this does happen, but when the innovation has a great impact it takes lots of time. During the adjustment process it is very important to keep government out of the action, as officials can be depended on to screw it up for citizens. On this issue the record is clear: they act in their own interest instead of ours.
The Economist (6/00): “Governments might learn from online decision-making too. The Internet’s real promise for democracy may be less the much-ballyhooed electronic voting than the fact that the medium makes it easier for citizens to debate and inform themselves.
“The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at the Harvard Law School, for example, is working on software tools to organize ‘deliberative polls’ online. ——. Internet-governance bodies also provide a lesson in transparency.”
We like transparency; it surely beats smoke and mirrors. The writer thinks that with everyone having access to all proposals and e-mails it would be difficult for government officials to pull the wool over our eyes.
We remain skeptical. A couple of years later The Economist seemed to have second thoughts (8/02): “Press the flesh, not the keyboard. —– seeing other people in the flesh is a different, and sometimes better, way to make sure that news and views flow freely than anything that electronics can offer.
“One of the mysteries of the wired (and wireless) world is that proximity still counts. In spite of September 11th, ——-, people still want to gather to do deals, to drum up new ideas and to court customers.” Face-to-face encourages mutual trust and confidence.
Not all citizens have remained silent. Saul Alinsky founded the Industrial Areas Foundation. Edward T. Chambers, a follower: “You believe that men and women are the most precious treasure this country has, —— and the most important thing we can do is to develop them, let them grow, let them flower, let those talents flourish.”
A pivotal principle of the IAF: “Never do anything for someone that they can do for themselves. Never.” There are two major reasons for this.
One is if we let government do it for us officials will do it wrong. The other is people support what they help to create. Don’t deny them this pleasure, as it will undermine their motivation.
The IAF has been at it for over 25 years. The record is very encouraging, but against the size of the challenge it is still a voice in the wilderness.
However, with the pocket gofers goading us on we can multiply the impact a hundredfold. This means we will not need another 25 years to get Washington’s ear (and stick something in it).
And now we have virtual friends in cyberspace? Okay for some folks, we imagine. As for the government we’re building, we prefer to confront reality straight on.
There is ample evidence that body language communicates. We recall a colleague who complained about an overbearing jackass at a meeting, telling him, “What you are speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you are saying.”
Also, receiving an attaboy in front of a crowd in a meeting has greater impact than the same kudo delivered over a phone line. Television makes money for an athletic team, but the crowd eggs members on to peak performance.
The notion of a shared interest in good government would have us walking in our neighborhood and greeting neighbors instead of always insulating ourselves in cars every time we step out the front door. This would be good, as democracy needs lots of interactions.
The automobile is a mixed blessing. It enables us to go to many places, some of them pretty far-out. But often the highway that we need to use to get there is jam-packed.
And when we add in all the costs of cars, both direct and indirect (insurance, roads, parking fees, repair, fuel, sales areas, garages, registration, licensing, traffic control, pollution, etc.) they sum up to an expensive convenience.
For the family teenager there is hardly any neighborhood action, so he/she “must” have a car just when the family can least afford one. In the old days younger children could be dispatched to a neighborhood store on foot or by bike to get something.
In this way they felt like they were contributing to the family. Today someone must taxi them everywhere, just when both parents are employed and there is little time for much else.
For the past 40 years or so, urban planners have designed communities around the automobile and not people. It shows. But then, we probably asked for this indirectly or they would not have done it.
A shared interest in good government will cause a feeling of community. We think citizens would like this. Local institutions built by citizens utilizing the bottom-up approach will bring forth and maintain a spirit of liberty.
Anthony Arblaster: “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be pursued, until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”
Justice is equal treatment under a rule of law. That is, every citizen gets it in the same way, whatever his/her means, and no exceptions. Also, everyone has equal access to liberty, and must stand equally responsible for error.
Looking at the crime problem, history teaches us that increasing top-down punishment does little to deter criminal activity. During the 19th century our officials believed in swift, sure, mild, and locally designed punishment, combined with recourse to the victim.
There was community solidarity then, so whenever a crime was committed everyone immediately participated in finding the criminal and bringing him/her to justice. Police were needed then as now, but with everyone cooperating with them their job was made much easier and safer.
Also, the mere awareness of subsequent rejection by the community acted as a deterrent to a potential criminal. This awareness is the moral suasion that we mentioned above. Prevention is far less expensive than cure.
Murray Rothbard (For A New Liberty): “The way, —— to eliminate police corruption is simple but effective: abolish the laws against voluntary business activity and against all ‘victimless crimes.’ —— large numbers of police would then be freed to operate against the real criminals, ——. ——- supposed to be the function of the police in the first place.”
He referred to prostitution, drug abuse, etc. This may be a bit much for some communities, but it could generate discussion.
Open dialog and debate in a community would resolve local issues such as porn shops, prostitution, gambling, drugs, abortion, drunk driving, guns, smoking, etc. The rights of taxpayers would figure into all of these discussions (Pocket Gofer 14).
If everyone wants to participate in discussions we would enjoy the cooperation of nearly everyone as we go about enforcing rules on which we have decided. People support what they help to create.
Widespread participation by citizens in government diffuses power among nearly everyone. When the bottom-up approach is used, power cannot concentrate in Washington or in state governments.
It stays in the community, and even here it is diffused among citizens. We recall Lord Acton’s observation: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
John Gardner: “Dispersing power is an endless task; it never stays dispersed for long.” Human nature: Pocket Gofer 13.
Some citizens may exert influence through participation in building good government, and others may do so through volunteerism. Some may get involved in both.
The important factor to bear in mind is the feeling of being a part of the community. How each one of us attains and maintains this feeling is a function of each individual’s unique personality and needs. Let’s hear it for civic pride!
PRACTICING DIRECT DEMOCRACY
“Full Democracy” was written by the British journalist Brian Beedham (Economist Survey 12/21/96). In it he projects his thinking into the 21st century.
“The places that now consider themselves to be democracies are with a handful of exceptions run by the process generally known as ‘representative’ democracy. That qualifying adjective should make you sit up and think.”
Okay, Brian. You have us thinking.
“Our children may find direct democracy more efficient, as well as more democratic, than the representative sort.”
He described some 130 years of experience with a type of direct democracy in Switzerland. The Swiss system of referendum voting is not perfect, but it seems to work quite well.
The Swiss adopted a new constitution in 1848, which provided for direct democracy. Difficulties surmounted include primitive travel and communication, four official languages, ranges of high mountains, and ethnic and religious variety.
The key lies in a common interest in good government, coupled with a principle called subsidiarity: citizens dealing with all relevant issues possible at the local and state (canton) levels.
Feedback shows that the Swiss like to contribute their thinking in matters of government. Furthermore, they are dedicated to keeping the national government in Bern as small as possible.
Beedham: “The politicians, —– have learned that ordinary people are often surprisingly (to politicians) shrewd in their decisions.” This comment ties in closely with our notion of the collective wisdom of the mass of citizens.
Another benefit inherent in the Swiss system is that planning in government and in the business sector is more oriented to the long term. There is less distraction and distortion due to the next election.
Now, some voter fatigue has recently developed. For this we suggest that teams of active citizens be put into the field in order to persuade their peers that any alternative to direct democracy has been proven to be far worse.
Beedham also pointed out that political parties thrive on representative democracy and will fight direct democracy with everything they have. In this country parties are powerful; they have a lot of clout and they are not about to give it up.
We have argued that with today’s ease of travel and communications that representative body that we call the congress is a relic of a bygone era. Corrupt as we know it has become, the prospect of eliminating that tawdry outfit has got us really thinking.
We are not the only ones. WEBCAST- March 2015: “An idea whose time has come:
“For too long we have been too complacent about the congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn’t pay into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws.
“The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered…in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn’t seem logical. We have an elite class that is above the law. I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.
“Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
“‘Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.'”
Friends, this method of adding amendments (initiative from the states thru a convention and it becomes law with 38+ states ratifying) has never before been successful (may never have been tried). 35 are on board now; three to go. Our concurring opinion: Great, but why stop there? Pass an amendment that conforms to the preliminary draft of a constitution of the USA, to be found on PG21
We need to make a distinction between representative and direct democracy. The first was established by the founders of our country; they set forth guidelines in the Constitution.
This document established the congress as an intermediary between citizens and the national government. That body was to make laws in accordance with the public will. The president was to enforce them.
The 10th amendment was meant to provide for direct democracy in discussing and deciding the vast majority of political issues that affect citizen’s daily lives. The intent was that citizens would formally hand over the few remaining important issues to Washington.
With direct democracy there would be no middleman/congress. We make our own laws and our elected officials would help us enforce them. We permit Washington very few opportunities to make our lives unpleasant.
Manasian was confused (Economist Survey 1/03): “Established democratic governments have published enormous amounts of information on the Internet ——, but this does not seem to have made much of a difference to the conduct of politics. The structures ——- remain intact.”
If the structures/institutions of government were truly democratic we would see differences, changes. But we already know that gridlock is not a part of democracy (Pocket Gofer 19).
“The growth of ‘protest politics’ is not the only evidence for a slowly mounting demand for direct democracy. Over the past few decades, the popularity of direct voting ——- sharply increased.”
Research at the University of Texas: “——- seems that all socio-economic groups ——- are capable of considering complex issues; that participants are able to absorb information even if it clashes with their own views; and that such groups are able to weigh alternatives and set priorities ———.”
Manasian concluded: “But in trying to hold back —— direct democracy, the defenders of traditional representative institutions will have a fundamental problem: any criticism they make will sound as tho it is aimed at democracy itself.
“If voters are not wise enough to make direct policy choices, how can they be wise enough to choose legislators, or governments, to do it for them?” Especially when elections are rigged. Ours of 2000 springs to mind.
Furthermore, we have concluded that when people support what they help to create the flawed legacy of British common law cannot be a part of our legal system. Far fewer and locally made laws constitute a much better arrangement.
Not only would there be far fewer problems. In this way Justices of the Peace could resolve the few disputes that surpass the capability of mature, well-meaning, responsible, and trusting citizens.
These people would refer some disputes to mediation or arbitration, and also try minor offenses. This would dispose of perhaps 90 percent of disputes and crimes.
Neighborhood and community government would function as enablers. That is, officials would be concerned with preserving our individual freedoms as we work together with them. By contrast, today’s BIG GOVERNMENT is a huge wart on the arse of progress.
All governments operate somewhere between anarchy at one end and tyranny at the other. Ours would function where we say it will.
We value our individual freedoms, and so we would probably specify a position somewhat nearer anarchy than tyranny. We might call it life near the edge.
Surely we don’t want “Big Brother knows best.” We have had far too much of that baloney already.
Rather, we want “What can we in government do to help you fellow citizens to maximize your potential?” Note how this approach taps into the most valuable, talented, and dedicated resource available to good government: us.
We would elect public-spirited officials who are sensitive to our stated desires, and who actively seek guidance from us. Free and open dialog, debate, and constructive criticism of ideas would become the core of our community government (Pocket Gofer 3).
Philosopher David Hume: “Truth springs from argument amongst friends.” Frank Clark: “We find comfort among those who agree with us; growth among those who don’t.”
We believe that the president in a democracy is a public servant, sworn to act on behalf of the public will on the few issues we permit him/her to act on. Even on these we tell him what we want him to do.
Therefore in the absence of a world crisis (certainly one crafted by him) he/she should keep a low profile, report on progress frequently, and encourage criticism of his actions from those whose tax money provides his salary. He should assume the high moral profile typical of any effective leader, but this need not and should not generate much press.
Political parties today blow many $millions on stupid, mud-slinging commercial messages. They spend hardly a dime on interactions with real people unless the scene is scripted and the cameras are rolling.
Besides the steady diet of televised fluff all they do is provide a “mailbox” for donations. Friends, there will be some changes made.
Not everyone in the US is sitting on his hands and playing “Ain’t it awful!” Several states are trying variations on the Swiss approach, which uses referendums.
This movement currently causes about 300 issues being cast into referendums every two years. It reflects citizen frustration with corrupt and unresponsive representatives at state level.
Oregon’s Bill Sizemore called himself a citizen-politician. His activities in organizing referendums had fellow citizens claiming that he was more powerful than the governor.
“The things we do are for everyday working people. The big corporations oppose everything we do.”
Lobbyists hate him, and have even threatened him. This suggests that the man is probably filling a need.
The kicker here is that many referendum ballots are poorly or deceptively worded. This means many get shot down by the courts and administrative agencies, which action tends to enhance government power when the original aim was to limit this power.
Nevertheless the very presence of referendums strongly suggests serious dissatisfaction with the baloney being served up by state government officials. Citizens’ votes thus act, however roughly, as a curb on their personal power.
CIVIC PRIDE REGAINED: Friends, we’re discussing civic pride. Nearly all of us have never known what this means. We think this is a sad situation.
Wray Herbert wrote an article entitled “The Revival of Civic Pride,” in US News 1/29/96. In it he discussed the decay of civic institutions such as PTAs and fraternal groups.
We knew Bill Clinton would not pass this one up. The White House sponsored a Reinventing Citizenship Project.
According to Herbert, Clinton said his work could improve people’s lives. And congressman Dan Coats introduced a sheaf of 19 bills, calling it a “Project for American renewal.”
Please!! Spare us yet another batch of top-down boondoggles. Both citizenship and government can and must be reinvented, but neither can originate within government. BIG GOVERNMENT likes itself far too much to change.
If government were us it could do this. The only way to get this vital job done is for us to initiate reform ourselves, outside the system. But then, if we were the bosses reinvention would be an ongoing process and therefore no loss of civic pride.
It is easy to attack a personality. We see this every day as we read a newspaper and sit in front of the tube or monitor our cell pones.
Cheap shots at the president and members of congress are a time-honored tradition in this country. State and local politicians cannot escape either. This is personality politics: charisma and empty perceptions.
However, in order to effectively attack an idea we must first make the effort to understand it. This means we must read and listen before we fire off that broadside.
It seems like it is much easier to direct our frustrations at some public figure, but does this really get it off our chest? No; tomorrow is another day and there it is, still leaning on us.
Pocket Gofer 13 suggests that we place power in ideas and principles. This also avoids concentration of power in people, as ideas are shared through discussion, criticism, and debate.
When this happens a good idea becomes the exclusive property of no one. We engage as many brains as possible as we join forces in developing the potential of someone’s idea.
Ideas are everywhere and in everyone, but good ones are rare and can often be found in the least likely heads. Therefore we must exert an effort to tap into the collective wisdom of our community in order to locate potentially good ideas and subject them to the rigors of constructive criticism. This activity can determine whether or not they are good.
The public-spirited public servant has no “jobs for the boys.” There is no place in a democracy for freeloaders. Contributors only, thank you.
The result would be pride in community. Those folks over there in West Overshoe are pretty good, but we are better because we work a little harder and smarter.
Businesses consider our community first when deciding where to locate or expand. Good workers come here because there are good jobs and a healthy environment in which to raise children.
We would see that our community has an excellent education system. We would need intelligent and concerned citizens as resources for democracy to work.
Nearly everyone would be involved: schools, parents, teachers, assistants, businesses, foundations, computers, libraries, churches, political meetings, civic organizations, and many others. In our community opportunities for learning would be unlimited. See Pocket Gofer 10.
Education financed by foundations or business would be okay, as neither young children nor their parents can afford the full cost. As taxpayers later on, each would repay the community’s “loan” in support of his/her education.
When making a contribution to a community, we turn outward and seek opportunities to help. We ask, “What can I contribute?”
When Big Brother makes top-down laws in some faraway place we turn inward. We ask “What’s in it for me?” There can be no receiving thru giving because nobody gives. (See Pocket Gofer 6.)
We have a thought. If we were running for a local office we might encourage each voter to do something like the following:
1) Take a sheet of paper and a pen/word processor.
2) Think carefully and then write down in some detail four things that you plan to do within the next year. Write one for your neighborhood and one for your community. Write down a third thing for your state. Finally, write down a fourth for the country or world. Voting and paying taxes don’t count.
3) Read carefully what you have written, make any adjustments that you see fit, and write today’s date in the upper corner. Sign it at the bottom.
4) Place it under your mattress. Sleep on it.
5) Take it out and reread it once a month; put reminders on your calendar.
6) Share it with family, friends, and coworkers. Some of them will help you, and may do likewise on their own.
7) As you complete a task, cross it off and write in its place more of the same if you liked it, or something else if you did not.
8) Please don’t vote for me unless you have made this written commitment. Right here and now I will make a written commitment, if elected, to help you complete these contributions to good government.
Writing it down is very important. There is something in us that deepens any commitment when it is reduced to writing. Also it helps us to organize our thinking. (Writing the pocket gofers surely helped in this way, even though there is clearly room for improvement.)
This is especially important for older folks. We heard about a couple sitting in the living room listening to music.
He got up, and she said, “Where are you going?” He said “Into the kitchen for a bowl of ice cream. Would you like some?” “Yes; that would be nice.”
“Oh, and also some chocolate sauce; would you like that too?” She said “Yes, but you better write it down or you will forget.”
The old man dinked around in the kitchen for ten minutes, then returned to the living room bearing two plates of scrambled eggs. Wifey was bent. “I told you to write it down! You forgot the bacon.”
Friends, we’re talking about civic pride. Today even an APB is unlikely to locate a single person who really understands the true meaning of civic pride. What a tragedy: we’re not even able to appreciate what we have lost!
With civic pride in our community a good feeling comes when a loser begins thinking “I can handle it.” Those of us who have generally enjoyed success experiences in our lives cannot relate to the depth and full meaning of this feeling in those who have not. It’s about holding the head high, self-esteem.
ON MEETINGS: At this point we have at least a tentative handle on the idea of democracy. Now let’s dig into how a democracy might function in practice.
The Federalist Papers were a series of 85 newspaper articles written in 1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. They were aimed at convincing citizens of the important state of New York that the new Constitution on offer for approval should be ratified. Each appeared in several prominent newspapers over the pseudonym “Publius.”
They are a tough read, as usage of the King’s English was much different then. These men were important leaders and they wrote in keeping with their positions of responsibility, whereas Thomas Paine was just Tom. He is easier to read.
John Jay argued that any initiative coming from any person, however placed, was only a recommendation to be offered for the community to consider through free and open debate. Any other way and it would not be government by the people.
Alexander Hamilton argued against the closed mind. Minds must be always open in order to tap into the thinking of as many resource people as possible. Again, deny this and it would not be government by the people.
Especially when getting a democratic government installed, we see a need for a lot of political meetings. Because citizen participation is so important, we must plan and organize meetings to attract people and encourage them to contribute their ideas.
We would hold meetings in a place that is convenient, and with easy parking. We would get the word out in advance with lots of promotion.
We would encourage neighbors to car-pool. If it’s a neighborhood meeting, encourage people to walk. As they walk the walk they will talk the talk. Initial momentum is excellent preparation for the meeting.
Whoever coordinates a meeting as chair should have some background in cross-cultural communication, specifically listening. This is very important, as we want input from everyone.
Some citizens probably would have had no previous experience in speaking to a crowd of people. They would be antsy.
However, these are the citizens whom we would especially want as participators. They know the territory and hence have insight into problems. And there is wisdom hidden among them.
Furthermore, they are the ones who would feel best after having contributed their ideas. This is because it may be the first time anyone outside the family has recognized their thinking and effort.
This applies even more heavily if the chair is a white male. A great effort would be required so that he can meet the speaker more than half way.
The citizen may not be able to easily put into words his/her thought. In this case a floor assistant with excellent English may be helpful before he/she rises to speak. (The assistant might utilize a notebook computer to help the citizen organize his thinking.)
The chair can and will also help. The reality is that through empathic listening the chair would be recruiting a contributing citizen. In a democracy officials need as many of this type of citizen as they can get and keep.
Any dedicated public servant would quickly get the hang of it. Word would get around, and more citizens will show up at subsequent meetings. Our democracy would be off the ground and flying.
Free and open debate and criticism would be essential, as it enables the collective wisdom of the group to both identify and add muscle to a good idea, and minimize discussion of a poor one.
Some interesting research on collective wisdom has been done, so we briefly digress here. The Economist (5/04) reviewed a book by James Surowiecki: The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations. WHEW!!
“He has written a hymn of praise to the judgment of the many, adducing case after surprising case where the amalgamated views of a crowd reach a more accurate conclusion than the single expert does.”
Author quoted: “Under the right circumstances groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them.” What circumstances? “The two ultimate tests of the wisdom of crowds are the market and democracy.”
It looks very much like Mr. Surowiecki is onto something that will help us finally realize the true American Dream. Direct democracy exists only in theory so some experimentation would be in order, especially because each neighborhood is uniquely different from every other.
But the Internet can help tremendously to minimize the experimentation. Each neighborhood and community would share the results of their experiments so that others could benefit.
End of digression and back to our meeting. Once an idea is on the floor, a second speaker recognized by the chair would first replay the idea to show the group that he/she understands it. Next, he would identify its good points in order to massage the ego of its originator.
Finally, he would recommend acceptance, modification, referral to committee, or rejection. He would explain his reasoning for his selection.
We hear critics saying this is inefficient government. We agree, but this is direct and participative democracy. It gives those involved a feeling of civic pride, and evidence available indicates they like this.
Thomas Paine: “—— constructing government on the principles of society and the rights of man, every difficulty retires, ——-.” While thinking about this, we note how civic pride can defeat intolerance.
Somewhere near the beginning of ancient Greek democracy Pericles said: “—— we do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all.”
Democracy is a constant building process. The building blocks are ideas and principles. To create these we need active, concerned and thinking citizens..
We anticipate a problem with sustaining democracy, once it has been established. Due to human nature, as time passes citizens may be prone to relax and let the next person handle it. Or, meetings might become boring.
We have a thought. A foundation might support a trained group of itinerant “ministers of democracy,” who give stirring 10-minute talks to neighborhood meetings on aspects of democracy.
This person would then attend a meeting, listen, and observe. Afterward he/she would meet with the chair and a few others to listen to problems with meetings, and offer constructive criticism and encouragement.
Spirited debate can and will occasionally descend into passions. When this happens, little communication can occur. (Married folks understand this.) The chair should be capable of dealing creatively with this situation in order to gently lower the temperature and thus retrieve an atmosphere conducive to rational debate.
While constructively criticizing an idea we put a piece of ourselves into it. We own a part of it.
If the idea gains strength and favor through debate and criticism, we feel stronger. We end up riding that one to glory.
But then, maybe it bombs. Our ego may bomb with it, but, how about this idea that we first heard from Aunt Matilda? Let’s work on it.
Colin Powell said, “Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it.”
Bouncing back is made easy when we realize that we are making a contribution either way it goes. It is just as important to remove poor ideas from our community’s democratic process, as it is to encourage good ones toward their full potential.
More guidance from de Tocqueville (1830): “In a democratic country such as America a deputy hardly ever has a lasting hold over the minds of his constituents. However small an electoral body may be, it is constantly changing shape with the fluctuations of democracy. It must therefore be courted unceasingly.”
He referred to maintaining an open dialog. The deputy should never have any hold over the minds of his/her bosses: they do his thinking for him/her, and then let him know what they want.
He is their servant. He may offer suggestions, however. He too is a citizen and so we need the benefit of his thinking.
“Some brilliant achievement may win a people’s favor at one stroke. But to gain the affection and respect of your immediate neighbors, a long succession of little services rendered and of obscure good deeds, a constant habit of kindness and an established reputation for disinterestedness, are required.” We wish we had a butler like that.
This is the atmosphere that we would want to maintain as we address the challenge that lies before us. NO VIOLENCE. It would be excellent practice for us as we carve out the type of government that we want in the Age of Reason (Pocket Gofer 18).
We envision a possible scenario thus, where a man or woman returns from a meeting: “Honey, that S.O.B. Jorgenson got up there again, pushing his idea of individual property rights.
“But, you know? I’m starting to think the old duck may actually be onto something we can use.” Minds are like parachutes; they function only when open.
UTILIZING AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY: Technical capability suggests that some meetings might be run at least partially on-line. Each neighborhood and community would work out what is best. Our preliminary impression is that free and open debate would be more productive if each debater could see his/her opposite in the flesh.
On this subject we admit two things. First, we are not high-tech. Second, we of course have no experience with political meetings in a democracy.
Therefore the following discussion amounts to little more than speculation, a vision. But we will have a go anyway; damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
Behind the table at the front of a meeting hall there is a large, electronic flat-screen. Each citizen attending has a remote, which will be used to send a message to the chair of the meeting, to other speakers or to vote.
Prior to a meeting date copies of the previous meeting’s minutes, summaries of any committee reports to be discussed and an agenda go out online to every household in the neighborhood/community. The chair calls the meeting to order. Minutes are read, amended, and approved by vote.
Item #1 on the agenda comes up for discussion. If this is old business a committee report may be read by its chair. The title of the item and a summary of the report are displayed on the flat-screen.
Discussion begins. A citizen who is not used to speaking before a group requests the help of a floor assistant. With the aid of a notebook computer, the two of them agree on the wording of a question, recommendation or a critique of an existing recommendation.
The chair recognizes the citizen, who rises to speak. The floor assistant sends the agreed words to the screen from his/her lap-top computer.
Discussion proceeds. Citizens listen carefully because the issue when resolved will affect their daily lives. (In a large meeting several floor assistants will distribute radio mikes as needed.)
The chair recognizes a citizen’s desire to criticize the previous presentation. A brief summary is projected on the screen. The critic first summarizes the previous speakers’ remarks, to show that he/she understands. Next he points out what he thinks are the strong points.
Then he turns to the weak points. Finally he gives a recommendation, either to remove the idea from further discussion or to make a constructive change as he directs.
After perhaps several more speakers the chair asks if the citizens are ready to vote on the recommendation. If a show of hands says yes, the vote is conducted (either open or using the remotes); a majority in favor carries it. If not, either more discussion is in order or the committee is given a mandate for further work prior to the next meeting.
Occasionally an experienced speaker will get windy. At the top of the flat-screen there will be three bright lights: green, yellow, and red.
Members of the audience will gradually feel that the speaker is adding little besides what he has already said. As each arrives at this conclusion, he/she will aim his remote at the lights and punch a button.
As about half of the citizens react in this way the light changes from green to yellow. More windy time, and the light eventually turns red.
The speaker sees this and limits his remarks accordingly. If he does not, the chair may diplomatically intervene (always remember, we are interested in having people contribute).
The presence of this facility should suggest to citizens that they organize their remarks prior to taking the floor. We remind ourselves that democracy is inefficient.
We would want contributions from as many citizens as possible, as that is how public officials can tap into the collective wisdom of the people. But we would also want discussion stopped and action taken when a majority of citizens are in favor.
In a democracy the majority rules. However, the Constitution protects the basic rights of a minority. Furthermore, when given ample opportunity to participate in discussions almost no member of a losing minority on an issue would feel cheated or left out.
The chair may not be the public official responsible for the neighborhood or community. He/she may decide that the task of running the meeting and giving as many as possible a chance to contribute distracts him from the urgent task of listening intently to the proceedings. In this way elected public servants may come and go, but a crackerjack chair could keep his/her job as long as he wants and citizens permit.
The meeting would last as long as the citizens indicate. There would be either a fixed time to stop, or the chair may offer a couple of opportunities to adjourn even if the agenda remains incomplete. Citizens would respond by showing hands or clicking their remotes at the lights as before.
After adjournment there would be an informal get-together over simple refreshments. The chair would circulate, asking how the meeting went and fielding suggestions for improvement.
During the meeting volunteers would mind babies and young children. As children grow up they would be encouraged to attend a few minutes of the meeting, remaining as long as they wish.
Their exercise of free choice rather than being pressured is not only democratic. The generation gap may also be narrowed.
THE PUBLIC-SPIRITED MENTALITY: Superstars would not aspire to elective office in a democracy. The person with great intelligence, creativity, drive, and leadership ability would be amply rewarded in the private sector.
Businesses would snap up as many of these people as they can find. They would help to create more wealth and jobs, broaden the tax base, increase productivity, and enable us to raise our living standards.
In the public sector we would need officials who are reasonably intelligent and committed. We would want a person who knows his/her bosses, maintains open dialog with us in order to stay current with changes in our thoughts and desires, and help us act on these desires as they become known.
Such an official would not be a seeker of personal power. He/she must be a public-spirited citizen. He must be able to tap into the collective wisdom of the mass of citizens, bring it forth, and utilize it as a guide for his actions. See Pocket Gofer 3.
In his book Democratic Capitalism Ray Carey offered an excellent description of a public-spirited politician. “A politician who refuses to be a ‘performer,’ ——–.
“Who doesn’t orate. Who never holds a press conference in front of an aircraft carrier or in a flag factory. Who doesn’t assume the public is stupid or uncaring.
“Who believes in at least one idea, or program, that has less than 40 percent support in the polls. Who can tell a joke — at his own expense, if possible.
“Who gets angry, within reason; gets weepy, within reason … but only if those emotions are rare and real. Who is capable ———— belly laugh. ———. Who radiates good sense, common decency, and calm.
“Who is not afraid to deliver bad news. Who is not afraid to admit a mistake.”
The late Peter Peterson was a prominent citizen of extensive experience in both the private and public sectors. “When I speak at college commencements, I suggest that young people embark on dual careers — a personal career and a part-time career as citizens.”
He went on to describe what past and present governments have loaded on them. Then he thought that “—— perhaps America’s youth will initiate an honest and informed dialogue with their parents and grandparents.” Peterson wanted to recruit senior citizens into our cause.
POLITICAL EQUALITY: Rich, middle and poor can and would mix, most importantly at the neighborhood and community levels. Free and open debate would take place among all as we share a common interest in building a better neighborhood and community.
In meetings a rich person would treat the ideas of a poor person on an equal basis with those of another wealthy citizen, and the reverse. Wisdom is not the exclusive property of the rich and intelligent.
A poor citizen would feel that he/she could gain prestige and self-esteem by generating and promoting a good idea. If the first few ideas are shot down he should persist.
We should not try to inject self-esteem into our young people. This cannot work, as it must be earned by the person.
We have here an opportunity for doing this. Whatever the background, in a democracy a contributing citizen could find satisfaction in his/her dissatisfaction.
The person who chairs a meeting must be deeply committed to listening. The poor citizen standing before him/her whose words are tumbling over one another has something to contribute: BELIEVE IT! Help him to put his idea into words.
For example: “Sir/Ma’m, even tho your proposal did not find favor among your fellow citizens it is appreciated nonetheless. We here in our neighborhood/community believe your contributions have value. Therefore, let me encourage you to continue your thinking. We look forward to your next contribution.” When said before the meeting attendees something like this will separate the idea from the persona of the citizen.
Be sincere in thanking him for his contribution. When empathically listening the meeting chair is sending a message to the speaker. He//she would feel good; see PG 6.
Just as everyone is an amateur philosopher, every citizen should be an amateur politician. We have thoughts about professional politicians; see Pocket Gofer 3.
Consent of the governed is by itself not enough. Democracy is bottom-up. Therefore a community needs initiatives from its citizens, original ideas.
Risky? Yes; our idea might get shot down. But it was our idea that got the shaft, not us (Pocket Gofer 13). Next time around we will have a better one.
An individual citizen can be fooled. Conmen and -women make livings from the truth of this statement.
However, when a group convenes for political discussion of issues of their choice there would exist a collective wisdom that will nearly always steer the group clear of error and deceit. If it should fail the error would soon be discovered and corrected, so long as free and open debate persists.
When we learn how to attend and conduct meetings we will move closer to truth. As Jefferson indicated, we would need this strong and faithful ally. We would reserve for truth a prominent place at every meeting.
We suggest that an enlightened citizen, whatever his/her means, would be better able to see through the balderdash being shoveled at him by today’s news media. He would be more interested in current issues than if he were not a participating citizen.
Therefore he would seek media who will provide a balanced and informative delivery of information. This customer desire would force the media, by whomever they are owned, to honestly produce truth and reality or be replaced by someone who will.
Someone said eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Friends, it is human nature that someone will always be nibbling at the edges of our liberty. Without that vigilance he/she/they would soon be gobbling huge chunks of it.
With these thoughts in mind we might like to ask, are political parties still necessary in our country? We will put this one in our pipe and puff on it for a while.
CONCLUSION
“When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken (Nineteenth-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli).”
Democracy is a reward system for good ideas. As it utilizes the bottom-up approach, additional contributions are encouraged.
The result is an open dialog. This is kept open by empathic listening, because this practice communicates mutual trust, respect, and confidence.
In these we find incentives for more contributions. As the process feeds on itself it becomes a virtuous cycle.
Truth is wonderful, but it is elusive. The dogged pursuit of this lofty goal brings out honesty in elected officials, as Jefferson indicated. As our culture moves into the era of the open society (Pocket Gofer 5) we have better opportunities to see these good things happen.
However, lest we lose our grip on democracy we must always remember that, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Everyone, however honest going in, needs to be accountable to someone.
Getting democracy off to a good start in our neighborhood and community is crucial. This means selecting our public servants with great care.
This applies especially to those who will chair political meetings. Such people would be well advised to request that every citizen who attends come with at least one Pocket Gofer tucked into a hip pocket or secured in a purse or mobile phone.
Democracy is a delicate flower. We must prepare the soil with care, plant the seed with deep concern, and see that the result constantly enjoys the benefits of warm sun and rain lest it wilt and wither over the long term.
The late Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman refused to leave his academic position. He believed that this perspective was important to his larger mission:
“For society to be at once humane and to give opportunity for great human achievements, it is necessary that a small minority of people who do not have materialistic objectives have the greatest degree of freedom.”
Jefferson: “It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.”
Direct democracy: from pocket to practice.
—-PUBLIUS II
A PAUSE
Friends, we have been thinking, reflecting on what we have written. Our conclusion is
that we have enjoyed working on this project. This is because we are citizens, and therefore we are deeply concerned about the state of the union. We have folded our prayers into these booklets, that they may make a useful contribution. Always keep ion mind that the rebellion must be nonviolent.
One more item of concern. We have made as good a use as we are capable of many resources, most of them books and magazines. (Print has the advantage of leisure. We can read, ponder, and draw conclusions.) Some have been mentioned directly in pocket gofers.
We want to give credit when due, so we list below those resources that we found most useful. It is not all-inclusive.
The Economist – calls itself a weekly newspaper. British, so it takes a foreigner’s view of this country and prints criticisms about our government that we should but don’t find in the American news media. Also, it covers many subjects besides economics, shows how they interrelate. Very useful resource.
Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville – The wonderful citizen-created government that our ancestors had in 1830; just great.
Common Sense and Rights of Man by Thomas Paine – Outstanding personal philosophy and dedication to liberty applied to a comparison between natural and civic human rights. Published in 1776 and 1792, respectively.
The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay – Difficult reading but chock full of insight into human nature, and detailed explanations of key parts of the Constitution.
The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, by Adrienne Koch and William Peden (eds.) – Penetrates the thinking of history’s finest and most devoted advocate of democracy.
The Triumph of Liberty, By Jim Powell – Reaches back centuries to describe the struggles of dedicated individuals as they fought against overwhelming odds, including torture and death, so that men and women may be free.
Eisenhower by Stephen Ambrose – Graphic account of career soldier Ike’s eight-year fight with the warriors in the pentagon. He reduced the military, balanced the budget, and kept the US out of all armed conflict.
The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind – The contrast between loyalty to truth and loyalty to a person, President GW Bush, is both stark and appalling.
Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and The Failure of Good Intentions by Clyde Prestowitz – With extensive experience abroad, the author provides devastating evidence to explain why most of the world perceives the US as a rogue nation.
The Road to Serfdom and The Fatal Conceit by Friedrich von Hayek – Written during the 1940s and translation not very easy to read. Hayek blows socialism and the welfare state out of the water.
The Wish for Kings and Gag Rule: On the Suppression of Dissent and the Stifling of Democracy, by Lewis Lapham – Compares Washington to a palace court in King Louis XIV’s France; excellent. The second book is devastating.
Who Will Tell the People by William Greider – Very good exposé of Washington corruption and the Grand Deception.
Arrogant Capital by Kevin Phillips – Shows how and why parasites in Washington think of us citizens as peasants and act accordingly. Narrates the broken tradition of periodic “revolutions” in our history.
Monopoly Politics by Richard Miller – Shows that the two major political parties in this country have merged into one in order to better fleece the public.
Sound and Fury by Eric Alterman – Excellent description of incredible personal power seeking in Washington, especially by what he calls the pundits.
The Book on Bush: How George W. [mis]Leads America, by Eric Alterman and Mark Green- Shocking incompetence and bull-headedness revealed.
Parliament of Whores by P.J. O’Rourke – Humorous yet devastating critique of the congress.
For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization and Those Dirty Rotten Taxes by Charles Adams – There are good taxes and bad taxes. Adams demonstrates over and over again that the majority are bad, and how human nature impels governments to keep increasing the load until the inevitable rebellion.
A Call for Revolution by Martin L. Gross – Pulls absolutely no punches; revealing statistics; sweeping recommendations.
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand – Powerfully written fictional account of the welfare state carried to its illogical and tragic conclusion. Hero John Galt engineers a “brain strike.”
The Discovery of Freedom, by Rose Wilder Lane – Demonstrates that thruout the history of mankind there was only misery in human existence, until after the Revolutionary War. Written in 1942, it includes a grim warning, which actually happens in Rand’s 1957 novel. Another powerful book.
Why Government Doesn’t Work by Harry Browne – Powerful attack on today’s BIG GOVERNMENT in Washington, emphasizing the abuse of its power to force us to do or refrain from doing things against our will. (Browne ran for president in 1996 and 2000 on the Libertarian ticket.)
Lost Rights by James Bovard – An amazing litany of individual citizen’s rights taken away by Big Government; incredible.
A More Perfect Union by William Peters – Deep insights into how our Constitution was compiled thru discussion and debate among 55 brave and capable men from 12 states.
United Nations: The First 50 Years by Stanley Meisler – Chronology documents the UN’s birthing and growing pains, and how the American government persisted in treating the organization as an arm of American foreign policy.
Will America Grow Up Before it Grows Old? and Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It, by Peter Peterson. Extensive experience with government and painstaking research combine to create two thunderous wake-up calls for concerned citizens.
These volumes graphically demonstrate the utter futility of war and the unspeakable horror on the battleground (so terrible that veterans cannot talk about it without reliving):
Deliver Us From Evil by William Shawcross
Out of the Night by William Mahedy
On the Tiger’s Back by Bernard Grady
War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges
Democratic Capitalism, by Ray Carey. Former CEO of a prominent company very effectively criticizes what he calls “ultra capitalism.” Wall Street should provide useful resources to investors and companies; it should not be permitted to go wild.
American Dynasty, by Kevin Phillips. Follows the Bush family for several generations, especially the last two. Exposes shocking political intrigue, violations of law.
The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East, by Robert Fisk. During 25 years of reporting, Fisk has seen the worst horror of today’s warfare. Explains why the news media are forbidden to report the truth.
House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power, by James Carroll. A graphic narration of a bureaucracy gone berserk. Not even a president as commander-in-chief of the armed forces can touch this colossus. How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything: Tales from the Pentagon, by Rosa Brooks. This devastating book elaborates extensibly on Carroll’s work.
Politics Lost: How American Democracy was Trivialized by People Who Think You’re Stupid, by Joe Klein. An inside observer chronicles and laments 35 years of deterioration in the American Government.
Empire of Debt: The Rise of an Epic financial Crisis, by William Bonner. He forecasted the crisis in 2006. “All empires must pass away. All must find a way to destroy themselves. America found debt.”
Nonviolence: 25 Lessons from the history of a dangerous Idea, by Mark Kurlansky. Drawing from the writings of such as Gandhi and the Dalai Lama, he reinforces this truth: Any ruler can start a war, but it takes real courage to step forward and advocate peace.
Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty, by Randy Barnett. Brings out the protracted and sneaky attack that has shredded the Constitution, much if not most of the damage done due to decisions by the supreme Court.
Schroeder, Alice, The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life, by Alice Schroeder. “He pointed out a growing army of hush-puppies and tax panderers whose job was to push for legislation that benefitted the interests of the rich. He said, however, that nobody lobbied for the other 98% of Americans.
I Was Told to Come Alone: My Journey behind the Lines of Jihad, by Souad Mekhennet. This author’s father is Sunni Islam and her mother Shia, so she had access to some of the deepest thinking and actions by both branches of jihad. This brave reporter went wherever there was news about shadowy groups of desperate men, and survived. These men knew that her reports to the NY Times and Washington Post were the only nonviolent way to communicate with the non-Muslim world
The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You think, and How You Vote, by Sharyl Attkisson. Attkisson is a member of a rare breed: investigative reporter who reports on the government in Washington, DC. Her strongest findings almost never make it to the mainstream news media, for the simple reason that they criticize the elite class in government who don’t want truth to expose their illegal and anti-constitutional activities.
Farrow, Ronan, War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence, by Ronan Farrow. This is one HELLUVA BOOK. It is the most graphic and the most gigantic example of the unavoidable trade-off between economic and military strength. While everyone wants peace, the pentagon rules supreme.
American Individualism, by Margaret Hoover. This lady is the great-granddaughter of our 31st president, Herbert Hoover. Her target readership is today’s millennials born during the 1980s and 1990s. Her emphasis is on a modern version of conservatism. Excellent book, with one outstanding exception. She recommends a strong military, even tho Herbert Hoover was a Quaker.
We just read China and Russia: the New Rapprochement, published in 2018 by Alexander Lukin. He is a Russian academic, so parts are a challenging read. He has lived, studied toward doctoral degrees in both countries as well as America. We learned of a different approach to resolving the issue: Foreign aggression v diplomacy from a non-Western perspective. Having suffered thru a media avalanche since the fall of the Soviet Union that preaches the virtues of Western values while neglecting the other side, we valued this book. Somewhere between the Eastern and Western positions lies truth. Because that has been our goal for over 30 years of research, we read Lukin with keen interest.
How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything: Tales From
The Pentagon by Rosa Brooks. Elaborates on Carrol’s book. This detailed
expose’ is astounding. The pentagon’s damage to our wealth and international
relations borders on the incomprehensible.
HONORABLE MENTIONS include Sleepwalking Through History by Haynes Johnson; /// Kissinger by Walter Isaacson; /// The Disuniting of America by Arthur Schlesinger Jr.; /// Disabling America by Richard E. Morgan; /// The Power Game by Hedrick Smith;
For a New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard; /// The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy; /// On Becoming a Leader by Warren Bennis; /// The Wise Men by Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas; /// Power and Accountability by Robert A.G. Monks and Nell Minow;
Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter; /// Capitalism and Freedom and An Economist’s Protest by Milton Friedman; /// Power Shift by Alvin Toffler; /// Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy, by James Fallows;
The Good Life and Its Discontents by Robert Samuelson; /// Trust by Francis Fukuyama; /// The Book of Democracy by James Barber; /// Integrity by Stephen Carter; /// Slouching Toward Gomorra by Robert Bork; /// Libertarianism in One Lesson by David Bergland;
On Human Nature by Edward O. Wilson; /// I’m Okay; You’re Okay by Thomas Harris; /// A Nation of Millionaires by Robert Genetski; /// Principles for a Free Society by Richard Epstein; /// The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life by Michael Schudson;
Freedom and the Law by Bruno Leoni; /// Small is Beautiful, by EF Schumacher; /// Modern Times, by Paul Johnson; /// The Death of Common Sense, by Philip Howard; /// Education in a Free Society, by Anne Burleigh (ed.); /// The Perfectibility of Man, by John Passmore;
John Adams, by David McCullough; /// The Mystery of Capital, by Hernando de Soto; /// The O’Reilly Factor, by Bill O’Reilly; /// Dependent on DC, by Charlotte Twight; /// The News About the News, by Leonard Downey and Robert Kaiser; /// The Transparent Society, by David Brin;
Reaching for Glory: Lyndon Johnson’s Secret White House Tapes, 1964-65, by Michael Beschloss; /// His Excellency, by Joseph Ellis; /// Good to be King, by Michael Badnarik; /// Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, by Robert Stinnett;
Understanding Iraq, by William Polk; /// Reagan and Gorbachev, by Jack Matlock, Jr.; /// A Force More Powerful, by Peter Ackerman and Jack Duval; /// Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, by Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson;
Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, by Thomas Ricks; /// An Army of Davids: How the Market and Technology Empower Ordinary People to beat Big Media, Big Government and Other Goliaths, by Glen Reynolds;
Washington’s war: From Independence to Iraq, by General Sir Michael Rose; /// Thomas Paine, by A.J. Ayer; /// A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country, by Larry Sabato;
Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making, by David Rothkopf; /// Ron Paul Speaks, by Philip Haddad and Roger Marsh; /// The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, by Amity Shlaes;
No Place To Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the US Surveillance State, by Glenn Greenwald; /// Open: How We’ll Work, Live and Learn in the Future, by David Price; /// Reagan: The Life, by HW Brands; /// Conservative Heroes, by Garland Tucker;
The Public wealth of Nations, by Dag Detter and Stefan Folster; /// A Whole New Mind: Moving from the Information Age to the Conceptual Age, by Daniel Pink; /// Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can’t Stop Talking, by Susan Cain;
Winter is Coming, by Garry Kasparov; /// Black Wind, White Snow: The Rise of Russia’s New Nationalism, by Charles Clover; /// Cure: A Journey into the Science of Mind Over Body, by Jo Marchant; /// The Spirit of Laws, by Baron de Montesquieu
The Dream of Enlightenment: The Rise of Modern Philosophy, by Anthony Gottlieb; /// All the Kremlin’s Men: Inside the Court of Vladimir Putin, by Mikhail Zygar; ///
China’s Crony Capitalism, by Minxin Pei; /// The Complacent Class: The Self-defeating Quest for the American Dream, by Tyler Cowen; /// The Retreat of Western Liberalism, by Edward Luce; /// Russia’s Dead End: An Insider’s Testimony from Gorbachev to Putin, by Andrei Kovalev;
The Man Who Stayed Behind, SydneyRittenberg
and Amanda Bennett; /// Hoover: An extraordinary
Life in Extraordinary Times, by Kenneth Whyte; ///
The Struggle for Humanity: Agents of Nonviolent
Change in a Violent World, by Marjorie Hope and
James Young; daily newspapers Wall Street
Journal and News & Observer. ///On Taxes in the
US And The Rich by Alice Schroeder ///
On America’s Three Regimes by Morton Keller
Black Wind, White Snow: The Rise of Russia’s
Black New Russian Nationalism by Charles Clover
/// The Spirit of Laws, by Montesquieu ///
/// All the Kremlin’s Men: Inside
the Court of Vladimir Putin by Mikhail Zygar ///
/// Russia’s Dead End: An Insider’s Testimony
from Gorbachev to Putin by Andrei Kovalev ///
The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and
Fake News Control What You See, What You
think, and How You Vote by Sharl Attkisson
/// China and Russia: the Rapprochement by
Alexander Lukin
Also, because we practice what we preach feel free to offer constructive criticisms of the gofers. The use of “we” is intended to suggest that Publius II’s writings are the voice of the citizens. Better than this, MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO GOOD GOVERNMENT.
TITLES OF OTHER POCKET GOFERS WHICH WE CAN DIG INTO,
DISCUSS, CRITICIZE, AND ACT ON:
PG 1 – ON HEALTH AND FITNESS IN THE USA
PG 2 – ON VOLUNTEERISM
PG 3 – ON THE CAREER POLITICIAN IN A DEMOCRACY
PG 4 – ON THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH TO GETTING THINGS DONE
PG 5 – ON THE COMING OPEN SOCIETY
PG 6 – ON MAKING A CONTRIBUTION
PG 7 – ON CORRUPTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
PG 8 – ON GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF BUSINESS AND THE PHANTOM
PG 9 – IT’S ALL IN THE FAMILY
PG 10 – ON EDUCATION IN THE USA
PG 11 – ON THE US AS A WORLD CITIZEN
PG 12 – ON THE UN AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS
PG 13 – ON PERSONAL POWER AND IDEAS
PG 14 – ON RESPECT FOR TAXPAYERS’ MONEY
PG 15 – ON BIG, SMALL, AND GOOD GOVERNMENT
PG 16 – ON DEMOCRACY AND OUR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
PG 17 – ON LEADERSHIP IN A DEMOCRACY
PG 18 – ON WAR, WEAPONS, AND PEACE
PG 19 – ON THE GRAND DECEPTION
PG 21 – PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A CONSTITUTION