March 13, 2006

Lew Rockwell asked the following question: “What do you do with a state – a highly centralized and militarized state – that has unconstrained hegemonic ambitions and is a proven threat to its citizens and other nations around the world?” No doubt the consequences of internationalism make up the bulk of the daily news cycle. But how many ordinary people really care what transpires in every remote corner of the world! Most average citizens are struggling to get through another torturous day and keep their head above water.

As for a better future for their children, how many of us can say with confidence and honesty that the next generation will have it better than their parents? Few of us are perpetual travelers. We all live somewhere. Even the most hardened recluse has an address. And as reluctant as many of us are willing to admit, we are part of some community. The smallest unit of social interaction is as local as you can get.

So why is it preordained that governments are organized under a top down model? Is there really any justification or benefit from allowing or accepting authority, real or contrived, from setting down the rules for the rest of us to obey under the penalty of coercion? Since life requires a modest degree of pragmatism to survive a quality existence, trading off dignity for personal comfort is the basic operating principle. So says the typical citizen.

F.A. Hayek’s stance to combat the leviathan monster of the State is to go local. Rockwell continues: “We need a Hayekian solution to the US. We need small states trading with each other. How many? It really doesn't matter so long as one is not overly large geographically or in terms of population. It could be 10 states or 100. At some point, the number of political units created would have to be left to the people themselves, to be decided by local plebiscite. After all, at that point, all political alliances between units would have to be voluntary and clearly dissolvable.”

In a significant tract from a Marxist viewpoint, Liberty and Populism: Building an Effective Resistance Movement in North America, a cogent point is made:

“I believe the best way to approach the possibility of a rapprochement between the radical libertarian-left and the populist radical-right is to convince both sides that their cultural interests are best defended within the context of a radically decentralized political order. Much of the right should be open to this idea as respect for venerable American traditions such as "states' rights" and "local sovereignty" is common on the right.”

Surely genuine conservatives can agreed that localism is at the core of self-determination! Such credentialed stalwarts like Free Congress Foundation President Paul M. Weyrich have long championed the clout of local empowerment. With the passing of Harry Brown, would this not be an advantageous time to rally libertarians and populist conservatives to focus on their common interests, which all start and reside within their most local of governmental jurisdictions?

The Columnist Guild is taking an active role in assembling noteworthy grassroots organizations to promote and communicate the one last best chance to take back citizen jurisdiction as the most basic of all social unites. The national notoriety of the Minuteman Project is augmented by such organizations like Free New York and the Southern Independence Party. When credible efforts like the Free State Project sees the value of advertising on BREAKING ALL THE RULES, the synergism and compatibility of organizing and participating in efforts to re-establish individual inherent autonomy comes to life.

National attention for Frosty Wooldridge’s ‘21st Century Paul Revere Ride’ is a concrete example of what you can do! This is the local approach to social revolution, because that is exactly what it will take to move the focal point of the government spine to the backyards of everyday Americans. Communal action for the good of the common man will never be inappropriate. Especially when distinct communities are able to forge their own path and cry out the warning that the Federalists are coming again, and we need to repel them from the local bridge . . .

The differences in the Rockwell camp of libertarian thought need not be so great that the Buchanan pitchfork brigade can’t accept. Likewise the need for real protectionism from the Corporate/State axis should override any flawed utopianism that purists expound. Hayek advocated practical solutions. If the American Revolutionary Vanguard grasps the instinctive and mutual bond against state sponsored tyranny, why is it so hard for government sympathizers to comprehend that a “highly centralized and militarized state” is the root source of local oppression?

Free New York has a logo with two pyramids, one points up and one down. When society operates under a true representative model the folks at the bottom are the foundation. Their footings support the spirals. But when the weight of excess and authoritarianism bears down from the upper echelon upon the shoulders of the worker bees, only the queens are preened.

Local municipalities may not be able to sack over a century of distorted foreign policy, but every home rule district can wage a war against the federal imperialist. Since all politics is local, constructive rebellion begins when the people refuse to take more abuse. It starts when each individual matures and sets aside their flawed personal egos and begins to work together in a single common purpose. Think Local to build a Free Republic. No Pharaohs need apply.

© 2000-2006 by BATR All Rights Reserved -- republished with permission of the author

Read all of SARTRE's articles here.

2006 Predictions and Realities

Role of the Supreme Court

Hamas, Israel and the United States

Public Propaganda Pundits - Only approved talk will air!

Martyring Voltaire