PostHeaderIcon America Reborn

Dave and I have suggested a series of articles addressing the subject: What Should The New America Look Like?

This is based on the collective analysis in this blog that the current America is essentially an historical artifact that will soon degenerate into total chaos unless some new, possibly radical approaches are tried. Said another way, there is no viable path back to what we once were – and were intended to be, ergo there is no rationality in wasting the time and effort trying to do so.

Since only two of us currently have editorial privileges here, and, so that we can have multiple threads so that the discussions remain navigable, I propose to post a series of topical “stubs” to which all participants can equally contribute. What I need you folks to do is suggest a starting list of topical stubs to get the conversation started.


9 Responses to “America Reborn”

  • Good idea, Troy.

    Topic 1 – Necessity
    I suppose first we should recap the necessity for restructuring America’s defunct Federal experiment. If we wish to try to avoid a bloody Revolution/Civil War (same thing), there needs to be a strategy for convincing at least the current supporters of Bernie, Trump, and Cruz that voting for any of them is not going to fix what ails us. This would be the most difficult task we face.

    Topic 2 – Divorce
    We need to contemplate how we might best divorce ourselves, from the Regressive Statists, with the least amount of bloodshed. (E.g. secession, etc.) Although the map at Flyover Country is a dozen-years-old, the general lay of the political landscape hasn’t changed that much. They inhabit the little blue islands in our sea of red. How could we coexist side by side with them?

    While we could survive just fine dealing with the metropolises as value for value traders, they absolutely require the ability to exploit all producers with their taxes, to support themselves and their helpless voters in their ghettos. They won’t give up their ability to routinely shear the sheeple in Flyover Country willingly, or easily. The evidence suggests that they are already massively preparing for the potential of insurrection, with Federal force of arms and internment camps. Ignoring this reality, could make the rest of our project futile and moot.

    I am not suggesting that topics 1&2 need to be resolved before we can get into the interesting stuff; but they are important and can’t be just wished away. Chances are pretty high that they cannot be accomplished at all, and that what we will be discussing is how our posterity might recreate a semblance of civilization, after the impending near apocalyptic collapse of this one.

    Topic 3 – Sovereignty
    OK, assuming that we have arrived at a starting-over point, one way or another, the first thing that needs to be settled should be sovereignty. Our original Founders reckoned that each freeman was a sovereign individual, born with inherent rights and privileges, equal in all respects to King George himself, and a vassal to no potentate. Their extremely limited self-government, defined by the Constitution, was meant to be subservient to the individual sovereigns residing on these shores, who permitted its very existence.

    Obviously, this relationship is no longer the case. Americans are now considered bound subjects of the Federal bureaucratic Leviathan, and little more than overtaxed serfs on its sovereign territory. Most have been so dumbed down, that they now consider what rights they think they might have, more as privileges and benefits, provided by their magnanimous government. For all their complaints, our American ancestors experienced infinitely less tyranny under the rule of their Monarch, than we do today under the reigning bureaucrats and politicians in Sodom by the Potomac.

    To me, it is a no-brainer that we would wish to return to individual sovereignty. If so, we need a strategy for explaining why, and convincing Americans that they are not, and never should be, subjects of whatever government from time to time happens to claim dominion, over the land of their fathers.

    Topic 4 – Liberty
    My favorite topic. Liberty and rule are the antithesis of each other. Whether rulers are potentates, the so-called rule of law, or the mob rule of democracy, government cannot provide or guarantee freedom; government is, by its very nature, the exact opposite of freedom.

    Our Founders, having won their individual sovereignty in a bloody treasonous insurrection, against the monarch to whom they owed their allegiance, chose to relinquish a portion of that precious jewel yet again, to a new form of government of their own design, for the purpose of establishing the so-called rule of law, as opposed to the rule of men. Was this ultimately a mistake? I will be arguing that it was, and that we should be ever so careful, while contemplating doing so again.

    Could a laissez faire, stateless society, of sovereign freemen owing allegiance to nothing, exist without rulers empowered to force their conformity to the lifestyle, values, and wishes of others? I will be arguing that it not only could, but it would be vastly superior to the current failed paradigm, of mob rule democracy.

    Topic 5 – Federalism
    This is where the fun begins. What, if anything, should we replace the current, hopelessly failed, federation with? Is there a functional purpose and benefit to establishing perhaps several regional governments, for centralized economic planning, mutual defense, free trade zones, and a recognized voice among other sovereign nations, as a new nation state? Would the potential advantages outweigh the potential risks?

    Again, I will be arguing not; but if so, what should be the criteria for defining such zones? Who could join, and once a member, would dissenters be free to secede again from membership at will? Would they need defensible borders and immigration rules and procedures? Could a socialist metropolis island exist autonomously within them. Who should administer them, and how should their administrators be selected? What power should they have, and how would they be funded?

    Will they have an ironclad constitution, with severely limited and precisely enumerated powers? Could they be absolutely forbidden to ever interfere in the lives of individual sovereigns in any way? Is there a way to keep them in check, so they do not again outgrow their usefulness, requiring this revolutionary process to eventually be repeated? Perhaps most importantly, can it be established and never reversed, that they are always subservient to the smaller governmental entities, and sovereign individuals, extant within their boundaries?

    Topic 6 – Size, Scope, & Hierarchy
    The same sort of questions need to be considered for smaller government entity proposals (E.g. States, counties, towns). Again, do we even need them? Of course, I will be arguing against them; but perhaps less vehemently on the local level, where the populace could have much better control over their public employees.

    In any case, if they exist, the hierarchy of power should always be an inverted pyramid, with the individual sovereigns as the base on top. Under the authority of these individuals, the next level would be their town or city governments. Below that, should be found the counties, parishes, or townships formed by the constituent communities, and subservient to them. The next lower level would be the State governments, which could be considered a subservient federation of counties. Finally, the apex on the bottom, with the least power, would represent the regional federation of States. For a better understanding of what I mean, see: “Sovereign Rights.”


    These are my initial thoughts. If agreeable, we could perhaps expand each one a bit and make an individual post out of it. Any others you think of, or our commenter community suggests, could also be added as they arise. I dislike long titles, because they take up too much room in the ‘Latest Comments’ widget, so we need a shortcut for the project itself. Since you started with “America Reborn,” perhaps we could use the shortcut ‘AR’ (E.g. “AR – Liberty,” “AR – Federalism,” etc.)

    How does this all strike you? Is it what you had in mind? If not, I am very flexible on the structure of the project… I am just looking forward to getting started on it, for a change of pace from perhaps entertaining; but rather pointless politics. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

  • Chris says:

    Convention of states?
    Session of states then re-franchising at will?
    Stealth coup?
    Military coup?
    Bloody revolution?
    All of the above?

    No proposal can move forward without knowing how to get there.

    • Chris says:

      I will be arguing that any of these choices ends with the last save possibly a convention of states.

    • No proposal can move forward without knowing how to get there.

      Agreed, and your “Process” would definitely be a necessary component of my “Topic 2 – Divorce.” We can certainly discuss the options and ramifications of attempting to initiate the demise of the Federal government; but as I said, I don’t believe it is imperative to do so, before contemplating what would follow. The premise that we started with, is that said demise is coming soon in any case, whether preplanned or not.

      Endeavoring to design a workable organization for an America 2.0, can be a stimulating and enjoyable intellectual exercise, whether or not it ever has a chance of being implemented, and should offend or frighten no one. Contemplating and planning a revolution of any sort, to hasten the opportunity to try, probably not so much. 🙂

      If anything, we should probably put the Divorce and Process categories after the design phase. If we were to create an attractive vision for the future, before the country actually gets around to self-destructing, then some sort of substantially bloodless transition might actually be marketable to the sheeple. Thus, having our ducks in a row first, before challenging the status quo, might be prudent. â—„Daveâ–º

      • Chris says:

        I’ll go with that. I only propose considering process or as you say divorce to keep proposals anchored in reality or what could be possible within the realm of avoiding those processes with the exception of maybe a convention of states. Working from the premise of a completed organic collapse may be the most prudent for the sake of discussion. I’m not a “revolutionary” and have little interest in becoming one.

        • Troy Robinson says:

          I’m not a “revolutionary” and have little interest in becoming one.

          Ditto. I have always found the evolutionary approach to be more effective for several reasons. Not least is the ability to make adjustments as you proceed whereas the revolutionary approach requires a level of precision up front that is beyond human ability.

          I learned this early in my software development career and I am sure it is the main reason that almost all big software development projects fail.



  • Troy Robinson says:

    Thanks for the contributions. I will try to collate, simplify the list then generate the initial topical stubs as promised.

    Before we begin this adventure in earnest, might I take the liberty to suggest a few guidelines? Hearing no opposition, the “ayes” have it. So, here goes:

    (Gosh — maybe I should be chair at the upcoming GOP circus? But, I digress…)

    –> First and foremost, our role is to suggest ideas and approaches. None of us have been endowed with absolute wisdom or the power to impose same on the innocent.

    –> Be civil and respectful. I know our regulars will be because that is what they have always been. Others… welcome to the fray but keep it decent. (When in doubt, ask yourself, would Franklin or Madison have said that?)

    –> On the other hand, there is no rule whatever saying you must be agreeable. Controversy is encouraged so long as it is directed at ideas rather than their purveyors.

    –> Try to stick to the topic suggested by the stub name. If additional topical stubs are needed, simply ask.

    –> Have fun.


Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links