Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
Murphy’s Law has many subsections. One of them is that activity on Ricochet increases at a rate commensurate with my work schedule. My 18 wheeler and I have been bouncing up and down the map, covering a ton of miles, while a post of mine from a few days ago generated a bit of a storm. If you’ve cleared a little time on your calendar, I urge you to go here and read these sometimes intense exchanges which revolve around Claire Berlinski’s kind introduction of Major Don Potoczny, currently serving on our behalf in Baghdad. The Major evidently took issue with my original post regarding plans being explored at the federal level which have your retirement savings in the crosshairs.
As the guy who started the original thread, I feel I should address some of the issues raised today, but there is simply no way I can do that in one or even two 200-word limited comment sections. Hence, this post:
First, thank you again, Major Potoczny, for your service. As one veteran to another, I know the oath you take is a very serious one, and one that you routinely put your life on the line to uphold, so please accept my sincere thanks.
I notice, Major, that you initially labeled as “ridiculous” my assertion that the government is considering raiding the retirement savings of Americans. I think one or two other people were curious about the validity of my post. The original article from the American Thinker included several sources, to which I should have added others, such as this, this, this, and this. My bad. But subsequent comments also underscored the validity of the idea‘s consideration, including Kenneth’s recitation of Vice President Biden’s exploration of the idea. Faced with the evidence and asked to retract, you countered that, “…the idea of taking 401(K) money is ridiculous. I think anyone should see that it is absolutely impossible politically.” Kenneth quickly identified that as a slippery maneuver to try and change the gist of your original characterization, to which you responded with, “We all agree it would be wrong for anyone to try to take our 401(k) money. You have persuaded me that talking about it is not ridiculous…” That was an important concession, Major, and I honor you for making it. The problem, of course, is that we all don’t agree that it would be wrong. And that’s because public officials you ostensibly support think it is perfectly acceptable.
As to the point that such a move would be “infeasible,” I’m not so sure about that either. Until recently, I would have thought that a government takeover of GM would be infeasible. The idea that the EPA would label the very air we breathe as a pollutant and threaten to impose its own cap and trade regime was infeasible. A federal judge telling a state that it may not defend its borders even as that state is virtually being invaded, and the federal government’s refusal to defend the citizens of that state against this invasion would have been labeled infeasible. A healthcare law that not only regulates commerce, but compels it, and adds over 16,000 new IRS agents was once infeasible. All of these items have two things in common: They are now reality, and they are all unconstitutional.
Which brings us to the crux of the matter: What to do about it? Both Emily Esfahani Smith and Claire Berlinski correctly point out that there are numerous mechanisms available to citizens to redress the problem, including voting, utilizing judicial avenues, etc. And I would add to that list such items as peaceful protests, letters to officials and to editors, etc. I heartily endorse all of these avenues. My presence on Ricochet demonstrates my own commitment to First Amendment remedies. But elected officials have developed a habit of ruling against the consent of the governed, and the judiciary has devolved into little more than a roulette wheel of sophistry, personal bias, and intellectual gymnastics. What happens then? What of the Second Amendment, which was touched upon briefly during my original thread?
Major, you write, “…I meant ‘all the messages that talked about violence as the answer to a political problem‘. Trust me, folks, it's not the answer.” I see some problems with that remark both substantively and stylistically. On substance, it’s rank fiction since we observe and celebrate its repudiation every 4th of July. In terms of the style with which you and a few others frame the issue as simple “violence,” I think you’re missing the distinction between aggression and resistance, and surely it’s a distinction worth noting. If you successfully repel armed robbery, are you guilty of committing violence, or are you defending yourself against robbery? Similarly, Emily Esfahani Smith makes the point that, “If the government betrays the constituents by using unjust force against them, then the constituents are justified to defend themselves.”
I submit that government, at its very core, is “force.” The power to tax is a “power” precisely because the government possesses the right to use force to exact that tax. Try not paying it and see what happens. James Madison summarized what I believe is the correct position, saying: “A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression.” For his part, Ben Franklin added, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
Does this mean I'm grabbing a weapon and heading to D.C? Of course not! I don’t advocate violence, and I’m not doing so here. But it is important to remember that we are a nation that was born in resistance to oppression and servitude. To essentially take the savings of people who have put their earnings aside during their entire working lives on the promise that the government will give them enough to subsist (while keeping the excess) is to rob them of virtually everything, thereby making them wards of the state. If that isn’t oppression and servitude, then those terms have no meaning. And those are terms to which many of us will not submit.
The remedy, then, is a return to Constitutional governance. Hence the Tea Party and the resurgence of people who believe that the Constitution means precisely what is states, including the 10th Amendment that forbids any powers to the federal government except those which it specifically enumerates. Major, you have demonstrated your alleigance to the Constitution by putting your life on the line to defend it, for which I salute you and thank you. We on the right honor your oath by insisting that our politicians honor theirs.
- Comment (23)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Feb '10
Re: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
One of the best-written pieces I've read in quite a while. Bravo, Dave Carter!
May '10
Re: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
Boy Dave, have we ever missed you these past two days around here. Welcome back! And thank you for this thoughtful and erudite post.
The executive regulatory process is something I never considered fully until my own professional experience with it recently. It affords the executive branch enormous power to sidestep the legislative branch and create law without effective checks and balances. Whatever the president wants is what happens and you are free to submit "comments."
Knowing how our federal government assumes increasing amounts of power, this 401K story is truly terrifying but it also encourages me that we really are heading for an electoral reckoning that could end up reshaping the political landscape as we know it. Our growing polarization I think ultimately will lead to very distinct choices.
Today on "All Things Considered" they began a series to explain various economic philosophies. Apparently, as I was told, socialism has a bad rap from the cold war. You're free to own your own home and car, but the workers get to own the means of production. This was all tossed off as perfectly respectable in civilized Europe and only politically strange here in the crazy U.S.
Jun '10
Re: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
Beautiful Dave. I talked to a young man today, a professional at a very large firm. He doesn't believe he will get any of his money back from Social Security. I asked him what he was going to do about it. He just shrugged. What would the fine Major do if the government decided in a few years not to pay him any benefits? I suppose he would say that would never happen, and just move on. You and I would probably tell him, "Don't bet on it." Better to guard the home front as tenaciously as he guards our foreign arena. Become a conservative.
Jul '10
Re: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
Dave, thank you for such a succinct and forthright explanation of what the preamble of the Constitution means- 'We the People... establish this Constitution for the United States of America'. It was created by the people and for the people, not by a government to rule over the people. The point not to be missed in your excellent piece is that the defense of liberties are not selfish, they are a defense of everyone's personal liberties and best interests. Be safe on the road and thanks again.
Jul '10
Re: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
Dave, you're a better man than I.
I was way more irate on your behalf than you are.
To see your original post dismissed as "ridiculous" when I knew for a certainty that the Administration was scheming and that there was ample documentary evidence of that scheming, just outraged me.
As for the gun thing, well, I'm on record as saying it's probably a good idea for us not to go there, because people who wish us ill will exploit it.
As the Major (if in fact, he is a Major) surely did.
Edited on Sep 16, 2010 at 8:02pmRe: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
Trace, I hope you are right about the growing distinction of the choices we face. To highlight those distinctions before the election was the purpose of the original post. What was unthinkable yesterday is reality today, unfortunately.
Thanks for the NPR summary. I remember in the '80s, hearing WFB refer to it as "Radio Nicaragua." Nice of the socialists to let people own a home and a car, no? And if they want to earn enough to own a bigger home? But wait, they own the means of production! Lemme guess, the government holds on to the people's money for them, right? Sort of like a Guaranteed Retirement Account?
I'm just west of Nashville tonight, headed to Memphis tomorrow morning, and then up to Wisconsin. It will be busy, so I anticipate an action packed Ricochet!
Edited on Sep 16, 2010 at 8:02pmRe: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
Kenneth: Dave, you're a better man than I.
I was way more irate on your behalf than you are.
To see your original post dismissed as "ridiculous" when I knew for a certainty that the Administration was scheming and that there was ample documentary evidence of that scheming, just outraged me.
. · Sep 16 at 8:01pmEdited on Sep 16 at 08:02 pm
Kenneth, I read your posts, and like Bartles and James, I thank you for your support. I responded as I did to the Major for a few reasons, including the fact that he is in harm's way even now. I trust that he takes his oath to the Consitution seriously, and I tried to diplomatically explain that we are no less serious about it back home. It would be a pity to have him over there defending under force of arms a document that is rendered irrelevant here.
On the gun thing, I agree with you, but I did want to set the historical precedent straight.
Besides, I've been subjected to worse,...from generals no less.
Jul '10
Re: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
Dave Carter
Kenneth, I read your posts, and like Bartles and James, I thank you for your support. I responded as I did to the Major for a few reasons, including the fact that he is in harm's way even now. I trust that he takes his oath to the Consitution seriously, and I tried to diplomatically explain that we are no less serious about it back home. It would be a pity to have him over there defending under force of arms a document that is rendered irrelevant here.
On the gun thing, I agree with you, but I did want to set the historical precedent straight.
Besides, I've been subjected to worse,...from generals no less. · Sep 16 at 8:10pm
Dave, it does make one wonder, though: if American citizens did rise up against tyranny, whose side would the "Major" be on?
My understanding is that he has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.
But my guess is his propensity would be to defend the "government".
Re: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
Kenneth
Dave, it does make one wonder, though: if American citizens did rise up against tyranny, whose side would the "Major" be on?
My understanding is that he has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.
But my guess is his propensity would be to defend the "government". · Sep 16 at 8:21pm
Yes, he alluded to this a time or two in the thread. I understand the quandry, and gave it quite a bit of thought when i was on active duty. The consequences either way are enormous for the military member. I resolved in my own mind that if ordered to take action against our own citizens in an instance where they were within their constitutional rights and the government was not, I would have to refuse that order. My oath was to defend the Constitution, not to facilitate it's demise.
Jul '10
Re: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
Dave, that was an absolutely sterling post. It is relieving to see someone who can defend the argument without resorting to condescension or ad hominem attacks which all too often is what passes for internet debate. Well done, sir!
Jul '10
Re: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
Dave Carter
Kenneth
Dave, it does make one wonder, though: if American citizens did rise up against tyranny, whose side would the "Major" be on?
My understanding is that he has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.
But my guess is his propensity would be to defend the "government". · Sep 16 at 8:21pm
Yes, he alluded to this a time or two in the thread. I understand the quandry, and gave it quite a bit of thought when i was on active duty. The consequences either way are enormous for the military member. I resolved in my own mind that if ordered to take action against our own citizens in an instance where they were within their constitutional rights and the government was not, I would have to refuse that order. My oath was to defend the Constitution, not to facilitate it's demise. · Sep 16 at 8:28pm
Well, let us pray that we never see the day in which our soldiers have to make that choice.
Re: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
Kenneth
Dave Carter
Kenneth
Dave, it does make one wonder, though: if American citizens did rise up against tyranny, whose side would the "Major" be on?
My understanding is that he has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.
But my guess is his propensity would be to defend the "government". · Sep 16 at 8:21pm
Yes, he alluded to this a time or two in the thread. I understand the quandry, and gave it quite a bit of thought when i was on active duty. The consequences either way are enormous for the military member. I resolved in my own mind that if ordered to take action against our own citizens in an instance where they were within their constitutional rights and the government was not, I would have to refuse that order. My oath was to defend the Constitution, not to facilitate it's demise. · Sep 16 at 8:28pm
Well, let us pray that we never see the day in which our soldiers have to make that choice. · Sep 16 at 8:41pm
Agreed, whole heartedly.
Re: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
Holy moley! First I was traveling, and now I've spent a day in bed, sick with the flu. The result? I missed the whole exchange between Dave and the major.
I can't figure out whether to go back and read it or thank goodness for small mercies.
May '10
Re: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
Dave, you are my hero in so many ways. What a great post!
Re: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
Marvelous post, Dave. The slippery slope to asset confiscation will be driven by "necessity"; the urgent need to attempt to paper over what the CBO director describes as our "unsustainable" fiscal policy.
Consider what is likely to happen when private health insurers are declared insolvent due to the pernicious effects of ObamaCare. Today these private entities hold many many billions of dollars in reserve against future claims. Think Dr. Berwick at the Center for Medicare Services might "need" these funds to make good on the care formerly guaranteed by the companies declared in default by one of the many new insurance regulators?
You don't have to be of a conspiratorial bent to notice economic gravity. Right now it's pulling in the direction of insolvency, and desperate politicians are likely to do whatever they think they can get away with to postpone the inevitable without admitting error.
Re: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
Peter, you're not feeling well, ...go with the latter option.
Sep '10
Re: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
I'd like to add one more to Carter's list of infeasibles.
In September (or October?) of '08 I awoke to find that the citizenry owned an insurance company. The day before I would have thought that infeasible.
And it was "our" guy that bought it.
Edited on Sep 17, 2010 at 5:09amAug '10
Re: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
I agree. You rock, Dave!
Aug '10
Re: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
Yes, and the message will be that these IRA/401K assets grew tax-free as a result of government largesse anyway (and need to be partially recaptured in these "historically dangerous" economic times); conversion to annuities will be argued using the same talking points that are used against privatizing any portion of Social Security (seniors eating cat food...etc). By the time the spinning is complete, the idea will seem perfectly fine and reasonable to a large percentage of people.
Jul '10
Re: Talking to Reasonable People: A Reply To Major Potoczny
Dave, I'm glad you cleared up the misunderstanding by Emily of the Federalist Papers that I cited. I didn't have the room to do so.