I often reflect on some of my favorite founding quotes and how they relate to the United States today. Given our current predicament, I was reminded recently of Hamilton’s First Report on Public Credit. One of my favorite Hamilton quotes from that piece:

“States, like individuals, who observe their engagements, are respected and trusted: while the reverse is the fate of those who pursue an opposite conduct.”

Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton

As I write this, the national debt is just shy of $14 trillion. In a prior post of mine, I worked this figure out and calculated what a taxpayer owes if he or she falls into the category of earning an adjusted gross income of $67,000/year. It’s not pretty, but forewarned is forearmed. Rather than focus on the utterly grim nature of our general government, in this, my report on public credit, I’d like to propose a solution to our terminal problem before things get any worse.

If we accept that the founders knew what they were doing – that they acted deliberately in the design of our form of government – we should simply return to a proper balance of responsibility among units of government. In plain English, responsibilities should be separated from the general government that belong to the people. Some simple and easy to understand ways to do this would be to abolish the Federal Departments of Education, Agriculture, and Energy; to abolish a number of agencies, including, but not limited to the IRS, the FCC, the SEC, and the FDA; and to abolish the federal tax code. As truly national emergencies can and will occur, the raising of revenue for national emergencies should be undertaken in the midst of such a scenario. The regular functions of a general government that doesn’t involve the domestic affairs of Americans should be financed by the implementation of a consumption tax. That’s it. If it involves the domestic lives of Americans, the “largest” unit of government with a say in the matter should be the states.

The liabilities of the general government of the United States should be reassigned and extinguished subject to a plan of reorganization. Some liabilities will be assumed by states and their subordinate units of government. Like a corporate restructuring, this means that creditors may not receive 100 cents on the dollar; and it may be prudent for “smaller” units of government to actually file for bankruptcy reorganization as a company would. This doesn’t mean that the government shouldn’t discharge its duty with the utmost effort to make good on its obligations, but merely acknowledges that a shortfall is what we reap from of decades of irresponsibility and unsustainable entitlement growth, and that we’re all somewhat responsible for that state of affairs.

I have always disclaimed that I hold the legitimate purpose of any government is the protection of the inalienable rights of the citizenry. Should a state government violate the inalienable rights of her citizens, it is the duty of any and every unit of government to intercede on behalf of the injured party. Assigning to the states the domestic affairs of Americans, then, isn’t carte blanche for the states to run roughshod over her people.

Saying something and doing it are obviously two different matters; and there are political considerations in any course of government reform. A long and separate conversation unto itself, for the time being it should be simply understood that judicial decree, executive order, or legislative action are all insufficient paths to enduring and systematic reform; and that genuine and lasting reform must originate from the people.

As we turn the page on 2010, it is my sincerest hope that prosperity and freedom are yours in 2011.

The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.

Now this is the entire basis of government: that any government derives its just powers – its legitimacy – from the consent of the governed. That bit of language comes from Jefferson, via our Declaration of Independence. The question we must ask ourselves is: what constitutes consent?

Surely it must be more than 21%, right?  Because only 21% of Americans think the U.S. government has the consent of the governed.  We ought to reflect on exactly what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If we are not yet arrived at the point of altering or abolishing, certainly 21% approval must cause even the most short-sighted, and every government employee for that matter, to shudder.

“It seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.”

– Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 1, 27 October 1787)

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist

Hamilton was right, of course, but he neglected the moral value of sacrifice. We, too, are arrived at a crisis, and it appears that it must be our era in which the decision will (again) be made.

This cannot pass without some further observations. Liberty is a fleeting condition of man. Once obtained, its ability to endure is hampered as it is beset on all sides by intrigue, malice and sloth. The enterprising actor will enrich himself at the expense of principle with little prompting. Enrichment may simply be living off of the taxpayers and remaining employed in “the people’s business” – somehow, remarkably, and beyond propriety, they find a way to convince themselves that they are the people’s business. In such personal ways is liberty weakened.

Outright distaste for liberty (as foreign an idea as that may seem) shall govern the actions of a not insubstantial portion of the people who desire the comfort of gilded chains; or not even standards that high. And often, not for themselves, but for others. Self-government is an uncomfortable proposition, and many fail to see that they are made in a higher image, and perfectly fit for self-government. They instead prefer a world in which they are as infants – wholly dependent on their nanny for their comforts. The nanny is only too happy to oblige when she is enticed with power and material gain. She is regularly one of the enterprising actors we identified. Apathy impairs the ability for liberty to endure, in part because of the two prior threats.

And so, with apathy, we come back to Hamilton. It is my firm belief that every generation has as its duty the struggle for liberty. For so precious a gift to obtained too cheaply will result in it being squandered. Yes, our generation will engage this fight. So too should the next generation. And the following. If liberty is a condition of man relative to his present, his time, how else should he expect to possess it? As an inheritance?

This organization exists for a few purposes: 1) to educate American youth on the reasons behind the specific and deliberate formation of our system of government; 2) to teach adult American citizens the same; 3) to advance these principles in each state in the Union; and 4) restore via the appropriate political tool, in practice, the intention of the original design of our government. With a respectful understanding of our past, our actions firmly rooted in our present circumstances, and our vision fixed on the return of balance to the spheres of government, we assert that societies of men are really capable of establishing good government from reflection and choice.