To Humbly Submit – Doug Casey’s International Man

Submission to the state is a time-honoured tradition, a concept supported by governing bodies given that time immemorial.

In days of yore, men sent to whichever member of the tribe was the mightiest in battle. By doing so, they stood a better possibility of prospering in battle, thus diminishing the probability of their own death or enslavement.

In the future, as tribes became more connected to the land and communities emerged, the concept of a strong leader still made sense. Not just may he do the best job of leading the security of the town or town, he may also take a trip outside the community to assault other neighborhoods, bringing back spoils for all to benefit from. (Not too civilised, maybe, but still, the reasoning behind submission to the leader made sense.)

Later on, settlements grew bigger and, progressively, many villages and towns would find themselves collaborated collectively, under a national banner, with a single army to protect them. And, once again, the leader would probably be a fierce and formidable warrior. But a considerable change was taking place. Whilst the warrior leader was away (in some cases for many years), attacking other communities, it was required to have leadership in your home– administrative leadership. Naturally, this management likewise sought the loyalty and submission of the people.

There was a brand-new wrinkle at this juncture as the administrative leadership did not have to prove itself repeatedly in fight to acquire submission. It was anticipated merely due to the truth that the leaders held power over the people.

The expectation of commitment and submission to a federal government just because it is the government is an unnatural and invalid one.

Today, a lot of leaders are mainly political instead of military, and even those who wear a military uniform practically never ever participate in real fight, not to mention lead the charge. For this reason, the initial reason for commitment and submission ought to be outmoded.

Why, then, does it persist? Well, in reality, it usually persists as long as there is success and a people are prepared to tolerate supremacy. However, must prosperity lessen significantly, obeisance tends to reduce appropriately. At some time, the leaders conclude that they may be losing the submission of individuals and require to enhance it. This is done by one of 2 approaches and, on event, both at the same time.

The first is force. An increased cops state can produce a higher assurance of submission through fear of those in uniform.

The second is motivation. A condition of warfare typically prospers as an approach of motivating individuals to quit some of their rights and fall in behind a leader. Although, in the contemporary world, we never ever see a national leader really wearing for battle, the mere reality that he’s in charge of the battle from a safe distance typically works to motivate people to be more submissive to an administrative government.

Following the English Transformation of 1688, we Britons discovered that our politicians made the decision for us regarding what our relationship should be to our brand-new leaders at the time. They declared to the new joint emperors, William and Mary, “We do most humbly and consistently submit ourselves, our heirs and posterities, forever.”

Quite a mouthful. It certainly left no doubt as to the intent of Parliament– that the people of England were never ever once again to question their rulers and, even more, that no matter any possible changes in policies, laws, and orders by future kings, individuals swore submission … permanently.

This did not sit well with all Englishmen– not surprisingly considering that they had not been asked whether they wanted to make such a statement of submission. In 1774, an Englishman called Thomas Paine (on the advice of his American pal Benjamin Franklin) immigrated to the Pennsylvania nest and started writing pamphlets that dealt straight with the concept of “undoubted commitment and submission”, a concept with which he heartedly disagreed. Maybe he mentioned it best in his book, The Rights of Guy, very first published in 1791:

“Submission is entirely a vassalage term, repugnant to the dignity of freedom.”

Mister Paine’s pamphleteering in the late eighteenth century did not in fact create the awareness that caused the American Transformation, but his phrasings did provide focus for the colonists in specifying their grievances versus King and Parliament.

Although Mister Paine’s handouts worked as manuals to liberty and his input added to the framing of the United States Constitution, he’s not remembered today as one of the 7 creators of the United States. But one of those who is identified today as a creator, Thomas Jefferson, took an extremely similar view to that of Thomas Paine:

“When the Government fears the people, there is liberty. When individuals fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Both guys believed that it was (and is) vital to guarantee that any federal government be advised continually that it exists to represent individuals who spend for its presence. They each echoed a view taken 2,100 years previously by Aristotle, who commented,

” [G] overnment must govern for the good of individuals, not for the good of those in power.”

Although these words were not priced quote in either the Declaration or the Constitution, Aristotle’s principles were well-known to all of the Founding Fathers and were often the basis of stipulations composed in each of the US’s founding documents.

Another quote from Jefferson suggests that it’s totally foreseeable that any government is most likely to continuously pursue increasing its own power over an individuals. That holding true, from time to time, any federal government needs to be slapped down and advised that its job is to serve the individuals, not to subjugate them:

“Whenever any kind of federal government becomes damaging of these ends, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of individuals to alter or abolish it, and to set up new federal government.”

Here’s a final idea to consider:

The concept of government is that individuals grant to a small group of people the capability to establish and keep controls over them. The intrinsic defect in such a principle is that any federal government will invariably and continually expand upon its controls, leading to the ever-diminishing freedom of those who gave them the power.

In evaluating all of the above, it ought to be clear that it’s the nature of all governments to seek to increase their power over those that they are testified represent. It needs to likewise be comprehended that they will not give up this power willingly. At some point, they become successful enough in establishing submission that the population should either toss out individuals in the government, toss out the governmental system, or take exit from the system. The last of these may be picked in order to more in harmony regain liberty.

Each of these possible options requires remarkable change, although the last of these entails less upheaval or danger to the individual.

The option to making such a choice, and the one that the terrific bulk of people in any culture, in any period, pick, is to humbly accept submission. Just a extremely small minority will in fact take favorable action to attain freedom over tyranny through internationalisation.

Editor’s Note: Unfortunately, most people have no concept what really happens when a federal government goes out of control, not to mention how to prepare …

How will you safeguard yourself in the event of an economic crisis?

New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team simply released a guide that will show you exactly how. Click on this link to download the PDF now.

About the author

Click here to add a comment

Leave a comment: