"The information you need today, for the principles you will defend tomorrow."

Degrees of Statism

 

Published Feb 5th, 2013    By Nikita Chirkov



This publication won 2nd place in the national Douglas B. Rogers contest at the Center for Political and Economic Thought at Saint Vincent College. It  is also currently published by the university. To read the contest winners and the original publication click Saint Vincent Center for Political and Economic Thought

The year was 1991; it was autumn. Not the soft, kindly loving autumn we are used to down here in Texas, but a bitter, hellish time of the year that you would expect in the northern parts of the United States and Alaska. Busses and trolleys lingered busily throughout town, taking people from one place to the next for a small fee of 2 rubles ($.02) and a little shoving and pushing along the way. On such a bus, one fine but rather cold Russian morning, rode a gentleman by the name of Vladimir. Vladimir was a tall man, nearly 6 foot 9, and had to gently bend the upper half of his body upon encountering a doorway or any sort of entrance; but luckily for him, today he was going to one of the most open places in Saint Petersburg. A place where he was prepared to give the truth about the Soviet government, and speak in one of the biggest rallies in support of the new “Russian Party”…

            There are two people that greatly inspire me and my political views. The first is the gentleman above, my grandfather. The second, and perhaps the greatest, is Alexis de Tocqueville, the brilliant French political observer who has written some of the most scholarly analysis of the American political system. Similarly to Tocqueville, I am an immigrant, and have lived in this nation for approximately seven years. Like Tocqueville, I have also experienced governmental tyranny on the doorstep of my house, in my school, and in most of my daily activities. Although I would never seek to compare my analysis with the work of this genius international observer, I do understand the source of Alexis de Tocqueville’s accuracy. That is, as an Old Russian saying goes: “the truth is acquired through juxtaposition.” The Framers of the American Constitution made a similar observation when looking at the history of other nations. In Federalist 20, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison famously stated that “experience is the oracle of truth.”[1]

            When conducting an analysis of the contemporary American political system, I firmly believe, as did Alexis de Tocqueville, that there is no better way to articulate the truth than by adhering to juxtaposition and experience as your guide in the vast ocean of history. Therefore, the question of whether or not “the state is a great fiction by which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else,”[2] could not be a more perfect theme for the latter method of analysis; and it could not have come at a better time than now.

There are three great sources which can teach us a voluminous lesson about statism. By statism, I mean a philosophic and a systematic foundation of government in which the state gains control over the individual’s life and his/her daily affairs. The first, and perhaps the most direct, example of statism was the Soviet Union. Undoubtedly, the Soviet Union was the finest attempt of mankind to establish utopian Marxism through means of an institution of a carefully crafted, all powerful state. The second example of statism, the one which I have the most experience with, is the statism of modern Russia. Statism here is masked, or hidden. It works the nation’s laws from the shadows of the past; while enslaving its citizens to a system labeled as democracy yet layered with tyrannical despotism. Lastly, we have the United States of America. In America, statism is intrusive; for it does not originate from the nation’s foundation. In a sense, the growth of American statism can be described by one of the observations made by Tocqueville:


“Our contemporaries are constantly wracked by two warring passions: they feel the need to be led and the desire to remain free. Unable to destroy either of these contrary instincts, they seek to satisfy both at once. They imagine a single, omnipotent, tutelary power, but one that is elected by the citizens. They combine centralization with popular sovereignty. This gives them some respite. They console themselves for being treated as wards by imagining that they have chosen their own protectors. Each individual allows himself to be clapped in chains because the other end of the chain is held not by a man or a class but by the people themselves.[3]

 

In other words, the American state is a fiction that is constructed by its own inhabitants who may not yet be aware that by doing so they subject themselves to an inescapable form of “soft tyranny.”

            Therefore, in order to examine the nature of the invented state by which governments establish pandemic despotism, this work will direct its main focus on the latter three appearances of statism. Furthermore, I must add that there are many historical sources from which similar truths can be derived and equally examined; however, I have chosen my selection purely out of adherence to the two doctrines of truth: juxtaposition, and experience. After all, historical lessons are repetitive, for history itself is a “gallery of pictures in which there are few originals and many copies.”[4]






Total Statism: Soviet Union


…When Vladimir got on stage, an amazing sight opened in front of him. He saw thousands of soviets who were ready for democracy and liberty. Within their eyes was a world of hope. It was a weak, hidden world; but yet it moved so many with an unimaginable magnitude. The truth, however, is that they were always there. Thousands of them, maybe millions? Inspired by the desire to be liberated yet trapped and exterminated like rats – such was the downfall of dreaming the world of hope inside the state of hopelessness. On the other hand, today was a different day. Vladimir knew that the government was on the edge of collapse which allowed his “Russian Party” and other similar groups to finally gain legitimate voice in the nation. Vladimir opened his folder, took a deep breath of the cold November air, and began the speech that revealed the truth about the fiction of the Soviet state…

            The construction of Soviet statism, as has been previously mentioned, is perhaps the most extensive step humanity has ever taken toward pure socialism. Moreover, this type of statism was also the largest, most carefully crafted, and most oppressive in recent human history. It created the fictional notion of a perfect society where everyone labored equally, and received everything for free; while the reality revealed a picture of mutual suffering and poverty. However, it is the structural design of this utopian project in respect to its internal functions which has captured my attention, and requires a closer inquiry.

The entire engine of the Soviet statist leviathan can be narrowed down to one single word – equality. In order to understand the nature of this particular “equality,” we must first understand the fundamental truths of human societies and governments. In Common Sense, Thomas Paine explains:

 

“Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher... Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an in tolerable one…For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest.”[5]

 

The latter truth, at its fundamental appearance, is an appealing thought to a ruling human mind. A society in which natural freedoms of men are diminished allows for a capability to design, alter, and sculpt it to whatever form and shape deemed appropriate by the few elite. It invites fantasies of domination and innovation; an ongoing experiment in which a whole country could be altered by the snap of the fingers of one man -- a pure, unopposed control of the entire society. However, those who pursued this tyrannical fantasy knew well of the lessons of basic human nature. A suppression of human liberties never guarantees full compliance, philosophical or practical, with the will of the ruling class. One element persistently stood in their way: faction.

           When the minds of those who targeted a creation of an all-powerful Soviet state confronted the nature of faction, they pondered upon finding a proper remedy to its unwanted side effects. In their view, faction allowed for diversity of opinion. It illustrated the capability of galvanized citizens to unite under a cause more just and proper, to denounce the iniquity of rulers who demand complacency in the name of innocuous tyranny. Therefore, under these circumstances, the state was doomed to fail. It becomes only a matter of time before the oppressed citizens repudiate their tyrannical government in a quest for pandemic liberty. Unless of course, faction is removed… entirely. Thus it follows, that for an institution of an unstoppable government authority, the principle of faction must be erased from the society by instituting social equality.

            …Vladimir paused. The cold air slightly burned his dry throat, and he decided he needed a drink of water before continuing his speech. The galvanized crowd was as quiet and calm as the falling snow which so beautifully dressed Petersburg’s Neva River. For a brief moment, only a soft and distant sound of the road disturbed the silence. Vladimir finished his water, and looked up at his listeners once again. They were all dressed in similar dark grey coats. Behind them, as if exact clones of one another, stood the apartment complexes of the city. Those who were lucky enough to come with cars exercised a wide variety in selection consisting of three colors: white, blue, and red. This was the Soviet equality at its finest. Vladimir resumed his speech by asking a question: “How is it, my dear friends, that our government took such an unequal people and created such a fake state of equality?”…

            How is it that a government can take an unequal people and create a fictional state of equality? The answer, I firmly believe, is revealed in the question; particularly in the word “fake” or “fictional.” Indeed if the social equality is the engine of absolute statism, then the lies that sell this fictional reality are the tools with which the engine is installed. After all, the natural tendency of human beings to express their own diversity in respect to interests, passions, and goals must be abandoned and viewed as selfish in contrast with the common interest. Consequently, the attempt of the state to change the fundamental nature of human beings becomes by far its hardest task. It requires immense resources, labor, and collaboration of every citizen; each bound to fulfill his collective duty while building the projects which further secure his own enslavement.

            Thus it comes as no surprise, that when enormous efforts to build similar houses, produce the same cloths, and manufacture the same cars were taken, the citizens, who all contributed to this grand scheme, were bluntly oblivious to the true purpose of their contribution. The great “fiction” had promised that their work would benefit one another and strengthen the collective society. Needless to say, the majority embraced the fictional promise, and only the few saw the factual truth.

            In this sense, the phrase referring to the state as a “great fiction by which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else,” does not go far enough in describing societies which are unfortunate enough to exercise complete statism. In such societies, the fiction of the state is embedded into the minds of its inhabitants with such intensity as to eliminate any possible doubts or logical concerns. Consequently, the individual does not only live at the expense of everyone else, but also at the expense of himself; for he is unable to break down the wall of fiction which shields him from the truth.

            …Vladimir finished his address. He was exhausted but also relieved. It was one of first times that the people were presented with the true reality of their existence. Perhaps there would be a change to the Soviet state, and the people who were once the tools for securing their own hopelessness would finally breathe the air of liberty.

As the politics of the region begun shifting toward Perestroika, a period of time when the Soviet Union was transforming into Russia, the “reformers” begun to institute new laws for democracy. However, they did so while securing their own positions in government and maintaining enormous levels of government bureaucracy. This reform did not satisfy the Russian Party, or Vladimir who in the year of 1992 became its nationwide chairman. Meeting after meeting attracted new supporters. So popular became this Russian Party and its message for an institution of a true, honest democracy, that Vladimir was often invited to nationally syndicated television programs and radio shows, where he openly challenged the president Boris Yeltsin to stop faking democracy and liberty. Vladimir could almost touch this new Russia; the Russia of justice, of liberty and of true democracy. But the state does not sit around and tolerate those who attempt to restrict it. In August of 1993, Vladimir was assassinated by the Russian intelligence...






Masked Statism: Russian Federation

Just as the legacy of Vladimir ended, a new era in the Russian history began. Old ideas were replaced with new slogans, and the new principles disguised the old wounds. In a way this was reform; but one can not, in the right state of an analytical approach to the subject, conclude this reform to be fully or even partially successful. It is almost as if an old and rusty car was cleaned, and given a new exterior, while the faulty internal components remained unfixed. Therefore, it would be nearly impossible to identify any flaws within the new system until enough time would pass to notice its structural inadequacies. In this sense, it becomes reasonable to label statism observed in modern Russia as “masked” or “hidden,” for it tends to sneak in the shadows of the country’s legal system and block the true reform designed to expand individual liberty.

On the other hand, it would be fair to point out similarities between the statism of Russia and the statism of the Soviet Union. After all, is not the oppressive nature of the Soviet state also masked and hidden from the most immediate perception of its citizens? When subject to similar comparisons, the term “masked statism” becomes easily applicable not only to the contemporary Russian system, but also to the Soviet state.

…As a young child, I have always wondered about the heroes of my nation: the leaders, the veterans, and all those who were the iconic figures in the Russian history and culture. What happened to them? Where did they all go? What interested me the most were the writings of my grandfather Vladimir, which I came across occasionally in the dusty corners of the attic. On one hand, they told a tale of a different society. Russians could vote freely; Soviets could not. Russians could buy things produced in other nations; Soviets could not. Russians could go vacation overseas; Soviets had the “Iron Curtain” prohibiting emigration. On the other hand, the writings spoke of a world which was familiar to my surroundings. Corruption, massive government bureaucracy, nationalized industry, and redistribution of individual wealth was the same then as it was in the new Russia. All those things, and more, have pointed me to the single frightful truth which continues to plague Russia to this day. That is, the statism that my grandfather fought to his death was not defeated: it evolved…

Therefore, to use the terms “total statism” and “masked statism” interchangeably serves as an injustice to the truth. While the Soviet state undoubtedly hid its oppression by calling it patriotism, the Russian state currently operates by different means and through a different environment altogether. The latter difference in conditions thus evolves the nature of the state into a mutating virus, which becomes impossible to treat with the previously devised remedy. While the goal of the Soviet Union was a series of openly upheld principles of Marxism, the goal of the Russian state is a series of openly upheld principles of a democratic federation. Consequently, direct ideological positions against socialism and Marxism can no longer unravel the devastating influence of the new structure, for such principles are already “technically” rejected.

            Our attention must now turn toward identifying the operational platform of masked statism. Indeed, if the old principles upon which the soviet state was built are publically rejected, where is the foundation for the new state? The answer is simple: statism in modern Russia is institutional, and has a firm stronghold inside the supreme law of the nation.

Section 2, chapter 4 of the Russian Constitution is the largest chapter in the entire document. With 47 articles, the chapter is titled “Rights and Liberties of Man and Citizen.” If the nation was founded upon the principles of capitalism, democracy, and individual liberty, the chapter would have probably contained restrictions on government power in respect to abridging “natural” or “unalienable” rights. However, this portion of the Russian Constitution provides rights to its citizens through the power of the state itself: “The State shall guarantee the equality of rights and freedoms of man and citizen…” (Article 17).[6]  Therefore, the state, not God or nature, becomes the provider of human rights and subjects the individual to the same social environment as the one under a total Soviet state. Such institutional rights include: “protection against unemployment” (Article 37);[7] right to “be guaranteed social security at the expense of the State in old age”(Article 39 );[8] “right to a home”(Article 40);[9] right “to health protection and medical aid” that shall be “financed by the State”(Article 41);[10] right to a “favorable environment”(Article 42); [11] “right to education”(Article 43); [12] and so on.  In these conditions, the government does not allow the individual to develop in a true state of liberty, and creates a program for nearly every step of the citizen’s life. From the very birth, the citizen is promised a house, good education, protection from unemployment, medical services, and even a healthy environment. The person does not labor to provide for his/her self and family, but labors to provide for everyone else; for the magnitude of the state’s influence is so wide and intrusive, it has to gather its strength by subjecting the entire population to excessive duties and equal participation in its schemes. In other words, the principles of individual responsibility, self-government, and individual sovereignty become entirely powerless in contrast with the ideology of the state.

Furthermore, a list of state provided rights is not the only clue which hints us at what is truly beneath the mask of Russian statism. It has long been an observed truth, that “A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have”. [13] The Russian state attempts to dismiss Thomas Jefferson’s theory. In the opening of the 2nd chapter, the document reads: “Fundamental human rights and freedoms are inalienable and shall be enjoyed by everyone since the day of birth” (Article 17). [14] The word “inalienable” suggests that these rights cannot be taken away and that they are guaranteed. However, nothing is further from the truth. After reading a paragraph after paragraph of rights and freedoms granted by this benevolent state, the Constitution finally delivers a provision which gives away its institutional ideology. Article 55 of Chapter 2 states that the “rights and freedoms of man and citizen may be limited…to such an extent to which it is necessary for the protection of the fundamental principles of the constitutional system, morality, health, the rights and lawful interests of other people, for ensuring defense of the country and security of the State.” [15] What exactly falls into a category of protecting “fundamental principles of the constitutional system?” What exactly is included under the protection of morality, health and the “security of the State?” If the “State” declares that free press and freedom of assembly threatens its “security,” can it not eliminate those rights? The constitution does not bother to justify the usage of these broad legal terms, thereby giving the masked statism of the Russian Federation a power to restrict nearly every right that it has previously given. This is what explains the suffering of millions of Russians whose liberties have been diminished right in front of their own eyes.

On the outside, Russia is a democracy; on the inside, it is but a continuation of an old Soviet state. Everything promised to nearly one hundred and fifty million people is a fiction. In this state, as is in the total state of the USSR, the entire population endeavors and labors in order to give support to the programs which are labeled as “inalienable,” yet designed as removable. Therefore, no simple solution can be provided for unraveling masked statism. Each occurrence of this societal virus is as unique as the nation that carries it. However, one thing is certain: if a vehicle is built with mismatching parts and incompatible details, no repair will restore it to a working model; the structure needs to be rebuilt, and remodeled entirely from the ground up. Only this can save a nation tangled in contradicting principles, and give it a new hope for a more prosperous future.

…I remember it like it was yesterday. The trees were covered with the most magnificent colors of autumn. Each gust of wind picked up thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of orange leaves and swirled them into the air. So graceful was this act of nature that for a moment a young boy like me could get lost in this masterpiece, and feel nothing but joy slightly tingling in his eyes. Such is the wondrous power of a child’s imagination. No matter how awful the suffering, the hunger, or the cold, a kid always has a unique ability to find happiness in the smallest things. This power, however, is not absolute; and it would not take me long to come to my deepest sadness when looking into the eyes of begging WWII veterans, to whom the state has given so much but left so little. The entire thing, frankly speaking, was an ironic phenomenon. The nation which promised equality and redistributed wealth had a widespread income gap and massive poverty. “How could it be?” I thought to myself. “Would there ever be a country where things work the way they are supposed to work, where the majority is not suffering, and where the people actually have a say in their government?” The thought of this mystical place, I admit, was a warm one, and I welcomed it with restless hope. 






Intrusive Statism: United States of America

When I was 12 years old, I got my answer. My family and I moved to the United States, and I was able, for the first time in 12 years, to contrast two different societies head to head. A nation which embraced capitalism and individualism called America had almost everyone with a house, a car, and a cell phone, let alone food and clothing; while a nation which embraced statism and provided housing, food, healthcare, and shelter as a matter of human rights had poverty, disease, and starvation. It was as if America was truly a perfect nation and a flawless society…

However, what I see now and did not see as a 12 year old child is the rising influence of statism in American politics and culture. This type of statism operates by taking a nation founded upon principles which reject the existence of the state, and in the next place infecting it slowly through exploiting cultural and legal pathways. In other words, statism in America is exclusively intrusive; and unlike the previous two models, it has to combat the nations founding principles rather than be fueled by them. Therefore, in order to comprehend the basic nature of the American state, it is important to understand why exactly it is incompatible with the constitutional foundation of the country.  

You may recall that in my previous inquiries of the total soviet state, it was pointed out that the problem of diversities and factions was solved through social equality and termination of liberty. In short, the state decided to remove the causes of faction. However, what is even more fascinating is the fact that this approach to the problem was not only discussed by the Framers of the American Constitution, but also purely rejected by them. In Federalist 10, James Madison famously wrote:

 

“There are two methods of curing the mischief’s of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects…There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” [16]

 

Unlike the engineers of the total state who saw faction as an expression of diversity which could not be tolerated, the Framers of the Constitution saw the existence of human differences as one of the most crucial elements to a constitutional union. They observed that:


“The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.” [17]

 

Private property and its existence was the fundamental core of the American society. Its protection was to be the “first object of government”. Therefore, seeking to remedy faction through an elimination of its causes would consequently annihilate private property and the very purpose of a constitutional government.  Madison explains:

 

“Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency. The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.” [18]

 

In other words, this type of equality of interests and economic outcomes was not a product of the Framers thought, and consequently not that of the Constitution. American government was founded upon a different logic, particularly the one of John Locke who saw natural equality as a tool by which liberty can be preserved, not terminated:

 

“Freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to everyone of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it. A liberty to follow my own will in all things where the rule prescribes not, not to be subject to the inconstant uncertain, unknown arbitrary will of another man, as freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of Nature.” [19]

 

The distinction between the mechanics of statism and the foundational principles of the American Constitution thus demonstrate the fictional nature of this intrusive state. That is, in order to build a statist government in America, the lawmaking must be intricately designed to avoid a confrontation with any constitutional check placed on the federal government. This being the case, statism can only be advanced through the court system of the United States which has to qualify this intrusive ideology as legitimate, and constitutional.

The American Constitution was designed to be the mighty fortress built for the people to withstand the siege of their own government; not a mighty fortress built for the government to withstand the siege of its own people. In this sense, it is a unique constitution. Its weakness, however, is exploited through a strategy in which the mighty fortress is distorted to be nothing but an old fort, and the siege of government as but an effort to free the people from captivity. The Supreme Court of the United States has taken it upon itself to exercise this distortion, and has been able to successfully do so over the past 70 years. The advantage of using the courts to build statism consists in unique ability to change words of the Constitution without formally amending it. President Woodrow Wilson once made a similar point:


“The process of formal amendment of the Constitution was made so difficult by provisions of the Constitution itself that it has seldom been feasible to use it; and the difficulty of formal amendment has undoubtedly made the courts more liberal, not to say lax, in their interpretation than they would otherwise have been. The whole business of adaptation has been theirs, and they have undertaken it with open minds, sometimes even with boldness and a touch of audacity...” [20]

 

The second advantage in using the courts for advancement of statism through the judiciary serves as a back up plan for failed policymaking. If a measure does not get support in the legislative chambers of Congress, the courts could always be used to build a new foundation for a previously unprecedented law. In a 1942 decision Wickard v. Filburn, it was upheld that a farmer who grew wheat for self consumption was still subject to federal regulations due to the fact that withholding a product from a market influenced intrastate commerce. In other words, the Court has ruled that the regulation of commerce between states actually meant regulation of commerce within states, thereby creating a brand new foundation for a future institution of statist policy.

            However, how exactly does the American state function?  What makes everyone endeavor “to live at the expense of everyone else?” There is no one correct answer to these questions. Many contemporary political observes have tried to identify the roots of American statism and have only been able to come up with a set of guidelines by which it can be defeated. The reason for this fallacy is imbedded in the intrusive nature of the American state, for it does not originate in any particular platform in American history. To put it simply, the American state has no roots to identify, and it is more a product of a gradual cultural change and constitutional distortion. Nonetheless, despite the fact that the roots of statism cannot be directly identified, its effects are surprisingly similar to those observed in other models. In America, statism largely functions through the welfare state. By the welfare state, I mean a massive conglomeration of programs which attempt to redirect individual property to certain groups of citizens. Those who are the successful, the prosperous, and the flourishing must therefore be punished by excessive taxation. The direct product of an individual’s labor is consequently redirected to the groups of other citizens, but only at a say so of the state. This simple formula is the signature process of statism; for it not only advances equality by means redistribution of property, but also addicts the population to an endless list of benefits without which a person’s life becomes to seem impossible. This closes the brutal loop of statism, and expands its stronghold in America despite its intrusive nature.





Conclusion


…Before my grandfather gave his life in a battle against the Soviet state, he wrote a poem which still makes me wonder about his fate. In this poem, he predicted his own inevitable death. I often question such a strong determination of a single man; a will to go against such a mighty force knowing that you will be killed. However, then I remember the famous words of Patrick Henry which once echoed in the American soil – “Give me liberty or give me death!” [21] Fighters for liberty are universal, and it gives me hope to know that somewhere, someone is carrying the spirit of Patrick Henry just as I am carrying the spirit of my grandfather…

When Frédéric Bastiat stated that “The state is the great fiction by which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else” he was entirely correct. This belief serves as the foundation for any statist government on any part of the world. The problem, however, lies in degrees of statism; for the definition of the term “state” tends to vary greatly on historical and cultural aspects of society. In the Soviet Union, statism was total. It enslaved the individual directly while going through efforts of completely erasing any and all diversity within its population. In Russia, statism is masked. The laws it generates are sold as capitalistic and democratic, while in actuality being driven by institutional foundations rooted deep inside its constitution. In America, statism is intrusive. Despite the fact that the constitutional principles reject the existence of the state, it forces its way into the American culture with an alarming rate.

Consequently, the three different variations of a virus result in three different threats they pose to their host. A total state is an organism entirely infected. When a society reaches this stage there is no cure but an eventual structural collapse or a violent revolution. Negotiations with this tyranny are useless, and only those who are prepared to give up everything can afford to speak the truth. In a nation with masked statism, a threat is usually too complex to yield a clear solution. The founding principles can become so tangled and contradictory that only a total constitutional referendum can flush the system of the disease. Lastly, we have the intrusive state. This form of statism does the least immediate harm but contains the greatest future potential. In a way, it is like a first exposure to an infection: the key is to treat it quickly before the contamination is irreversible.

…So, my fellow Americans, I turn to you. As I walk the streets of this magnificent society, I see our proud flags, our patriotic citizens, and our glorious history. This is not just a country that exists in casual norm of human affairs; this is country which is built upon the land of liberty and freedom. However, sadly it is infected, and the American statism is now more powerful than ever before in our nations past. Yes, fighters for liberty may have universally common traits; but it is those common traits which must remind us that America is no exception to the lessons of history, and human nature.

The full derivation of this subject to its basic elements is, perhaps, too detailed and intricate for a daily discussion of politics with our family and friends. However, it is absolutely crucial in isolating the intrusive state which threatens the existence of our constitutional republic. In many ways the damage done to our Constitution is irreversible; for the mentality and culture of the public has been successfully altered to embrace the principles which are non-existent in its text. But nonetheless, it is the effort we must take in order to rescue what is left standing of our dear country, our sacred homeland, and our beloved union.



Notes:

[1] James Madison & Alexander Hamilton; The Federalist Papers; Federalist 20

[2] Frédéric Bastiat; http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/89275.Fr_d_ric_Bastiat

[3] Alexis de Tocqueville; Democracy in America

 

[4] Alexis de Tocqueville; http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alexisdeto105749.html

 

[5] Thomas Paine; Common Sense

 

[6] Constitution of the Russian Federation; Chapter 2; Article 17; http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm

 

[7] Constitution of the Russian Federation; Chapter 2; Article 37; http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm

 

[8] Constitution of the Russian Federation; Chapter 2; Article 39; http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm

 

[9] Constitution of the Russian Federation; Chapter 2; Article 40; http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm

 

[10] Constitution of the Russian Federation; Chapter 2; Article 41; http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm

 

[11] Constitution of the Russian Federation; Chapter 2; Article 42; http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm

 

[12] Constitution of the Russian Federation; Chapter 2; Article 43; http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm

 

[13] Thomas Jefferson; address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974; http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/government-big-enough-to-give-you-everything-you-wantquotation

 

[14] Constitution of the Russian Federation; Chapter 2; Article 17; http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm

 

[15] Constitution of the Russian Federation; Chapter 2; Article 55; http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm

 

[16] James Madison; The Federalist Papers; Federalist 10

 

[17] James Madison; The Federalist Papers; Federalist 10

 

[18] James Madison; The Federalist Papers; Federalist 10

 

[19] John Locke; The Second Treatise of Civil Government; Chapter 4

[20] Woodrow Wilson; Constitutional Government in the United States

 

[21] Patrick Henry; Virginia Convention