States of the Union
“Round pegs in square holes tend to have dangerous thoughts about the social system, and tend to infect others with their discontents.”
― Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
Welcome to States of the Union: my personal playground for the discernment of veracity, and its dissemination.I have a BS in Sociology, which isn’t exactly glamorous, but I loved learning about the ways of civilizations and societies. Of the countless other students in my classes throughout college, I was one of three “not-democrats.” At the time, I identified more with the Right than the Left, but not whole-heartedly. I had my views, but I didn’t have a name for them yet. I’m a libertarian at heart (though I’m a little embarrassed of the current crop of liberation candidates), and a proponent of pretty much everything Ron Paul, who I can thank for putting a name to my political views when I read his book, Revolution. I’ve voted both Democrat and Republican, but I’ve developed a sense of disgust with both parties over the years. I’m quite opposed to the two party system, and their monopoly on governance and the voting process. I’m a strict interpretationist of the constitution, I believe the federal government should be small, personal freedom should prevail over government intervention, we shouldn’t be involved in foreign wars unless absolutely necessary, and I’m a proponent of state’s rights.
I read a lot of blogs and articles (though I, ironically, see very little “journalism” in the process), and am, admittedly, an addict of sites like Drudge Report and Infowars, for their reputation of prying the truth out of even the most brazen of propaganda. That’s not to say I believe everything I read, even from my preferred sources, but It’s only by exposing oneself to a vast array of differing representations of world events, that one can begin to piece the stories together into an over-arching picture that more closely resembles reality than any one article can impress. I’ll even admit to listening to the Young Turks on occasion, in the interest of a balanced representation of views.
It’s in this vein that I make my humble attempt at interpreting the subtext and the unstated, in search of that most elusive of prey, the truth. I by no means claim to possess such a prized trophy, nor, necessarily, the intellect to recognize it were it smacking me in the face, but I like to think that I can manage a well-played game of “what if,” in an effort to narrow down the truth from the narrative, and present a fair representation of “perhaps,” and, if I’m fortunate enough to stumble upon a good idea here or there, I might whittle it down to “what’s probable.”
Consider this my disclaimer, lest I topple further down the rabbit hole of “vast, right-wing conspiracy-theorist.” Not that there’s anything wrong with a good conspiracy theory; they’re called “theories” for a reason, are they not? And when enough evidence presents itself, are the famed theories of sites like Infowars really so far-fetched? At what point do the noses in the air turn down and say, “huh … that is suspicious”? So, I have every intention of positing theories myself, as they come up—not in a desperate or devious effort at sensationalism (“Click-Farming; For Fun and for Profit”), but because, if it quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck (even when the New York Times demands that we believe it is, in fact, a chupacabra), why in the heavens wouldn’t it be deserving of consideration that it might, indeed, be a duck (or at the very least, a platypus)?
The name, States of the Union, began as a philosophical exercise in the hypothetical; what if states could simply come and go from the union as time and circumstances change? The name itself comes from my belief in the sovereignty of the states, acting as protectors and governors for the local communities they represent, and preserving the values of those localized groups in the face of a diverse population across all states, and against a federal government whose values can never fully represent those of each of its states. It is my belief that competition (friendly competition), in all its aspects, promotes a healthy market; government is no exception. Allowing states to compete within the Union, keeps them efficient and competitive, no different than any business. But, like the largest of businesses, monopoly is the name of the game. Government, intentionally or not, has stifled competition, exerting its own, unquestionable dominance over the states of which it is made up. This is great for the largest of cities, who traditionally believe their voices should supersede those of the rest of the union, but is an idealogical death-trap in that it gives way to pitfalls such as group-think, and a twisted semblance of nationalism that seeks to impose their values on the rest of the world (thus, the importance of institutions like the Electoral College, to balance the scales).
One way to prevent the federal monopoly we’re now faced with, is a topic that never fails to resurface every four years; secession from the Union. Putting aside whether a state should secede or not (or whether it should even be allowed), it stands to reason that a state who voluntarily joins a union of other states, could voluntarily leave as well. There are deeper questions to ask if a fair conclusion is to be reached, but I could write an entire book on the philosophical aspects of the topic (and probably should, come to think it), so I’ll leave those questions for a later post. For now, I just wanted to address the nature of states and unions, from a functional aspect. If a state is free to divorce from the union, would it not motivate the Union itself (which we must now recognize as an entity in its own right—if defined by the states within it—in the form of the federal government) to act in the interest of the states, first and foremost? After all, it’s the duty of each state to strive for the interests of their people, and if the Union fails to act in the interest of a given state, would it not then be the responsibility of that state to do what is best for the people of whom it is made up, even it it means pulling a Brexit?
There are a multitude of pros and cons that would first need to be weighed, but since this is all purely hypothetical, let’s keep it simple and just play “what if?” What if states could leave when the “Union” works to the detriment of an individual state (presumably for “the good of the whole,” as the law-makers define it)? What if that state could then act on its own behalf as a nation-state, or even join a “competing” union? Economic and national security concerns aside, would it, or would it not, create an environment of healthy competition?
On a global scale, the same concept applies; when Britain left the EU, what if they could have simply joined the US? Or what if they simply formed a new union that would compete directly with the EU, soliciting other nations to swap sides like a company gone out to bid? I don’t claim to have the “right” answer, but I do believe that globalism, as an entity (the NWO, if you will), could stand a little competition. How different might the world be under such a system? How different might America be? Imagine that there had been no American Civil War; that Abraham Lincoln had simply shaken Jefferson Davis’ hand, and wished the Confederate States of America well in their new endeavor? I have no doubt that the option was seriously considered by President Lincoln. But somewhere between the prospective loss of the cotton industry, and the idea of competing with its new southern neighbor for everything from citizens, to resources, to alliances, the necessity of war was concluded.
I certainly don’t envy President Lincoln the dilemma; he was faced with the choice of either honoring a state’s right to be free of the Union that they’d joined by choice, or to set the dangerous precedent that a member of the union, once joined, becomes an inseparable part of the whole. Cognitive dissonance abounds when considering the consequences of each choice, as I’m sure our President learned when he decided to preserve solidarity at the expense of the sovereignty of the states.
While the rabbit trail is relevant when explaining the origin of States of the Union, I might have deviated a bit from the topic at hand; the purpose of this site. I’ll write more about nations and states later, I promise (or forewarn, depending on your level of interest); if you’re interested in further reading, I highly recommend Is Davis a Traitor: Or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to the War of 1861? by Albert Taylor Bledsoe; the title is a mouthful, but it’s worth the read. For now, just know that States of the Union is, more than anything else, a snapshot of the hidden things I see (or have reason to suspect are there) when observing world events. It’s what I read between the lines, even in the most unapologetic of journalistic drivel. It’s how one article or another fits into the bigger picture. Or maybe it’s nothing more than a mental dumping ground, where my ideas go to die (like the harrowing tale of Brent Budowski, and John Podesta’s inbox).
Thank you for your patronage, and I welcome your input, even if it’s negative (though preferably constructive, as opposed to “I hope a chupacabra stares you to death, you conspiracy theory nut job”).
For God and Liberty,