From the April 2004 Idaho Observer:

On The Other Side -- Part II

by Hari Heath

Last month, I extolled upon the imminent likelihood of societal collapse and what we can do to rebuild a nation “On The Other Side.” I offered a few of my ideas, particularly for constitutional changes, and solicited the readership for their ideas. A few responded.

Larry Naprio offered the following eight-point plan:

“1) Adopt the Constitution of the Confederate states; not the current one. Among other things it advocates one six year term for President; requires a two-thirds vote in the House for any appropriations; allows impeachment of federal officials by state legislatures as well as the House.

“2) The current Bill of Rights (the First Amendment to the Constitution) and its ten articles would of course be in it. Amendment One, Article Ten (often incorrectly referred to as the Tenth Amendment) would be expanded to enforce the concept of a states right to secede.

“3) There would be no 'interstate commerce' or 'general welfare' clauses.

“4) A very simple process should be put in place for the indictment and prosecution of treason at the state level with one simple result if guilty -- hanging in public.

“5) All statutes from 1860 forward would be automatically repealed.

“6) Belonging to the BAR would be a treasonous offense and the UCC would be repealed with a full return to the common law.

“7) The section of the Constitution which empowers the president to be the commander in chief of the military would be more specifically worded to say ONLY after a declaration of war by the Congress.

“8) The '17th Amendment' and in fact all amendments after the first one (the Bill of Rights) are repealed.

“Ain't I a radical sonofabitch?!”

Larry concludes with, “one thing about your article that puzzled me is you advocate rebuilding at the county level but then quickly jump to the federal stuff. A rebuild would be no easy task, admittedly, but rather than do too much (a total rebuild), I'd say a fine tuning of several important items is all that would be necessary.”

First, Larry, a total rebuild may be necessary if nothing but the shadows of government remain. The defects in the administration of the interstate commerce clause may not be in the clause itself, but with the unaccountable legislators and judicial interpreters who have bastardized it. “A full return to common law” may be a good idea, but do we really know what that is. Whose common law? What are its limits? Is it an open invitation to use this unwritten collection of ancient precedents to impose whatever “law” the common people can be enticed to consent to?

Do we wish to throw out all the amendments after the Bill of Rights? Will involuntary servitude be allowed again? What about women's, 18-year-olds' and non-Caucasians' voting rights? The prohibition of holding office by those who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion from the Constitution? Maybe not everything should go.

Why did I jump from rebuilding at the county level to the federal stuff? Many of the problems at the county level are the result of federal stuff. Either by protecting corrupt local officials with various schemes of “immunity,” or mandating, co-opting and funding the local socialist bureaucrats, the feds have caused much of our problems. Take away the power of their federal handlers and we can begin at the county level.

Why rebuild at the county level? Let's refresh our imaginations with the possible scenarios of what we could be rebuilding from.

There could be violent revolution, as more people find living in a police state absolutely intolerable, and the contest between the tyrannical regime of “government” and the free citizenry begins. We may then find what else they have in store for us as they bring their fight to retain power and our consent to the next level.

Alternately, or as a result therefrom, the holographic, leveraged, derivative, fiat economy may collapse. The medium of exchange that we have imagined as money, will defy our imagination when the mist from which it was formed evaporates. In short order, we may have no more “money.” The greedy, oil soaked globalists aren't going to give oil away, so we won't have much for fuel either. Since our current food supply requires fuel for production and delivery, there won't be much food either. And most communication systems require a grid based energy supply and technicians who require, at a minimum, some food. Since hunting, gathering and plunder will be a higher priority on their daily list of things to do, long distance communication is unlikely to be happening “on the other side.”

How will the representatives of a sovereign people be able to meet in a national convention to reboot the Constitution? Lacking fuel and aircraft support infrastructures, they can't fly. Nor would they drive on open roads through thousands of miles of hungry looters with ample opportunities for ambush and plunder. And could they phone, fax or get out through an ISP that has no grid power? Your first new level of government is likely to cover an area that you can walk to. We might call that a county.

And as each “county” creates some form of limited government to establish civil order, they may create alliances with neighboring “counties” and expand into a “state.” From there we may progress back into a “nation.”

Richard Rieben wrote a short note:

“I believe Hari is wrong about the county level. I think it needs to be formed at the individual level -- sample cards enclosed.”

His Sovereign Signatory cards, a business sized card which you can sign and give away to others declares: “I attest to the principle of individual sovereignty -- equally possessed and reciprocally respected (each to the other) -- as the foundation of human relations in all matters.”

Richard makes a good point. The ultimate beginning, “on the other side,” is our own attitudes and conduct in the world around us. He proposes an ideal of reciprocal respect for the principle of individual sovereignty.

But how does Richard propose to enforce his sovereignty against an individual or group that does not have such reciprocal respect? How will his good intentions and principles survive the hordes that won't stop at the gates of his own sovereign liberty fence?

After a mass societal breakdown, wouldn't there be at least a few individuals who lack respect for life, liberty and property? Richard may find himself standing alone with his excellent principles and ideals in what John Locke describes as a “state of nature.” A state where man and beast co-exist under essentially the rules of the jungle. Hungry creatures generally have motives other than respect for the sovereign's life, liberty or property.

To remedy living in a state of nature, Locke proposed, defined and suggested the limits of “political society” and “civil government.” It is, after all, human nature to fail to respect others or disagree on what is to be respected.

To enforce the principles Richard proposes requires that either the individual sovereign must possess and use the necessary tools of defensive enforcement, or enter into a “political society” and yield limited sovereignty to a “civil government,” which exercises the tools of enforcement for them.

James Wooster wrote:

“Mr. Heath failed to mention anything about victimless crimes. We need a change to the Constitution that doesn't allow government to do anything to us unless we actually do something wrong that causes harm to another and they are willing to press charges. This would get government out of the job of trying to control us all the time.”

Excellent point James. In earlier times there were private prosecutions, not public prosecutors, but government smelled profit and power in that enterprise long ago. That domain now belongs to them and has grown to include victimless crimes -- an ever-expanding business. Hiring your own prosecutor to remedy criminal wrongdoing is now nearly forgotten.

There are also a few exceptions to the “willing to press charges” aspect of your proposal, James. Those who have been murdered, for example, naturally can't press charges.

But enough of “civil government.” There will be more important things to tend to than restructuring the political arena. Not the novus ordo seclorum of the globalists, but some order will need to be established after the chaos of societal collapse. Do you see a bright spot in our future?

How will we shift from a shopper/borrower society to hunter-gatherer/agrarian producers in less time than it takes to starve? What kind of transportation methods will the new American ingenuity devise? Now that we have grown accustomed to modern conveniences, how will we provide the energy for them without the mega-grid power supply? What positive solutions are there for health, economic, educational and communication systems?

And most importantly, dear reader, what insights, suggestions and ideas do you have that will help your fellow sovereigns make it through these coming troubled times? Write to The Idaho Observer and let us know what you see futuristically, “on the other side.”