Yes, that was a mistake.

And you'll see why, and you'll have an alternative, after you read two of the five great works that we cover in the Samuel Adams Coaching program.

One of the rallying cries in the American Revolution was "No Taxation without Representation."

The tax on tea that gave rise to the Boston Tea Party was only 3 pence per pound of tea. We pay TEN TIMES MORE than that on every gallon of gas. The overall tax rate in 1776 was 2% or 3% max. If you pay one dime in federal income tax, the government is taking over 60% of everything you earn.

"Representation" in our day means those who pay no taxes can elect politicians to tax the rich and give to those who want something for nothing.

Personally, I would rather have colonial tax rates "without representation" than "representation" and TRILLIONS of dollars of government theft and waste.

---

What gives Smith the right to elect a "representative" to steal from Jones?

---

Is the U.S. Constitution a good thing?

Following the end of the war in 1783, Washington returned to private life and retired to his plantation at Mount Vernon. He spoke of his desire to live safely under his own Vine & Fig Tree, prompting an incredulous King George III to state, "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."

Despite his yearnings, Washington came out of retirement to preside over the Constitutional Convention and become President of the United States of America.

Was this a mistake? Would Washington have been a greater American if he hadn't? Did America really need a President? Did Israel really need a king?

Patrick Henry (“Give me liberty or give me Death”) refused to support the Constitution.

“I smell a rat in Philadelphia,” he said.

 

He was right. So was George Mason, the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” who also opposed the new constitution.

At first, Samuel Adams was an opponent of the Constitution of 1787. Eventually Adams agreed to support it. Patrick Henry never did.

Patrick Henry was right. So was George Mason. So were other noted Anti-Federalists:

Richard Henry Lee Robert Yates James Monroe James Winthrop

Mercy Otis Warren George Clinton Melancton Smith Arthur Fenner

One can also argue that Thomas Jefferson expressed several anti-federalist thoughts throughout his life, but that his involvement in the discussion was limited, since he was stationed as Ambassador to France while the debate over federalism was going on in America in the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist Papers.

The Constitution, with its "separation of powers," "checks and balances," and theory of "enumerated powers," failed to prevent the rise of an atheistic tyranny.

Madison, Hamilton, and John Jay sold America on a Constitution which they claimed would prevent the rise of another tyranny.

They were wrong.

Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence and/or the Constitution would take immediate steps to begin abolishing our present government if they were here in 2013.

And because America's Founding Fathers were excellent students of history, if they could see the history of the world from 1789 to 2013, they would become the most radical of libertarians.

They gave us what they called "an Experiment in Liberty," and America became the most prosperous and admired nation in history. Washington D.C. abandoned that experiment in the 20th century, embarking on an experiment in government central planning. Everywhere this experiment was tried -- Germany, Italy, the Soviet Union -- it left poverty and mass death.

Sam Adams would see that we need to abolish the current tyranny, and replace it with nothing but "the Invisible Hand" of 100% unregulated, Laissez-faire capitalism. 

As if greedy politicians don't.

But your moral concerns are valid.

That's why George Washington, Samuel Adams and nearly all of America's Founding Fathers believed American education had to be centered on "religion, morality and knowledge."

From a Christian perspective, two things characterize pure religion. They can be summed up in the words of the Apostle James:

Pure religion and undefiled
before God and the Father is this,
To visit the fatherless
and widows in their affliction, and
to keep oneself unspotted from the world.
James 1:27

This is why voluntary charities were everywhere in early America, and why welfare has now been nationalized by the State.

In a radically Christian worldview, there is no place for "rights," "revolution," and "representation." All of the legitimate social and civic functions of society can be carried out by families working together in a "Free Market." No socialism of any kind is needed. No fascism or communism is needed. No "liberal" or "progressive" government programs are needed.

Some would say we're "too libertarian." They would rebuke us for not trusting government.

"Trust No One"

How do libertarians respond to the accusation that they do not have enough trust in government? John Adams wrote in 1772:

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."

Should libertarians have more confidence in their government? Thomas Jefferson, 1799:

Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power.… In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

James Madison warned the people of Virginia (1799):

the nation which reposes on the pillow of political confidence, will sooner or later end its political existence in a deadly lethargy.

Madison added in Federalist No. 55,

[T]here is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust. . . .

Trusting government, having "confidence in government," is un-American. It is also unBiblical. Name one verse in the Bible which tells us to "trust" Nimrod, Pharaoh, Babylon, or Caesar.

Possessing the power to hurt people without consequence, to take their money  without being charged with robbery, while being called a "public servant" or "benefactor," corrupts a man's soul. The British historian Lord Acton put it this way:

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.

The exercise of political power is problematic. We should assume that "great men" -- that is, powerful men -- men who wield the force of "the government" -- are morally corrupt. This assumption should be considered confirmed if he increases his own power during his time of "public service."

• Why a Bill of Rights? | Walter Williams
• Why Bad Men Rule | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters ... but they mean to be masters."
~ Daniel Webster

But if the Constitution of 1787 was a failure, could any constitution succeed?

No.  

And this leads us to a very radical conclusion.

Or perhaps I should say, to a very hated conclusion.

In fact, the three huge mistakes we've been discussing lead us to the three most hated words in today's political lexicon.