Hi Ed Brenegar, thank you for sharing your writing. I enjoy how you view and see through things and manage to write about it so clearly! If you like reading others writings....you might enjoy the writings of Fabio Vighi https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/author/fabiovighi/?utm_source=pocket_mylist. Have a great day :-)
Feb 3, 2022·edited Feb 3, 2022Liked by Ed Brenegar
Excellent article. If you look back 235 years ago here in the US, we had a contracted battle between the Federalists, who were the group behind the Constitution of 1787, which created a centralized ("consolidated") government, and the Antifederalists, who wanted to retain the decentralized form of government created by the original Constitution of 1777, the Articles of Confederation. The Antifederalists wrote the Bill of Rights, in order to attempt to remedy the excesses of the Constitution, particularly the Tenth Amendment, which was aimed at the Supremacy Clause, amongst other parts of that document, see https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1243&context=ndlr. This attempt was largely negated by the Federalist Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, in 1801, who wrote in dicta in a case that year, that "the courts will decide what the law is."
And the Federalist Constitution laid the groundwork for the mess that was predicted by the Antifederalists - "We have so interwoven continental and state legislatures that they cannot exist separately; whereas we in truth only leave them the power of electing us, for what can a provincial legislature do when we possess the exclusive regulation of external and internal commerce, excise, duties, imposts, post-offices and roads; when we and we alone, have the power to wage war, make peace, coin money (if we can get bullion) if not, borrow money, organize the militia and call them forth to execute our decrees, and crush insurrections assisted by a noble body of veterans subject to our nod, which we have the power of raising and keeping even in the time of peace. What have we to fear from state legislatures or even from states, when we are armed with such powers, with a president at our head? (A name we thought proper to adopt in conformity to the prejudices of a silly people who are so foolishly fond of a Republican government, that we were obliged to accommodate in names and forms to them, in order more effectually to secure the substance of our proposed plan; but we all know that Cromwell was a King, with the title of Protector). I repeat it, what have we to fear armed with such powers, with a president at our head who is captain -- general of the army, navy and militia of the United States, who can make and unmake treaties, appoint and commission ambassadors and other ministers, who can grant or refuse reprieves or pardons, who can make judges of the supreme and other continental courts -- in short, who will be the source, the fountain of honor, profit and power, whose influence like the rays of the sun, will diffuse itself far and wide, will exhale all democratical vapors and break the clouds of popular insurrection? But again gentlemen, our judicial power is a strong work, a masked battery, few people see the guns we can and will ere long play off from it. For the judicial power embraces every question which can arise in law or equity, under this constitution and under the laws of "the United States" (which laws will be, you know, the supreme laws of the land). This power extends to all cases, affecting ambassadors or other public ministers, "and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; between citizens of the same State, claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects." Now, can a question arise in the colonial courts, which the ingenuity or sophistry of an able lawyer may not bring within one or other of the above cases? Certainly not. Then our court will have original or appellate jurisdiction in all cases -- and if so, how fallen are state judicatures -- and must not every provincial law yield to our supreme fiat?" http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/09.htm
It was for good reason that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was carried out under the cloak of absolute secrecy, the Proceedings to be released only some 53 years later, and whose ratification by 9 out of 13 states was carried out under circumstances remarkably similar to the machinations of the 2020 US Presidential election. This intended result was cemented firmly in place by the National Security Act of 1947, which created an unaccountable and tremendously complex National Security State in the US, and which put in place a double government - an elected government, Congress and the Presidency which were the "dignified government", and the "efficient government", the unelected and permanent government, the government which actually ran the country, mentioned in this: https://fletcher.tufts.edu/sites/default/files/pubs_glennon-michael-national-security-double-government.pdf - "National Security and Double Government". Subsequent legislation has only created a worse, much more secretive, and complex bureaucracy, whose Code of Federal Regulations - the part open to public viewing - dwarfs the United States Code, the statutory laws of the United States.
It takes a lot of energy to keep this all going, the energy to power the offices and data processing, communication, and storage of data, as well as the energy required to project force, and that's the bottleneck which will spell the end of all of this complexity, because the energy comes from fossil fuels - even uranium mining and refinement and construction of nuclear plants are dependent on fossil fuels. And fossil fuels are a finite and depleting resource, eventually we get to the point where it takes more than the energy in one barrel of oil to extract one barrel of oil - or likewise per ton of coal - or cubic foot of natural gas. And at that point, things come to a dead halt. And that puts a dead halt to mechanized agriculture as well, and with an exponentially increasing population, the limit point will come sooner rather than later - and it's a hard limit. And mass starvation makes things very simple, there is left only one focus, one goal...
Fantastic article & practical recommendations everyone should heed.
Agree with many of Tainter's observations. The incremental burdens & restrictions imposed by #BigBrother & the #NannyState (warfare & welfare state) eventually ossify societies.
But, if civilization is a problem solving, i.e., "thinking together," system, then the deleterious effects of metabolic syndrome on brain function surely play an important role in the decline and collapse.
Hi Ed Brenegar, thank you for sharing your writing. I enjoy how you view and see through things and manage to write about it so clearly! If you like reading others writings....you might enjoy the writings of Fabio Vighi https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/author/fabiovighi/?utm_source=pocket_mylist. Have a great day :-)
Excellent article. If you look back 235 years ago here in the US, we had a contracted battle between the Federalists, who were the group behind the Constitution of 1787, which created a centralized ("consolidated") government, and the Antifederalists, who wanted to retain the decentralized form of government created by the original Constitution of 1777, the Articles of Confederation. The Antifederalists wrote the Bill of Rights, in order to attempt to remedy the excesses of the Constitution, particularly the Tenth Amendment, which was aimed at the Supremacy Clause, amongst other parts of that document, see https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1243&context=ndlr. This attempt was largely negated by the Federalist Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, in 1801, who wrote in dicta in a case that year, that "the courts will decide what the law is."
And the Federalist Constitution laid the groundwork for the mess that was predicted by the Antifederalists - "We have so interwoven continental and state legislatures that they cannot exist separately; whereas we in truth only leave them the power of electing us, for what can a provincial legislature do when we possess the exclusive regulation of external and internal commerce, excise, duties, imposts, post-offices and roads; when we and we alone, have the power to wage war, make peace, coin money (if we can get bullion) if not, borrow money, organize the militia and call them forth to execute our decrees, and crush insurrections assisted by a noble body of veterans subject to our nod, which we have the power of raising and keeping even in the time of peace. What have we to fear from state legislatures or even from states, when we are armed with such powers, with a president at our head? (A name we thought proper to adopt in conformity to the prejudices of a silly people who are so foolishly fond of a Republican government, that we were obliged to accommodate in names and forms to them, in order more effectually to secure the substance of our proposed plan; but we all know that Cromwell was a King, with the title of Protector). I repeat it, what have we to fear armed with such powers, with a president at our head who is captain -- general of the army, navy and militia of the United States, who can make and unmake treaties, appoint and commission ambassadors and other ministers, who can grant or refuse reprieves or pardons, who can make judges of the supreme and other continental courts -- in short, who will be the source, the fountain of honor, profit and power, whose influence like the rays of the sun, will diffuse itself far and wide, will exhale all democratical vapors and break the clouds of popular insurrection? But again gentlemen, our judicial power is a strong work, a masked battery, few people see the guns we can and will ere long play off from it. For the judicial power embraces every question which can arise in law or equity, under this constitution and under the laws of "the United States" (which laws will be, you know, the supreme laws of the land). This power extends to all cases, affecting ambassadors or other public ministers, "and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; between citizens of the same State, claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects." Now, can a question arise in the colonial courts, which the ingenuity or sophistry of an able lawyer may not bring within one or other of the above cases? Certainly not. Then our court will have original or appellate jurisdiction in all cases -- and if so, how fallen are state judicatures -- and must not every provincial law yield to our supreme fiat?" http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/09.htm
It was for good reason that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was carried out under the cloak of absolute secrecy, the Proceedings to be released only some 53 years later, and whose ratification by 9 out of 13 states was carried out under circumstances remarkably similar to the machinations of the 2020 US Presidential election. This intended result was cemented firmly in place by the National Security Act of 1947, which created an unaccountable and tremendously complex National Security State in the US, and which put in place a double government - an elected government, Congress and the Presidency which were the "dignified government", and the "efficient government", the unelected and permanent government, the government which actually ran the country, mentioned in this: https://fletcher.tufts.edu/sites/default/files/pubs_glennon-michael-national-security-double-government.pdf - "National Security and Double Government". Subsequent legislation has only created a worse, much more secretive, and complex bureaucracy, whose Code of Federal Regulations - the part open to public viewing - dwarfs the United States Code, the statutory laws of the United States.
It takes a lot of energy to keep this all going, the energy to power the offices and data processing, communication, and storage of data, as well as the energy required to project force, and that's the bottleneck which will spell the end of all of this complexity, because the energy comes from fossil fuels - even uranium mining and refinement and construction of nuclear plants are dependent on fossil fuels. And fossil fuels are a finite and depleting resource, eventually we get to the point where it takes more than the energy in one barrel of oil to extract one barrel of oil - or likewise per ton of coal - or cubic foot of natural gas. And at that point, things come to a dead halt. And that puts a dead halt to mechanized agriculture as well, and with an exponentially increasing population, the limit point will come sooner rather than later - and it's a hard limit. And mass starvation makes things very simple, there is left only one focus, one goal...
Fantastic article & practical recommendations everyone should heed.
Agree with many of Tainter's observations. The incremental burdens & restrictions imposed by #BigBrother & the #NannyState (warfare & welfare state) eventually ossify societies.
But, if civilization is a problem solving, i.e., "thinking together," system, then the deleterious effects of metabolic syndrome on brain function surely play an important role in the decline and collapse.