LCMSG

 

LCMSG

The proposal here is that the powers which have been usurped from state and local government since the 1850’s be returned to where they were and, as much as possible, bundled together at the local level. This restoration to their original architecture of the powers of economic, social, and moral self-determination, essentially a return to the kind of government defined by the Constitution, and intended by the founders, will henceforth be referred to as Local Community Moral Self Government. This phrase is apt because every issue involved, from business and the environment, to social care and education, involves moral decisions that are mostly properly made at the local level of government. In the interest of efficiency, this concept will be shortened to the acronym LCMSG most of the time.

Now it is time to consider what the United States of America would look like with LCMSG up and running and the blessings of American liberty restored.

First of all, a nation with LCMSG would be far more diverse than today’s nation. It would be a patchwork quilt of a nation with stark cultural differences between, at minimum, the states and, more likely (and wisely), between the towns and cities within a state and even between neighborhoods in some cities. Additionally, we must account for all the new and divergent groups that have been and are coming to America. They do so largely for one reason; they want to live in a nation dedicated to establishing liberty and justice for all. Sure, there are a few who come here for the wrong reasons, but the vast majority come here for the freedom.

Furthermore, it is past time for us to wake up and stop fighting the last war, in this case referring to the cultural wars. We must frame our ideals to appeal to the demographic of this nation at it is becoming, and not as it once was. If we want to revive our republic (which is what makes one a small r republican) we are forced to do it with a much more diverse populace than we had the first time around. The wonderful hope of this American moment is that such a refounding of our political foundation is possible in this country precisely because our nation was not founded on any particular ethnic or racial basis. All can come equally to our torch of liberty.

Consequently, every aspect of LCMSG should be taken as including all the disparate ethnic, racial and religious groups that have made their home in modern America. So we should embrace these demographic changes, and at the same time return to our historical political structure of LCMSG. We should anticipate Chinese (Confucian) communities, Indian (Hindu) communities, Muslim communities, every stripe of African, Asian, and South American communities, and whatever and whoever might also be here, to emerge as self governing communities in the American constitutional mode. These newcomers will thrive, alongside all the diverse communities that have been here for decades and centuries. E Pluribus Unum, Out of Many-One, is still our motto, our hope, and our battle cry as we enter back in to a time of Local Community Moral Self Government.

Some places would probably have fewer limitations on press and speech than presently allowed by the feds, and some states would undoubtedly have more. Some would be very tolerant of sexual foibles while others would forbid them. Abortion would be forbidden in some localities and legal in others. Some towns would have prayer in the public schools, some wouldn't. Some places would teach evolution, while others would teach creation, and some would teach both. Some places would have full blown welfare systems while others might have old fashioned poor farms.

There would be immense cultural variations, and, yet, things wouldn't be all that different for most people. Many of the states would probably quickly institute some sort of secular humanism. That would be fine because, under the Constitution, states are where such decisions should be made and where belief systems are properly established.

There would probably be regional differences. Maybe the southeastern states would tend toward returning to a Christian oriented moral education. Some of the Midwest and coastal states like California and New York might be more Secular Humanist in nature. Imagine Utah being Mormon, and then, imagine Colorado and Alaska being open to counties and localities establishing local official belief systems. Then we would have the kind of cultural variation within which everyone, no matter how strange or normal, could find a niche in which to thrive.

So, what are the advantages to you, the individual? First of all, you would be free to live where you want. You could choose a state, town, or locality where the people think like you. Where you fit in. There would be a wide variety of local cultural styles from which to choose. You, the individual, could be part of a community with laws that are very agreeable to you. That wide variety of cultural styles from which an individual might choose has to be one of the most meaningful aspects of liberty.

Moreover, once you moved there, into a community of agreement, you would have a great deal of power, as an individual under the federal and state constitutions, to persuade your neighbors to change things to be even more to your liking. This personal political empowerment is another very meaningful aspect of the traditional American definition of liberty.

Eventually, most moral issues will be settled in our local communities, so we won't be constantly arguing over them with our neighbors. Sure, we might sit and make fun of the folks in the next community or state and the problems they have because they don't do things our way. We won't, however, worry about them because they won't have much say over how we run our community. Living lives of contentment and harmony within our local community would be one of the great blessings of liberty.

You see, most of these cultural/moral issues won't go away. Abortion and infanticide were controversial a thousand years ago, and they will most likely be controversial a thousand years from now. The same is true of homosexuality and all sexual identity issues, welfare, medical care, the morality of education, and many other issues. The best we can do is to enable individuals to form into communities of agreement where the issues they care most about are settled because they and their neighbors agree on them.

Then we can each live in the kind of environment we believe is best and raise our children in those same agreeable social environments. Thus, we could minimize the problem identified by Jefferson that "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical."

As a short aside, we can also see here the way in which LCMSG answers one of the eternal problems with government, which is how do people who inherit some government ever really give their consent to it? Just because you are born, and live your life under a system of government, doesn't mean you ever truly gave your consent to it. Allowing wildly diverse groups to form and almost completely govern themselves under their own rules will give us all, as individuals and groups, an ongoing means to form our own cultural minds and give consent to our own governance.

Because we'd agree on so many basic issues, there would be a lot less arguing. We would have more time and energy to solve our other problems. The odds are, we as individuals would live happier, less stress-filled lives. In short, the felicity and harmony of the American people would increase if we were free and more empowered to control our own lives and communities. --- Another great blessing of liberty.

In this kind of political regime, we could expect the sense of community to once again assert itself in this country. Consider the following insight from DeTocqueville;

“It is important to appreciate that, in general, men’s affections are drawn only in directions where power exists. Patriotism does not long prevail in a conquered country. The New Englander is attached to his township not so much because he was born there as because he sees the township as a free, strong corporation of which he is part and which is worth the trouble of trying to direct.

It often happens in Europe that governments themselves regret the absence of municipal spirit, for everyone agrees that municipal spirit is an important element in order and tranquility, but they do not know how to produce it. In making municipalities strong and independent, they fear sharing their social power and exposing the state to risks of anarchy. However, if you take power and independence from a municipality, you may have docile subjects but you will not have citizens.”^1.

That would then be another advantage to a more localized, community-centered political structure. It only stands to reason that re-empowering the communities politically would help to bring about a stronger sense of community. That stronger sense of community would in turn empower us to solve many problems without resorting to the heavy hand of government. We will examine how we could affect change without using government, and how we could use modern technology to empower ourselves in that regard in another post. It could be another of the great blessings of liberty.

In a system of LCMSG, by having corporate regulation in community hands, people will become much more aware of what it takes to make society and an economy work. Consider another quote from DeTocqueville,

“…in the restricted sphere within his scope, he learns to rule society; he gets to know those formalities without which freedom can advance only through revolutions, and becoming imbued with their spirit, develops a taste for order, understands the harmony of powers; and in the end accumulates clear, practical ideas about the nature of his duties and the extent of his rights.”^3.

Contrast that enlightened mindset against the hostile, stilted thinking we decline into if corporate personhood continues, and our only remedy seems to be socialism. At that point of rejecting elitist capitalism we would be choosing an equally elitist socialism. They promise to control the greed of big capital, but plan to do so by a never-ending agenda of regulations. Their supposedly well intended agenda would inevitably put us all under a totalitarian thumb. If experience can be a guide (and it should), that agenda would leave the rich and powerful in place, along with the government officials, to rule over us as part of a fascist oligarchy.

LCMSG and Morality

Moving on past the issues of business, there is one more major aspect of LCMSG that would benefit society compared to today’s way of doing things. That involves, what can be called, personal morality and moral failings. One of the fundamental problems with centralized socialism is that it is very inefficient and unaccountable in comparison to local control. Some of the advantages inherent in local control can be seen by taking a close look at our system of welfare.

Imagine welfare as a body of fresh water. Everyone who needs some water can get some, and every productive citizen is required to contribute some water to keep the pool full. When the pool is maintained on the federal level, there is so much water it resembles an ocean. On that level, it doesn't seem to matter how many people are on or off welfare. The amount people can take out seems to have no limit, and the amount that individuals must contribute seems to remain the same regardless of the number of people on the dole. In that context, the producing citizen doesn't have a lot of interest in reducing the welfare rolls and is looked upon as mean spirited and selfish if he or she complains about the folks on welfare.

When this is put in the context of local control of public relief (as welfare used to be called), a different picture emerges. The body of water no longer looks like an ocean but is now like a lake or even a pond. If more and more people are taking out water, the producing citizens have to contribute more to keep the pool full. When this starts to become burdensome, the local citizens will do what they can to reduce the relief roles. Tactics might include ostracism, shaming, and poor farms. More often, local citizens will cooperate to create jobs for the less fortunate. The thinking on the part of producing citizens was, "If we have to support them anyway, they may as well be producing something for the community." And voila! Instead of a welfare recipient, the community now has a productive citizen. Also, in the holistic reasoning engendered by LCMSG, the conclusions regarding dealing with public relief might well become important factors when chartering corporations.

Local communities would also be in a position to apply moral standards to recipients, which could greatly motivate recipients to become productive members of the community. The federal government isn’t in a position to do that because they are so distant and have to rely on legalistic formulations with no openly moral guidelines allowed to avoid the intertwining of church and state. If the recipient meets the letter of the law, they qualify. There is no place in the federal bureaucracy for personal judgment, moral guidance, and simple human to human interaction. And yet, those very qualities which can be brought to bear on a local level are the keys to preventing welfare from becoming a system of chronic dependence.

To be clear, this discussion is now going to speak directly to issues involving personal morality. This may involve local government being able to enact laws against vagrancy, fornication, adultery, sodomy, etc. If a local community sees certain actions as detrimental to the community, it could make laws against them.

It is important to add some thoughts to allay the fears of the Secular Humanist, free thinking crowd. When advocating the uplift of morality, it isn’t intended to mean only traditional deistic morality, even though that mode of moral thinking would be included. This is an opportunity to fill in some of the vision of what a nation of morally self-governing local communities would look like and how utterly diverse and purposefully responsible it would be.

Take, for an instructive example, what a future city of San Francisco might look like with LCMSG in place. Assume that they continue to embrace legal and open homosexuality and the entire LGBTQ? agenda. Even then, with what some consider immorality institutionalized, there would still be a local morality, but it would be tempered by having to pay its own way.

If someone is incapacitated by sexually transmitted disease or the ongoing costs of sexual transitioning, that person would have to be supported by local taxes and wouldn’t be a source of federally based income, as is the case today. In order to prevent major problems with cost and disease, there would probably be a well thought out set of local laws and mores involving bath houses, singles bars and such like activities. The local citizens, who would have been involved in writing these laws, and establishing these customs, will sincerely try to make the local system work.

That is all that is intended by this “trying to morally uplift the local community” stuff. It merely means that in a situation of Local Community Moral Self Government, the normal citizen will endeavor to make the local system work well. Even if the various local communities have widely differing and conflicting definitions of what is right and wrong (and they undoubtedly would), the citizens of those local communities would still tend to be moral by their own lights.

On the other side of the ledger, to allay the fears of those who think this would result in a society of runaway debauchery, consider that the limits of earthly reality would be one of the major checks and balances in a truly free society. If San Francisco wants to continue embracing all forms of sexuality, fine. That city would, however, have to pay out of the local purse for the health care of all the dependent people its tolerance produces. While having to deal with its own problems wouldn’t force the city to become homo or trans phobic or force any other locality into any other form of intolerance, it would temper the local culture. It can easily be seen that if the education and laws in some community encourages total self-indulgence and irresponsibility, that community would likely be bankrupt in short order. It might be hoped that the liberal cities would maintain their tolerant stance, but it is almost certain that they would modify some of their policies to keep from going bankrupt.

This new architecture of government, combining as many of the powers of moral, economic and social self-government at the local level of government as we wisely can, would, first of all, be a move back toward the government designed by the founders. All three of the major usurpations of power by the federal government were brought about by wrongheaded actions (or inaction) by the Supreme Court and can, therefore, be corrected by just a few instances of the Court’s reversing itself or by being reversed by Congress.

The technical solutions to the dilemma will be addressed in the main post. Of far greater import is that in bundling this critical mass of the powers of self-government at the local level, we will be creating a social environment that tends to produce an involved, sincere, and well-meaning citizenry. This is the greatest and most important blessing of liberty.

The only way to raise that kind of community consciousness is for the community to be truly empowered politically. It is only when the local populace has to balance the desire for a prosperous economy with the desire for a healthy community and environment that it will make good decisions about which corporations to charter. Only when that same local populace has to balance the desire for individual liberty in lifestyle choice with the need to provide health care and public relief to those who live those lifestyles will it come to wise decisions about what to allow. And, only when the local populace has those responsibilities and powers will it be in a position to make wise decisions about the kind of moral education to impart to the young.

Finally, it is only when individuals are living in morally self-governing communities, (where as individuals they feel they can have a real influence on the decisions of local government) will that process begin to cause the individual to become a more moral and civic-minded person. Only when all three major aspects of LCMSG are combined will that positive synergy, one that generates good citizens, begin to get purchase.

When the local community must take total responsibility for social problems, such as public relief, indigent health care, sewage, roads, power, water, and jobs, and at the same time decide what is taught in the schools about morality, what limits to put on any public exposure to pornography, lewdness, sexual behavior, drug laws, regulating corporate behavior, fighting words, intimidation, sedition, or any of the whole host of moral issues involving government, is a healthy balance struck. The individual citizen involved with making these decisions, and in solving the problems which all communities face, will begin to see the benefits of a virtuous life, and contrarily, the harm that is done to the community by an immoral, irresponsible lifestyle.

Things like fatherless or parent-less children, the spreading of disease, substance dependency, obesity, violence, gangs, crime, greed, and many other issues will always come at a cost to society, both morally and economically. By putting the responsibility, and hence cost, for these social problems at the local level, and bundling the powers to deal with the problems at that same local level, the individual is compelled to wrestle with them.

Any honest wrestling in these areas will generally result in the conclusion that a society that goes too far in the direction of self-indulgence and vice will end up morally and economically bankrupt. When these issues are solved at the federal level, the individual pays for them but doesn’t realize it because the pool of national resources is so large; like an ocean. Putting them at the local level reduces them to a pond, and puts the cost of these problems right in the face, and pocketbook, of the average citizen.

The average citizen, trying to make the system they chose work, will tend to favor the kind of moral education and social environment that prevents the costly problems of social debauchery from arising in the first place. In sincerely attempting to uplift the morals of the citizenry most honest people, and most of us basically are, will tend to see the importance of living a moral and responsible personal life.

Most of the Founders are in recorded agreement that only a moral people will be able to maintain a free society. This simple truth only stands to reason because as a society loses the voluntary restraint of a strong personal morality; that same society, out of fear of itself, will call for stronger and more authoritarian government. Only a moral people will remain free. The assertion here is that the reverse of that axiom is also true.

Just as only a moral people will remain free, only a truly free and self-governing people will see the reasons to be moral. The greatest blessing of liberty is that it tends to produce involved, sincere, and intentionally moral citizens.

Just as only a moral people will remain free, only a truly free and self-governing people will see the reasons to be moral. The greatest blessing of liberty is that it tends to produce involved, sincere, and intentionally moral citizens. With that aroused citizenry, the government, and especially the local branch of it, could be made to work very well.

Not only will LCMSG tend to produce that moral individual, but the even bolder assertion made here is that LCMSG (Local Community Moral Self Government) is the ONLY architecture of government that will tend to produce that aroused citizenry. (It must be added that the American Constitution is NOT the only form this architecture of government can take, nor the only instance it has occurred.)

So yes, this is saying that it is imperative for us to get back to the Constitution and reinstate Local Community Moral Self Government if we are to regain self-government and the blessings of liberty. This is not to slavishly submit to the words of some dead White men nor is it even that the government they left us is superior to the one we have today (though it is). No, the overriding reason to revive Local Community Moral Self Government is that no other form of government will tend to produce that good, involved, and morally-minded citizen necessary to make free self-government work. What’s more, any system of government that doesn’t generate that kind of good citizen will inevitably decline toward authoritarian, despotic rule.

In the book, “The Outline of Sanity”, G.K. Chesterton advocated for what he called a peasantry, a populace which owns its own small plot of land, and therefore has a good deal of the reality of Local Community Moral Self Government. “Three acres and a cow” was his battle cry. He likened it to a brick, floating in midair, among a rainbow of bricks.” ^6.

Such a thing seems impossible until you are informed that he is referring to a Roman arch, and then it makes perfect sense. While a partially constructed Roman arch, formed of stone or brick mortared together in a round shape, is an object of derision because it makes no sense and looks like it will fall down, when it is completed, it is one of the strongest of all structures. That is because it uses a force of nature, gravity, which normally weakens structures, to gain more strength. Many of the arches built by the Romans 2000 years ago are still standing.

In the same way, LCMSG seems to make no sense because it doesn’t seem to be possible, or strong enough to sustain over time. But, then we realize that such structures have been erected in the past and that some still stand. Their longevity is because they use the forces of nature, individuals love of the land and love of liberty, to strengthen themselves where other structures get weaker over time. Then we can see that all we need is a vision, some courage, and some perseverance to get ourselves back to that enduring structure of government.

Back again to Alexis DeTocqueville writing in “Democracy in America”,

“Only peoples having few provincial institutions or none deny the usefulness of them; that is to say, it is only those who know nothing of them who slander them.”^7.

Just so, and we have a media/cultural elite that miss few chances to demean, dismiss and ridicule local government and small community life.

On June 5, 1824 Thomas Jefferson, close to the end of his life, wrote the following in a letter to Major John Cartwright,

“My own State has gone on so far with its premiere ebauche; but it is now proposing to call a convention for amendment. Among other improvements, I hope they will adopt the subdivision of our counties into wards. The former may be estimated at an average of twenty-four miles square; the latter should be about six miles square each, and would answer to the hundreds of your Saxon Alfred. In each of these might be, 1st. An elementary school; 2d. A company of militia, with its officers; 3d. A justice of the peace and constable; 4th. Each ward should take care of their own poor; 5th. Their own roads; 6th. Their own police; 7th. Elect within themselves one or more jurors to attend the courts of justice; and 8th. Give in at their folk house, their votes for all functionaries reserved to their election. Each ward would thus be a small republic within itself, and every man in the State would thus become an acting member of the common government, transacting in person a great portion of its rights and duties, subordinate indeed, and yet important, and entirely within his competence. The wit of man cannot devise a more solid basis for a free, durable, and well-administered republic.”^8.

So, we can see that the architecture of government proposed here is not without its historical advocates. Some great thinkers have seen no better form of government possible this side of heaven. The potential benefits are multi fold, beginning with the idea that such a society would be more “durable” or stable.

The greatest benefit of LCMSG is, of course, the effect it would have on the individual citizen and by extension, the citizenry as a whole. By setting up a form of local self-government that is local enough that the individual has a viable chance to affect real changes and by allowing wide variations in local cultural styles from which the individual citizens are free to choose, the average citizen would feel much more attached to the workings of the law and would tend to be a more involved, active, and moral person. Once again, this uplift in morality would not be limited to traditional, religious or Christian based morals but would instead mean that the average citizen would sincerely be trying to make the local system of government, whatever belief system is is based on, work effectively. This benefit would be of inestimable value and would prevent many of our current problems from becoming problems in the first place.

What’s more, this would be a much more scientifically based society in that each state, county and village could serve as a social laboratory, where different methods and solutions to problems could be tried and compared with the methods of other communities for effectiveness. This has to be contrasted with the rather stilted (and unscientific) current method of letting the national elites thrash out the issue in the context of politically motivated, usually phony, rhetoric and then impose a one size fits all “solution” that by definition can’t be compared to the results of other methods because no other methods are allowed.

Constitutional Limits to LCMSG

Since this structure would be built around allowing wide cultural variations between communities which would greatly increase the options to the individual, the question arises; “What would be the limits to these local powers? What would prevent communities from becoming abusive and oppressive?” The answer is twofold; stark raving reality ( which was already discussed) and the Constitution as written. As already explained, reality would have a way of bursting the bubbles of the most extreme utopians if the powers and responsibilities of government were bundled together at the local level

The other major control on runaway local extremism would be the U.S. Constitution as it is actually written. First and foremost, among these would be the Fourteenth Amendment, which mandates that “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Stipulating that the definition of “Person” doesn't mean corporations, nor does it mean various sexual behaviors. Thus, no matter what laws a locality or state might enact, it is the federal government’s job to ensure that all laws are enforced equally. No discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or color would be allowed. That principle alone would prevent a great deal of mischief. Many local extremists and power mongers would be rendered more moderate by the certainty that whatever schemes they engaged in would apply to themselves equally with the least citizen in the area.

In addition to the Fourteenth Amendment, there are a number of other constitutional restrictions that would both limit local extremism, and empower individual citizens. Article IV, Section 4 requires that every state be a republic, so no one could set up little dictatorships or monarchies.

Amendment 26 established the voting age at 18. Amendment 24 forbids poll taxes for any election of federal office. Amendment 19 ensures that women have the vote. Amendment 15 forbids the denial of rights based upon race. Amendment 13 forbids slavery. Amendment 8 forbids cruel and unusual punishments, which could be very important as local governments come under the sway of various belief systems. Amendment 7 ensures a trial by jury in civil actions. Amendment 6 ensures a speedy and public trial with the defendant having right to counsel. Amendment 5 ensures that property can’t be seized without due process, nor can a person be compelled to testify against themselves in a court of law. Amendment 2 guarantees that individuals can keep and bear arms.

In all of these amendments, and in other places in the Constitution, are found rights and protections for the individual against any governmental excess but especially against the excesses that might come from local governments. These are some of the ultimate checks and balances that would work to keep a return to Local Community Moral Self Government healthy.

The constitutional protection that we will focus on for a moment is the Fourth Amendment, because it, like the Fourteenth Amendment, would play such a large role in the lives of individuals living in a system of LCMSG. Think of the situation of someone who likes to do something that is forbidden by local law. For example, a fellow likes to look at pornography, but due to a career need or family situation or whatever finds himself living in a town where pornography is illegal. Under the Fourth Amendment, as written, “…no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

So, for the guy in the town, as long as he keeps it to himself, there will be no witness, and therefore no oath or affirmation, in turn no warrant will issue. The only way he is likely to run into trouble is if he tries to show, persuade or convert some of his neighbors, and then they will be in a position to swear out a warrant. This is where the concept from English law comes in that a man’s home is his castle. As long as a person isn’t making a public spectacle or issue of noncompliance with local law, he or she is sovereign within the confines of his or her own domicile. This concept could easily be extended to sexual lifestyle issues, drug use, and any number of other issues. As we would enter a time of wildly varying local cultures, this use of the 4^th Amendment would greatly protect individuals and yet still allow us to transition to a nation where we all live in communities of agreement. We could live and raise our families in a social environment with which we agree and which we could have a hand in forming. At the same time, folks with different values who lived there could do so in peace as long as they kept it out of the public eye.

Another point that should be made at this juncture is that, as the years have gone by, many so-called experts have come to argue that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the so called Bill of Rights, should either be applied to just the federal government en masse or that all ten amendments should be applied to the states, en masse. Neither standard survives close scrutiny as each of the first ten amendments, indeed, each of all the amendments, stands on its own, and carries within it instructions as to its application. Thus, while the First Amendment should apply only to the Congress (singular, and therefore the federal Congress) most of the other amendments of the Bill of Rights are clearly intended to apply to the states and localities.

Can there be any question that the Fourth Amendment has always been used to prevent unlawful searches and seizures or that the Fifth Amendment has always been a safeguard against any American having to testify against themselves in any court of the land or that the Sixth Amendment requires all defendants, even those accused under state or local laws, have a right to a speedy trial? Of course they do, and any attempt to assign application of any amendment to areas not spelled out within the amendment is dangerously disingenuous.

With the wide variety of cultural styles, some of the constitutional limits would come into play. For example, if a community of fundamentalist Muslims formed, honor killings and the cutting off of hands as punishment for theft would both be unconstitutional under the 8^th Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments. On the other hand, requiring women to wear veils or men to wear beards would be just as legitimate as some other community’s requirement that women not go topless.

In the end, with LCMSG up and running, there would be a friendly (or at least nonviolent) competition between the various communities with the goal of the competition being to determine which belief system produces the most peaceful, contented, healthy, prosperous, and sustainable culture. This point must be more closely examined, because by now many Christians in our essentially Christian founded nation are probably getting concerned about this proposal. To my fellow Christians I offer two points for their consideration.

First of all, consider that the morality inducing process of LCMSG is probably the long term bond between the hearts of the American people and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As each new generation of Americans came of age under LCMSG, they were faced with the same morality inducing challenge of coming to grips with the kind of life that must be lived if a community is to be healthy and sustainable. Most of them then sincerely decided to try to be a moral person. In that status, as a person actually trying to live, from deep in the heart and not just as a surface pretension, a moral life, that person will probably become aware of their own sinful nature. Then, that person is much more likely to hear the saving message of Christ's forgiveness. Our natioal loss of LCMSG is likely the reason for the decline in church membership.

Secondly, as we once again become a nation of LCMSG, each of our communities, of whatever belief system, will be free to live their best lives. The long term competition need not be violent or hostile, but rather it will be a competition to determine which belief system nurtures up the most contented, prosperous, peaceful, and sustainable culture. Honest people from every tradition should be happy to enter such a competition. As a Christian, I have a great deal of faith that the true Christian culture will win that contest, and all Christians should believe that as well. So bring it on.

As a final note in this section, to both calm the fears of non Christians and to fortify the hopes of Christians. When considered in this light, LCMSG can be seen as the best way, the historical way, to return this nation to a Christian mindset. In other words, this is the way to achieve our long sought national revival. Yet no one should resist this, because we will be doing it in an organic, freedom based way. A way that does not go down the dangerous and ultimately ineffective path of establishing a Christian-esque theocracy (ideocracy) at the federal level. We must merely restore actual liberty to get to that national revival, not try to supplant the unconstitutional Secular Humanist theocracy with a national theocracy more to our liking.

The only major concern left to address at this point is national unity. How could such a wildly diverse nation be held together? The first answer is that the communication technology would allow us to carry out our natural desire to maintain cultural bonds and/or keep an eye on each other. As some localities found a good way to deal with some health, environmental or industrial challenge, the cultural leaders among us would take note of the advance and work to adopt it in their own community. So, the wise and well-meaning leaders among us would always see the reasons to stay united as a nation, and have the tools (mass media and high tech communication) to work toward unity. Maintaining unity across state lines and reducing the excesses of local extremism would be where an involved and embedded intelligentsia could be most effective (more on this subject in a post regarding elitism) because they could use the cultural tools, such as education, civic and church groups, and other institutions to bring pressure to bear on those who would oppress.

Beyond open communication, the biggest thing that would keep us being the United States of America would be our mutual love of freedom. Take, for example, the hypothetical case of three soldiers serving together in a combat unit. One is from a secular libertarian town in Colorado, another from a fundamentalist Christian town in Mississippi, and the third from a fundamentalist Muslim town in Michigan.

Even though they might passionately disagree about religion, morals, and how to run society, they could be depended upon to fight together against a common foe because each knows that when the fighting is over, he or she can return home, where 99 percent of all the aspects of social life is to their liking. So, while the only thing we might have in common is our love of liberty, the fact that we are allowed to run our own lives the way we want, that mutual love of liberty, is enough to get us to stand together against anyone who would threaten that liberty.

This is not just a bunch of theory either. The United States of America was originally intended to be different states with different ways of doing things but united by a common desire for self-determination. Our mutual love of liberty has proven to be a bond more than sufficient to keep us united in the past and would do so again.

LCMSG and Moral Uplift

Let's now take a quick look at the proven track record of LCMSG, focusing on the moral uplift that occurred under this system, the small republics America was founded on. First of all, even before the War for Independence was concluded, based only on our Declaration of Independence, the northern states started a twenty-year process of abolishing slavery on a state by state basis. Tragically, that process was aborted early on in the southern states because elitist elements of those societies stifled the voices of Christian preachers calling for justice.

Along with abolishing slavery, these free societies (the South included) worked to establish ministries and services for the poor and downtrodden, medical services for the entire community, and civic institutions like volunteer fire departments and public libraries. Many of these institutions, while taken for granted today, had not existed and thrived before free self-government covered the land and the thinking of the citizenry was elevated.

During the same era, (mostly in the 1820's) in a state-by-state movement, the requirement that men had to be property owners in order to vote was changed so that all males gained the franchise. Once again, to our modern ears that might not seem like much, or enough, since neither women nor racial minorities, for the most part, were included. At that time, however, it was a revolutionary change and due to the ongoing moral uplift of LCMSG, it was accomplished without major violence.

The final note to be sounded on this cursory view will be slavery. While some might assume slavery is an unmitigated indictment of our system, just the opposite is true. Speaking in approximate time lines, in about 1776, slavery was legal and accepted throughout the United States. By 1861, approximately, we had come, through the moral uplift induced by our system of LCMSG, to the point that many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of us were willing to fight, die, and even kill to end the scourge of slavery. In that relatively short span of time, approximately eighty-five years, a long human lifetime, our system of free self-government had induced an elevation of our national consciousness the likes of which the world had never before seen.

Instead of listening, and giving credence, to the folks who want to dismiss or even demolish our system, we ask must them to answer one question. What other system of government in the history of the world has ever induced such a profound and large-scale elevation in human consciousness? It can be doubted that there will be an answer to that question, since the answer is none. Those who hate America will simply try to ignore it, so let's rephrase it as a statement. The American system of LCMSG produced the greatest upsurge in human consciousness the world has ever witnessed.

That was a short and partial history of the moral uplift induced in the people by our system of liberty, LCMSG, leaving out many other reforms that came both before and after the Civil War era. That real world track record must be compared alongside the virtually empty track record of similar changes in Marxist/ Fascist run nations. So, while we might consider the promised futures of both systems, keep in mind that only one of them has a proven track record of actually delivering on any of those promises.

As we consider our society returning to the system of LCMSG it was founded on, the moral and cultural changes that will probably result will most closely resemble an upward trending spiral. Why a spiral? At each stage, as we elevate our social awareness, we can dispense with some rigid governmental control or other. As the people get more responsibility, their thinking will further elevate, allowing us to be comfortable with even less governmental control. The thinking will elevate further, less control will be needed, and on and on.

When we return all the appropriate powers of self-government to the states and localities where they used to reside, we would happily discover that we the people can once again become the fountain of creativity we used to be. All we need is our old freedom back.

As we make those changes, we would see many of our present social problems fade away and many of our current laws become obsolete. So then, we would be comfortable in removing even more legal controls over our lives, and we would probably, since we could see the good fruit of our efforts, redouble our encouragement of moral uplift in ourselves and each other. This ongoing process would solve even more problems and create diminished need for legal controls; an upward spiral indeed.

That in short is the true promise of liberty, that if the people have the power, they will find the solutions and the peace that we all want. The future promised by Marxism, of peace, plenty, unity, sharing the planet, and eventually seeing the government itself fade away, while impossible in the elitist system they propose, is actually feasible with free self-government; Liberty on the American plan. However, it is a mistake to think that any of this will be easy or happen automatically.

The proposed transition back to LCMSG is not something new, but rather something old that should be revived. Let us be truly scientific, and bring back those aspects of the American experiment that proved to be beneficial in the past. The powers of economic, social, and moral self-government used to be very beneficial when held and exercised at the local level. That is true, even though it was, admittedly and shamefully, mostly only for White people.

In that same scientific mode, we must also admit where the experiment failed, and leave that racist thinking in the past. This time, in this refounding of the American Republic, we have to insist that all peoples, red and yellow, black, brown, and white, must all stand together and work as one. Then we can really get somewhere.

As we get our system of LCMSG going again, we will find that we have given ourselves the real power. Then we can see how we can actually achieve some of those goals, like health care for all, or a decent economic life for anyone willing to work for it. All of that and more can actually be achieved if we restore our republic, thereby restoring real power to local communities.

First we must get our government, and our corporations, back on that short leash of community accountability. Then we will have the power to domesticate the most fearsome beast of all. Our most pressing modern problem, which should deeply trouble us all, is that of making sure our sciences, and our technological capabilities, are employed to benefit humanity and the planet, and not be allowed to cause great harm. Returning to LCMSG would give us the means to ensure that we move toward a golden age and not stumble into becoming slave-ship earth.