Rules of Regency – Part II

dawn space


By Charlie Johnston

Following is Part II of the Rules of Regency. You can see Part I here. It is, of course, America-centric, as I am an America and that is where I can have the most immediate impact. It is also, however, a template for any country which seeks to restore a harmonious social order. Some adjustments would have to be made for various local cultures, but the big principles are universal.


The American system was set up to make the government accountable to the American people. Once elected, officials would hire their team of people and voters would judge them according to how their team performed.

Now, legislators and executives make big promises that they don’t keep. When voters complain, the officials note that their intentions are good, but they are not allowed to fire the holdover government workers from previous officials – workers who thwart their wonderful plans. Bureaucrats, meanwhile, sometimes joke that presidents come and presidents go, but the bureaucracy goes on forever. Officials have the built-in excuse that there is nothing they can do -and it is harder to fire a bureaucrat than to knock down the milk bottles at the local carnival. It is a good deal for both the officials and the clerks, whose power and perquisites grow while they are accountable to no one. But it is a terrible deal for the public – and for social cohesion. Yet it is called ‘public service.’

Abolish almost all civil service laws and all public employee unions. The American system is not supposed to guarantee jobs for life for bureaucrats – who can then snub their nose at both the officials who are supposed to be their bosses and the people who elect them. Let each official hire and fire, at will, those who will work under him – and then hold him completely responsible at the ballot box for the results. This will return the whip hand to the people who are supposed to be served, not ruled.

It will also make the “sacrifice” that government workers and officials constantly boast of into a reality. To go into government work when it offers no guarantee of security, a person will either have to be so committed to accomplishing a particular task that he will take a break from his real career in order to actually serve – or be so non-politically competent that he holds onto his job from administration to administration by sheer ability. If a person wants job security, he will work for or build a private company that produces real goods and services and real jobs. That would be a true public service.

The reality is that all government workers are parasites of a sort. In most biological systems, some parasites are necessary and good – and form a symbiotic relationship with their host. But when even benign parasites multiply beyond the symbiotic level, they start killing the host. We are long past that point.

There are other structural changes in the political system which would enhance accountability without denying the true masters, the people, their right of collective sovereignty. In the legislature, the House of Representatives was supposed to be a citizen legislature, reflecting the churn of public passions. I don’t like term limits, for that deprives citizens of the right to vote for whom they choose. Rather, I prefer to allow House Members to run for as many terms as they wish – but however many terms they win, there is no pension. If they want a retirement plan, they each have to fund their own. The Senate is supposed to be a haven for experienced professionals, chosen by the states as a check on the unbridled passions of the House. It was a stabilizing element injected into the peculiar American system of a hybrid democratic republic to prevent the instability inherent to democracy. Return selection to the States and offer a pension there. Eliminate most campaign finance laws, except for disclosure of very large donations and to prevent foreign influence. Campaign finance laws, if truth in advertising applied, are incumbent-protection schemes. Appoint federal judges to a ten-year term rather than an unreviewable lifetime.



The principle of subsidiarity holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. St. John Paul emphasized this principle in his 1991 Encyclical, ‘Centesimus Annus,’ as a corrective to the statism which was disfiguring the application of authentic principles of social justice.

There are many problems with centralization. Three that are critical here are that:

1)      It is inefficient

2)      It enfeebles and disables the means that are efficient, treating them as competitors for resources.

3)      It is fertilizer for a massive corruption that is beyond the control of ordinary people.

St. John Paul, in his classic, concise elegance, said it, “…leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” Read his full Encyclical to get a solid primer on the subject (which will help in understanding the rest of this small section.)

Big unwieldy centralized agencies do not take into account unique local needs and peculiarities, insisting instead on a one-size fits all approach – that often does not fit any. Meantime, it saps the life and energy out of those smaller, more local agencies and volunteer associations that do handle problems well.

Centralization, accompanied by a lack of public accountability, is a hothouse for virulent corruption. Progressives think that corruption can be ended by a massive centralized regulatory regime. American founders understood that corruption is endemic to much of human nature – and that centralization just made corruption massive and impervious to public oversight. Their system of rigorous accountability and equally rigorous subsidiarity made for a self-policing and healing system. With numerous, competing centers of localized authority, corruption would be localized. When it became endemic in one center, it would be advantageous to the ambitious in another center to expose and uproot it. Thus, though corruption is always with us to some extent, it would keep it local, easily uprooted, and make it in the interest of the ambitious to uproot it.

Therefore, all powers that are not explicitly granted to the federal government would be returned to the states. As I mentioned under the “Federalism” section,  most regulatory agencies would be dismantled or reduced to boards whose sole purpose is to arbitrate disputes between the states over an overlapping issue. Big internal crises that are beyond the Constitutional power of the federal government would, upon petition by a majority of the states or two-thirds majority of the house, lead to the creation of a temporary federal task force to address the problem, with a specific date of expiration of not longer than 10 years. Once again, public ‘servants’ would have to actually serve and make sacrifice rather than rule and call their unaccountable sinecures ‘sacrifice.’

Volunteer associations would be encouraged and made easy to begin, rather than regulated to death and made to heel to a state’s political preferences.

Since Congress would have less to do (no longer deciding winners and losers in the field of commerce and public policy questions unrelated to its legitimate authority) the size of Congressional staffs and the profusion of lobbying would be dramatically decreased. That would also give officials time to pay serious attention to their legitimate duties rather than distracting the public with what type of light bulbs they will be allowed or what size soft drinks they may purchase.

The federal income tax will be abolished as a bad experiment that intruded on the freedom of all and was weaponized to target dissent. Alternate means of taxation, through sales and excise taxes among others will be found. If taxes are tied to productivity and commerce, it will give government officials incentive to promote productivity and commerce rather than strangling it.

Read Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America,” a concise two-volume explication of the philosophical underpinnings of the American experiment in a hybrid democratic republic to understand why American worked so well for so long – and how to restore that framework.



In the first place, the law should apply equally to all, both great and small. The routine practice of the Congress of exempting itself from rules it imposes on lesser mortals will cease. It will be allowed to impose no rules that are not Constitutionally enumerated to its authority.

In the short term, our society has been divided into levels of division that led to sudden mass slaughter in Rwanda. A few large principles are required to keep that division from exploding into massive violence.

When large segments of society seek to get their way by violent aggression, that aggression is fueled, not quenched, if the response is not resolutely decisive. When large numbers of political office holders seek to weaponize the law to punish their opponents or those who merely disagree with them, it undermines the legitimacy of and public respect for the law, planting seedlings of violent opposition when that becomes the only effective means of redress of legitimate grievances.

Therefore, substantial early arrests must be made of public officials who have weaponized the law to punish dissent. That means a lot of federal agents, especially high officials in the IRS, will be going to jail. Also headed for jail are those state attorney generals who seek to make it a felony to disagree with them politically – right now most publicly on ‘climate change.’ Judges and human “rights” commissioners who have imposed penalties on Christians for simply living their faith – refusing to participate in offensive ceremonies, but discriminating against no one – will not just lose their office, but go to jail for a time. I have always loathed abuse of public power against ordinary citizens. A small number of early, vigorous arrests should get the message across and take the wind right out of this modern penchant.

No one shall be arrested during the time of emergency for merely advocating an opinion, but protests that depend on rioting will result in mass arrests of the rioters. Those who try to deprive others of their civil liberties will be arrested. Radicals on campus and in such movements as BLM will be given the opportunity to suffer for their beliefs if they express them violently or hinder others from the free expression of competing beliefs.

When disorder is small and sporadic, the public interest and safety is usually best-served by the incarceration under criminal law of the few who commit actual crimes. When it is widespread and an entire culture has degenerated into disorder, the primary goal is the re-establishment of a stable public order and the reintegration of the offenders into that order. That is why, after the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln did not seek to punish and jail rebel leaders, but to knit them back into the common family the nation was intended to be.

The need for temporary jails will be great in order to check the abuses of public corruption and arrogance and the violent aggression of rioters. But the duration of incarceration for such offenders must only be for the duration of the Storm. The purpose of incarceration is to prevent an explosion of violence while society is rising to the challenges of the Storm and to re-knit it into a common culture once again. All such offenders should be released within six months of the Rescue, with a return to normal criminal law – with the exception that those who abused a public position of trust to punish enemies may be permanently barred from holding any office of public honor or authority.

About charliej373

Charlie Johnston is a former newspaper editor, radio talk show host and political consultant. From Feb. 11, 2011 to Aug. 21, 2012, he walked 3,200 miles across the country, sleeping in the woods, meeting people and praying as he went. He has received prophetic visitation all his life, which he has vetted through a trio of priests over the last 20 years, and now speaks publicly about on this site. Yet he emphasizes that we find God most surely through the ordinary, doing the little things we should with faith and fidelity. Hence the name, The Next Right Step. The visitations inform his work, but are not the focus of it. He lives in the Archdiocese of Denver in the United States.
This entry was posted in Culture, Preparation and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

317 Responses to Rules of Regency – Part II

  1. Bob says:

    A problem today is the power and greed contained in some of the multinational corporations which have too much power to influence and which are as some have said “are too big to fail”. Pharmaceuticals, too large and having too much influence over the medical and insurance industries and which have too often “bought” the FDA and in which drugs with known dangers are too long left on the Marker. Food producers selling junk with too much influence to be easily stopped, the past “Military industrial complex”, etc. Who is to set limits on producers becoming mega corporations with too much power?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Alphonsus says:

    I have been reading these Regency thoughts with interest. One thing I would include for consideration is the public health laws, which in my view have gone wildly outside of their original intent in practice.

    I have been told on good authority that a declared public health emergency is the only scenario under which our constitutional rights can be suspended. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, if the emergency is real. The problem with routine day-to-day practices arises with ever-expanding concepts of health and wellness. Almost anything now can fit under the umbrella of public health, most notoriously the invented area of reproductive health (but there are many others). Great evil has flowed from that, in my opinion. A proper understanding of public health needs to be restored.

    If a crisis and crash as Charlie envisions it comes, I imagine there will be many legitimate public health crises to deal with at least locally. Infectious disease would be a good candidate for the cause. So, stocking up on microbial control items like bleach and OTC antimicrobials would be a good idea (I have). A good pressure cooker can be used to sterilize as can the kitchen oven, also, if you know how to use them for that purpose.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Louis Cote, Belleville, ON says:

    Hi Charlie:
    I love the Regency series.
    I realize that during the Regency period, there is a need for decisive use of authority. There will be no time for consultations, so the focus must be on the essentials of life. But the return of a more ‘comprehensive’ political process should be establishes as soon as possible.

    I was wondering if a consensus form of government could be used at the local and regional level. The merit of this way of governance is that it makes room for every voice to be heard. Resources are specifically made available to permit all to come at the table. Granted, the time in achieving consensus can be substantial, but my experience with communities has shown me that it is a great investment. Most often, I have noticed that policies that are pushed through end up having to be ‘sold’ to the membership after the fact. The result is often bad feelings all around.
    Another benefit of consensus is that it precludes the ‘tyranny of the majority’ and political grid lock. Minority rights should be defended, but the Charter/Bill of Rights is not an ideal instrument since it can be misused as a weapon. Pope Francis is an advocate of face to face dialogue. Indeed, it is difficult to forget the poor and the widow when they are right in front of you.

    The Canadian experience offers this option in three of its territories.

    Liked by 3 people

    • charliej373 says:

      I think that is a very sound point, Louis. Of course, my focus is on the period of Restoration to confront the final challenges of the Storm. But as I have worked on this in the last decade, I have been very conscious of how to form it so a healthy system could flow organically from it after the Rescue is completed. The actual formation of healthy non-emergency systems after the Rescue will be for others to do. I will have no part in that. But I pray I help make it easier for those who will be charged with that task.

      Liked by 4 people

      • yooper mike says:

        Charlie J for President just kidding Mr. trump needs get the regency series
        I see him as a man who at times is being humbled, God can use a person like Donald.
        This is just my opinon, he did say that the evangelicals have helped him a lot, didn’t he?


  4. Tim says:

    To add to the above thoughts, I think everything, Charlie, will have to move back to and into a reality of ‘subsidiarity’. And I think, with the Lord’s help and the Blessed Mother’s Rescue, that can be done–everything from local doctors (of whom my daughter is one) may be taking chickens for payment to barter to the banking system reduced to the ‘very local community’. I think that the larger we allow the ‘animal grow’, any ‘animal’ of society, the more quickly we give up control and the faster we’re back in the same old mess. Applications of ‘subsidiarity’ can be addressed in almost every area. But I also think unless we make Christ the focal point of all subsidiarity, the number one cause, our efforts will be in vail. Which leads to my question or thought that it seems that the entire world has to convert–or am I wrong?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Jim Martel says:

    Hi Charlie,

    As a person who loves Economics so much so that I completed a BA & MA, I found myself almost standing up and cheering your “Subsidiarity” section, especially regarding the disaster of the income tax (since I was on a commuter bus I had to restrain myself though🙂 ).

    Regarding “Accountability” I would offer one additional scenario – albeit perhaps too radical for most people: For all US Congressional districts give voters the option choosing the candidate(s) on a given ballot OR the freedom to vote none of the above i.e. vote to randomly draft one of our own neighbors to serve for two years. We used to draft young adults to serve and possibly sacrifice their lives defending our country so why not ask a registered voter who has no compelling hardship to serve in Washington for two years. Provide them food, housing, and whatever the currently salary is for a member of the House of Representatives. Once their term has expired, their employer would have their job awaiting them…just like my Dad’s company did for him after World War II.

    Briefly I envision randomly selecting 9 registered voters within the district to interview the “draftee” and then vote on whether they will serve as a representative. If the “draftee” was rejected or has legitimate hardships, an alternate “draftee” would be selected, interviewed, …etc.

    My two cents…of course nowadays two cents won’t even but you 2 baseball cards…especially if one of them is Mr. Cub.😉

    Looking forward to hearing more about your upcoming trip to the Houston area.

    Pax et bonum,

    Liked by 5 people

    • charliej373 says:

      Jim, that is an idea worth contemplation, I think. I like the way you think, even if I would have to ponder on that a while. You are thinking at the systemic level, not merely the administrative – and that is absolutely key.

      But you ain’t getting my Ernie Banks baseball card😉

      Liked by 6 people

      • Linda says:

        Charlie you are a very very smart man… I don’t comment on these things too often because my poor mind can’t quite comprehend things of this nature… lol.. but I know you people that do understand these things are going to put things in the right order after the rescue. It is very comforting. Thank you to you and to all people like you that do the brain work for us all! God Bless you!😉 xoxo

        Liked by 2 people

    • Mack says:

      Jim, that reminds of the famous quote by William Buckley that he would rather be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard!

      Liked by 4 people

      • justsayin392 says:

        Hehehehe. And that statement, I think, gets back to the truth that the beginning of wisdom is surrender – perhaps in ‘Jim Martel’s’ example above, surrendering to God’s will by trusting in fellow men of good will, as we already do for jury trials AFTER they’ve sworn to do their duty before God. I will take the liberty to say this here, now that the infamous charges against David Daleiden have been dismissed; ‘jury nullification’ has a long history in U.S. jurisprudence, grounded in the notion that a well chosen jury of one’s peers will uphold the values and mores of the society that should be (but might not be) expressed in the law. It was my fervent prayer that, had the charges against David proceeded to trial, that a well chosen jury of his peers would have begun its service resolved to render a just verdict in the eyes of God.
        And now, I note, the little furry squirrel critter neighbor from across the street, who caught my eye yesterday, not because he’d been blazing a downward spiral down a pine tree trunk, then bulleting through 6 inch grass. Nope. It was what he did next that God gave me to ponder. Smack dab in the middle of his driveway, he pulled up, looked at nothing in particular and then leisurely trotted across the street (mid-block) to ‘my curb’ and floated up my pine tree. Today, God’s little critter taught me that sometimes, my going in circles just has to STOP, ( especially when I feel as though I’m in the middle of nowhere and the ground beneath me is getting hot). That’s the time to look at nothing in particular for awhile, and then TNRS…

        Liked by 2 people

    • Jim – that’s quite a system you’ve thought up! One thing I would add: For the 9 registered voters, they should be given guidelines on how to choose an appropriate candidate. It may or may not happen but it’s best to err on the side of caution just in case a group shirks their civic duty and pick the first “draftee” that comes along. Even before this though, there should be some kind of standard in place that can help weed appropriate and inappropriate representatives. It would be in the best interest of the people to send forth the best possible candidate to represent them so I believe these “draftees” should meet some basic criteria’s (i.e. reading, writing, etc.). Food for thought…


  6. joncraft84 says:

    Reblogged this on Handicap and commented:
    A good read, must read. Do read please.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Thank you Charlie for this post!
    This morning I found this video with Bishop Gracida. Maybe it’s already been posted….
    Excellent videos. There are three videos in a row…..not long….

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Thanks for providing the insights and helping to set some worthy goals and expectations. Admittedly, this sort of thing has always been well outside of my area of expertise and interest, but that doesn’t mean I can’t be a good citizen. Beyond that, I really am starting to warm to the idea of helping with clean up on some fronts, but probably just in the local community.

    God Bless.

    Liked by 5 people

    • jlynnbyrd says:

      Regent MP, you might have just set yourself up to be a prim target now!

      Liked by 6 people

      • No more titles for me after the storm, thank you very much. I was thinking more along the lines of this: “Oh, look. There’s a pile of rubble that used to be a strip mall. Let’s clean it up and make a park for the kids and wildlife sanctuary for the birds and critters.” Who knows… maybe I’ll even push a pie cart through the park on Fridays.

        Then again, nothing ever quite works out the way I imagine it. Maybe I’ll just sit there peacefully and feed the birds… or, at that point, I may have already started the first leg of the Little Red Radio Flyer Cosmic Tour with my pals.

        Liked by 7 people

  9. James Ignatius McAuley says:


    You, and some of the commenters have given me food for thought. I will have to look at the other article again and put together a serious, well thought out answer that takes what you say tot he next right step (pun intended!). I cannot whip off an answer, there are some ideas that need to be fleshed out. I will likely send you a draft for comments, and if you wish, to have others comment. I noted a few commenters who raised things that must be addressed, not as a corrective, but rather as in a incorporative fashion, such as Janet, Momma of Flowers, Matthew, Louis Cote, Singing Flowers, Patrick of SD, Terry M., Sean Sullivan, Richard Weissflog, vkmire3, Edward Scherr, BD, and perhaps others.

    Vkmir3 has articulated something Charlie has repeated over and over through out the years. You cannot hid in Hobbiton anymore, Mordor is now in your backyard. Many Saurmans and wormtongues have corrupted our communities. The political partisanship of Washington is now being expressed locally in souls whose actions spread chaos around them as they, by their immoral actions, break down the system.

    We used to be a people of vision, now we are a people of delusion, as a fellow mass goer told me this morning.

    The justice system is not about justice, it is about money and power. If justice were the end of the judicial system, then our system would be easily accessible to the ordinary person and not the province of lawyers and court staff.

    To help Canadian and British readers, it is important that I go back to first principles, I would remind British readers that in 1776, the Americans saw themselves as upholding the Britsh Consstitution and that the Kinga nd parliament were violating the Constitution. Therefore, the machinery of the Colonial Government has to be replaced (In all Colonies but for Connecticut) by a new government that was the lawful upholder of the British Constitution. The Constitution of 1789 was the articulation of the fact that Americans were no longer under a the British government (monarch or parliament) and therefore a new way of governing had to be put together.

    The creation of Canada in 1867 was a direct material consequence of the American Civil War. Whether Canadians realize or care to admit it, the creation of the Confederation that Canda is was in reaction to what Candian Founders saw as an over centralized and dangerous Federal system found in the United States. So, when I right this, I will have to look again at Canada’s Constitution as well as the Confederate Constitution.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Simone says:

    Where (who) is the “other country” version of Charlie Johnston? For instance, who do we look to for direction in Canada? In China? In France?🙂 I understand your work is in the US, and God will not leave us bereft… I guess I’m just kind of reflecting. Other than Mark Mallett, who is veering off from you sightly, and is great at shedding light in the darkness of our times, he is not a practical leader for us in Canada. No one is talking about this in Canada or Europe, or South America, etc.


    • charliej373 says:

      While my perspective is America-centric – both because that is what I am and because America will play one of the three leading roles in these times, the work is for the whole world. That is, in part, why I have suggested this basic stuff as a template for all.

      Liked by 7 people

  11. Simone says:

    one of the three leading roles… I am not surprised. I guess I’ll start praying for our “hairboy” to man up, grow up, and lead us into the Rescue.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Susan Rodriguez says:

    Charlie it all sounds wonderful but how are these ideas going to be applied? Who is going to enforce them?


      • Alfred says:

        Still though Charlie, God works his plan through us so Susan’s question is mine as well. God never forces us to do anything. Unmistakably miraculous events can make choices toward positive change more likely of course. Events like the rescue you describe (or Garabandal or Medjugorje predictions, etc.) following a period of great angst might be the kind of thing that would cause many to totally revamp their assumptions and thinking and change the course history has taken in the last 50-60 years. The question is whether God’s plan is a stupefying change of course or a more organic evolution in which natural consequences occur over time. Knowing that our God is perfectly capable of a great intervention, I’d prefer the former, but the latter seems to me most likely.

        Re the Rules of Regency: Have these been revealed to you or are these matters that God-fearers can and should legitimately debate, synthesizing the best thinking the Church and mankind have developed over time?

        Liked by 1 person

        • charliej373 says:

          Excellent question, Alfred. They have not been revealed, but I was divinely ordered to develop them and will be held accountable to God for that work. You hint at another thing. I am not putting them up to debate so much as informing people of them for the period of Restoration. After the Rescue, though, everyone will have to clearly think about how they choose to be governed to give opportunity to all, care for the poor, and maintain Godliness, so the discussion on them is useful.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Kati says:

            Here is a movie that I just happened to watch this evening. It is the story of a small town in severe crisis and distress….and most people in that town prayed. What happened then set the stage for even better lives afterwards. The future can be seen now in how those FAMILIES grew from all that. One has to watch the credits at the end…all the way through to look at the beauty of those families now: Big….joyful families…with a deeply spiritual faith base. Families should watch this film together. 🙂

            The Cokeville Miracle (based on a true story)


            Liked by 1 person

  13. EllenChris says:

    Go for it, Charlie! Got your six.🙂

    Liked by 3 people

  14. caelids says:

    Well whatever happens with government, I sure hope our culture begins to gel again. It’s sad when you walk into a business or a public thoroughfare and you just get into a habit of “seeing while not seeing”. Such as, I can see a person covered in tattoos screaming curse words at their kid but I train myself not to really see it. Because what can I do for that person but pray? Or on the flip side I see someone who looks like I’d have a lot in common with, so I’ll speak up to them and we’ll have a really nice conversation. Meanwhile everyone else is pretending they’re the only person in the room. Does that make sense to anybody?

    Liked by 4 people

    • Yup, you make sense caelid. Most people keep their head down and don’t get involved with other people’s problems. You get this feeling a lot in big cities where everyone’s preoccupied with their own issues to notice anything else. Call it tunnel vision, if you will or maybe having blinders.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Randall says:

    August 14 is the feast day of St Maximilian Kolbe AND the Otranto martyrs. Their heroic witness is worthy of remembrance and thanksgiving this weekend. Asking these holy Priests and Bishop to pray for us. God bless.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. Fan says:

    Will there be another awe inspiring space picture to introduce each “Rules of Regency?” I couldn’t help but wonder if the pictures chosen were reflecting a connection to the brown dwarf star that is getting closer. NOT trying to sound apocalyptic, just curious as the mind easily can connect the spiritual implications to the science based implications of the possible shared orbit of the sun’s binary twin.

    Thank you SO much, Charlie, for your posts. I feel very blessed to have found you. A tremendous thank you for having responded “yes” to your calling. Besides being spiritually formed and gaining insight of simply following through trying to be Christ to others, you have helped to reveal the peace that is always present, regardless of externals. I need to pray more. When I do pray, I now entreat the Holy Spirit to open the hearts of my family to your writings. May God bless you, heal you and protect you.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. BlessedIam says:

    Sure hope someone steps up to coordinate event in Covington/New Orleans area. Lots of storm happening down in south Louisiana right now. Many will need to hear about being a sign of hope.

    May God Bless us.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Good article Randall. A few thoughts from St Maximilian Kolbe on the Holy Spirit and the spouse of the Holy Spirit – the Most Holy Ever-Virgin Mother of God.

    St. Maximiliano Kolbe wrote:

    “And who is the Holy Spirit? The flowering of love of the Father and the Son. If the fruit of created love is created conception, then the fruit of divine Love, that prototype of all created love, is necessarily a divine “conception”. The Holy Spirit is therefore, the “uncreated, eternal conception”, the prototype of all conceptions that multiply life throughout the whole universe”.

    The Church honors Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit. St. Maximilian Kolbe states:

    “If among human beings the wife takes the name of her husband because she belongs to him, is one with him, becomes equal to him and is, with him, the source of new life, with how much greater reason should the name of the Holy Spirit, who is the Divine Immaculate Conception, be used as the name of her in whom He lives as uncreated Love, the principle of life in the whole supernatural order of grace?”

    St. Maximilian Kolbe, pray for us


    Liked by 2 people

  19. Pingback: Don’t Flail Away at the Branches, Get to the Root | The Next Right Step

  20. Jeanna says:

    Hi Charlie,

    Good stuff. There is a point that I would like to discuss though, and that is abolishing the federal income tax. I understand that early in our country income was not normally taxed, and the gov’t was funded through tariffs and excise taxes. I am not convinced however, that that was for the best.

    First let me begin with a little background information (I apologize in advance for the length of this post!). I have friends who have dedicated their lives to volunteer for a non-profit inter-faith think tank (founded by ) whose mission it is to advance liberty and justice for every person through equal opportunity and access to the means to become a capital owner.

    Their concept of social justice is based on the social doctrine of Pope Pius XI as analyzed by their co-founder, the late Father William J. Ferree, S.M., Ph.D. Their principles of economic justice are based on the work of lawyer-economist Louis O. Kelso and Aristotelian philosopher Mortimer J. Adler as presented in Chapter 5 of their somewhat mistitled 1958 bestseller, “The Capitalist Manifesto” (Kelso and Adler also wrote “The New Capitalists” – yes I cringe at that name but given the communist scare at the time I don’t blame them for choosing the title they did – it’s safe to say they are not the Laissez Faire type). Kelso is probably best known for his invention of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), by means of which ordinary workers can purchase shares in the companies that employ them using dividends on the shares instead of reductions in pay or risking their savings (if you want to learn more about the ESOP google Kelso’s Mike Wallace interview). Adler was the “great books” philosopher at the University of Chicago, whose conversion to Catholicism was widely reported in the media.

    The ideas of this think tank were advocated for by Ronald Reagan when he campaigned in 1975 (though he never followed through with them when he was elected in 1980); in 1987 Pope John Paul II gave his personal encouragement to their work during a private audience with members of the core group and members of Polish Solidarity; in 1992 they presented a seminar at the Vatican on the role of private property in addressing the problems of participatory economic development, hosted by His Eminence, Achille Cardinal Silvestrini which led to the 1994 book, “Curing World Poverty: The New Role of Property” (with an Intro by Fr. Matthew Habiger, O.S.B., Ph.D who at the time was the Executive Director of Human Life International). I say all this to preface a conversation I’d like to share which I witnessed on Facebook by the director of research of this think tank. He made points that I thought made sense so I copied them to a word document so I could mull them over and share with others.

    “The problem is that the Sixteenth Amendment did not make the income tax constitutional. The income tax has ALWAYS been constitutional; to assert otherwise is to deny the power of the Congress to tax at all. What was unconstitutional prior to the Sixteenth Amendment was the levying of a direct tax without apportionment among the various states on the basis of population. The question not decided prior to the Pollock case in 1895 was was whether an income tax is a direct or indirect tax. The income tax levied during the Civil War was allowed to lapse in the 1870s without Congress settling the issue.

    Matters came to a head with the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, which was prompted in part by the Panic of 1893 and the subsequent Great Depression (1893-1898), and which finally acceded to Populist demands for an income tax. The Supreme Court ruled that an income tax is a direct tax, and unconstitutional without apportionment — which would have been grossly unfair, with states with many poor people paying far more per capita than states with a few wealthier people.

    The Sixteenth Amendment only made a direct tax constitutional without apportionment, making an income tax “fair.” Frankly, most people didn’t even pay income taxes until the New Deal, when the philosophy of taxation shifted from raising revenue for government, to engaging in “social engineering.” That’s when all the weird deductions and credits came in, screwing up an essentially simple system. Blame John Maynard Keynes, not the Congress, for the mess the income tax has become.

    Ultimately, of course, ALL taxes are “income taxes,” for you must have income from somewhere to pay them. The question is whether you pay taxes based on the ability to pay directly (a straight income tax) or indirectly based on some othere factor. If it weren’t for the Keynesian influence, an income tax levied at a single rate above an amount sufficient to meet common domestic needs (including education and healthcare) adequately would be the fairest way to tax.

    Get rid of Keynesian monetary and fiscal policy, not the income tax.”

    “…The problem with a consumption tax such as a sales tax is that it is heavily regressive. The lower income ranges spend a much greater portion of their income on consumption, and therefore pay a much greater percentage of their income in taxes.

    There is also the problem that any consumption tax decreases demand for consumer items. Since consumer demand drives the demand for new capital, and new capital formation creates jobs, a consumption tax harms the wage earner by decreasing the opportunities to earn wages.”

    “…The primary purpose and use of savings is to finance new capital formation. In a perfect system, all income would be spent on consumption and not saved, while all new capital formation would be financed with “future savings,” i.e., the present value of future increases in production (as opposed to past decreases in consumption).

    If people reduce consumption to increase savings, you run up against what Dr. Harold Moulton called “The Economic Dilemma.” That is, assuming that all new capital formation is financed by cutting consumption, there will be no new capital formation. Why? Because no rational investor (saver; savings = investment) will finance new capital unless there is effective demand (consumption power) to absorb the increased production. If demand is falling because people are saving instead of consuming, the new capital will not be formed.

    The answer is to finance all new capital formation out of future savings (incidentally creating a money supply backed by private sector hard assets instead of government debt), and — except for the prudent “rainy day” and emergency cash reserves everyone should accumulate — use current income for consumption, not saving.

    By reducing effective demand, a consumption tax inhibits new investment; if people save instead of spending, there is no incentive to finance new capital, and the savings become “sterile,” i.e., functionless.”

    “…Not only are all taxes ultimately income taxes — they can only be paid out of income, after all — one of the basic principles of taxation is “equitibility,” or “ability to pay.” No one should be taxed on what he or she needs for basic subsistence (otherwise you’d be taking with one hand in order to give back with another, making people dependent on the State through a side door), so the income exemption should be set at a reasonable level. (Some rough estimates suggest that this would be $30,000 for a non-dependent, and $20,000 for a dependent . . . at least until the economy goes further into a tailspin than it is now.)

    Above that, there should be a single rate levied on ALL income, determined by dividing aggregate income above that by estimated government expenditures. This would prevent politicians from being able to “hide” expenditures through deficit spending, and also make them directly accountable to the taxpayer-voter. Spend too much money, and you won’t get reelected. This would be moderately progressive in effect, but not in the way Marx advocated. (He wanted higher tax rates the more income you make.)

    The corporate tax can be effectively eliminated by making all dividends tax deductible at the corporate level, but fully taxable above the exemption at the personal level. Corporate growth would have to be financed by new equity issues, broadening the base of capital ownership and increasing consumption income without subsidies or redistribution. This would also remove the necessity of artificial stimulus by government creating more debt-backed money.”

    If you made it this far, thank you for taking the time to read and consider it. Blessings!


    • charliej373 says:

      Okay, I have opened this up to discussion – and like it, because after the period of Regency, all of you will have to make serious decisions on how you want to be governed, so this is a good exercise in preparing for after the Rescue.

      I must tell you, though, that when anyone starts a discussion – as the director of your think tank did – by noting that some Constitutional provision was different than any of the original founders or top legal scholars noticed for about a hundred years, their credibility immediately tanks with me. That is usually the stuff of cranks. Alas, if only all the most brilliant people and legal scholars in the country had had the director of research for this think tank a hundred years ago to explain to them that they didn’t need a Constitutional amendment. Actually, that argument had been made and had failed – and both advocates and critics of an income tax agreed it would need a Constitutional Amendment (the 16th) to authorize it.

      There is some good material here, but it is not a panacea, and the triumphalist claims are arguable, not obvious. It is, however, a useful addition to any discussion on this subject.

      Liked by 2 people

  21. ryan says:

    Great article. Here’s my 2 cents

    I believe that members of the Senate were originally appointed by the state legislatures (which early in our Republic held the real power). As a result the Senate represented the interests of the state governments. This is how the 10th amendment was to be upheld. The House, the “people’s body,” held and still holds the legislative initiative, however, it is intentionally difficult to wield power as a body because the turnover is much higher and it is more difficult to maintain voting majorities.

    A return to Senators being appointed by the state legislatures and the the abolition of the prohibition against states issuing their own currencies would be the necessary structural changes that would make this mess a republic again.

    BTW this would some cool subsidiarity wouldn’t it?

    Liked by 1 person

  22. After reading this piece and Charlie’s reply to eveyone’s comments (haven’t read the latest articles yet…) I can’t help but feel like Charlie’s pushing us to think outside of the box when it comes building back up this new world that will emerge after the Storm. As he has said, Charlie’s giving us guidelines but the details will be up to us.

    We have the opportunity to make our government and society the way we see fit. Think about that for a bit. We have a blank slate. How will we fill it? The only reason suggestions for building our government is similar to how it is now is because it’s all we know and are familiar with. Rhetorical questions but why must we build off of how things are now? Who’s to say we can’t do it in a different way? I suspect we all will have to do a bit of pondering and lot of prayer for a solution.

    Pro-tip (from a squirrel!): If you have a penchant for thinking inside the box and would like to get out of it, I highly suggest Unflattening by Nick Sousanis. Chapters 1 and 2 are the ones to look out for particularly. :3


  23. Mack says:

    Under subsidiarity, here is a great, hopeful example of local efforts to fight poverty by helping needy people find good jobs. This is happening in Milwaukee, a troubled area right now:

    Liked by 2 people

  24. Pingback: Rules of Regency – Part III | The Next Right Step

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s