The
Simple-Ideas Occasional
A publication dedicated to the study and celebration
of common sense and repeatable experiments
Tossing-of-the-Green: Whats all this
right to vote stuff anyhow?
For most of this countrys existence, there has been a
diligent if not pedantic attention paid to a "right to
vote". There have been countless organizations,
movements, demonstrations, demands for government
intervention in what is perceived as repressions of
civil rights. Our government has responded with laws
and appropriate punishments for individuals who
may be found guilty of suppressing anyones franchise.
Franchise to do what? Let us consider the following:
Suppose our federal government were conducting itself
in accordance with enumerated powers described in the
Constitution. What behavior by a legislator would
motivate the honorable citizen to go to the poles?
Suppose the government and the laws under which it
operates were honorably focused on crafting and
enforcing constitutional law for the protection of
liberty. If a legislators behavior was in agreement with
his/her job description, why would any citizen believe
his civic duty demands extra attention at the next
election?
According to our founding fathers, government
behavior under the constitution would be all but
transparent to our daily lives. Constitutional behavior
by federal lawmakers was to have no particular effect
upon any honorable citizen. Similarly, journalists and
commentators upon the news would have few reasons
to take notice of routine government activity. The
newsworthy event would speak to legislative
malfeasance on the part of the occasional dishonorable
legislator. Once exposed, it is reasonable to expect that
offending legislator be removed from office by the
honorable citizens he or she purports to represent.
Under what conditions might we expect a commanding
majority of legislators to stray from their constitutional
charter? Let us hypothesize and instance where
government takes special notice of any special interest
group of citizens. Suppose the headline of todays
paper reads:
Copyright 2010 by Robert L. Nuckolls, III. This document may be reproduced in any form or venue when authorship is
properly cited and the work is not exploited for the purpose of securing a profit or obscuring context.
1
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Medicine Lodge, KS
Number 30, Revision A, May 6, 2010
"Noon tomorrow: 1,000 hundred-dollar bills
to be tossed from the roof of city hall."
Is the effect not predictable? Certainly more than 1,000
people will be waiting for the Tossing-of-the-Green. Indeed,
with modern communications technologies in place, some
individuals may drive for hundreds of miles to attend this
extra-ordinary event.
Not everyone will get even one bill. Some will get more than
one. The mob-mentality excitement stirred together with the
inexorable willingness of some individuals to engage in
violent behavior. The outcome might even be worthy of
globally disseminated "news". Do a NetSearch on riots and
death tolls. I got over 10,000 hits. Its a certainty that our
hypothetical Tossing-of-the-Green event would be added to
and compilations of mankinds more egregious behaviors
toward each other.
The special interest group in this hypothetical is comprised of
individuals who saw the headline and were motivated to join
the crowd. But let us suppose the paragraph under the
headline says:
"Only males of Mongolian descent over the age
of 60 are authorized to participate in this event.
Armed guards will join inspectors with judicial
authority to review qualifications of prospective
participants. The same guards will protect the
event grounds from interlopers. It is suggested
that supplicants for entry line up for vetting of
qualifications the previous day. Further, entry
to the green grabbing arena will be limited to
the first 1,000 individuals.
Does this sound fair? Certainly the individuals likely to
gain entrance to the arena will think it is quite fair. Do we
suppose more that a dozen folks would qualify? Consider the
cost of setting up the event. You need police to protect the
facility and participating individuals. You need fences to
control interlopers. You need to hire individuals charged
qualifying supplicants for tickets. The set-up would probably
cost more than the value of the green to be tossed.
Its a certainty that folks who are allowed inside . . . and
hopefuls who didn't make the first cut would, no doubt,
vote enthusiastically for repeat events. Why not? Even
when probability of getting a grip on a C-note is poor,
what is there to loose? The folks who supplied the
green are not in attendance to protest the squandering
of their confiscated property. The guards and
inspectors are on paid with the same loot. Is it not a
good thing that everyone has a job?
What of those legislators carried into office on
promises of more and larger Tossing-of-the-Green
events? Its obvious that thousands of such events will
be necessary. Oversight committees must be formed
and funded. Regulatory agencies chartered and funded.
Buildings, desks, vehicles, computers must be
purchased. Insurance, and retirement plans must be set
up to benefit critical organizers for Tossing-of-the-
Green events. When would-be politicians perceive the
effect of successful subversion of constitutional duty,
future campaigns promise an expansion of qualified
special interest groups , , , each one vying for their
own Tossing-of-the-Green events.
Most important, as the events grow in size, scope and
popularity, more green must be harvested . . . from
somewhere. No problem, the government is quite
willing to establish similarly organized and financed
activities for Harvesting-of-the-Green. These wont be
large or obvious events. Harvesting will take place as
prescribed in 60,000+ pages of arcane regulation and
law. Hundreds of $millions$ of yearly confiscations
will target everything including the honorable
production by individuals intent on providing for
themselves and their families. While there is great
interest in publicizing Tossing-of-the-Green, there is
a compelling interest in keeping the Harvesting-of-the-
Green isolated from the lives and thoughts of a
majority of voters.
This is a microcosmic example of how government in
the US (and other countries) operates. There are
thousands of situations where the law takes notice of a
special interest group to whom largess is dispensed
from the public treasury. The special interest groups
are so small or widely distributed across the landscape
that risks for mob violence is avoided. But the rules for
eligibility are complex and arcane. Millions of no-
value-added government jobs are created and financed
by the taxpayer to organize, fund and manage
thousands of Tossing-of-the-Green events.
The civilized tool of influence available to US citizens
is the ballot box where one may vote for one of two
things:
Copyright 2010 by Robert L. Nuckolls, III. This document may be reproduced in any form or venue when authorship is
properly cited and the work is not exploited for the purpose of securing a profit or obscuring context.
2
The quest for acquiring tickets to a Tossing-of-the-
Green or . . .
To plead protection from forces that compel the
productive to give up a portion of their green..
In the context of honorable/dishonorable behavior, I trust the
distinctions are clear. There is but one reason for the
honorable citizen to exercise a duty to vote . . .
To remove the dishonorable legislator from office.
There is but one reason for the dishonorable individual to
clamor loudly for a right to vote . . .
To secure benefits from government unique to their
own special interest group or groups.
The individual infected with despotic progressivism will
campaign on legislative goals wrapped in many cloaks.
Patriotism, generosity, sympathy for some unfortunate
segment of society, etc. They will endeavor to make the
honorable, citizen feel guilty for their success and independent
self sufficiency. They will strive to shift blame for behavior
of the dishonorable to the honorable. They may speak of
constitutional duty but are unwilling or unable to articulate
that duty in simple-ideas. When they seek justification for
temporary or unfortunate but necessary attack upon the
liberty of any citizen, its helpful theres a crisis that cries
for immediate attention. If no suitable crisis exists, they are
adept at generating them.
The dishonorable politician will decry the unfair plight of
blacks, Hispanics, Asians, poor, rich, middle-class, women,
men, children, old, ill, etc, etc. The list is endless. They will
demonize the behaviors of the honorable and successful
among us. The despotic progressive seldom if ever offers
words of personal encouragement. They do not publicly
marvel at a nation that rose to such prominence in 200+ years
on the combined efforts of millions of honorable citizens.
They are not students of history and therefore cannot cite the
recipes for success (or failure) upon which they base their
own plans for the future. They are oblivious of (or choose to
ignore) countless examples going back thousands of years
where similar behaviors destroyed the ability of honorable
people to produce. They will go to great pains to mis-
represent how such behaviors brought down entire nations.
Recipes for failure go to one and one purpose only: To gain
the support of a majority of voters to keep themselves and
their allies in power. From that same majority, they claim
popular mandate to treat the constitution as a living,
breathing document thus nullifying its recipe for success
upon which our marvelous nation was built.
Constitutional law protects the liberty of all citizens
irrespective of their special interest group identity.
The honorable politician has but one campaign speech
that attends to a common interest of all citizens. That
speech goes to the education of his/her constituency as
to the simple-ideas under which our nation was
founded as described in documents crafted by our
founding fathers. The honorable politician is a teacher
who offers understanding of what it means to be an
honorable citizen from the president on down the
ordinary citizen.
There despotic progressives with file cabinets full of
campaign speeches tailored to persuade every special
interest group. They cannot be trusted. They have no
center upon which their integrity stands. They
profess empathetic attentiveness to the interests of all
groups. They will offer words and ideas in one
campaign speech that are contradicted in the next
speech.
Yet without alliances of other despotic progressives in
government, no campaigner is individually incapable
of delivering on such promises. Such individuals are
the antithesis of behavior prescribed by the
Constitution of the United States and are not qualified
for public office.
The honorable citizens alarm bells sound loudly when
any despotic progressive publishes or speaks words
that targets a special interest individual or group for
benefit or oppression by legislation. Even when the
honorable dissenter is only invoking his or her right
under our constitution to simply be left alone., the
despotic progressive stirs up an emotional dust storm
to obscure their dishonor.
Astute students of honorable behavior within a
democratic republic will recognize and resist such
efforts. The courageous among honorable citizens will
stand up to and shine a spotlight of revelation upon
seductive ideas of the despotic progressive..
This document goes to a simple-idea for evaluating
unrestrained and un-constitutional behavior of our
government. I trust the foregoing is strictly free of
partisan political thought. I have named only the
dishonorable, carriers of despotic progressivism as a
special interest group worthy of censure. The simple-
idea of honorable behavior cuts across all political and
social borders. This paper is about individuals who
gather unto themselves the power of law to take from
one group of individuals to give to another group
while siphoning off a sizable benefit to themselves as
Copyright 2010 by Robert L. Nuckolls, III. This document may be reproduced in any form or venue when authorship is
properly cited and the work is not exploited for the purpose of securing a profit or obscuring context.
3
the river of money flows by.
In criminal law it's called extortion, fraud, armed
robbery, embezzlement, racketeering and graft.
In Washington, DC (and many state or local
legislatures) it's called a quest of fairness for the
greatest public good where in greatest is 51% or
more of those to cast ballots.
I would encourage my fellow citizens to consider motivation
that compels them to vote for any candidate. The ability to
vote responsibly within the framework of our constitution
requires a study, understanding and personal adoption of
simple-ideas upon which this nation was founded.
Ill suggest that as long as our legislators are diligently
attending to civic duty under the Constitution, we have no
compelling reason to go to the ballot box. Should some
legislator drift to the dark side of power, we should be
confident that the individuals charter will be revoked at the
next election. Finally, if that legislator is but one of a small
group of sad examples, their ability to damage the nation is
held in check by attention of their honorable colleagues.
Our government sponsors thousands of Tossing-of-
the-Green events and employs millions of individuals
to create and manage them. Individuals competing
for tickets to a Tossing-of-the-Green lottery must
pursue a right to vote loudly and with diligence or
their probability of gaining something for nothing is
diminished . . . if not zero.
The idea of being able restrain and ultimately remove bad
apples from government of by and for the people is
fundamental to the idea of separation of powers as crafted by
our founding fathers. But as the ranks of congress, the
administration and judiciary become ever more polluted with
despotic progressives, the ability of honorable citizens to
occasionally purge the barrel of bad fruit is diminished if not
blocked . . . separation of power is lost.
Dishonorable governments are quite willing and demonstrably
capable of protecting their self-interests. It happens all over
the world every day. It has happened in this country. Allowed
to proceed without restraint, the probability of passing a
catastrophic tipping point looms ever closer.
Sadly, what passes for civic duty at the ballot box is becoming
no more than a supplication by special interest groups of
individuals (infected with the early stages of despotic
progressivism), for still more Tossing-of-the-Green events. .
. . but only if that green is harvested from somebody elses
garden.
The gardens of the productive are being over-
harvested. Further, they are being deprived of
resources necessary for thriving production. The
promises of the despotic progressives in Washington
are growing in number and size while the resources
from which such promises are delivered are dwindling.
I leave it up to the reader to plot present trends into the
future. Is this what we want to leave to our
grandchildren?
Our founding fathers gave us tools by which the future
of our nation can be secured. But just as a hammer can
be used to build or to destroy, the vote can be use to
either purge the Congress of looters and destroyers . .
. or infest those offices with looters and destroyers.
The remedy of our nations present condition calls for
vetting of a candidates motivations to public office
and a vetting of the citizens who would elect them to
that position. There is no right to vote only a duty to
vote.
That duty comes with a charge to understand the
Constitution as our founding fathers wrote it. Such
duty cannot be left up to individuals in black robes and
expensive suits who have elevated themselves to the
Copyright 2010 by Robert L. Nuckolls, III. This document may be reproduced in any form or venue when authorship is
properly cited and the work is not exploited for the purpose of securing a profit or obscuring context.
stature of minor gods. The Constitution was written in
plain English by individuals who intended that the
ordinary citizen understand it.
So when one attends to the words of a candidate
seeking to attain public office, the questions to be
asked are:
Is every citizen entitled to liberty?
Does not every citizen of this democratic republic
have the right NOT to be molested by their
government?
The answer to THOSE questions should guide the
citizens action in the voting booth. If they are 51% or
more of honorable citizens who vote, then our future as
a nation is assured.
If one votes to seek ever greater benefit from the labor
of others (despotic progressivism), then they are not
qualified to vote as a citizen of a democratic republic
under the Constitution of the United States. Further, if
they are 51% or more of those who bring their
dishonor to the voting booth, then the future of our
nation is a frightful thing to contemplate.