Molon Labe! (63 page)

Preston's eyes narrow. "And what would those be?"

"First, this is prevented by Article 7, and much of Article 15."

"So, we need constitutional amendments. Of course! What was I thinking? Sorry, I got a little excited there."

"That's understandable, sir. So did we."

Preston says, "I'll need a draft of proposals by Monday so that —"

The AG gently interrupts, "Sir, we've already put them together. They're still a bit rough, but they're not the real problem. We've a much taller hurdle to clear."

"You mean the second problem?"

"Yes, sir. And it's formidable. I have here a copy of the Wyoming Constitution. Let me show you something in Article 21. We didn't see this at first, but when we did it added a level of complexity to the plan."

When the AG read aloud the relevant sections the entire room took in a collective gasp.

Preston is stunned. "My God, Paul, can this even be
done
? I mean, it sounds like catching birds by sprinkling salt on their tails."

"I really couldn't say for sure, Governor. To be honest, my first reaction was negative. It was like learning how to crack a safe and then discovering that the safe itself is in a deep cave protected by an army."

Preston nods bitterly. "That sounds about right. What were they
thinking
back in 1889? To lock something up is one thing, but to throw away the
key
?"

"Section 28 is an obvious roadblock, but it is the final sentence of section 23 which, as you aptly put it, 'threw away the key.' Repealing section 28 is pointless without first repealing the problematic language in section 23."

"Which it expressly forbids," points out Preston.

"Yes, sir. However, I have an idea. And it's one that our supreme court may embrace, especially when they understand the broader implications involved for the future."

The AG spends several minutes outlining what he has in mind.

Preston is silent for a moment and then says, "When I told my wife that I felt I should run for Governor she asked me if I
really
knew what I was getting into. I thought I did, but now I can see what she meant. Paul, this is absolutely huge —
atomic
, really. Even if the Wyoming supreme court goes along, what kind of federal challenge can we expect? Can it go all the way to the US Supreme Court?"

The AG replies, "That's very likely, Governor. The broader implications wouldn't be lost on them. The way I see it, there are three possible outcomes: Jeffersonian, Madisonian, and Hamiltonian."

Everyone present was well-versed in the history of the late 1780s and constitutional debates.

"Let's just pray it's not Hamiltonian," Preston observes. "OK, people, there's going to be quite an uproar about this and a lot of scared people to calm. Politically speaking, this is equivalent to tampering with constitutional DNA. It will be our biggest fight. We win this, we find that 'key' they tried to throw away and we use it."

The AG smiles. "It'll break the back of renegade federalism."

Preston says, "You may just be right, Paul. Gosh, I'd love to read the history books thirty years from now! We'll either be patriots or scoundrels."

Reply to my Atheist and Agnostic Friends
by Wyoming Gov. James W. Preston

Thank you all for your well-constructed letters in response to my interview in
PLAYBOY
. In short, my Christian worldview has variously been described as "primitive, superstitious, and irrational." Assuming,
arguendo
, that you are correct — how are you harmed?

Where is the tort?

In 1963 William F. Buckley wrote about the conservative mix of Christians and atheists: "The freeway remains large, large enough to accommodate very different players with highly different prejudices and techniques. The differences are now tonal, now substantive, but they do not appear to be choking each other off. The symbiosis may yet be a general consensus on the proper balance between freedom, order, and tradition."

I hope that the "choking each other off" has not begun.

In discussing morality and crime in the interview, I tried to demonstrate that Christianity and libertarianism are much more compatible than often believed. They are not mutually exclusive.

To reiterate, I did not, and never will, propose to criminalize certain actions held dear by libertarians. I only pointed out that they were arguably unprofitable to the individual, if not detrimental. And you must concede that a people generally drunk, high, or strung-out is no credible model for a free and healthy society.

Because of any political system's inability to embrace and further a comprehensive moral code (
i.e.,
regarding the
intra
personal, vs. the interpersonal, which is the easy part), I have long believed that a purely secular libertarian society would not last beyond its founding generation. Galt's Gulch was and is a fantasy. There is more — much more — to a successful society than its members merely keeping their word and not initiating violence.

I've studied nearly everything by Rand, Rothbard, Friedman
et al
, and there is almost nothing about love, humility, kindness, forgiveness, chastity (when did anyone last hear
that
word!), honor, mercy, propriety, integrity, or decency.

Faith is a four-letter word, practiced only by "mystics."

Rand's social clique would not have exploded if she, as the elder party, had been wise enough to forgive Nathaniel Branden and also to own up to her primary responsibility in the matter. The Objectivist movement might have gone further if its cosmology had not been so saturated with such stifling arrogance. (Look at 1960s pictures of Rand's "Collective" — haughtiness drips from every pixel.)

Being a libertarian is not internally sufficient for good citizen-ship. I know far too many who are breathtakingly slovenly, lazy, lewd, rude, petty, wimpy, and even mean-spirited. I would not live among them even though it were a society free of fraud and violence.

So if you truly believe that a free and healthy society can easily dispense with such "outdated affectations" without obvious harm, then
please offer just one example. Will Durant, the famous (secular) historian, wrote that "There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion." That was in 1968. Nearly a half century later his observation is all the more poignant.

The West has fully entered the post-Christian age and it shows. By all indices it is not "successfully maintaining moral life." While the decline has not been instantaneous, it has been rapid enough to notice within a lifetime. The decency and wholesomeness of the 1950s, for example, seem almost extraterrestrial to us now. The Boy Scout Association is relentlessly attacked for their explicit morality and their right as a private organization to set standards for membership which exclude practicing homosexuals.

Where is the harm of citizens being cheerful, thrifty, clean, kind, helpful, brave, reverent, etc.? How would libertarian principles be violated? When the Boy Scout Code of Honor is a source of derision and legal action, the social implications are ominous indeed.

Because I am championing essentially spiritual values, the hardcore evangelical atheists (
i.e.,
the God-haters vs. the casual atheists and mere agnostics) couldn't help but incant their nonbelief. The Godhaters cannot subscribe to spiritual values, so Christian libertarians must be denounced as heretics of a secular humanism.

Beware, however, if you are tempted of this. For are you not at a total loss as to
what
to criticize in the society which I would, if I had the unilateral power, establish in Wyoming? Remember, I would not intrude upon your freedom to poison or degrade yourself any more than I would coerce you to attend church.

So,
what
, precisely, is your gripe? Since it does not reside in the physical, it must be metaphysical. As you do not believe in the preternatural, this poses a knotty dilemma — an unscratchable itch.

To an atheist colleague withdrawing from the
National Review
, WFB wrote: "
[I]
should hate for you to think that the distance between atheism and Christianity is any greater than the distance between Christianity and atheism. And so if you are correct, that our coadjutorship was incongruous, I...should have been the first to spot it and act on it...because my faith imposes upon me more rigorous standards of association than yours does."

My generic thoughts on the matter cannot be better expressed than that. Those atheist friends and colleagues who profess difficulty with my Christianity should keep in mind that their atheism can be similarly difficult for me. However, "the freeway remains large, large enough to accommodate very different players..."

I will close with a final question: Why is the "threat" of a chaste, judicious, and decent society — arrived at
without
the use of force — so alarming to you? When you have that figured out, please reply. I am most curious as to your answer.

Sincerely,

James W. Preston

Lander, Wyoming

April 2016

Kyle and Susan Bradford were delighted to help out with the great migration. They portioned off 20 acres of their ranch and built a dozen 1,400 square foot cabins on an acre each, with a common storage barn, rec hall, gun range, and fishing pond. One young couple from Colorado knew the Bradfords and brought eleven other couples with them. Each pair had all the privacy they wanted, but they could also blend in and out of their small community whenever it suited them. Some were highly social, and some were more reserved. Some traveled frequently, while others rarely left the valley.

It was the best of all worlds. Most vowed they'd never move again.

As a gift they pooled their money for a beautiful macaw chick named Caesar. Only four months old, he was already hand-tamed and allowed even strangers to tickle his gorgeous purple and gold belly. Susan fell for the friendly bird and vowed deadly woe upon anybody who ever harmed him.

The Bradfords had made homes for two dozen libertarian relocators. Kyle and Susan considered it payback for the cruel death of Bondo.

Cheyenne, Wyoming

May 2016

"Paul, how are we doing on that constitutional issue you raised? Where are we with the legislature and supreme court?" Preston asks.

"Governor, I think we can weather the domestic squall until we arrive at the federal storm. Wyoming congressmen and justices won't be the problem. Federal courts
will
be."

"That was my read, too," Preston agrees. "Well, first we have to
get
to federal court. We must demonstrate that Wyoming is serious about controlling her own internal matters, which certainly includes education."

"Yes, sir. We will. Who knows, Governor, we could see a lot of national support for us in this. America loves an underdog."

Preston smiles and says, "Almost as much as they hate a traitor. We've got to show that education home-rule is an American right and tradition that was stolen from us in the 19th century."

Preston walks over to a window and gazes at the cobalt blue sky, thinking deeply. Then he turns and says, "One last thing, folks. We can't allow a word of this to leak out until we have a comprehensive, turn key plan to offer. Otherwise, the Democrats will peck the concept to death. Factually and organizationally this must be a slam-dunk. Recall how the Federalists wrote the Constitution in secret and surprised the nation with a
fait accompli
? How the
Federalist
papers convinced New York? How they outmaneuvered their opponents and rammed through ratification? We'll need a consolidated effort like that. It must be so bold and so complete that the opposition is paralyzed, fractious, and ineffective. Just like the antifederalists were. We'll have only one chance at this, so let's make it happen!"

"Yes, sir! I have some ideas regarding the timing, if I may." "Certainly," says Preston.

"We should wait until after the general election before we publicize this. Let the voters first ratify the
habeas corpus
, eminent domain, and professional license amendments. Let the people first digest what they've been given. Then, they will be ready for more. Ratification of those amendments will also strengthen our hand in the Capitol. Also, we should gain two more Senators and three more Congressmen in November. That will give us a 63% majority in the Senate and a two-thirds majority in the House. With those numbers, you will fully be in the driver's seat, Governor. Our Ten Points have been a raging success, and four-fifths of Wyoming is behind you."

"It
has
all gone very well, hasn't it? You raise an excellent point about timing, Paul. All right, the initiative will not be publicized until the general session in January. Can we hash out all the details before then?"

"Yes, sir!" the room says in unison.

"Good. Then let's get cracking. I think we've worked out the legal aspects as best we can for now, but there are still financial details of divestiture. There are taxes and mineral royalties and funds intertwined with public education. And what about the University? Privatizing
that
will be a tough sell. All right, who do we need for our team? First, can we get John Taylor Gatto? He's been looking for this chance the past twenty years. Next, —"