Restoring Theocracy, Part 1

The Restorative Party of Idaho’s logo

I was doomscrolling on Instagram, as many in my generation unforunately do, when I came across the “Restorative Party” of Idaho, which I will call RP for short. The RP sets out to be an alternative to the Republican and Democratic parties. I, like most sensible people, despise the duopoly of American politics, so I was initially intrigued by this state-level party’s attempt to shatter the Republ-ocrat stranglehold. However, when I went to the party’s platform, I had the rug pulled out from my feet just as fast as I had stepped onto it. The Restorative Party, to my annoyance, was simply a Christian Nationalist party wishing to impose their religious views on Idahoans and possibly beyond (because the State forcing Christianity onto people has never ended horribly). The Restorative Party had 20 platform positions, some more egregious than others. As such, I may briefly address some and then give a detailed takedown of others.

Before we begin, I will note I am analyzing the RP from a Voluntaryist-Mutualist perspective, a rather niche form of radical Individualism. I emphasize individual right and the law of equal liberty (i.e. just liberty), which is “the general proposition that every man may claim the fullest liberty to exercise his faculties compatible with the possession of like liberty by every other man. Thus, I will be analyzing how conducive the RP is with the law of equal liberty, even if I don’t explicitly say it.

‎

#1: Repealing the First Amendment

Right away, the RP establishes themselves as a Christian-centric political party, declaring that America was founded on “Christian principles.” This point is accurate; the founders made many allusions to Christianity and the bible, and to imply that Christian principles had nothing to do with the founding of the United States would be an absurd assertion. However, where the RP loses me is when they say “the First Amendment was intended to preserve the right of each state to determine its own religious direction.” They then go on to say that Idaho is a “Christian state, steadfast in our commitment to uphold and protect these values at the state level.” This plank seems to be advocating the use of State coercion to impose Christian morality upon the citizens.

The argument that the First Amendment was added solely so state governments could determine the state religion is a simplistic view. While established churches were common in many states at the time, many of the founders supported freedom of religious thought (or lack thereof) and wanted their state churches disestablished. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist who played a key role in separating church and State in Virginia; Benjamin Franklin wanted religious tests for office removed from the Massachusetts constitution; George Washington sent a letter to a synagogue where he praised Rhode Island’s religious liberality. James Madison’s original draft of the 1st Amendment was much more expansive in its protection of freedom of religion, seemingly wanting it to expand even to restricting state governments from interfering in religion. You can find a link to some of their quotes on religious freedom at the bottom of this article. Madison was also a leading critic of established churches in Virginia, calling for their abolition in his essay Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.

It is true that some founders wanted religion to be restricted to simply Christianity; just as it is true that some founders wanted the nation to be an yeoman, agrarian nation while others wanted an industrialist nation. It is even true that states had established churches, just as it is true that some states had slavery. But some states didn’t have established churches (Rhode Island & Virginia, for instance), just as some states outlawed slavery. The Constitution is ultimately a document of clashing ideologies compromising on multiple points. To frame the 1st amendment as only existing to allow Christian denominations ignores the differing philosophies and complexity of the Founders. They had many different visions for America and many different policy prescriptions. Some wanted a theocracy, some wanted a liberal free-though society, some probably just wanted to get over with the boring meetings.

‎

But let’s say all the founders wanted state governments to only allow Christianity; the 14th Amendment steps in to rectify this gaping hole in the 1st Amendment. To quote the 14th:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United State.”

The 14th amendment prevents states from making laws to give only select citizens legal rights. When it was first enacted, the purpose was to retroactively make all newly freed slaves into citizens of the USA, but the 14th Amendment has greater implications beyond 1865. Due to 14A, if a Muslim, a Buddhist, or any non-Christian were to be a born/naturalized citizens, and then moved to Idaho, they would be citizens of Idaho. The State of Idaho would then be Constitutionally prevented from stopping them from practicing their faith, from forcing them to practice any particular faith, and from offering/denying any legal or political privileges due to their religion. As such, the RP’s talk of how they wish to “uphold and protect” Christian values “at the state level” is outright unconstitutional, let alone a violation of individual liberty and freedom of conscious.

Even assuming the 14th Amendment didn’t guarantee religious freedom, the Idaho Constitution itself does. The Idaho Constitution, ratified in 1890, states in Article 1, Section 4:

“The exercise and enjoyment of religious faith and worship shall forever be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege, or capacity on account of his religious opinions. … No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination, or pay tithes against his consent; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.”

Before you say that the Idaho Constitution doesn’t explicitly give non-Christians the right to practice their faith, Section 21 of Article 1 says: “This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny other rights retained by the people.” This means that just because some rights are not listed in the Idaho Constitution does not mean those rights do not exist, nor that they can be denied to certain groups.

‎ ‎

Beyond Constitutional issues, the State being involved in religion will lead to the self-cannibalization of Christianity in Idaho. Historically, when Christians try to impose their beliefs through the State they often end up penalizing and suppressing other strands of Christianity. Even today, there is bitter debate in Christianity about which denominations are “really Christian.” Protestants say Catholics are pagans, Catholics say Protestants are demonic, everyone says Mormons worship Joseph Smith; there is scarcely any agreement of which denominations will make it into heaven. These debates won’t end when the Christian Nationalists take power; quite the opposite, in fact. Once they get rid of all other religions, they will turn inward to continue the “purifying” of the Idahoan Church. Christian denominations will war for control over the State to both protect their denomination and eliminate others.

Lastly, this policy of upholding the Christian religion above others is a clear violation of liberty. It’s so obvious that it hardly requires elaboration; to privilege one religion over others is necessarily a violation of the equal liberty of others’ ability to practice their religion. And as highlighted above, the violation of liberty won’t stop at other religions, but will turn inward towards Christian infighting.

‎

#2: “Founding Stock”

In plank 2, the Restorative Party says they believe in upholding the traditions of the “Founding Stock.” For those who don’t know, the “founding stock” or “old stock” are white Americans descended from the settlers and colonists of the original 13 colonies. I believe all people have a right to uphold their ancestorial traditions, so long as they do so without violently imposing those traditions on others. I would just like to point out that a core part (the best part, I’d say) of the Anglo-Saxon tradition is the importance of liberty. It’d be nice to see the RP uphold liberty as the foundation of the Founding Stock tradition.

‎

#3, #6: Repealing the 14th Amendment

Yep, you read that right. The Restorative Party outright says “We support the repeal of birthright citizenship…” which I suppose counters my point about the 14th amendment protecting religious freedoms (but not the Idaho Constitution). However, birthright citizenship is an explicitly protected right in the Constitution of the United States; Idaho cannot nullify it. The only way to properly nullify birthright citizenship would be another constitutional amendment on the federal level. Even if it were possible for a state to nullify a federal constitutional amendment, Idaho’s Constitution affirms the US Constitution as the supreme law of their state; Article 1, Section 3:

“The state of Idaho is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.”

The RP finishes this plank off by saying the Supreme Court has overstepped its Constitutional boundaries, and they seek to overturn “unconstitutional decisions.” They never specify which decisions or how they plan to do so.

I would like to acknowledge that citizenship requirements are not self-evident via the law of equal liberty. In truth, no individual should be forced to support the State. If the law of equal liberty reigned supreme, the State would be a voluntary association and the people in that association could set whatever standards they wanted acceptance. However, if one is to be forced to pay taxes and obey the whims of the State, then they should have a voice in its management; i.e. a voice in how the wealth stolen from them will be used to their benefit.

‎

The reason I lumped 3 & 6 together is because plank 6 builds off of plank 3. The Restorative Party goes onto say “States must retain the authority to establish their own residency requirements and laws.” They then go onto lay out the two standards of “resident” they want to implement in Idaho. The first standard is an American Citizen born to naturalized parents who has lived in Idaho and paid state income taxes for 5 years. They explicitly say one must live in the state and pay income tax for 5 years; but what if an individual has only lived in the state for 2 years, and then is unemployed for 6 months? Does this mean their countdown to resident status is put on pause since they cannot pay income tax? If not, then why include that as a requirement at all? This requirement to pay income tax for 5 years before being granted residency, and thereby able to participate in the government of Idaho, is a complete violation of the law of equal freedom. It’s quite literally taxation without representation for half a decade; one group of people gets to vote and make decisions for anyone who has lived in Idaho for 4 years and 364 days or less. Such a policy would also lead to people refraining from moving into Idaho, as most people would prefer to move to a state where they can vote the second they move in.

The second standard is someone who graduated from an Idaho high school and lived in the state since graduation. This implies that if one moves out of the state for a year and tries to move back, they won’t be a citizen until they pay the income tax for 5 years. Even this standard leads to violating liberty by restricting freedom of movement, placing a penalty on those who would wish to move out for a better job and then move back after a couple years. Such plans are quite common in American society. But this standard also runs the risk of destroying the the homeschooling movement in Idaho. Many homeschooling programs are in private schools out-of-state; a student could live in Idaho but attend online school in Florida. If they graduate from the Florida school, they wouldn’t be an Idahoan citizen. An Anti-Christian or Anti-Conservative party could take power and easily deny citizenship to Christian homeschooled students on the basis that they didn’t graduate from an Idahoan school, preventing them from enjoying the rights of an Idahoan citizens. This allows the Anti-Christians to keep indoctrinating Idahoan children into secular beliefs, thus weakening the Christian religion.

Beyond that, this violates the 14th Amendment, which is still on the books, is the supreme law of the land (and Idaho), and is unlikely to be overturned. The 14th lays out what is properly considered a “resident” of a state. States are not permitted to make income tax payments or high school graduation criteria for residency. The 14th amendment states that all individuals are citizens “of the wherein they reside.” At the time of passing the 14th Amendment, “reside” was understood to mean “To dwell permanently or for a length of time; to have a settled abode for a time.” “Resident” is similarly defined as “one who resides or dwells in a place for some time.” I have linked the dictionary definition from the time under the footnotes below as well. So, at the time of the ratification of the 14th amendment, dwelling within a state was all it took to be considered a citizen and a resident. While states are allowed to set criteria to prove residency, they cannot violate the equal protection clause, which requires that all residents of a state be given the same legal protections and privileges. The writers of the 14th amendment would absolutely agree that you can certainly dwell within a state without paying income tax for 5 years or graduating high school in the state.

Lastly, this violates the equal protection clause of the 14th. As mentioned above, the 14th amendment states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the Untied States.” This forbids states from placing laws which grant privileges and immunities to one group of American citizens without granting it to others; for example, one group of American citizens that lived in a state for 5 years and one group that has not. As such, these standards are illegitimate residency standards, both on constitutional grounds and per the law of equal liberty.

‎

#4: Ending All Immigration

This is probably the real reason why the RP wants to abolish 14A, and thereby birthright citizenship. As they say “We will actively pursue, apprehend, and remove all individuals residing unlawfully within our borders.” By repealing birthright citizenship and setting these specific standards of citizenship, they can claim that the those who were born in the US to immigrant parents or naturalized legally are now here illegally and thus subject to deportation. This would then allow them to be deported from Idaho (supposedly). Admittedly, the federal government does not have an explicit constitutional right to deport immigrants; instead, it is an “implied power” invoked by the Supreme Court in the 19th century. However, federal immigration law is built on the idea that the federal government controls immigration. As of right now, states do not have the legal authority to deport illegal immigrants; only the federal government does. The state governments can detain illegal immigrants, but the actual act of deportation is handled by the federal government. As such, an attempt by a state to deport illegal immigrants would be stopped by the federal government, likely the Supreme Court.

The Restorative Party goes onto say: “Furthermore, we will work to bring an end to immigration altogether and pursue policies that ensure the return of all refugees and H1B VISA workers to their nations of origin. We will end the H1B VISA program and put an end to all chain migration.” The H1B VISA program is a federal program; once again, the Idaho government will be prevented by federal powers from overturning the H1B program, as well as prohibiting immigration into their state.

To be fair to the RP, I think it is questionable if federal immigration management is constitutional at all (including deportation and the H1B program), as the Constitution does not explicitly give the federal government the authority to do such acts. However, that same argument can be applied to the Idaho government, as its constitution does not give it the power to deport either. So, the RP would have to change the Idaho Constitution or challenge the modern, crony-entrenched immigration system on the federal level.

‎

Beyond the institutional hurdles, this anti-immigration policy is also incredibly economically unviable. Some immigrants are simply better at certain jobs than Americans. Many of our state and local economies have adapted to depend on immigrant labor, incorporating them into the broader economy alongside Americans. Deporting all immigrants and then prohibiting anymore from entering the Idaho would reduce the total number of workers in Idaho, which will lead to reduced production. As production goes down, the supply of goods & services would go down as well. The decrease in goods won’t just be consumer goods, but also the supply of capital goods and resources will go down; less workers = less resources. The resource firms will be forced to raise prices as they are no longer making as high a profit as they once were This will force consumer firms to raise prices to offset costs, ultimately forcing the Idahoan consumer to foot the bill. This combination of lower supply and higher prices will lead to a lower quality of life for all citizens. This doesn’t even take into consideration how costly a program of rounding up illegal immigrants would be (especially after the repeal of birthright citizenship), which would have to be paid with tax money or borrowing money (which will have to be paid back with taxes). That will strain the already-weakening income of the Idahoans, reducing quality of life still further.

To be fair to the RP, floods of immigration can obviously be harmful if a community is unable to deal with them, just as floods of consumers into a store can be harmful if the store does not possess the resources to deal with them. But at the end of the day, the immigrants are still people, they possess the right of liberty. They have the right to move to any unclaimed land, interact with anyone who wants to interact with them, seek employment from any boss of any nationality. To suppress all immigration and implement harsh enforcement is the opposite of how to solve this. Like with most resource allocation issues, it can handled through market incentives. Idahoans will prioritizing selling to other Idahoans since they’ll have more money, and because they personally know said Idahoans. Immigrants will realize this and soon move to other states more capable of helping them. And even the cultural questions can be addressed through freedom of association. Neighborhoods and communities forming on religious and traditional cultural values is fine, and would not only still happen under a Voluntaryist society, but in a Mutualist economy (with use-&-occupancy norms) they will be able to form even easier with unoccupied land and housing being freed for use.

‎

#5: Taxing Foreign Labor

The next policy position by the RP is to tax businesses who “replace American labor with foreign labor.” As a Voluntaryist, I see multiple issues with this.

Firstly, American workers are not entitled to be employed by American firms. Nationalists often believe that because a firm is within America that they are obligated to employ Americans. This is why Nationalists often say that foreign workers are “stealing our jobs.” However, no firm (that is, no person who owns a firm) is obligated to employ any other person. The firm does not exist for the betterment of “the nation,” but rather it exists to fulfill a desire for goods &/or services. This requires hiring the most efficient employees to produce those goods or perform those services. If one worker is better at a job than another (no matter their inherited identity) then the more skilled worker should get the job to better satisfy consumer demands. If we were to only hire employees based on nationality rather than skill, we would soon find many jobs occupied by less adequate workers who would be better off in another profession, weakening overall production and thus weakening quality of life. Apply this logic across an entire economy, and you’ll soon see production suffering, supply going down, and prices rising.

To demonstrate how nonsensical this policy is, we should simply take it to its logical endpoint. The Restorative Party is an Idaho party, not an America party. If taxing firms that employ foreign workers is a good thing and will increase the number of jobs in America, then it logically follows that taxing firms that employ non-Idahoans should increase the number of jobs in Idaho. This party has already demonstrated that it doesn’t care for the American Constitution, so why not implement a tax on firms that use non-Idahoan labor? Why not go even one step further, and have counties and cities tax any business that employs an individual from another city or county to increase overall employment in the city/county. The institutional logic should apply the same; levy taxes based on workers from a different region in order to employ more people from our region.

If the nationalist says “cities/counties/states don’t have the necessary population numbers to only employ from within their own borders” then their critique of foreign labor immediately falls apart. America currently has a labor shortage, and an aging population means even less workers in the market + a greater tax burden due to more social security payments. Even if we had enough jobs for every person in America, not all people in America are best suited to the particular job. This is why foreign labor is vital to a growing economy.

If the nationalist says “the culture of American states, cities, and counties are similar enough to be considered one people,” then they are passing policy on arbitrary standards. States have vastly different cultures, just look at California and Texas, or North Carolina and South Carolina. Anyone involved in their local community will know that even cities right beside each other can have stark cultural differences; Greensboro, NC at night is nothing like Winston-Salem, NC at night. To allow workers from these differing local cultures to work at each others firms without taxation, but to tax differing national cultures, is inconsistent and illogical. It’s either based on arbitrary standards of cultural differences, or appealing to the might of the federal government to impose its will upon all states. Both are weak bases for policy, separated from empirical data and rational conclusions.

‎

The other issue with this tax is that it won’t actually increase the number of jobs in Idaho; it will simply increase prices and make it harder for business to operate in Idaho. If a corporation cannot easily pay the tax, they will stop using foreign workers and hire Idahoan workers to replace them. However, why was the firm hiring foreign workers in the first place? Because the foreign workers were cheaper or more productive than Idahoan workers. Paying Idahoan workers will be more costly due to higher wages or lower productivity. With the increased cost, the firm will be forced to pass on the higher costs to the consumer through higher prices. This assumes the firm will stay open, which isn’t a guarantee; it’s possible the firm will be forced to shut down due to higher costs or relocate to a more business-friendly state.

In cases where the foreign labor is hired for specialized talents that cannot be easily replaced by American workers, the corporations will be forced to pay the higher tax. Smaller corporations will be forced to raise prices to pay for the increased costs, as stated above; however, large corporations can simply eat the tax, maintaining lower prices due to higher overall profits and more accumulated wealth. The lower prices offered by larger corporations will allow them to out-compete smaller corporations in the market, eventually forcing the smaller ones out of business. By then, the larger corporations can raise prices to pay for the foreign labor, and with less competitors, can make higher profits than before. So, the Idahoan citizen will have less job opportunities, higher prices, and less products to choose from.

‎

#7: Gay Marriage

It should come as no shock that the Restorative Party opposes gay marriage and sees at as between one man and one woman. Christians often believe marriage is a sacred union between man, woman, & God, and should not be desecrated through homosexuality, infidelity, etc. I have no stance on this; it doesn’t affect me so I don’t care. Where I have an issue is specifically if the RP wants to stop gay couples from marrying via coercion. The same critiques as earlier apply; violates the 14th, tax burden, violation of liberty.

‎

#8: Freedom of association

The RP goes on to completely contradict its own preceding policies by saying “Individuals should have the liberty to build communities based on shared values and interests and to welcome those they choose.” What infuriates me is that I totally agree with this! Individuals should have complete freedom to form whatever communities they want on whatever grounds they want, provided participation in these communities is voluntary. But, what if a community wants to hire foreign labor or live with immigrants? Tax, deportation! What if a community wants to allow gay marriage or Islam? Eh, unspecified. What if a community wants to embrace a sinful vice? As we’ll see, outright illegal. So, the RP doesn’t actually believe in freedom of association; true freedom of association means allowing others to associate in ways you don’t like. Liberty only for what you feel comfortable with is not true liberty.

This is why liberty is so important. The law of equal liberty dictates that no one may be forced to join nor support any association, nor can any association be forced to allow or support any individual. This is the only way to have a true freedom of association. The parameters of one person to impose or prohibit association on another through violence will necessarily erode and ruin the very foundations of free association. The right to say “no” is fundamental to proper, healthy associations. Without it, association becomes slavery.

‎

Leaving off for now

This article was originally going to be over 40 minutes if I covered all 20 planks, so I am forced to split it in half. I will be releasing part 2 in a couple days, and it will be linked here once released.

‎

Footnotes

1: Benjamin Franklin to Richard Price: “I am fully of your Opinion respecting religious Tests; but, tho’ the People of Massachusetts have not in their new Constitution kept quite clear of them, yet, if we consider what that People were 100 Years ago, we must allow they have gone great Lengths in Liberality of Sentiment on religious Subjects; and we may hope for greater Degrees of Perfection, when their Constitution, some years hence, shall be revised. If Christian Preachers had continued to teach as Christ and his Apostles did, without Salaries, and as the Quakers now do, I imagine Tests would never have existed[.]”

George Washington To the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island: “The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.”

James Madison’s Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1787: “That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”

Later on he says: “Fifthly. That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit: No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.” Right/freedom of conscience was often a catch-all term that included freedom of speech, press, and religion.

2: Reside — Webster’s Dictionary of 1828, Webster’sDctionary1828.com. If you would like a dictionary definition closer to the passage of the 14th Amendment, check page 1197 of Webster’s Dictionary of 1862 from the Internet Archive. They share an identical definition, meaning this definition of “reside” had been primary definition for 30 years before the ratification of the 14A. As such, when 14A says “reside,” the authors likely meant this definition.