YesToHellWith

REGULATORY SATURATION

Why Nobody Sees the Web

There is a reason most Americans have never recognized Regulatory Saturation.

We do not experience the whole system at once.

We experience pieces of it.

A county notice about your property.

A DMV requirement.

A building permit.

A tax notice.

A business license.

A city parking rule.

Each encounter seems separate.

Different office.
Different official.
Different law.
Different problem.

So we treat each one as an isolated event.

But imagine putting every governmental restriction that affects your life on one wall.

Federal laws and regulations.

State statutes and administrative rules.

County ordinances.

Municipal codes.

Zoning restrictions.

Building requirements.

Licensing rules.

Vehicle laws.

Business regulations.

Tax obligations.

Environmental restrictions.

Health and safety codes.

Now stand back.

That is Regulatory Saturation.

The reason we rarely see it is simple:

Government itself is divided.

The building inspector is not thinking about the tax code.

The DMV is not thinking about zoning.

The zoning department is not thinking about occupational licensing.

Each institution sees its own piece.

But the citizen lives under all of them.

That distinction matters.

Government is divided into agencies, departments, boards, commissions, jurisdictions, and offices.

But the individual stands at the intersection of their accumulated authority.

That means Regulatory Saturation does not require a conspiracy.

It requires only accumulation.

One legislature passes a law.

Another adds a regulation.

A problem occurs.

Government responds.

A new technology appears.

Government responds.

A tragedy happens.

Government responds.

An abuse occurs.

Government responds.

And most responses move in the same direction:

Add something.

A statute.

A permit.

A license.

A reporting requirement.

A prohibition.

A penalty.

A new enforcement power.

But how often does government ask the opposite questions?

What can we remove?

What regulation has outlived its purpose?

What requirement duplicates another?

What restriction no longer makes sense?

What power was created for circumstances that no longer exist?

What is the combined burden of all of these rules?

That is one of the central problems of Regulatory Saturation.

Government frequently evaluates reasons to regulate.

It much less often evaluates the cumulative condition created by regulation.

And citizens rarely do either.

We grow accustomed to the system.

A child watches his parents obtain permits.

Later, he gets a license.

He registers a vehicle.

He fills out forms.

He pays fees.

He receives notices.

He asks permission.

Eventually, all of it becomes:

“That’s just how things work.”

That phrase should concern us.

Because some of the strongest presumptions in society are inherited, not written.

We stop asking why.

We stop asking where authority came from.

We stop asking what its limits are.

And eventually, we may stop recognizing that limits exist at all.

This creates two dimensions of Regulatory Saturation.

The first is legal:

How extensively has government regulated ordinary life?

The second is psychological:

What happens when people grow up believing comprehensive regulation is simply the natural condition of society?

The question changes.

Instead of asking:

“Does government have authority to prohibit this?”

we ask:

“Am I allowed to do this?”

Instead of asking:

“What are the boundaries of governmental power?”

we ask:

“Where do I get the permit?”

Now, permits are not inherently illegitimate.

Regulations are not inherently unconstitutional.

Government has legitimate regulatory responsibilities.

The issue is accumulation.

The issue is whether anyone is still examining the total relationship between governmental power and individual liberty.

That is why naming this phenomenon matters.

Regulatory Saturation.

Once something has a name, you can identify it.

Once you identify it, you can measure it.

And once you measure it, you can question whether the balance is still where it should be.

So try this.

Tomorrow, every time you encounter a governmental requirement, write it down.

Every license.

Every permit.

Every tax.

Every mandated form.

Every restriction.

Every prohibition.

Do not argue about whether each one is good or bad.

Just record it.

Then ask yourself:

Have I ever looked at all of these together?

Most people have not.

And that may be why Regulatory Saturation is so difficult to see.

We encounter government one strand at a time.

But we live inside the entire web.

And in Part Seven, we will examine what happens when people begin to feel that web but cannot explain what they are experiencing.

Because millions of Americans may already sense Regulatory Saturation.

They simply may not have had the language to describe it.

REGULATORY SATURATION

Part Five — The Presumption Hidden Inside the Web

In the last four parts, we identified Regulatory Saturation.

Thousands of laws, ordinances, regulations, codes, licenses, permits, and administrative rules accumulate until virtually every aspect of ordinary life falls somewhere within a governmental regulatory category.

But regulation alone does not explain the power of the system.

There is something underneath it.

Presumption.

And this may be the most important part of Regulatory Saturation.

Because once government regulates almost everything, we begin to presume that government has authority over almost everything.

Those are not the same thing.

Think about what happens during an ordinary encounter with government.

An official sends you a notice.

It says you are violating an ordinance.

What does the average person do?

He doesn’t usually ask the government to establish the entire basis of its claim.

He begins trying to comply.

Or he argues that he didn’t do what they say he did.

Or he asks how much the fine is.

Or he asks how to obtain the permit.

Notice what has already happened.

Before the conversation even begins, several things may already have been assumed.

That the government body possesses authority.

That the official possesses authority.

That the ordinance reaches this property or conduct.

That the government’s interpretation is correct.

That the factual predicates exist.

That the required procedures have been followed.

And that the person receiving the notice has the legal obligation asserted.

Maybe every one of those propositions is correct.

But there is a difference between something being correct and something being presumed correct without examination.

That difference is where the Liberty Dialogues begins.

We don’t start by saying:

“The law doesn’t apply to me.”

That is another presumption.

We don’t replace government’s conclusion with our own conclusion.

We ask:

“Please demonstrate how you reached it.”

That simple change is extraordinarily powerful.

Because Regulatory Saturation has conditioned us to start at the end of the analysis.

Government says:

“You owe this.”

We ask how much.

Government says:

“You need a permit.”

We ask where to apply.

Government says:

“You are prohibited from doing this.”

We ask what the penalty is.

Government says:

“This regulation applies.”

We begin arguing about compliance.

But what happened to everything before that conclusion?

What is the authority?

What is the jurisdiction?

What facts trigger it?

What definitions control?

What is the person’s legal status under the provision?

What creates the obligation?

What authorizes enforcement?

What process is required?

Those questions matter because government does not exercise power in the abstract.

Government exercises power against someone, concerning something, under particular circumstances.

And those circumstances matter.

Here’s a simple example.

Suppose an ordinance says a permit is required for a certain category of commercial activity.

The government says:

“You need a permit.”

Fine.

But before arguing about the permit, ask:

What constitutes the regulated activity?

How does the ordinance define it?

What facts establish that I am engaged in it?

Are there exclusions?

Are there exemptions?

What authority allows this governmental body to regulate it?

Who has authority to make that determination?

What process applies if I disagree?

Now we are examining the claim rather than simply accepting its conclusion.

And notice something else.

There is nothing radical about those questions.

There is nothing anti-government about them.

In fact, government operating according to law should be capable of answering them.

The danger arises when questions themselves begin to be treated as resistance.

When asking for authority is treated as refusing authority.

When asking for jurisdiction is treated as denying jurisdiction.

When asking for evidence is treated as denying facts.

When asking government to demonstrate an obligation is treated as refusing the obligation.

Those are not equivalent.

A question is not a conclusion.

That principle is essential.

Because the remedy for one set of presumptions cannot be another set of presumptions.

The citizen should not presume government is wrong.

Government should not expect the citizen to presume government is right.

Examine the claim.

That is the discipline.

And Regulatory Saturation makes that discipline more important than ever.

Because the larger the regulatory system becomes, the easier it becomes for everyone involved to assume that somewhere, somehow, somebody already established everything necessary.

The legislature authorized it.

The lawyers reviewed it.

The agency knows what it’s doing.

The official must have jurisdiction.

The computer says I owe it.

The notice says I violated it.

Therefore it must be correct.

Maybe.

But look at the word we just used.

Must.

Why must it?

What evidence supports the conclusion?

That is where presumption hides.

Not necessarily in some sinister conspiracy.

Often it hides in ordinary human behavior.

Routine.

Institutional practice.

Computer systems.

Standard forms.

Administrative shortcuts.

Prior decisions.

Nobody stops and reconstructs the entire chain every time government acts.

And practically speaking, government could not operate if every uncontested matter required proving every proposition from the beginning.

But when a citizen raises a legitimate dispute about a material element, something changes.

Now the question should become:

What actually supports the government’s position?

That is where Regulatory Saturation meets due process.

Because the citizen must have some meaningful ability to challenge governmental action.

And meaningful challenge requires more than being told:

“That’s the rule.”

The rule may only be the beginning.

So the next time government makes a demand, don’t automatically say:

“You’re wrong.”

And don’t automatically say:

“I must comply.”

Ask:

“What must be true for this demand to be lawful?”

Then identify those elements.

Authority.

Jurisdiction.

Status.

Facts.

Obligation.

Procedure.

Enforcement.

And examine them one at a time.

Because Regulatory Saturation becomes most powerful when nobody recognizes how much of the system is operating through assumptions they have never examined.

The answer is not rebellion.

The answer is not defiance.

The answer is not pretending laws don’t exist.

The answer is something much harder for an unsupported governmental claim to survive:

Disciplined inquiry.

Ask the question.

Require the answer.

Examine the evidence.

Separate what has been demonstrated from what has merely been presumed.

Because once we learn to identify presumption, the regulatory web begins to look very different.

And in Part Six, we’re going to examine another reason this system remains almost invisible:

Why don’t we see the web?

The answer may be surprisingly simple.

Government encounters us one agency, one ordinance, one notice, and one regulation at a time.

But freedom experiences their cumulative effect.

The Illusion of Universal Jurisdiction

There is a dangerous assumption hiding inside Regulatory Saturation.

It is so common that most of us never even notice it.

The assumption is simple:

There is a law covering the subject, therefore government has authority over the matter.

But does one necessarily prove the other?

Suppose a government official approaches you and says:

“You’re violating Section 14-32.”

He shows you the ordinance.

There it is.

Black and white.

And immediately, most people begin arguing about what Section 14-32 says.

But stop.

The official has demonstrated that a rule exists.

He has not necessarily demonstrated everything required for that rule to be lawfully applied to you, your property, your conduct, and these particular circumstances.

That distinction is enormously important.

A legislature may possess authority to legislate concerning a subject.

A local government may possess delegated authority.

An agency may possess rulemaking authority.

An ordinance may be valid.

And yet there can still be questions concerning jurisdiction, definitions, factual predicates, exemptions, procedure, notice, enforcement authority, constitutional limitations, and application.

Those are separate inquiries.

Regulatory Saturation tends to collapse all of them into one assumption:

There is a rule, therefore the rule applies.

I call this the illusion of universal jurisdiction.

Not because government has no jurisdiction.

Government unquestionably possesses jurisdiction in countless circumstances.

The illusion is believing that the existence of regulatory language automatically answers the jurisdictional question in every particular case.

Consider how easily this happens.

A city regulates property.

Therefore every action involving property appears to be within city authority.

A state regulates vehicles.

Therefore every question involving a vehicle appears to fall within the regulatory system.

An agency regulates an industry.

Therefore every person or activity resembling that industry appears to fall within the agency’s authority.

The subject becomes the substitute for the jurisdictional analysis.

And once that happens, the citizen begins defending himself before government has fully demonstrated its own claim.

That reverses the inquiry.

The first question should not always be:

“How do I prove that this law doesn’t apply to me?”

Sometimes the better starting question is:

“Would you please demonstrate the legal and factual basis upon which you determined that it does?”

That is a very different conversation.

And it is central to the Liberty Dialogues System.

We do not begin by announcing:

“You have no jurisdiction.”

How would we know that before examining the evidence?

Instead:

What is your authority?

Show me the source.

What is the jurisdiction?

Show me its boundaries.

What brings this particular matter within those boundaries?

Identify the facts.

What status or conduct triggers the obligation?

Identify it.

What exactly am I legally required to do?

Show me the provision.

What enforcement authority exists if I do not?

Show me that too.

Now we are no longer arguing conclusions.

We are tracing the chain.

And this exposes one of the most important consequences of Regulatory Saturation.

When enough laws exist, the web itself begins creating a presumption of authority.

Government doesn’t necessarily have to demonstrate the entire chain because everyone assumes somebody already did.

The official assumes the ordinance is authorized.

The citizen assumes the official has jurisdiction.

The enforcement officer assumes the administrative determination is correct.

And sometimes a court may begin with presumptions of validity that the law itself recognizes.

There may be perfectly legitimate reasons for some of those legal presumptions.

But the citizen should still understand what is being presumed and what must actually be established in the particular proceeding.

Because there is a profound difference between:

government possesses regulatory authority over a subject

and:

this particular governmental demand against this particular person is lawful.

The first does not automatically establish every element of the second.

Think about a simple example.

Imagine a county has authority to regulate construction.

That tells us something.

But it doesn’t answer everything.

Is this activity legally considered construction?

Is this property within the county’s jurisdiction?

Does this particular requirement apply to this type of structure?

Is there an exemption?

Was the ordinance properly enacted?

Has the correct official made the determination?

Was proper notice given?

Is the proposed enforcement action authorized?

Has the required process been followed?

Those questions do not deny governmental authority.

They define it.

And government operating under law should have definable boundaries.

That is why this subject is bigger than simply complaining about excessive regulation.

Regulatory Saturation changes how we think.

When virtually every activity has a regulatory category, we begin treating government authority as universal unless someone can prove otherwise.

And liberty slowly becomes the exception that must be demonstrated.

That is backwards.

The American constitutional tradition begins with a government of limited and divided powers.

Federal power has constitutional boundaries.

State power has constitutional boundaries.

Local governments derive their powers through state law.

Administrative agencies derive authority from law.

Government officials exercise powers attached to their offices.

Different governments possess different powers for different reasons.

So whenever government acts, there is a chain somewhere.

Authority.

Jurisdiction.

Facts.

Status.

Obligation.

Enforcement.

The Liberty Dialogues simply asks us to stop assuming the chain and start examining it.

And that may be one of the most effective responses to Regulatory Saturation.

Because you don’t have to understand ten thousand regulations.

You have to understand the one government is attempting to apply to you.

Take that strand.

Follow it backward.

Ask where it came from.

Ask what supports it.

Ask what activates it.

Ask where it ends.

And require conclusions to be supported rather than merely repeated.

Because the question isn’t simply:

“Is there a law?”

The deeper question is:

“Can government demonstrate the complete lawful chain from its authority to this particular exercise of power?”

In Part Five, we’re going deeper.

Because Regulatory Saturation depends upon something even more powerful than regulation itself.

Presumption.

And once we identify the presumptions hidden inside the regulatory web, we can finally begin to understand why that web is so difficult to challenge.

Go to thelibertydialogues.com and download the entire system for free. THAT IS ACTION.

Get involved with constitutionalcounty.org. THAT IS ACTION!

REGULATORY SATURATION

Part Three — How Did Government Get Into My Front Yard?

If you want to understand Regulatory Saturation, don’t start in Washington.

Don’t start with Congress.

Don’t start with some enormous federal agency.

Walk outside your front door.

Stand in your own yard.

And look around.

You bought the property.

You maintain it.

You pay the mortgage, if there is one.

You pay the taxes.

You repair the house.

You mow the lawn.

But now ask a very different question:

How many things can government tell you that you may—or may not—do with that property?

Can you build another structure?

Maybe you need a permit.

Can you convert your garage into a bedroom?

There may be building and occupancy requirements.

Can you operate a business from your house?

Check the zoning ordinance.

Can you put up a large sign?

There may be a sign code.

Can you build a fence?

There may be rules governing its height and location.

Can you park an RV or commercial vehicle on your property?

There may be another ordinance for that.

How tall can your grass become?

There may be a rule.

Where can you place your trash containers?

There may be a rule.

What condition must the exterior of your property remain in?

There may be a rule.

Even the size and placement of the numbers identifying your house may be regulated.

Now stop.

Don’t argue whether any particular one of those rules is reasonable.

That misses the point.

Look at them together.

That is Regulatory Saturation.

One rule governs the building.

Another governs the land.

Another governs the grass.

Another governs the fence.

Another governs the vehicles.

Another governs the signs.

Another governs what kind of activity can occur there.

And each one can be defended separately.

Safety.

Fire protection.

Property values.

Traffic.

Appearance.

Public health.

Emergency access.

Again, maybe some of those regulations are completely justified.

The question is larger.

What is the cumulative result?

Because eventually something remarkable happens.

You still hold title to the property.

But an enormous portion of what you may actually do with that property is surrounded by governmental conditions.

And that raises a question Americans should be willing to ask:

What does ownership mean when so many ordinary uses of ownership require governmental permission?

Notice what I did not say.

I did not say government cannot regulate property.

It can.

I did not say zoning is automatically unconstitutional.

It isn’t.

I did not say building codes are inherently unlawful.

They aren’t.

Those conclusions would destroy the inquiry before it begins.

The question is:

Where are the boundaries?

And perhaps more importantly:

When was the last time anybody required government to identify those boundaries?

Because Regulatory Saturation can produce a strange reversal.

Instead of government asking:

“Do we possess authority to prohibit this?”

the property owner begins asking:

“Am I allowed to do this?”

Think about the difference.

One presumes liberty until government demonstrates a lawful limitation.

The other begins by searching government regulations to discover what liberty remains.

That distinction is enormous.

And we have become so accustomed to the second question that most people don’t even recognize what has happened.

Someone wants to build a shed.

What’s the first question?

Do I need a permit?

Someone wants to operate a small business from home.

Am I allowed?

Someone wants to put something on his property.

What does the ordinance say?

Those may be prudent questions.

But there is another question that almost never gets asked:

What is the precise source and scope of government’s authority to impose this particular restriction?

Now we have arrived at the Liberty Dialogues.

Because the LD System does not tell us to walk into city hall screaming:

“This is my property! You have no authority!”

That is a conclusion.

Instead, ask questions.

What law authorizes this?

What governmental body enacted it?

What authority did that body possess?

Was authority delegated to this department or official?

What is the jurisdictional reach of the ordinance?

What facts trigger it?

What definitions are controlling?

Does my property actually fall within them?

What procedure must government follow before enforcement?

What hearing or appeal is available?

What must government prove?

Now something important has happened.

We have stopped fighting the government.

We have started examining the government’s claim.

And that is exactly what Regulatory Saturation makes difficult.

Because when thousands of regulations already exist, we instinctively assume the authority behind them has already been established somewhere by somebody.

Maybe it has.

Then government should be able to demonstrate it.

But maybe the particular application depends upon a definition.

A factual determination.

A jurisdictional predicate.

A delegation of authority.

A procedure.

A presumption.

Those things can be examined.

And your front yard provides the perfect place to understand the larger principle.

Because Regulatory Saturation does not usually arrive with flashing lights.

It arrives one reasonable-sounding rule at a time.

One permit.

One ordinance.

One definition.

One restriction.

One enforcement mechanism.

Until one day you stand on property you call your own and realize there are hundreds of things you cannot do without first asking someone else.

That should cause us to ask a question.

Not an angry question.

Not a rhetorical question.

A constitutional question.

Where does government’s authority end and the citizen’s liberty begin?

And if we cannot identify that boundary anymore, perhaps that is evidence of how thoroughly Regulatory Saturation has changed the way we think.

In Part Four, we’re going to examine the presumption that makes this entire system possible:

The existence of a law does not, by itself, answer every question about its lawful application.

And once you understand that distinction, you begin seeing the regulatory web very differently.

REGULATORY SATURATION

Part Two — One Rule Looks Reasonable

In Part One, we gave a name to something most Americans experience but rarely see as a whole:

Regulatory Saturation.

Today, I want to explain why it is so difficult to recognize.

Because almost every regulation can be made to look reasonable when examined by itself.

Your grass cannot exceed a certain height.

Why?

Community standards.

Your house numbers must be a certain size.

Why?

Emergency services.

You need a permit for a shed.

Why?

Safety.

You cannot park a vehicle in a particular place.

Why?

Traffic and public access.

You need a license to perform a particular occupation.

Why?

Consumer protection.

You cannot use your property in a particular way.

Why?

Zoning.

Taken individually, there is almost always an explanation.

And that is the trap.

Because the citizen experiences these rules collectively.

Consider one ordinary person.

He wakes up in a house regulated by building codes, zoning ordinances, property-maintenance requirements, fire codes, utility rules, and taxation.

He gets into a vehicle that must be titled, registered, inspected where required, insured, and operated according to hundreds of traffic rules.

He drives to a business operating under zoning requirements, occupational regulations, tax requirements, employment laws, safety rules, and licensing provisions.

He earns money subject to another enormous body of law.

He buys food regulated from production to packaging and sale.

He returns home to property whose use may be restricted by still another collection of laws and ordinances.

And tomorrow he does it again.

Here is the important point:

No single regulation creates Regulatory Saturation.

Accumulation does.

Imagine a room.

Place one piece of string across that room.

Nobody would call it a web.

Add another.

Still no web.

Now add hundreds.

Thousands.

Crossing one another.

Federal.

State.

County.

Municipal.

Administrative.

Eventually the character of the room changes.

And yet if I show you only one string at a time, you may never understand what has happened to the room.

That is exactly how we usually discuss regulation.

Someone complains about a zoning ordinance.

We discuss zoning.

Someone complains about a licensing requirement.

We discuss licensing.

Someone complains about a tax regulation.

We discuss taxation.

Someone complains about a building code.

We discuss building codes.

We divide the web back into individual strands and then ask whether each strand can be justified.

But there is another question.

What is the cumulative effect of all the strands together?

That question matters because freedom is not experienced one regulation at a time.

Neither is government.

You experience the cumulative boundaries placed around your choices.

And something subtle can happen when enough boundaries accumulate.

The citizen begins asking:

“Am I allowed to do this?”

Think about that question.

Not:

“Does government possess lawful authority to prohibit this?”

But:

“Am I allowed?”

That is a profound change in the relationship between the citizen and government.

Because the traditional premise of American liberty is not that government grants us every freedom we possess.

Government possesses enumerated or otherwise constitutionally recognized powers, depending upon the level of government, and those powers have boundaries.

Yet Regulatory Saturation can psychologically reverse that relationship.

When regulations surround virtually every activity, government begins to appear unlimited and liberty begins to appear exceptional.

You may build this — if permitted.

Operate this business — if licensed.

Use your property this way — if approved.

Place this structure here — if authorized.

And after generations of living inside that system, we stop noticing the premise underneath it.

We simply ask:

“What do I need to do to get permission?”

That does not mean permits are inherently unlawful.

It does not mean zoning is inherently unconstitutional.

It does not mean government cannot regulate conduct.

Those would be conclusions.

And the Liberty Dialogues teaches us not to begin with conclusions.

We begin with questions.

So here is the question Regulatory Saturation forces us to confront:

At what point does the accumulation of individually justified restrictions fundamentally change the relationship between government and the governed?

That is the question almost nobody asks.

And there is another.

When an official approaches you and says:

“You are violating Section 12-47.”

What happens next?

Most people immediately argue Section 12-47.

But the Liberty Dialogues approach begins earlier.

What authority permitted Section 12-47 to exist?

Who enacted it?

What power was delegated?

What are the jurisdictional limits of that power?

What facts trigger its application?

What status brings this person or property within its reach?

What procedural protections are required?

And have those things actually been demonstrated?

Again:

The existence of the rule is not the end of the inquiry.

It is the beginning.

That distinction becomes increasingly important as Regulatory Saturation grows.

Because the denser the regulatory web becomes, the easier it is to assume that somewhere inside thousands of pages of statutes, ordinances, regulations, definitions, and codes there must be authority for whatever government is doing.

And eventually the citizen stops asking government to demonstrate that authority.

He assumes it.

That may be the greatest danger of Regulatory Saturation.

Not simply the number of regulations.

Not simply the inconvenience.

Not simply the cost.

But the presumption created by their accumulation:

Government regulates virtually everything; therefore government must possess authority over virtually everything.

Those are not the same proposition.

And in Part Three, we’re going to bring this out of the abstract and walk onto perhaps the most revealing place in America to see Regulatory Saturation operating:

your own property.

Because if you want to understand how large the regulatory web has become, start with something you believe belongs to you.

Start with your own home.

REGULATORY SATURATION

The System You Cannot See

There is something happening in America that almost everyone has experienced, but very few people can name.

You feel it when someone tells you how tall your grass can be.

You feel it when government tells you where you can park your own vehicle.

You feel it when someone tells you what kind of structure you can build on your own property.

What size your house numbers must be.

Where you can put a fence.

Whether you can put up a sign.

Whether you need permission to operate a business from your home.

Whether you can keep certain animals.

Whether you can have an open container of beer while sitting on your own property.

Each time it happens, we tend to look at the individual rule.

The zoning ordinance.

The building code.

The parking regulation.

The alcohol ordinance.

The licensing requirement.

The environmental regulation.

The tax provision.

And when each rule is examined separately, there is usually an explanation for it.

Public safety.

Public health.

Order.

Property values.

Environmental protection.

Revenue.

Community standards.

And that is precisely why we rarely see what has happened.

We examine the strands without seeing the web.

I want to give that web a name.

Regulatory Saturation.

Regulatory Saturation occurs when laws, ordinances, regulations, codes, licenses, permits, administrative rules, and enforcement mechanisms accumulate to such an extent that virtually every aspect of ordinary life falls within some category of government regulation.

And here is what makes it so difficult to recognize.

Nobody had to design the entire thing.

Congress passes one law.

A state legislature passes another.

A county adopts an ordinance.

A city adopts a code.

An agency writes regulations.

A board establishes standards.

Another agency creates licensing requirements.

Another creates reporting requirements.

Another establishes penalties.

Each government body may be addressing only the subject directly in front of it.

But you don’t live inside just one of those regulations.

You live inside all of them at the same time.

Think about your house.

To you, it is your home.

But through the regulatory system, it may simultaneously be real property, a zoning classification, a taxable parcel, a structure subject to building codes, an address subject to identification requirements, property subject to maintenance ordinances, and perhaps property governed by environmental, utility, fire, occupancy, parking, or land-use requirements.

Nothing about the house changed.

What changed was the number of governmental categories surrounding it.

Now expand that beyond your house.

Your automobile.

Your work.

Your business.

Your children.

Your property.

Your income.

Your animals.

Your land.

Your transactions.

Your licenses.

Your permits.

Your recreation.

Your everyday conduct.

Eventually something extraordinary happens.

Government does not have to announce:

“We intend to control every aspect of your life.”

It merely has to regulate thousands of separate aspects of life.

The cumulative result can begin to look remarkably similar.

And that creates an even more serious problem.

When government confronts you about something, the discussion usually begins with:

“Here is the law.”

Or:

“Here is the ordinance.”

Or:

“Here is the regulation.”

And because we have lived our entire lives surrounded by regulation, most of us immediately begin arguing about what the rule says.

But perhaps we have started one question too late.

Before asking:

“What does the rule say?”

perhaps we should first ask:

“What gives this government body authority to regulate this particular matter, in this particular way, against this particular person, under these particular circumstances?”

Those are not the same questions.

The existence of a regulation and the lawful application of that regulation are separate inquiries.

That does not mean the regulation is invalid.

It does not mean government lacks authority.

It means something much simpler:

Authority should be demonstrated, not merely presumed from the existence of the rule itself.

And Regulatory Saturation makes that distinction extraordinarily difficult to see.

Because once virtually everything has been regulated, the existence of regulation begins to feel like proof of authority.

There is a rule.

Therefore they have authority.

There is an ordinance.

Therefore it applies.

There is a regulation.

Therefore you must comply.

Maybe.

But that is precisely what must be examined.

The Liberty Dialogues begins somewhere different.

What is the authority?

What is the jurisdiction?

What facts activate that jurisdiction?

What is my status under the law?

What obligation actually follows?

What enforcement authority exists?

And has each step been demonstrated without filling the gaps with presumption?

That is how we begin taking apart Regulatory Saturation.

Not by screaming that every regulation is unconstitutional.

Not by refusing every law.

Not by making conclusions before examining the evidence.

We do something much more disciplined.

We take one strand of the web at a time, and trace it back to its source.

Because you cannot meaningfully challenge something you cannot see.

And you cannot clearly discuss something you cannot name.

Now we have a name for it.

Regulatory Saturation.

And in Part Two, we’re going to do something most people have probably never done.

Instead of looking at one regulation at a time, we’re going to step backward and look at the entire web.

Because one regulation may appear perfectly reasonable.

But thousands of them, operating simultaneously, raise an entirely different question:

At what point does regulation cease merely regulating particular conduct and begin defining the boundaries of everyday life itself?

THE LONG TRAIN — WE DID THIS

We have spent considerable time talking about a long train of abuses and usurpations.

Government has grown.

Federal power has grown.

Administrative power has grown.

Regulation has grown.

Surveillance has grown.

Taxation has grown.

Spending has grown.

Debt has grown.

The number of laws, regulations, agencies, programs, mandates, licenses, permits, penalties, and governmental dependencies has grown.

And Americans love asking:

How did government become so powerful?

Today I want to give you an answer you may not like.

We did it.

The People did it.

Not because every American wanted bigger government.

Not because there was some national meeting where we voted to surrender our freedoms.

We did it through something far more ordinary.

Ignorance.

Apathy.

Fear.

Dependency.

Convenience.

Partisanship.

And sometimes—

cowardice.

Start with ignorance.

How many Americans have actually read the Constitution?

How many know what powers belong to Congress?

How many understand federalism?

Separation of powers?

Due process?

The authority of their state?

Their county?

Their sheriff?

How many can identify their county commissioners?

Their state representative?

Their prosecutor?

How many understand the difference between a constitutional right and a government benefit?

We created a government of limited and delegated powers—

and then stopped learning what those limits were.

You cannot defend a boundary you cannot identify.

And government naturally occupied the territory the People abandoned.

Then came apathy.

We stopped participating.

We complain about juries—

and try to escape jury duty.

We complain about politicians—

but won’t run for office.

We complain about local government—

but don’t attend the meetings.

We complain about legislation—

but don’t read the bills.

We complain about candidates—

but often know almost nothing about them beyond the letter beside their name.

Self-government requires something from us.

And too often, we couldn’t be bothered.

Then came partisanship.

This may have been one of our greatest failures.

We stopped asking:

Should government possess this power?

And started asking:

Who is exercising it?

When our party controlled government, we tolerated powers we would have condemned in the hands of the other party.

Executive power was wonderful—

when our president used it.

Federal power was necessary—

when our Congress exercised it.

Government agencies were trustworthy—

when they pursued people we disliked.

And then the election changed.

Suddenly we discovered constitutional limits again.

But it was too late.

Because the power we allowed our side to accumulate did not disappear when the other side took office.

We taught government that our principles were negotiable.

Then came fear.

War.

Terrorism.

Crime.

Economic collapse.

Disease.

Emergency.

Every generation faced something it was told required just a little more governmental power.

And frightened people repeatedly made the same bargain:

Protect me, and I will surrender something.

Maybe temporarily.

Maybe just until the emergency ends.

But government learned something about us.

Fear makes free people willing to accept things they would reject under ordinary circumstances.

Then came dependency.

We wanted government to solve more problems.

Educate us.

Protect us.

Subsidize us.

Insure us.

Finance us.

Regulate our competitors.

Protect our industries.

Protect our jobs.

Protect our retirement.

Protect our businesses.

Protect us from bad decisions.

And every time we gave government another responsibility—

we necessarily gave government additional power to perform it.

We wanted the benefit without confronting the authority necessary to provide it.

Eventually millions of Americans became financially dependent upon the very institution they were supposed to supervise.

Then came convenience.

Freedom requires responsibility.

It requires risk.

It requires tolerating other people’s choices.

Government control frequently promises something easier.

A rule.

A program.

A regulator.

A license.

A prohibition.

Someone else responsible for deciding.

And little by little we traded:

responsibility for regulation.

Then we surrendered our institutions.

The jury became an inconvenience.

The county became something most people couldn’t explain.

The sheriff became merely another law-enforcement administrator.

State government became another pipeline for federal money.

Congress delegated enormous responsibilities to administrative agencies.

And the citizen increasingly became a spectator.

Then came perhaps the ugliest reason.

Cowardice.

How many times have Americans known something was wrong—

and remained silent?

Because they might lose a job.

Lose a customer.

Lose a friend.

Be called a name.

Be criticized online.

Be investigated.

Be embarrassed.

Stand alone.

We celebrate the courage of the Founders because their courage costs us nothing.

But defending liberty in our own lives can cost something.

And too often we chose comfort.

Then we committed another enormous mistake.

We outsourced the defense of freedom.

We said:

The courts will protect us.

Congress will protect us.

The Supreme Court will protect us.

The president will protect us.

The sheriff will protect us.

The next election will fix it.

Someone—

somewhere—

will do something.

But who was supposed to supervise all of them?

We were.

The People.

And perhaps the greatest surrender of all was that we forgot what government actually is.

Government became the parent.

The provider.

The protector.

The employer.

The educator.

The regulator.

The rescuer.

And eventually—

the authority.

But that relationship is backwards.

The People created government.

Government did not create the People.

Our own Liberty Dialogues material makes the point plainly: political authority originates with the People, while governmental authority is delegated and bounded.

So perhaps we need to stop asking only:

What did government do to us?

And finally ask:

What did we do to ourselves?

We stopped learning.

We stopped participating.

We surrendered responsibility.

We became dependent.

We allowed fear to govern us.

We defended power when our side possessed it.

We remained silent when speaking became uncomfortable.

We demanded benefits without asking what powers accompanied them.

We stopped supervising the institutions created to serve us.

And then we acted surprised when those institutions became powerful.

There is the long train.

Government accumulated power—

because the People surrendered the responsibility necessary to restrain it.

And that means something enormously important.

If the People helped create the problem—

the People can help correct it.

But not by complaining.

Not by posting memes.

Not by waiting for another president.

And certainly not by waiting for Washington to voluntarily surrender power.

We reverse the process that brought us here.

Ignorance becomes education.

Apathy becomes participation.

Dependency becomes responsibility.

Partisanship becomes principle.

Fear becomes courage.

Silence becomes questions.

And spectators become—

the People.

Learn your Constitution.

Know your county.

Know your sheriff.

Know your commissioners.

Read the legislation.

Serve on the jury.

Attend the meeting.

Ask the question.

Demand the authority.

Demand the evidence.

Demand the remedy.

And when an official refuses to respect the limits of office—

replace that official through lawful means.

This is why Constitutional County matters.

And this is why the Liberty Dialogues matter.

Because restoring limited government begins with something government cannot do for us:

We must become a People capable of governing ourselves again.

Perhaps we did not lose our birthright because government was extraordinarily powerful.

Perhaps government became extraordinarily powerful because we forgot our birthright—and abandoned the responsibilities that came with it.

So don’t merely blame Washington.

Look in the mirror.

Then do something about it.

The restoration of limited government begins with the restoration of the People.

And as always—

May truth reign supreme.

WHO ARE “THE PEOPLE”?

The Declaration of Independence says:

“It is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish” government.

The People.

Those may be the most important two words in this entire series.

Because the Declaration does not say:

The right of a person.

One individual cannot announce:

“I have concluded that government is illegitimate, therefore government no longer exists.”

Nor can an individual simply declare that laws no longer apply to him.

That isn’t popular sovereignty.

The Declaration places this extraordinary political right with:

The People.

And eleven years later, the Constitution begins with exactly the same principle:

“We the People.”

Not:

We the Congress.

We the President.

We the Supreme Court.

We the People.

Government is their creation.

And that means the ultimate political authority does not originate inside the institutions exercising governmental power.

It originates with the political community that created them.

But that creates a difficult question.

How do millions of people become:

“The People”?

They don’t all gather in a field and raise their hands.

They develop understanding.

They communicate.

They organize.

They build consensus.

They vote.

They petition.

They serve on juries.

They elect representatives.

They amend constitutions.

They reform institutions.

And when necessary, they change the governmental structures under which they live through legitimate political processes.

That is self-government.

And this is why something I’ve said repeatedly matters:

Before the People can act together, they must understand together.

Not agree about everything.

That will never happen.

Republican.

Democrat.

Conservative.

Liberal.

Independent.

Those differences don’t have to disappear.

There is a much more fundamental question upon which we should be able to find common ground:

What is government for?

The Declaration gives us an answer.

Government is instituted to secure rights.

Its just powers are derived from the consent of the governed.

That principle belongs to no political party.

And perhaps that is where genuine political restoration begins.

Not by asking everyone to agree with us.

But by asking better questions.

What authority has actually been delegated?

What are its boundaries?

Who has jurisdiction?

What obligation has actually been established?

What permits enforcement?

And what remedy exists when government crosses the line?

Imagine those questions spreading.

One person begins asking them.

Then ten.

Then a thousand.

Then a million.

Eventually something changes.

Not merely government.

The governed.

They become harder to manipulate because they demand evidence.

Harder to divide because they understand the principle they share.

Harder to govern through presumption because they have learned to ask:

What establishes that?

And that is where the Liberty Dialogues System fits into something much larger than an individual dispute.

It teaches a discipline of inquiry.

Don’t begin with:

“Government is corrupt.”

Show me.

Don’t begin with:

“They have no authority.”

Ask them to identify it.

Don’t merely announce:

“My rights were violated.”

Identify the conduct.

Identify the boundary.

Establish the evidence.

And demand the remedy.

Now imagine an entire community thinking that way.

Imagine asking candidates for sheriff:

What are the limits of your authority?

Ask your county officials:

What does your oath require when another governmental authority crosses a constitutional boundary?

Ask legislators:

What authority supports this exercise of governmental power?

Ask judges:

Where is the remedy when the right is being destroyed now?

Politics begins to change when the questions change.

And that is why I believe restoration can begin locally.

A county is small enough for the People to know one another.

To organize.

To educate.

To evaluate candidates.

To demand accountability.

To establish expectations for constitutional government.

And then demonstrate that it works.

County by county.

State by state.

The objective is not to destroy constitutional government.

It is to make constitutional government work.

And perhaps that is the greatest lesson in the Declaration’s extraordinary language concerning alteration and abolition.

Knowing that the People possess an ultimate remedy should make us more determined to use the remedies that come before it.

Correct what can be corrected.

Reform what can be reformed.

Alter what must be altered.

And never casually destroy what can still be restored.

But never forget who created whom.

Government did not create the People.

The People created government.

Government does not possess unlimited authority over its creators.

Its powers were entrusted to it.

Its boundaries were established around it.

And its legitimacy rests upon accomplishing the purpose for which it was instituted.

To secure the rights of the People.

That leaves us with a responsibility.

Become informed.

Teach others.

Build the record.

Demand evidence.

Organize locally.

Hold constitutional officers accountable.

And build sufficient understanding that when the People speak, they do so not from anger—

but from knowledge.

Not from assumption—

but from evidence.

Not as isolated individuals—

but increasingly as:

We the People.

Perhaps the greatest safeguard against ever having to abolish our government is a People informed enough to recognize when it goes wrong, organized enough to confront it, disciplined enough to prove it, and determined enough to correct it while peaceful constitutional restoration remains possible.

The Declaration gave the People an extraordinary right.

But with that right came an extraordinary responsibility.

Government belongs to the People.

The People do not belong to government.

May truth reign supreme.