A second path for change is already widely in place in existing charters.

Rights clauses are rules. Offsetting-powers clauses provide corresponding sanctions. Officers can protect rights by applying sanctions immediately.

The Constitution is supreme, and by itself is enough to enable rights to be protected immediately. The Constitution’s bedrock rule is that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law [13]. The Constitution’s sanctions include the strong mandates that government officers—national and state; legislative, executive, and judicial—must support [14] or protect [15] the Constitution. This requires that each officer independently evaluate each action [16] and only take actions that he himself believes are constitutional.

Lately, SARS-CoV-2 has been the premise for widespread, damaging [17] exercises of absolute power [18], bypassing republican government’s nondelegation of legislative powers. County and city officials are beginning to oppose this tyranny using the power of their oaths or affirmations of office. All government officials have this power, but—naturally—change for the better is coming first in local governments, especially local governments that are pressed hard by citizens [19].

The SARS-CoV-2 premised tyranny has illuminated that change for the better is blocked most strongly by two kinds of organizations: parties, and businesses, schools, and nonprofits that extend government powers or that extend tyranny of their own.

Parties exercise the strongest government power: parties control governments.

As noted earlier, our parties’ charters don’t limit the parties with enumerated powers or with separated powers. Majorities of both major parties’ elected representatives go on from there to violate the chartered boundaries that are designed to limit our governments.

To have good boundaries requires respecting others’ boundaries and also defending one’s own boundaries.

Merely respecting others’ boundaries is not decisive. If most actors respect others’ boundaries but even a few actors violate others’ boundaries, no one’s rights are secure. The key to having good boundaries, then, is to defend one’s own boundaries against others’ violations.

In governments, the way to defend one’s own boundaries is to use offsetting constitutional powers. These powers can and should be used against others who violate one’s own boundaries, and also against others who violate anyone else’s boundaries.

But the nominal leadership and the elected representatives of both major parties are dominated by Progressives. What defines Progressives is that Progressives don’t use constitutional powers against others in government [9]. Progressives collude to violate the Constitution and to violate every other charter that limits any other government.

Once this fundamental sin is understood, it can be actively opposed, removed, and limited on an ongoing basis going forward.

In primaries and in general elections, voters can select the currently-few incumbent candidates who use their constitutional powers against others in government, or the challengers whose life histories and explanations to voters indicate that they are likely to. use their constitutional powers against others in government

Between elections, voters can evaluate elected representatives solely according to their use of constitutional powers against others in government. Voters can support those who use their powers, and pressure those who don’t [20].

When the governments involved are local and small, it’s easier to vote them out, pressure them, and make this change, as well, fast and extensive.

The extensive change that’s ultimately needed is to build a good party [9] in which the party organization is of republican form.

Many businesses, schools, and nonprofits, acting either as extensions of governments or on their own, also act crucially to deprive persons of liberty or property; and these organizations face no consequences. SARS-CoV-2-premised tyranny has made such actions more extensive and more visible.

These deprivations can’t be avoided by customers if a seller’s product is different enough from other competing products to be decisively preferred by customers. Also, these deprivations can’t be avoided if all readily-available sellers impose practically the same rules [21]. If, in either case, any of these organizations’ rules also deprive persons of liberty or property, that is illegal.

Once this fundamental sin is understood too, it can be removed too, although this requires the application of more organized power.

These organizations often act in response to unconstitutional orders from national or state governments, misinformation from other organizations, or other pressures. These organizations’ officers will not change their actions unless they are subject to overpowering force. Customers pressuring these organizations are unlikely to wield such impactful force.

Local governments, though, have the legal authority through the Constitution to subject these organizations to penalties and accompanying public pressure that are sufficient to overpower the hard control talk (“recommendations”) that national and state governments rely on to pressure these organizations, and to also overpower these organizations’ own Progressive officers.

It is critical to limit infringements of customers’ rights. Once this is accomplished, then businesses, schools, and nonprofits will have no alternative but to compete freely to provide products under the supervisory control of customers.

Wherever customers have supervisory control, customers add maximum value by using all the information they have at hand to shop to best satisfy their desires, and producers add maximum value by striving to please customers.