Ignorance And Apathy Are Fatal To Freedom

What do you think is your government’s most powerful weapon against you? Do you think it is guns, tanks, drones, or possibly even nuclear weapons? No, your government’s most powerful weapon is the self-imposed ignorance of the American people; for when a people are ignorant they don’t need to be enslaved, they willingly enslave themselves.

I want you to read a quote by George Orwell, from his book Nineteen Eighty-Four, “If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened – that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death.” If you allow your government, through its government run schools, determine what you are taught about their rightful power, then you will willingly comply with whatever laws they enact because your ignorance leads you to believe they are acting within their authority when they enact those laws. The truth is the only pathway to freedom, and if you choose to ignore, or reject the truth, then you are a slave to those who control the information you have access to.

What exactly is slavery? People think about slavery and all that comes to mind is the African slaves who worked the plantations prior to the Civil War. But slavery is basically the condition that exits when a person has no rights; when they have to obtain permission from a superior authority to exercise any right – and when you need to ask permission to exercise a right, it ceases being a right and becomes a privilege – and privileges can be revoked, while rights cannot.

On the other side of the spectrum is freedom; or liberty. We, as Americans, make a great fuss about loving liberty; yet it hardly exists anymore. In Chapter 2 of his Second Treatise, John Locke explains what liberty is as follows, “TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.”

Thomas Jefferson defined liberty as, “…rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” (Source: Letter to Isaac Tiffany, 1819)

Jefferson also said, “Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.” (Source: Letter to John Cartwright, 1824) It is unfortunate that so many in this country have such a limited vocabulary that they don’t understand the meaning of the words inherent and unalienable. Inherent means, existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute, while unalienable basically means something that cannot be given, or taken away.

You can choose NOT to exercise a right, but you cannot surrender that right to anyone; be it another individual or a group of individuals who call themselves a government. Your rights are not subject to the approval of society, nor can any limitations, other than the equal rights of others, be imposed upon them. Let me give you an example of what I mean by that.

If you say something that someone else doesn’t like, are you prohibiting them from saying something that you don’t like? If you truly have freedom of speech there can be no limitations upon what you are allowed to say, so long as you do not cause harm to that person or his reputation by saying those things; then it becomes either slander or libel. But your feelings, whether or not you are OFFENDED by what is being said, are not just grounds to deny anyone the right to speak, or write what is on their mind.

Yet what is political correctness if it is not the attempt by a certain segment of society to dictate what can and cannot be said; which is all based upon protecting the feelings of the segment of society dictating what is considered permissible speech. How’s this for political correctness; Fuck your feelings, they aren’t protected by a constitutional amendment, while my right to say whatever the hell I want is!

The Bill of Rights was supposed to be a wall built around those rights listed in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution; protecting them from any interference by the government. Yet how many of those rights has the government encroached or infringed upon? Some of them have been infringed upon in the name of public safety, while others have been infringed upon in the name of national security, while others still have been infringed upon to protect the feelings of a certain class of society.

I see and hear all these people who say we should support our troops, for they are out there defending our freedoms. Yet at home we sit back and allow our government to trample all over those supposed freedoms our troops are supposed to be defending. How ironic is that?

I want you to read two quotes, and read them very carefully. They both come from the Supreme Court and the first comes from Justice Robert Jackson, “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. ” (Source: West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943)

The next comes from the Court’s decision in the case of U.S. v Robel, 1967, “It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of the liberties … which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.”

Yet what was/is the Patriot Act if it is not a law which authorizes the government to subvert our rights? What is the NSA’s surveillance of the American people, (which was going on LONG before the war on terror began) if it is not a subversion of our right to privacy?

If our rights are inherent and unalienable, how is it that government, regardless of which branch commits the crime, can decide the extent to which we can exercise those rights? Take for instance the federal government’s ban on assault rifles. How is that even legal when the government was NOT to INFRINGE upon the right to keep and bear arms? Under what authority do they have the power to define what is meant by the word arms? How hard is it for people to understand that we created the Constitution, which then created our government? How hard is it for people to understand that if an entity we created is allowed to own certain categories of weapons, then turn around and deny the individual citizen the right to keep and bear those same weapons that we live under a group of tyrants?

Before man entered into any society, be it a civil or political one, he was free to exercise exclusive judgment as to what he could do with his life, and the extent to which he could defend his property. Man enters into societies for one of two reasons; sometimes a combination of both.

First off, man is a social creature and craves the companionship of others; which causes men to join together in societies of like minded individuals. Secondly, and this is more pertinent to the current discussion, in a state of nature the rights and property of the individual are tenuous, at best. So men enter into a society to better protect their rights and their property; the old saying, there is strength in numbers.
But that strength can also be used to oppress others, or deprive them of their rights or property. So, for liberty to exist, laws must be enacted that protect the rights and property of each individual equally; not benefitting one class of individuals for the benefit of another.

In 1850 the Frenchman Frederic Bastiat wrote a book simply titled, The Law. In it Bastiat writes, “Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?”

That is the law of nature that Locke wrote extensively about in his Second Treatise. But then Bastiat goes on to say, “If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right.”

This is the foundation upon which civil or political societies are formed; for the common defense and protection of our rights and property. Then Bastiat concludes with, “And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.”

Yet here we are in America, living under a system of government of our own creation, which constantly subverts the liberty of those it governs and steals their property, (their income) to fund things which the Constitution prohibits them from doing.

Now if we truly have a system which derives its consent from the people, what if a segment of society does not consent to having its income taken from them then redistributed to those in need, or spent on military operations without an explicit declaration of war by Congress; have we no recourse; are we therefore not slaves to a system we do not give our consent to?

We are NOT a democracy; either a direct or indirect one; where the majority can dictate what laws the minority must adhere to and obey. We are, or we were, a Republic where the rule of law governed all; that law being the Constitution. I’ll be the first to admit that the Constitution is flawed, that it contains fatal weaknesses and loopholes that allow for usurpation and tyranny; but had it been adhered to in the strictest sense we wouldn’t have half the problems we do today.

Congress is the legislative body according to the Constitution, not the Executive Branch, the President himself, nor the Supreme Court. None of those entities can enact law; only Congress. The powers delegated to Congress are found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. One of those powers is the power to lay and collect taxes. But taxation is supposed to be levied to fund ONLY the implementation of laws which are passed in exclusive pursuance of the specific powers that followed the power of taxation; to coin money, to regulate trade, to declare war, etc etc.

Charity is not among those specific powers, yet how much money is given away in the form of subsidies, grants, loans or other forms of aid; all money that is taken from one group of people and given to another. If that is not theft I don’t know what is, for as I understand it, theft is the taking of something without my consent for purposes I do not agree with.

I disagree with the whole idea of an income tax; our government got by just fine without one for almost 125 years. But if we are to have an income tax then the money being taken from my pay had better go towards the implementation of laws that adhere to the specifically enumerated powers delegated to Congress – not the President, not the Supreme Court – but Congress. If it doesn’t then we have a system of government that I no longer consent to; one that is not lawful. If, therefore, the government is acting beyond the scope of its delegated powers, am I actually a criminal if I refuse to pay taxes for things which I do not consent to? Yet how many people have been sent to prison, had their homes and property confiscated by the IRS, for not paying their taxes?

How many other agencies does the government have at its disposal to enforce the laws it passes; and in some instances enact rules and regulations of their own accord? These agencies all exist under the umbrella of the Executive Branch; the DEA, the BATF, the FBI, the Bureau of Land Management, Dept of Homeland Security, etc. etc. Yet they all enforce the law upon us, and in some instances write the laws they enforce.

Congress has no authority, not according to the Constitution anyway, to decide what a person can put into their body. Yet we have the DEA enforcing laws which criminalize the use of drugs like marijuana and LSD. The Congress has no authority to regulate and protect the environment, yet we have the Environmental Protection Agency who does just that, and has the power to penalize those who disobey their rules and regulations. The Congress only has the power to excercise jurisdiction over the land that is used for the seat of government and all forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-yards and other needful Buildings, yet they have established the National Park System and the Forestry Service which can penalize people for violating laws they had no authority to enact.

All these agencies are funded by your tax dollars, and all these agencies exceed the specific powers delegated to your government. And by your continued ignorance of the powers given your government you are tacitly giving your consent to being tyrannized and enslaved.

That’s why voting doesn’t matter; no matter how well intentioned those you vote for might be. What president or congressman in your lifetime has proposed the dismantling of the DEA, the BATF, the NSA, the National Park System, the FED, or any of the other unconstitutional entities that comprise the enforcement arm of the Executive Branch?

The last time a president did that was when Kennedy threatened to diminish the power of the CIA, if not dismantle it entirely; and he ended up getting a bullet through the head for it.

Politicians come and go but the entities within government that oppress you, deprive you of your rights, your liberty and your property, continue to exist from administration change to administration change. People focus all their attention upon the election of a single man/woman; a president, or possibly a law that Congress is attempting to enact which the people find completely unacceptable; but they ignore the fact that government, as an entity, is sucking the lifeblood, [liberty], from them through its enforcement of unjust and unconstitutional laws.

In 1775 Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” He did not say, “Give me lower taxes, student loans, corporate welfare, peace and security, or I’ll throw a hissy fit.” The preservation of your liberty should be the sole reason for which your government exists, and if it isn’t, and you support that government, they you are consenting to your own bondage.

If enough people would just understand that then maybe we could begin to make a change in this country; but until then we remain slaves to the entity we created to be our servant. You see, what distinguishes me from most people is that I recognize that I am a slave, and I obey their laws under duress. You, on the other hand, are complicit in enslaving yourself because you are ignorant, or apathetic, and you do not seek to help others see that they hold the true power in this country; and if they would only exercise it then we might be able to restrain our government and return it to its rightful purpose.

But so long as people care more about which party controls government; what the outcome of this weekend’s sporting event is; who is winning some national talent contest, or what the current sales are on QVC, then nothing is going to change.

Our Founders risked all that they had and all that they were to obtain their liberty; if we want it back we are going to have to be willing to do the same. It won’t be given back to us from those who enslave us; we are going to have to take it back from them. It won’t come easy, and it won’t come without sacrifice, but as Thomas Paine said, “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.