By What Right …?

Aside from the President there are 9 Justices of the Supreme Court, 435 members in the House of Representatives, 100 Senators, and a Vice-President; totaling 546 individuals. The current census data states that there are over 230 million people living in this country. What makes you think that those 546 people can be fully informed as to the specific needs and desires of over 230 million people; and how is it that these 546 people come to have any authority over our lives in the first place?

But Neal, they are the government. To which I reply, so what! What if I was to gather a bunch of my friends together and form a club and call that club GOVERNMENT? Would that entitle my little club to pass rules that you MUST obey? Would it entitle us to hire goons with guns to come into your home or lives and force you at gunpoint to obey our rules?

But Neal, we vote for them; which means we are consenting to their authority. No, you vote for them; I don’t vote. So by what authority does government impose its will upon me, or by what authority does it act as proxies to impose YOUR will upon me?

I’m serious, I want you to pause right now and think long and hard about that question; by what authority can government enact a single law, and then hire thugs with guns to force you and me to obey that law?

You may not be aware of this but there are roughly 18,000 different law enforcement agencies in the United States; spread out between local law enforcement all the way to federal agencies vested with the power to enforce federal laws. Although there are no real statistics as to how many hired guns the government has at its disposal, estimates place the number of law enforcers at between 750,000 to 850,000 people with the authority to force you to comply with the law.

So again I will ask you, by what authority do these people exert the power to pass and enforce laws upon us?

In 1791 Thomas Paine wrote a book entitled The Rights of Man. In that book Paine states, “All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.” Therefore, either we as a people delegated that authority to them, or they assumed that authority for themselves.

In the first case we must consent to the authority of those who govern over us, and those who enforce the laws they pass. In the other case, that authority was assumed without our consent; meaning we are subjects, or slaves to those who wield that authority.

If the first case is true, then there must be some document proving that we, at some point in time, consented to the authority of others to enact and enforce laws on our behalf. That document exists and it is called the Constitution.

Continuing from Paine’s book The Rights of Man, we read the following about the nature of a constitution, “A constitution is not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has not an ideal, but a real existence; and wherever it cannot be produced in a visible form, there is none. A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government, and a government is only the creature of a constitution. The constitution of a country is not the act of its government, but of the people constituting its government. It is the body of elements, to which you can refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the principles on which the government shall be established, the manner in which it shall be organised, the powers it shall have, the mode of elections, the duration of Parliaments, or by what other name such bodies may be called; the powers which the executive part of the government shall have; and in fine, everything that relates to the complete organisation of a civil government, and the principles on which it shall act, and by which it shall be bound. A constitution, therefore, is to a government what the laws made afterwards by that government are to a court of judicature. The court of judicature does not make the laws, neither can it alter them; it only acts in conformity to the laws made: and the government is in like manner governed by the constitution.” (My emphasis)

Do you understand the significance of that last sentence? What that means is that the people, as sovereign individuals, entered into a compact with one another to establish a form of government. These individuals wrote a set of rules which laid out the form this government shall take, the powers it shall exercise, and the powers that shall be withheld from it.

The Constitution is a law, written and ratified by the consent of the people, which tells our government what it can and cannot do. Yet the government has over 3/4 million law enforcers at their disposal to enforce whatever laws they pass. Where are our law enforcers who perform the same function in regards to how well our government obeys the law that governs its actions?

In 1788 Patrick Henry warned of this deficiency in the Constitution, stating, “But in this, there is no real actual punishment for the grossest maladministration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law — for there is no existing law to do it. What — will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.”

We certainly cannot punish them. Can you imagine what would happen if a bunch or armed citizens, dressed in riot gear, stormed the offices of their elected representatives and drug them out in handcuffs? Aside from the media and public outrage, what court would hear a case in which an elected official was accused of not adhering to the Constitution; what prosecuting attorney would try it?

So tell me, with a straight face that is, how we have any authority to enforce our law upon government, while at the same time justifying our government’s ability to hire as many jack booted thugs as are required to enforce their laws upon us. Are you so obtuse that you cannot see that we live under a system of government that has the almost unlimited authority to impose its will upon us, while at the same time we have absolutely no authority to ensure that it is representing us according to the law that governs its actions?

I don’t know about you, but that sure sounds like tyranny to me.

You people, and when I say you people I am referring to those who vote, consent to government by participating in the election of those who will govern. But sometimes you do not consent to the things government does; like when the opposing party passes a law you disagree with. So, in effect, you are consenting to the idea of government; that it is necessary for the well being of the country, and for your own well being and security.

Whatever you want to believe, the truth is that our government was formed when the States chose to ratify the proposed Constitution in 1789. Prior to that the government, as we know it today, did not exist and therefore it had no authority whatsoever. It was only by the consent of the people alive in 1789 that your government came into existence, and began to exercise any authority over the people.

But let’s discuss this so-called consent for a minute. There were some, like Patrick Henry, who fervently opposed this Constitution; yet it was ratified nonetheless without his consent. So, does that mean that men like Patrick Henry became slaves to a system they did not consent to?

And another thing, although I fear you grow weary of me repeatedly bringing up the Civil War, but what if any group of people decides to revoke their consent to this form of government; can they resume their prior status as being free of its authority, or must they exist in perpetuity as slaves to a system they no longer agree with?

I want to share a few quotes with you now regarding this very subject. The first and second both come from Paine’s book The Rights of Man, while the last comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to James Madison.

The first quote reads, “There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the “end of time,” or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void. Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow.”

The next states, “If any generation of men ever possessed the right of dictating the mode by which the world should be governed for ever, it was the first generation that existed; and if that generation did it not, no succeeding generation can show any authority for doing it, nor can set any up. The illuminating and divine principle of the equal rights of man (for it has its origin from the Maker of man) relates, not only to the living individuals, but to generations of men succeeding each other. Every generation is equal in rights to generations which preceded it, by the same rule that every individual is born equal in rights with his contemporary.”

The final one from Jefferson’s letter to Madison says, “The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be transmitted I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, “that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;” that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society.”

What do those quotes mean to you, if anything? What they mean to me is that, although one generation of men may have agreed to give their consent to a system of government, it does not mean that my consent is taken for granted.

When the Constitution was ratified there were approximately 2.5 million inhabitants in the United States. Do you think each and every one of them was consulted as to whether or not they agreed with the proposed system of government? What if they had been and refused to give their consent to it? Would that have meant that the new government could not exercise any authority over them, or would they be subjected to its authority without their consent; making them slaves to a system they did not consent to?

I know these are deep thoughts, and I hope I don’t overload your publicly indoctrinated minds with them, but I feel they are questions worth pondering – that is if you value your freedom and the future you are to leave for your children and grandchildren.

Let me ask you something. Have you ever been asked whether or not you consent to this system of government that we have today? What if someone were to conduct a nationwide poll asking that very question and the results proved that a majority of the people DID NOT consent to the existing government? Would that mean that the government would lose its authority; be powerless to enact and enforce any laws? Or would the government just keep on keeping on; passing new laws and hiring more thugs to enforce them?

Not once in my life have I ever been asked whether or not I consent to our government. I have, upon enlisting in the military, sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution. But the two are distinctly different things; by swearing an oath to support the Constitution I am not tacitly giving my unspoken consent to the government to do anything it please; only those things that the Constitution explicitly authorizes it to do.

Furthermore, not only have I never given my explicit consent to this form of government, I have never been asked whether or not I consent to the Constitution itself – have you? We take it for granted that the Constitution exists and therefore the government it outlines has the authority to enact laws. But is that consent perpetual; meaning passed on from generation to generation without their having the ability to end the succession?

People today condemn the South during the Civil War because they believe it stood for slavery. Yet can it not be said that these same people, (by virtue of their saying we must consent to and obey the laws passed by government), condemning those who do not consent to this particular government to a life of bondage to a system that they do not consent to?

No man has the right to subject another man to bondage and servitude of any kind. Therefore, no man, or group of men, have the authority to bind anyone to a system that they feel deprives them of their rights and their freedom. To do so is to say that you believe in putting people into bondage to a system which deprives them of their freedom, and their income by way of confiscatory taxation.

Is that not the very definition of slavery and duress; forcing someone to do something against their will, or compelling them to sacrifice their freedom for your benefit? Yet you proclaim that this is the land of the free; while at the same time saying that I MUST consent to a system of government, and of laws, that violate my freedom.

The hypocrisy of that belief is so thick that you couldn’t cut through it with a chain saw.

Your consent for this system is taken for granted for two reasons. The first is that you vote. By voting you are telling government that you believe in the idea of government because you are choosing who will sit in the seats of power within it. The second reason is because you willfully obey whatever laws your government enacts. By blindly obeying the law you are saying you agree that the laws government passes are constitutional and just.

I used to vote, with ‘used to’ being the operative statement. I no longer vote because I have come to realize that regardless of who I voted for government was no longer adhering to the Constitution, and that by voting I was giving my consent to tyrants. I want y’all to read something by Lysander Spooner, and this is especially so for those who vote for one candidate only because they believe that candidate isn’t as bad as the other one. Read the following and then I’ll get back to you:

In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two.

Did you grasp what was said by Spooner in that quote, or did it slip right past you? Here, let me sum it up for you. When you vote you are doing so to prevent you from being subjected to the will and authority of those you disagree with; choosing to elect people who will enact laws that those you disagree with must obey; making THEM slaves to your position.

By participating in the election process you become enslaved to it, and to the system itself – you are giving your unspoken consent to be governed regardless of whether or not government does the things it is supposed to be doing.

By voting you are saying you consenting to the belief that government has the authority to enact laws that deprive you of your liberty and your rights. While you may not agree with the laws being passed that violate those rights that does not equate to resisting any laws that do just that.
That very idea is what distinguishes, and sets the people of America apart from those who lived back in 1776. Those who lived in 1776 did not consent to their existing system of government, but their lack of consent was not merely an ideological belief, it was put into action by their resisting the laws that violated their rights.

Those we call the patriots of the American Revolution did more than just publicly complaining about the laws their government was enacting, they committed acts of civil disobedience; going so far as to take up arms to resist the authority of the Kings ‘lawmen’. Offices of government employees were vandalized; the homes of government officials were ransacked and looted; and in some instances officials were assaulted or tarred and feathered.

You see what sets the patriots of 1776 apart from the people of America today is, they did not argue over whether or not their party was going to have the power to tyrannize and oppress those belonging to the ‘other’ party; they argued over whether government as an entity had the authority to enact any law that violated their rights as freemen.

Where has that spirit of resistance to tyranny gone? All I see is people arguing and bickering over who gets to tyrannize the other; while those of us who do not consent to the system itself are left suffering under the policies of both political parties, and without any recourse or redress for our grievances.

You say that there is no slavery in America anymore, that Abraham Lincoln ended it with the Civil War? Well take a good look at me or in the mirror if you choose; you’ll see a slave staring right back at you.

If freedom is of any concern to you then you will stop playing the game by voting for who gets to control the beast that is our government and you will begin to seriously start considering the option left open to us in the Declaration of Independence, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Until that happens the American voters are like a cat chasing its own tail; running around in circles going nowhere. You cannot defend the principles of freedom and liberty when, at the same time, you support one party or the other. Either you serve liberty, or you serve the system that destroys it.

And by what right does anyone have the authority to tell people like me that we MUST support and obey a system that we do not consent to; one which deprives us of our God-given right to be free? Try answering that while at the same time telling me you don’t believe in slavery. It will be fun watching you trip over your own tongue.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to By What Right …?

  1. Pingback: Mornin’ Coffee with Bonnie: May 9, 2019 | The Federal Observer

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.