Prior to 1979 my life was pretty straightforward; I went to work during the daytime and I looked for someone to drink beer and smoke weed with at night – in other words the typical life of a 19 yr old stoner. But then the California voters passed a ballot measure that cut the funding for the job I held and I found myself unemployed with no viable skills; so I enlisted in the Air Force just for the steady paycheck it offered.
Joining the Air Force may have been the best thing that happened to me, because it got me out of that rut I had been in. But I began noticing something on the times I returned home to visit my family; many of my old friends did not have the same world view that I had developed after living in other states, or other countries, and we began to drift apart.
I suppose that is a natural consequence of experiencing things that others have not, you simply don’t have much in common with those you used to call friends. However, it doesn’t take extensive glob trotting for someone to develop differing ideas and beliefs than those held by their peers; that could come about by the acquisition of knowledge that others refuse to seek out, or accept.
As I have gained new knowledge I have found that my old circle of friends has all but vanished; for they no longer want to be around me due to my incessant talking of politics and history. I have also found that most of the people I come into contact daily have no desire to discuss things of any real importance; instead choosing to discuss football, what’s on TV, or the latest concert they went to.
There is also something else that I’ve discovered; that being that if I do find people who want to talk about these subjects there is a line that most of them won’t cross. That line is different for each person, but it’s always there. It doesn’t matter how well armed you are with facts, trying to get through to people when they’ve come to their own personal line is like trying to breach a castle armed only with a Nerf gun; you’re just not going to get through to them.
The reason I said all that is because what I’m about to say may sound pretty radical to some, and be completely beyond the ability of others to understand. But that’s fine, the truth finds a way of finding those whose minds are ready for it, and it’s just my job to write things down according to the knowledge I have gained and then send it out into the ether in the hopes that it reaches them. All I can hope for is that, if you are reading this, that you do so with an open mind and a mind willing to ponder things that may be beyond your ability to wrap your heads around at first. But that’s how we all grow, by pushing ourselves beyond our limits and our comfort zones. If we can’t do that, then we’re all screwed anyway and what’s the use in being human?
So, with all that said, shall we begin?
It wasn’t that long ago that I was of the belief that the Constitution was a fine document and all that we needed to do to fix this country was to elect the right people into office; people who took their oaths to support and defend that document seriously. It wasn’t too long before that that I was a staunch Republican, thinking that the Democrats were pure evil and the Republicans could do no wrong.
Ten years ago had someone told me that the Constitution was a piece of crap, those most likely would have been fighting words; akin to someone telling me my mother was a whore. But now, if someone were to ask me my opinion of the Constitution they’d most likely get a response like, “The Constitution is a charter that sanctions crime, while providing the victims of those crimes the opportunity to choose the criminals who will victimize them.”
So I can fully understand why that particular sentence might cause people to become upset; because ten years ago I would have been upset had someone said that to me. However, as the saying goes, “That was then, this is now.” I think it would be fair to say that I’ve undergone a pretty radical transformation in the way I see things. But I wouldn’t call it radical, not exactly, as that implies something dangerous. I would be more likely to say that I see things with more clarity now, as things are starting to make more sense to me than they did before. I’m not saying I’m some wizened old geezer with all the answers, but I will say that I’m further down that path than the average American voter.
People have come to expect pretty radical and in your face statements from me, but I think that even that one might push a few unwanted buttons, as it threatens their belief in a system that they have come to believe is necessary for their own safety and security; and any threat to that system is a threat to them. But I think, if you’ll but bear with me, that I can prove that the adoption of this system was a bad decision from the get go.
The problem, at least as I see it, is that far too many people view the effectiveness of their government from a political party viewpoint; either it is doing things that follow their party’s platform or it isn’t; they never stop to ask themselves what purpose government should serve.
I think that regardless of what our partisan ideologies dictate we can all agree upon one thing; that our current system of government came into existence in 1789 with the ratification of the Constitution. If we can all agree on that then I think I can move forward without further ado.
Are you aware that in 1776, besides seeking their independence from Great Britain, the individual Colonies, (for they were not yet States), were engaged in the process of establishing systems of government for themselves. That is one of the reasons Thomas Jefferson was hesitant to accept the task of writing the Declaration of Independence, because he was also engaged in assisting in the establishment of a constitution for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
It was during this time frame that the North Carolina Provincial Congress issued a resolution which, in part, asked that John Adams offer his suggestions for establishing a system of government and the drafting of a constitution for their State/Colony. Adams had somewhat of an ego, and I’m pretty sure that this request only inflated it a bit more, as he was more than willing to offer his thoughts on the matter. His response has come to be known as Thoughts on Government, and in it Adams says, “We ought to consider what is the end of government before we determine which is the best form.”
I think people fail to recognize that the government outlined by the Constitution is the second system of government this country has had since it became free and independent; that there was another one that preceded it. So if we changed systems of government, did we also change the purpose for which governments are instituted among men?
One might say, “Neal, if you want to know the purpose of government you need go no further than the Preamble to the Constitution.” At first glance that might sound like a satisfactory answer, but upon closer examination one might find that the Preamble only states the purpose for which this particular system of government was established; and even that could be a complete lie designed to get people to accept the proposed system being offered them.
If one truly wants to know the purpose for which governments are established they must look to something that predates the government we have today; something like the document that established America as a free and independent country- the Declaration of Independence.
Before I get to that I’d like to take a few moments discussing rights. I’ve heard people say that they know their civil rights. That may be true, but do they know that there are different kinds of rights? Did they know that there are civil rights AND Creator given rights, and that most all of their civil rights are derived from their Creator given rights? Civil Rights are those which are derived as man’s being part of a civil society; they are granted by man, to man, through some sort of law or decree. Creator given rights are derived from a higher authority, God, and are beyond the ability of man to legislate away or deny.
The Declaration of Independence declares that our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are Creator given rights, and that the purpose of government is to secure those rights…not destroy them. It also says that government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, and that when government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established it is our right, OUR DUTY to throw off such government and establish one which will better secure those rights for us.
The passage I’m referring to states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — 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.”
Those words still get me choked up every time I read them; and any freedom loving individual should have the same reaction to them as I do. Yet I think the most important words are the first seven, “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”
Self-evident is not a phrase that is used much these days, so I wonder if people know what it means. What it means is that something is obvious; that is beyond doubt. Therefore, if our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come from our Creator, how is it that we allow a system created by men to violate those rights? Furthermore, if the stated purpose of government is to secure those rights, then what name would you assign to a government that fails to serve that purpose?
So those rights enshrined by the Declaration of Independence are not Civil Rights, they are Creator endowed, or Natural Rights as they are often called. Thomas Paine described Natural Rights as, “Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others.”
Natural Rights are those rights you would have if you were the sole living inhabitant on the planet. If you were the only person alive on the planet you would be free to do and say whatever you pleased, as there would be no one else to stop you. However, at the same time you, and you alone would bear the sole responsibility for your own existence; meaning it would be up to you to provide yourself with shelter, food, and a means of defending yourself against all the threats nature posed to you. Should you fail in your responsibility to do these things, you would perish; as you should, for your life, your survival, IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.
The problem with Natural Rights arises due to the fact that we are not alone on the planet; there are other human beings who also have the same Natural Rights, and these human beings often do things that violate the rights of others. This happens because people do not adhere to the Law of Nature; that law that governs all beings in a state of nature. One of these Laws of Nature states, “… that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our’s.”
What that basically means is that if you leave me alone in my ability to fully exercise my Natural Rights and I’ll leave you alone to do the same.
In 1772 Samuel Adams wrote the following concerning our Natural Rights, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.”
Read that again, as it is crucial that you understand what Adams was saying. He not only said that we are endowed with the right to Life, Liberty and Property, BUT we are also endowed with the right to defend those other rights to the best of our ability. So, if someone threatens my rights, then I have the right to defend them, and the person threatening them is the one committing an act of aggression, not I for defending what is naturally mine to defend.
More than 3/4 century later a Frenchman by the name of Frederic Bastiat would reaffirm that in his book The Law, “Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?”
Which brings us to government. Bastiat also says in his book The Law, “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.” That is simply another way of saying what the Declaration of Independence said, that governments are instituted among men to secure our rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Can you not see the similarity of thinking between the two? Both suggest that government exists to secure the Natural Rights of all men. In fact another man well known for his devotion to the cause of American Independence, Thomas Paine, had this to say about both civil societies and government itself, “Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights.”
Now you see why I spent so much time explaining the difference between Natural Rights and Civil Rights; for our Civil Rights are all based upon certain Natural Rights; meaning that the laws enacted by society or government should have but one purpose, the codification of law to protect the Natural Rights of all men.
Conflict arises though due to one simple fact; both society and government is comprised of men. If government could be held to the simple task of securing our rights then that government would be one that is loved by all. As Bastiat said regarding such a government, “If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable— whatever its political form might be.”
Unfortunately, as man is weak, and seeks a life of leisure, (often at the expense of the effort and toil of others), societies and governments often become engines that oppress some for the benefit of others. That is why James Madison said the following in Federalist 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Let us examine that a bit to see what it means.
Angels, according to my understanding of them, are pure virtuous beings whose sole purpose is to carry out the will of God. Therefore, if men were, in fact angels, then they would respect the God-given rights of all their fellow men and there would be no need for government.
Then, in considering the second part of Madison’s statement, if angels were to govern man, there would be no need for any kind of controls to be placed upon the laws government could enact, because all those laws would serve the purpose of defending our God-given rights.
But angels, unfortunately, we are not, which is why Madison preceded that statement with, “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?” Sometime in, or around the year 1877 James Garfield, our 20th President, said the following, “Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”
I would modify that to the following, “If government itself is corrupt, if it seeks to deprive man of their Natural Rights, it is because man himself has become corrupt and evil, seeking to use government as a tool to oppress and subjugate his fellow men. If that time ever comes, government will become a mirror into the hearts and souls of the governed and show them their true inner nature.”
The problem arises when there are those living in a society who both understand what their Natural Rights are, yet are subjugated by a system they no longer consent to. When an entire system has been erected that subjugates and oppresses the freedom loving individuals of a society, it becomes impossible for them to live according to Natural Law; instead they must live according to the dictates and passions of a majority, or the will of tyrants.
To explain what I mean by that, we have A) government which enacts laws that violate our God-given rights; B) a system of enforcers, federal, state and local, who enforce the laws upon the people regardless of whether those laws protect or deny our ability to exercise our Natural Rights, and finally we have C) a system of courts that do not recognize Natural Law; rather they uphold the Civil Laws being enacted by man, regardless of whether those laws protect or deny our Natural Rights.
The entire system is rigged against the freedom loving people of this country, and there appears to be no escaping it other than death. Yet the average American believes they are free. They only believe that because they have not attempted to exercise true freedom. Had they done that, they would have found how un-free they really are.
-Try building a domicile, (house), without permission from government.
-Try taking of Nature’s bounty to feed your family without obtaining a hunting or fishing license.
-Try carrying a firearm on your person for your own defense outside your home without a permit.
Those are just a few of the things you cannot do without the permission of your government, and if you attempt to do any of them without permission you will quickly find that you are not as free as you thought you were; as you will quickly find the enforcers swoop down upon you, and toss you into the system that upholds the laws enacted by man to oppress their fellow human beings.
There are three categories of people living in this country, and they are described as follows. There are those who neither care one way or the other what their government does so long as they are free to seek entertainment and live relatively comfortable lives. These I call the politically ignorant, or Boobus Americanus as my good friend Michael Gaddy calls them; for regardless of their lack of concern for what their government does, the laws the government enacts still affect them, as do the taxes it imposes upon their pay.
Then there are those who participate in, and support the system, regardless of how corrupt and evil it has become. These are those who vote; those who fall in line behind the political parties that offer up candidates for them to choose from so that the system continues on with business as usual. These candidates run on different sounding platforms, yet the government itself never seems to improve as to the restoration or protection of our Creator given rights. They are no less slaves to the system than are the politically ignorant. In fact, they are worse, for by their vote they give their consent to the system that enslaves them.
Then there is the final category; those who recognize the system for what it is, and have chosen to no longer support it or participate in trying to work within it to fix it. We realize that government is beyond repair, that it has grown so monstrous that the only solution is to tear it down and start anew; but that will only work to restore freedom and liberty to this country if we become a majority – and I don’t see that happening anytime in the immediate future. So things will go on as usual, with government growing stronger and your freedom continuing to be diminished, until you wake up one day wondering what the hell happened.
The sad thing is, I don’t think people will even wonder what happened to their freedom; they will just accept that servitude is the way they were born to exist. A part of that is due to the fact that the education system across this country has failed in teaching people what true freedom was; so they don’t yearn for it like some of us do.
The other problem is that freedom comes at a cost, and there are some who prefer comfortable servitude over the cost of being free. Those who championed independence in 1776 understood the cost of freedom, and they were willing to pay it to obtain it.
Patrick Henry said the following about it, “Give me liberty or give me death.” The signers of our Declaration of Independence all swore, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
And of course, Jefferson once wrote, “…what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.”
If words like that frighten you, cause you to shy away from what I’m saying, then I can’t count you as among those who love and cherish liberty. If words like that cause you discomfort, then all I can say about you is that you love bondage and servitude more than you do the animating contest for liberty; for that’s what this is, a contest between good and evil, and so long as you remain quiet in the face of the evil that our government has become, evil will prevail.
That is why I no longer support nor defend the Constitution. Had that document been established to preserve our liberty there would have been ironclad safeguards against the abuse of power by the government it was establishing and the preservation of our Natural Rights. As it was written there were none.
As the products of a faulty educational system, you have not been taught the truth regarding your precious Constitution. It took me nearly 40 years after graduating from that system of indoctrination to learn the truth about the Constitution, and that ONLY happened because I sought the truth out for myself; it wasn’t handed to me on a silver platter like I’m handing it to you – I had to work to find it.
For more than half of my life I did not know that there was a concerted effort to block the ratification of the Constitution. But upon reading the thoughts of those opposed to its ratification I learned that most of the things they feared would happen, have happened; while most of the promises made by those who supported the Constitution have proven to be lies.
We are taught in school about the wonderful system of checks and balances built into our Constitution to keep each branch within their specific domain of power. Yet Patrick Henry railed against them, saying, “There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?”
Furthermore, any system designed by man, accountable to man, bestowed with the power to protect and defend man’s Natural Rights, should have a means by which the creators can punish those who abuse the power delegated to them. Where in the Constitution, if I may be so bold to ask, is that power found?
It simply does not exist, as Patrick Henry once again explains, “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.”
Which is why I no longer support that document, nor the government it established. I prefer to place the preservation of my liberty upon sounder footing than the chance that those you elect are virtuous and decent, and will enact laws to protect my rights. I think the history of your government is proof enough that a government without the means of being punished has proven time and time again that your rights, that my rights, are of no concern to it.
So why, in the name of all that is holy and sacred, do you still support it; participate in choosing people to fill the seats of power within it? Is it hope that drives you to persist, to not abandon all support for a system that oppresses you?
Once again I quote from Patrick Henry in his epic speech of March 23, 1775, “…it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”
I see what is happening to the country I love and all I can do is hang my head in shame at how readily people are surrendering all their freedom to a system that enslaves them. If you recall, early on in this rant I asked if we could all agree that this system of government came about due to the fact that the Constitution was ratified in 1789. Do you recall me saying that? Good, then if our government is this corrupt and evil entity that sucks up our freedom, then the cause lies at the fact that the Constitution outlined a system in which those who loved their liberty could not defend it against the entity they were creating.
If the Declaration of Independence is truly the foundation upon which any system of government should be built in America, then the government outlined by the Constitution has failed to live up to its intended purpose of preserving our freedom, and Lysander Spooner’s words ring true, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
And there you have it, my argument in defense of why I said, “The Constitution is a charter that sanctions crime, while providing the victims of those crimes the opportunity to choose the criminals who will victimize them.”
The things I’ve said might be too deep for some of you to comprehend, but I don’t blame you for not grasping them; I blame those who have taken control of our educational systems; for they were supposed to teach you how to think, how to reason, how to analyze facts and form conclusions based upon them. Instead, what they’ve done is indoctrinated you into accepting a system that enslaves you, and taught you not to question its authority.
As H.L. Mencken said about education, “The most erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else.”
So why is it that I can see these things, even though I am a product of the same system of indoctrination that you are? I can’t honestly answer that, as I have no idea what it is about me that sets me apart from those who willingly submit to subjugation. All I can do is quote from a book written two hundred years before Jefferson put his quill to parchment and wrote the Declaration of Independence, “There are always a few, better endowed than others, who feel the weight of the yoke and cannot restrain themselves from attempting to shake it off: these are the men who never become tamed under subjection and who always — like Ulysses on land and sea, constantly seeking the smoke of his chimney — cannot prevent themselves from peering about for their natural privileges and from remembering their ancestors and their former ways. … These are the ones who, having good minds of their own, have further trained them by study and learning. Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would invent it. For them, slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised.”
That’s all I can say about it, it simply isn’t part of my DNA to accept slavery, let alone to participate in choosing my own slave masters. You can choose to live your life as you please; even if that means submitting to an ungrateful master. The sad thing is, under our system, if a majority of the people submit to that system willingly, it affects the lives of those who only wish to be left alone; free from the restrictive power of people who think they know what’s best for me.
And if that isn’t servitude and oppression, I don’t know what is. Just goes to show you, our system of government wasn’t established on the principles of freedom after all, it was a system established to subjugate and control the governed at the expense of their freedom; and that my friends is what our founders called tyranny and oppression.
Have a pleasant day; now go and take a few deep breaths; your anxiety will soon pass and you’ll return to your comfort zones and forget everything I’ve just said that caused you all this distress.