Without making this a religious sermon, man came into being on this planet and it was upon each man’s with, motivation, and skill that he carved out an existence for himself. The harder man worked, or the more skillful he was, the more he prospered. That which we create through the toil of our hands, or our minds, is ours, and it is called property.
Yet property is not restricted to tangible things that we can touch; such as our homes, our clothing, and the vehicles we drive to get around. Our property also includes things such as our thoughts, along with our ability to speak them freely. Yet there are other things that are our property; those being our rights. I’ve already mentioned the freedom of speech, but we also have the right to be armed for our own defense and the right to retreat into our homes and be free of unreasonable searches and intrusions upon our privacy.
In a perfect state of nature, free of any form of government, all mans wants and needs are his responsibility for providing for himself. In a perfect state of nature, man’s very existence depends not only upon his ability to provide the things he wants and needs, it also depends upon his ability/willingness to defend his life and his property against attacks made upon them by others.
That is known as the right of self-defense, or self-preservation. In 1772, fifteen years before our constitution was written, Samuel Adams declared that the fundamental right of self-preservation belonged to all men inhabiting the British Colonies in America. In a report to the Committee of Correspondence for the Town of Boston, Adams wrote, “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.”
The key word, or phrase, in that statement is Natural Rights. What that means is that those rights are not granted us by other men, or by parchments written by men; they belong to us due to the fact that we are human beings; they cannot be taken from us or denied without therefore violating Natural Law; which, in a just society, is the source of all civil law.
In his book The Rights of Man Thomas Paine explains that principle thusly, “Hitherto we have spoken only (and that but in part) of the natural rights of man. We have now to consider the civil rights of man, and to show how the one originates from the other. 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.”
We are told, as found in the preamble to the constitution, that among the purposes of our system of government are the securing of the blessing of liberty and the providing of justice. It is important that you understand what both those things are if you are to make a valid determination of whether your government is serving the purposes it was promised it would when it was first presented to the people for their consideration.
Pure liberty is the freedom of each man to do as they please, regardless of whether or not their actions harm others, or deprive them of their rights. But pure liberty does not conform to Natural Law; for as Locke said in his Second Treatise, “But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”
Therefore, what we have under a state of nature is rightful liberty, which Jefferson describes as follows, “…rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”
Therefore, if these equal rights, if this liberty, are Natural Rights, then any system of government that provides justice must conform to Natural Law; which states that man has a right to life, to liberty, and to property; along with the right and ability to defend those things against all who would attack, or infringe upon them.
There are many types of justice, but for our discussion I will focus solely on commutative justice; which refers to the interaction of people as individuals. Bouvier describes commutative justice as: that virtue whose object it is to render to every one what belongs to him, as nearly as may be, or that which governs contracts.
Therefore, commutative justice is served when each individual is free to enjoy the full exercise of their rights to life, liberty and property; along with the ability to defend them to the best of their ability. If that be true, then any law, ordinance, or statute that deprives an individual of their right to life, liberty or property, or their right to defend them against attack, that law or ordinance violates commutative justice.
As individuals, as sovereigns, we are free to live our lives as we choose; without the beliefs or needs of others restraining us in our actions; so long as we do not harm another in their right to life, liberty and property – that is liberty.
-Therefore, in a truly free society I am free to own no guns, own a single gun, or own hundreds of them; so long as I do not use them to deny you your life, your liberty, or your property.
-In a truly free society I am free to not worship God, or to worship Him in the manner that I see fit; so long as I do not force you to follow in my faith.
-In a truly free society I am free to put whatever substance I want in my body; so long as I do not steal from you to pay for those substances, or pay for any ill effects those substances might cause me.
-In a truly free society I am free to either have, or not have, health insurance; so long as when I become ill I do not expect you to pay for my treatment, or expect the doctor to treat me free of charge.
-In a truly free society I am free to think, to speak, and to display images that I support or believe in; so long as I do not bring harm to your person or your reputation; for that would be slander or libel; depending upon whether my words be spoken or written.
-In a free society I have the right to work, and to enjoy the full benefit of the fruits of my labor, (my income), without it being confiscated from me through taxation, so that it can then be handed out to others who have not worked to earn it.
-In a free society I am free to criticize my government, or individuals within it, without fear of being arrested or placed on a watch list that might lead to my incarceration or see my other rights denied me; such as is the case with Red Flag Laws or terrorist watch lists which place the names of people who openly oppose the government’s actions on lists; calling them ‘possible’ domestic terrorists.
-In a free society the government does not monitor us with camera’s spy planes, drones, and a wide array of electronic surveillance equipment that monitors our electronic communications between each other.
I could probably go on and on with the list of things that people should be allowed to do in a free society, but are not allowed to do in society as it exists today, but I would probably bore you. The point I’m trying to make is, WE ARE NOT FREE!
My God people, are you so beholden to your political party, or certain candidates you have elected to office, to see that no matter who you vote for your freedom continues to diminish; that government is not securing to you the blessing of liberty, nor is it providing justice for you? Or, are you just simply too caught up in your day to day affairs to care about something as dry and boring as a study of how and why systems of government come into being, and the purposes they are created to serve?
Plato once said, “The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” What can be more important than your freedom; your ability to enjoy the blessings of life, liberty and property without some idiot politician passing a law saying you can’t do this, you can’t do that?
If you truly believe that God created man, and that God granted man certain unalienable rights, then how can you support a system of government, (regardless of whether it is populated primarily with Republicans or Democrats), when that system is hell bent on destroying the liberty it was established to secure for you?
When America was considering independence from Great Britain, Thomas Jefferson was asked to write a declaration, stating their intent, and their reasons for doing so – which he did. In that declaration Jefferson writes that all men are created equal, and that they have certain unalienable rights, granted them by their Creator; that among those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Yet you say that Jefferson was a hypocrite, because he owned slaves and he didn’t mention anything about how slaves were not granted the same equality as the white men were. Is that so? Well, apparently you’ve not read Jefferson’s first draft of the Declaration of Independence, where he says, “he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die.”
Now this passage was edited out of the document you have been taught about in school, and you’re probably thinking it was because those evil Southerners wanted to keep their slaves, and his wording would have brought shame to them. Well that my partially be true, but did you know that the majority of the slaves that were brought into America and sold in the slave markets were transported into bondage by Northern shipping interests; primarily in the state of Rhode Island; along with others such as Massachusetts. Had Jefferson’s wording remained it would have condemned them as much as it condemned those who purchased the slaves from them; so they edited it out and let slavery persist.
Then along came the Constitutional Convention, and the document many claim was inspired by God. If slavery was so evil, why didn’t they put an end to it by including wording that would have abolished it in America?
Luther Martin, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from the State of Maryland, spoke very openly about this in his essay entitled Genuine Information, “This report was adopted by a majority of the convention, but not without considerable opposition.–It was said, that we had but just assumed a place among independent nations, in consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great-Britain to enslave us; that this opposition was grounded upon the preservation of those rights, to which God and Nature had entitled us, not in particular, but in common with all the rest of mankind–That we had appealed to the Supreme being for his assistance, as the God of freedom, who could not but approve our efforts to preserve the rights which he had thus imparted to his creatures; that now, when we scarcely had risen from our knees, from supplicating his aid and protection–in forming our government over a free people, a government formed pretendedly on the principles of liberty and for its preservation,–in that government to have a provision, not only putting it out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade, but even encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States power and influence in the union, in proportion as they cruelly and wantonly sport with the rights of their fellow creatures, ought to be considered as a solemn mockery of, and insult to, that God whose protection we had then implored, and could not fail to hold us up in detestation, and render us contemptible to every true friend of liberty in the world. It was said, it ought to be considered that national crimes can only be, and frequently are, punished in this world by national punishments, and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him, who is equal Lord of all, and who views with equal eye, the poor African slave and his American master!”
It would seem that those who pushed for the creation of this system of government that binds us today cared more about getting that system put into place than they did about ensuring that ALL MEN were granted the basic rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Inspired by God my ass; they were inspired by their lust for power!
You see, while there were some who sought to abolish slavery, Jefferson being one of them, (even though he himself owned slaves), the slave trade benefitted the country too much for government to do away with it. It helped keep the Southern economy strong by providing a cheap labor force, and it provided the government with revenue, as each new slave brought into America had a $10 tax imposed upon them. Taking inflation into consideration, $10 in 1789 would be $300 today. While that is not a huge sum of money, back then when government wasn’t trillion’s in debt it was a rather substantial sum; especially if you multiplied it by the vast number of slaves who were being brought into this country at the time.
People say the Civil War was fought to end slavery. If that’s the case, then the Civil War was a war against the Constitution itself; for under the Constitution slavery was legal. In fact, the almighty Supreme Court, in Dred Scott v Sanford, had held that slavery, even in non slave states, was legal. So if the Civil War was fought by the North to end slavery, then it was fought in violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case.
If the end of slavery was the reason the war was fought, why would Congress introduce a constitutional amendment making slavery permanent and irrevocable; Google the Corwin Amendment if you don’t believe me.
If the end of slavery was why the war was fought, why would Abe Lincoln say, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
If the war was fought to end slavery why would Lincoln also say that he supported ratification of the abovementioned Corwin Amendment, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
If the war was fought to end slavery, why would Lincoln write to Horace Greeley, stating, “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”
Don’t get me wrong, I think slavery is, and was evil. But what happened is that it was introduced into America from the beginning when the first settlers began coming to this country. It was ignored by those who profited from it during our war for independence, and it was pushed aside when those ‘men inspired by God’ wrote our Constitution. It was not the cause of the Civil War, although the Civil War ultimately led to its abolishment with the ratification of the 13th Amendment.
What people fail to realize is, that although chattel slavery may have ended, slavery itself did not. What is slavery if it is not the lack of freedom and liberty? If we, as individuals, do not enjoy the blessings of liberty, (according to Jefferson’s explanation of it), then we are, in fact, slaves to those who impose the rules and pass the laws that restrict that liberty.
Can you not see that?
If I, as an individual, cannot take away your life, your property, and your liberty, then I cannot delegate that power to anyone else so that they may exercise it on my behalf. And if I cannot do it, then neither can you; which is exactly what you do when you vote for those crooks calling themselves politicians.
American politics today can be summed up by one simple statement: Two opposing criminal organizations seeking to gain control of a system so that they can plunder the lives, property and liberty of those they disagree with.
If liberty truly is a gift to us from God, than how in God’s name can you support a system that seeks to limit or destroy it? If our Constitution was truly written by men who were inspired by God, how can that document fail to contain effective checks against government’s ability to infringe upon and restrict that liberty? If God truly is perfect, how can a document that was inspired by Him be so flawed as to allow the creation of a system that would lead to the destruction of His gift of liberty to all men?
Therefore, if our constitution was not written so that it placed ironclad restrictions upon government’s ability to infringe upon our rights and liberty, and at the same time, provide ample means by which we the people could PUNISH those who sought to do so, then the document itself could not have been inspired by God; and therefore must have been inspired by that other guy; the father of lust greed and deception; Lucifer.
Yet the American people are so blinded by their support of this system; mistaking that for patriotism that they balk at any mention of abolishing this system of institutionalized bondage of those whose consent it supposedly derives its authority from. These people think that the system can be fixed, or improved simply by voting better people into office; when the truth is the system was designed in such a manner as to provide loophole after loophole which would allow it to expand its power and destroy the very liberty it was promised it would secure.
If you want liberty in America again, the only answer is to abolish the system that seeks to destroy it. For if the Constitution does not provide the means to check infringements upon our liberty, then the Constitution does not deserve to exist; and neither does the government it established.
In either case, Lysander Spooner was right, “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.”
Therefore, if you support this system of government we have today, if you revere the Constitution as a document inspired by God, you are in fact denying God and His gift of liberty to us. As Thomas Jefferson declared in his personal motto, “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”
So, if you bow down and worship this system, if you are voting for candidates based upon their promises to destroy liberty and impose bondage upon others, if you are not RESISTING, then you are not honoring God by defending His gift to you. This means you are not only not free, you are a disciple of the other guy; the father of all lies, Lucifer.
Sorry to put it so bluntly, but the truth is the truth; and it don’t care whose feelings it hurts…