Man has known and now he’s blown it
Upside down and hell’s the only sound, we did an awful job
And now they say it’s nobody’s fault.
Each and every person alive faces an endless stream of choices in their lives. Some of these choices are relatively inconsequential, some may end up being life altering, and others fall somewhere in between. For instance, what you choose to wear is of little consequence in the grand scheme of things. However, choosing whether or not to drink drain cleaner can have catastrophic consequences should you happen to make the wrong choice.
While we may not give it much thought, many of these choices we make may end up defining us; shaping us into who we become as adults. For instance, I never gave much thought to enlisting in the military in 1979; I needed a steady job and the military seemed like as good an option as any. However, had I not chosen to enlist in the military I would not have been sent to the Philippines in 1989; and had that not happened I would not have met and married my wife.
That quick example proves two things. First it shows that there are consequences for the choices we make. Sometimes those consequences are good, sometimes they are bad; but in either case they are UNAVOIDABLE. Secondly, these consequences might not be immediately felt, or noticed. For instance, I was in the military for 10 years before I married my wife; meaning that the consequences of making that choice took awhile before they made a difference in my life. Who knows where I’d be or what I’d be doing had I not chosen to enlist in the military?
There are many other examples I could provide proving that choices have consequences, such as the decision to get behind the wheel of an automobile after drinking too much, or starting to smoke cigarettes at a young age; but I think you get the picture that each choice you make ends up having some kind of consequence.
Before I continue I want to ask you a simple question. Who makes these choices? Do others make them for us, or do we make them for ourselves? The reason I ask is, if you understood what liberty was, the only person responsible for the consequences of these choices is the person who made them. Liberty is unrestricted action according to our own freewill; as long as in exercising that freewill we do not infringe upon the rights of others. What that basically means is that I am free to do what I please with myself and my life, so long as in so doing I do not deprive anyone of any of their rights, or their ability to live their lives according to the dictates of their hearts.
Now if I were to make a choice to begin taking drugs, then according to the concept of individual liberty, only I am responsible for whatever consequences come about due to me taking those drugs. Society did not make that choice, I did, so society is under no obligation to support me, pay for any medical treatment I might require as a result of taking those drugs, or pay for my rehabilitation should I become addicted to them. I made the choice, I must pay the price.
Now, if others feel pity upon me for my plight, then they can willingly give of their freewill to help me recover; or even to pay for my habit, if they so choose. Charity is fine when it comes from the heart of those giving it. However, when charity is forced upon those who may not want to contribute it, then it becomes theft; which when talking about government is just another word for tyranny.
As an example of this, the American people go to the polls every couple of years to elect representatives to do things on their behalf, right? How is it that this government is authorized to send millions of dollars of taxpayer money to countries all across the globe in the form of foreign aid? Does this government represent the people of Syria, ($890 million); Nigeria, ($848 million); and Colombia, ($405 million); and those are just a few of the countries that the U.S. sends massive amounts of YOUR money to in the form of foreign aid.
In a roundabout way this brings us to my next topic of discussion – consent of the governed. I do not consent to having one red cent of the money they take from me in taxes being sent to any foreign country for foreign aid. If I want to send money to Nigeria, to the Ukraine, or to South Africa, then I am perfectly capable of donating of my own free will; but having government take that money without my consent, and then sending it to those places, again without my consent, makes me angry…very angry.
In 1776 fifty-six men signed a document which we all know as the Declaration of Independence. They did not do this of their own accord; they were acting on behalf of others who had given their consent for those men to represent them in the Continental Congress. Had those men acted of their own volition, those who sent them could simply have nullified the Declaration of Independence by refusing to honor it within the respective Colonies. To affix their names to that document meant that they had the consent of those who they were representing.
That document gave birth to the United States; although it took bloodshed to secure the principles it enshrined. Prior to that document being written we were not the United States of America, we were 13 British Colonies. That document was written in support of the resolution introduced by Richard Henry Lee, which stated that, “…these United Colonies are, and of right to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown…”
They did not ask jolly old King George if they could separate, they felt it was their right to do so; and the Declaration of Independence was a document stating why they made that choice, as well as the principles they were establishing this country upon. So therefore, when discussing government, it is vital that we compare what government does against what the Declaration of Independence says governments are supposed to do.
There are certain fundamental principles you must keep in mind when discussing any system of government, those being:
– All men are created equal;
-All men have certain unalienable rights granted them by their Creator;
-Among those rights, (but not limited to them are), life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness;
-That governments are instituted to secure those rights;
-That government derives its authority from the consent of the governed;
-and finally, whenever any government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, (the securing of our rights and liberty), it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
Those are the principles this country was founded upon and you can choose to either support and defend them or you can choose to ignore them; just remember that whatever choice you make comes irrevocably tied to certain consequences. Now let’s move on to another aspect of this discussion – sovereignty.
Sovereignty is defined as the supreme, or absolute, political power in a society. If, as the Declaration of Independence says, government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, then it is logical to conclude that government itself is not sovereign; those who created it are. I think, in the minds of most people, that is reversed; that government is sovereign and we must obey its every command – whether we fully agree with them or not.
No, that simply is not true; not by any stretch of the imagination. Government can come into existence by but one of two methods; either it can come about through usurpation, or it can come about by the consent of the governed. One of these leads to tyranny and the other offers a chance that the people will retain their rights and liberty if they would but ensure that government remains faithful to the purposes for which it was established.
In this country we created government, we gave it its power, and therefore we are superior to it; meaning we are the sovereigns, with government being but our servants; delegated with certain powers for certain specific purposes.
During the Revolutionary War era, as the Colonies were fighting to become free and independent States, they sought to establish governments for themselves through written constitutions. As each State was seeking its independence, it is logical to conclude that these State governments were established to serve the people living within their boundaries. Those living in the Commonwealth of Virginia had no authority to establish a system of government that could affect the lives of people living in New York, or vice versa. Each State was establishing a government for itself; and for itself only.
Why then did they also seek to establish a centralized form of government if they already had governments that could handle all the needs of those living within each State? The answer is quite simple if you would but read the Articles of Confederation. In the Revolution there was a common phrase that graced one of the many flags flown by the Colonies; Unite or Die. They knew that alone, none of the States could defeat the British; and even united they came close to losing their quest for independence.
What the Articles of Confederation say is, “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.”
What they were basically saying to each other was, “Hey, I’ll help you out if you promise to help me out; while I’ll leave you alone to manage your own internal affairs the way you see fit if you do the same for me.”
As each State was sovereign and independent, the way the Articles of Confederation configured this government was that no State, or group of States, could combine and threaten the rights and liberty of those living within another State. They accomplished this by requiring that any measure proposed by the Congress be agreed upon unanimously by all 13 State Legislatures. This assured that the big States couldn’t bully the smaller States; as all held an equal voice in what became law under this system of government.
Of great importance is the fact that, under that system, the government could not levy taxes; particularly direct taxes upon the people. What they would do was tell the States how much was needed to manage the affairs they were trusted with, and it was up to the States whether they would comply or not. While that may sound like it made the government weak and ineffective, it provided a barrier which defended the rights and liberty of the people against intrusion by the central government; the defense of which is the purpose of government if you’ll recall what the Declaration of Independence says.
Well the status quo under the Articles of Confederation did not sit well with some in America’ they wanted a much stronger, more energetic, system of government. However, for the average person living in the States things were going relatively well; so these people had to come up with something, some justification for making changes to the status quo. Among the many claims made were that trade was suffering and taxes were not being collected; which threatened the existence of the Confederation. Then there was Shay’s Rebellion, a tax revolt inside the State of Massachusetts that exacerbated things even more.
So, in 1786 a convention was held in Annapolis, Maryland, where these men gathered together to discuss solutions to these, quote unquote, problems. Unfortunately for them not enough States sent delegates to attend this convention; but that did not deter them, as they called for a more general convention to be held the following spring in Philadelphia.
So, in February the Congress sent word to the States that a convention was to be held, for the purpose of, “…revising the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the United States of America and reporting to the United States in Congress assembled and to the States respectively such alterations and amendments of the said Articles of Confederation as the representatives met in such convention shall judge proper and necessary to render them adequate to the preservation and support of the Union.”
However, these delegates, well most of them anyway, CHOSE not to adhere to the specific instructions they had been given; they CHOSE to write an entirely new document, a constitution, which outlined a new system of government which would abolish the existing one. Now I don’t know what dictionary you use, but that sounds an awful lot like treason to me; or at the least, an attempted coup d’état.
They knew that what they were doing went against their instructions, which is why they swore each other to secrecy, posted a guard outside the chambers where they were deliberating, and hung blinds over the windows to keep prying eyes from seeing what was going on.
Once their work was completed, and once the delegates who opposed this new system in Pennsylvania had been run over roughshod, these opponents to the constitution would write the following about the whole affair, “Whilst the gilded chains were forging in the secret conclave, the meaner instruments of despotism without, were busily employed in alarming the fears of the people with dangers which did not exist, and exciting their hopes of greater advantages from the expected plan than even the best government on earth could produce….”
Now let me pause for a moment and ask you a question. If the people had established the various State governments for themselves, and if the States had established the government under the Articles of Confederation for themselves, and if they had given specific instructions to the delegates to the convention in Philadelphia to revise the existing system, then do you think that the States would have consented to what was going on in secrecy behind closed doors?
If not, then what those delegates did was to tear down the principle that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed; for the central government derived IT’S power from the individual States, not the people. Keep that in mind as we continue.
So, over the course of the summer of 1787, amidst much argument I might add, these delegates finally arrived upon a document that most of them could agree to – the Constitution. However, they bypassed existing law, which required that any changes to the Confederation be agreed to by Congress, AND the unanimous consent of all 13 States, they said that this new document must derive its consent from the great body of the people.
Why? Why would the people need to vote on whether or not to accept this new system; particularly when they already had the State governments to handle all their needs? Well the answer is twofold. First, those who wanted to bring about this change saw that the government established by the Articles of Confederation prohibited them from passing laws, and more importantly, levying taxes directly upon the people. Secondly, they sought to weaken State power, which was substantial under the Articles of Confederation.
James Madison stated his intentions to do just that…BEFORE THE CONVENTION EVEN MET!!! In a letter to George Washington, dated April 16, 1787 Madison wrote, “Conceiving that an individual independence of the States is utterly irreconcileable with their aggregate sovereignty; and that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would be as inexpedient as it is unattainable, I have sought for some middle ground, which may at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and not exclude the local authorities wherever they can be subordinately useful.”
From the get go it was Madison’s intention to reduce the States from sovereigns over the central government to a position of subordination under it. Patrick Henry, among others, saw the danger in what Madison and his cohorts were attempting to do and he asked, “…what right had they to say, We, the People? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, who authorised them to speak the language of, We, the People, instead of We, the States?1 States are the characteristics, and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated national government of the people of all the states.”
So not only did Madison and crew throw down the concept of consent of the governed, they sought to turn the entire political structure in this country on its head by establishing a supreme government, (see Article 6 of the Constitution), with the power to lay whatever taxes it wanted, (see Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1), with unlimited power, (see the Necessary and Proper Clause).
What they did was place the people, who were sovereigns over their State governments, and their State governments which were sovereign over the central government, all under the authority of the central government; reversing the whole relationship between master and servant. The people, and the States, would now serve the central government instead of being its master; a complete reversal of how things had been under the Articles of Confederation.
But wait, I’m not done yet; there’s more to this than what I’ve laid out for you so far.
In the States the people go to the polls and choose who will represent them in their respective State governments. Although the political party machinery now decides which candidates the people are allowed to choose from, in principle the system still is based upon consent of the governed; as it is the people voting, en masse, for who will govern over them.
If this new system was to derive its authority from the consent of the people, why was it only ratified by a few select members taken from amongst the people; why not put it to the vote of ALL the people living within the States? Yet those who wrote the Constitution did not want the whole people voting on it; which is why they called for assemblies to be held; wherein they could pack the assemblies with like minded supporters of their coup d’état.
Had they put the vote to ALL the people, the Constitution would most likely never have been adopted. That is why they tried to force it through quickly in Pennsylvania; using less than gentlemanly tactics I might add. They did not want a careful examination of the document they had produced, and they sure as hell did not want to give opponents of it any chance to point out its weaknesses and the threats to their rights and liberty it contained.
Not only did the Constitution do all that, it also only required that 3/4 of the States approve of it before the system it outlined went into operation; totally disregarding Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation which required the unanimous consensus of all the States before any changes could be made to the system.
So the Constitution, and its creators not only trashed the idea of consent of the governed, they violated the existing law in the process. What a swell bunch of guys!
What about the Declaration of Independence’s statement that all men are created equal? I think there is a lot of confusion, or at least misconception as to what that actually means; all men are created equal. I think a lot of people think it means that if someone has a good paying job and a fancy home, then they too should have a good paying job and a fancy home; after all, equal is equal, right?
Is it just me, or can anyone else not see that what that promotes is socialism? Besides, if the signers of the Declaration of Independence believed that why would they also include among our unalienable rights the right to pursue happiness? Think about it, if we were all equal in all things, why would we have to PURSUE happiness; we’d already have it. Or is that too deep a question for shallow minds?
This equality that is spoke of in the Declaration of Independence is not the social equality that people today think it is; it is the equality of opportunity to seek out and obtain happiness, success, wealth, or glory, based upon your own skill and your own drive.
Remember now, the Declaration of Independence says that governments exist to secure the rights of the governed, and if government does not do that, it is not serving the purpose for which it was established. But then again I might be wrong, maybe the government established by the Constitution is doing exactly what it was intended to do; subvert all the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.
As Thomas Jefferson was the primary author of that document, let’s see what he had to say about what people today call social justice. In a letter to Joseph Milligan, dated April 6, 1816, Jefferson writes, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” Well gee whiz it sure sounds like he opposed what people today like to call the redistribution of wealth.
In his First Inaugural Address Jefferson also stated, “a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.” Wise; well that’s certainly questionable. And as for frugal; with a $26 trillion national debt, I’d say they failed miserably there!
Finally, in his Inaugural Address he also stated, “All too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
Well let me see, my right to speak my mind openly is under attack. My right to keep and bear arms is under attack. My right to profess my faith wherever and whenever I choose is under attack. My right to travel outside my home; to assemble with friends freely, and to resist governmental abuses of power are certainly under attack.
Did I just say that, resist governmental abuses of power? You think that is NOT among my rights? Well according to the Declaration of Independence it is, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” But our government has already proven that it won’t let that happen, hasn’t it? When 11 States decided that they felt that this government had been abusing its power, and violating their rights as States, they chose to seceded, peacefully I might add, from the Union. But by golly, good ole Abe Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, said, “Wait a minute fellas, you can’t do that, and if you try I’m gonna send men with guns down there and force you back into the Union.” What was that about consent of the governed?
The government established by the Constitution took everything the Declaration of Independence stood for and threw it right into the trash heap of history. Oh, you’ve got certain rights, that is until you go too far and question the laws government enacts, or the authority of those who enforce them. Then you’ll quickly see those rights trampled upon. Ask anyone who has tried living free of excessive governmental control; that is if they are still alive.
You can choose ignorance if you want, but the consequences of your ignorance is to be ruled by a government with no bounds upon its power. You can choose to fight this government in an effort to regain your lost rights and liberty; but with the majority so blindly obedient to it you will most likely end up dead.
People are so blindly ignorant that they actually think things change when power shifts between the Republicans and Democrats. Tell me, and be truthful, when have any of your lost freedoms been restored after a switch in which party controls government. Maybe Einstein was right, maybe insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
And now we are witnessing the consequences of generations of institutionally indoctrinated ignoramuses in action. We have people who are angry because they have not have gotten their slice of the pie called happiness; to them meaning equal wealth. We have people who think that it is okay to sacrifice their rights for the overall common good. We have people who blindly seek to the very entity responsible for all these things, answers to these things.
We have a system that thrives on our fear; for fear gives them the power to pass more laws that they promise will end all our woes. And as they grow stronger, so do those who enforce those laws. Just as the government no longer cares about securing our life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, neither do our law enforcers.
Sure, they might serve a good function…if that’s all they did. But they don’t; they stop of for traffic violations to collect revenue for their bosses; they stop and hassle people just because they look suspicious, (so long probable cause); and they enforce all laws equally; whether the law itself is unconstitutional or a violation of our rights.
More importantly, if you question them, or their authority to enforce such laws, you go from average Joe Blow to America’s Most Wanted. They will cuff you, they will tase you, and they will choke or shoot you to death if you resist too much. There is no reasoning with them once you question the law, or their authority to enforce it; they are trained pit bulls defending their master – government.
So yes, I support the protests against the police in the deaths of Rayshard Brooks and George Floyd; even though Brooks was obviously drunk. While the officers may have committed these crimes, I don’t fully blame them; I blame the system they are part of. Sure, they should be punished, but as long as the system exists, as it currently does, these type police brutality crimes will continue unabated. Either that will happen, or the people will get their way; the police will be unfunded, and chaos will rule the streets.
So yes, I am in agreement with protecting the abuses of power by police; but not just in regards to those abuses of power against blacks; I support it in defense of the abuses of power against ALL the people, their rights and their liberty.
What we are seeing now has evolved from protests against the abuses of power by government, it has turned into the consequences of generations of false history and socialist indoctrination, leading to the destruction of all that this country stood for; it’s history.
These punks have declared war upon all that a true lover of liberty believes in, and the sad thing is, that is exactly what the system wants. They not only want us at each other’s throats so that we don’t focus our outrage upon them, they actually want us to start killing each other. They want this because they know that there will be a part of America that clamors for them to do whatever it takes to restore peace and order; which will bring in the loss of whatever remaining liberty we had.
You can CHOOSE to keep blaming the other party; you can CHOOSE to keep blaming each other; you can CHOOSE to riot, loot, and confront the police, but as long as you keep thinking that we NEED this system or else we will perish; if you keep thinking that one party is better than the other one; if you keep voting and obeying whatever law suits their current whim, nothing is going to change for the better.
We are not each other’s enemies, the system is our enemy. The only time someone becomes the enemy of someone else is when they come after their life, their property, their liberty, or their rights; then they can be treated as having declared war upon you; i.e. kill them. (See Locke’s Second Treatise, Chapter 3, Section 18).
What we are witnessing at this very moment in time is the consequences of a long string of choices coming back to haunt us all at once. There is a slim chance we can make our way through this; if we abandon all previously held beliefs about government, about the rights of others, about what equality means, and if we unite together and demand that government stick to the purposes outlined in the Declaration of Independence; and then have the courage to lynch a few of the son’s a bitches if they don’t.
If we can’t do that, then the future looks bleak…very bleak indeed. Trump can’t fix what’s wrong in America and neither can Biden; only we can if we would just learn the truth.
P.S. If you think this was long, I deleted almost 1-1/2 pages dedicated to the Supreme Court to shorten it up…