Man, throughout history, has been tempted with power. Someone is
always ready and anxious to use force over others, both within and outside of
government, for his own interest. Some who reject the use of physical power
over others and reject the material benefits of illicit power will, nevertheless,
use government force to impose their social standards on others. It's important
to recognize that there is a difference between legislating morality and moral
law.
The following is a Freedom Report essay written in 1982 addresses
this subject:
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Right to Own Guns and Gold
Spooner had an interesting explanation about why the Founding
Fathers included the Second Amendment in the Constitution. He never once
considered that the authors of the Constitution meant that only the militia
were allowed to possess weapons, as today's liberals argue. He even
considered it foolish to claim private gun ownership was for the purpose of
defending one's life and property from robbers and murderers. "That" he
states, "is so obvious one need not state it." According to Spooner, the real
reason for individual gun ownership was for the purpose of protecting against
the evil use of government power-as the revolutionaries experienced at the
hands of King George 111. In other words, when all else fails, the gun owned
by the individual is to be used to protect against tyranny of the statesomething
obviously denied the citizens of an oppressive state such as Poland
or the Soviet Union.
Even though political conditions have deteriorated throughout the
twentieth century, American citizens still retain rights superior to most
nations of the world. With concerted political action and an awakened
citizenry we still have the vehicle to change conditions-something that may
not be available to us for an indefinite period of time.
As long as the individual retains the right to own guns and gold, we
should assume that working through the political process is worthwhile. The
confiscation of gold and guns in the United States would ignite an explosion
of physical resistance which would permanently change the character of the
United States.
It will come to this if the majority of our leaders do not soon redefine
individual rights, restore a free-market economy, and force
our government to live within its means.
Without this new direction, the growing economic and political crisis will
worsen and can only be temporarily held together by further expanding the
role of government at the expense of liberty.
If we do not have a consensus of what "rights" are,
there is little chance our free society will survive.
Government snooping, blood testing, lie-detection tests, restraints on
financial freedom, stronger IRS regulations, national I.D. cards, and
restrictions on travel will all be used to prop up the tottering state if
necessary.
A lot is at stake, and we cannot erroneously assume America will
survive, regardless of what we as a people do. What we do will make a
difference. And if we do not have a consensus of what "rights" are, there is
little chance our free society will survive.
Fathers included the Second Amendment in the Constitution. He never once
considered that the authors of the Constitution meant that only the militia
were allowed to possess weapons, as today's liberals argue. He even
considered it foolish to claim private gun ownership was for the purpose of
defending one's life and property from robbers and murderers. "That" he
states, "is so obvious one need not state it." According to Spooner, the real
reason for individual gun ownership was for the purpose of protecting against
the evil use of government power-as the revolutionaries experienced at the
hands of King George 111. In other words, when all else fails, the gun owned
by the individual is to be used to protect against tyranny of the statesomething
obviously denied the citizens of an oppressive state such as Poland
or the Soviet Union.
Even though political conditions have deteriorated throughout the
twentieth century, American citizens still retain rights superior to most
nations of the world. With concerted political action and an awakened
citizenry we still have the vehicle to change conditions-something that may
not be available to us for an indefinite period of time.
As long as the individual retains the right to own guns and gold, we
should assume that working through the political process is worthwhile. The
confiscation of gold and guns in the United States would ignite an explosion
of physical resistance which would permanently change the character of the
United States.
It will come to this if the majority of our leaders do not soon redefine
individual rights, restore a free-market economy, and force
our government to live within its means.
Without this new direction, the growing economic and political crisis will
worsen and can only be temporarily held together by further expanding the
role of government at the expense of liberty.
If we do not have a consensus of what "rights" are,
there is little chance our free society will survive.
Government snooping, blood testing, lie-detection tests, restraints on
financial freedom, stronger IRS regulations, national I.D. cards, and
restrictions on travel will all be used to prop up the tottering state if
necessary.
A lot is at stake, and we cannot erroneously assume America will
survive, regardless of what we as a people do. What we do will make a
difference. And if we do not have a consensus of what "rights" are, there is
little chance our free society will survive.
The right effort could revitalize the jury and restore it to its rightful place in curtailing the endless growth of an all-powerful state.
Regulations are written yearly by the thousands of pages, read by few,
and understood by no one. This is done intentionally to keep the peasants
humble and to harass the people. It is used as a political tool for selective
prosecution. Regulations can favor certain industries while destroying others,
providing great accumulation of wealth for the beneficiaries.
Exemption from prosecution of some while others are pursued has
destroyed many good industries and companies. Prosecution in the
administrative courts requires great sums of money for self-defense. Juries are
not available, and one is considered guilty until proven otherwise. Tragically,
economic conditions usually prompt the businessman to pay the fine,
regardless of its unfairness, to save legal costs. Fighting the system through
political reform is not even a serious consideration. Those who would
consider such a struggle are ridiculed as idealistic and unrealistic. A powerful
political action committee and a shrewd lobbyist are today considered the best
investments. Since we have lived with massive bureaucracy for over fifty
years, most citizens, uneducated in the ways of equal rights, justice, and
freedom, are unaware of another system. By writing regulations with the
force of law and administrative justice, interpretations, and enforcement of
these laws, the judiciary “rulers" have made a mockery of Article 1, Section 1
of the Constitution.
Whether it's in the regular courts or the administrative courts, judges
who grew up under the welfare ethic, rarely concern themselves with
the right to own and control the fruits of one's own labor. The "right of
society," as they see it, precludes what they claim is a narrow self interest-the
individual.
Spooner argues eloquently for the right of the jury to pass final judgment on
all laws, the moral intent of the law, the constitutionality of the law, the facts
of the case, and the moral intent of the accused. Spooner's argument for
allowing such responsibility to rest with the accused peers is that delegating
responsibility only to the representatives in Washington was fraught with
danger. He was convinced
that removal of our representatives in the next election was not sufficient to
protect the people from unwise and meddling legislation.
If we had heeded the admonitions of Lysander Spooner, we would
not be faced with this crisis. Spooner begins his essay on trial by jury by clearly
stating the importance of the jury's responsibility to judge the law as well as
the facts in the case before them:
For more than six-hundred years, that is, since the Magna
Carta, in 1215, there has been no clearer principle of English or
American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases. It is
not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts,
what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused;
but it is also their right and their primary and paramount duty
to judge the justice of the law and to hold all laws invalid, that
are in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons
guiltless in violating or resisting the execution of such laws.
Spooner was highly critical of the phrase "according to the evidence"
in the oath of jurors, claiming it violated the classical common law. He states:
If the government can dictate the evidence, and require the jury
to decide according to that evidence, it necessarily dictates the
conclusion to which they must arrive. In that case the trial is
really a trial by the government, not by the jury. The jury
cannot try an issue unless they determine what evidence shall
be admitted. The ancient oath, it will be observed, says nothing
about 'according to the evidence.'
If a law is assumed to be correct constitutionally and morally merely
because it's a law written by our chosen representative, the government can
give itself dictatorial powers. And that's exactly what has happened with the
massive powers delegated to the President under the Emergency Powers Actpower
sitting there to be grabbed and used at the hint of a crisis.
Spooner saw the jury as the last guard against such usurpation of the
people's rights. Sadly, that protection is just about gone. It is up to us to
restore the principle of trial by jury to its rightful place of importance.
and understood by no one. This is done intentionally to keep the peasants
humble and to harass the people. It is used as a political tool for selective
prosecution. Regulations can favor certain industries while destroying others,
providing great accumulation of wealth for the beneficiaries.
Exemption from prosecution of some while others are pursued has
destroyed many good industries and companies. Prosecution in the
administrative courts requires great sums of money for self-defense. Juries are
not available, and one is considered guilty until proven otherwise. Tragically,
economic conditions usually prompt the businessman to pay the fine,
regardless of its unfairness, to save legal costs. Fighting the system through
political reform is not even a serious consideration. Those who would
consider such a struggle are ridiculed as idealistic and unrealistic. A powerful
political action committee and a shrewd lobbyist are today considered the best
investments. Since we have lived with massive bureaucracy for over fifty
years, most citizens, uneducated in the ways of equal rights, justice, and
freedom, are unaware of another system. By writing regulations with the
force of law and administrative justice, interpretations, and enforcement of
these laws, the judiciary “rulers" have made a mockery of Article 1, Section 1
of the Constitution.
Whether it's in the regular courts or the administrative courts, judges
who grew up under the welfare ethic, rarely concern themselves with
the right to own and control the fruits of one's own labor. The "right of
society," as they see it, precludes what they claim is a narrow self interest-the
individual.
Spooner argues eloquently for the right of the jury to pass final judgment on
all laws, the moral intent of the law, the constitutionality of the law, the facts
of the case, and the moral intent of the accused. Spooner's argument for
allowing such responsibility to rest with the accused peers is that delegating
responsibility only to the representatives in Washington was fraught with
danger. He was convinced
that removal of our representatives in the next election was not sufficient to
protect the people from unwise and meddling legislation.
If we had heeded the admonitions of Lysander Spooner, we would
not be faced with this crisis. Spooner begins his essay on trial by jury by clearly
stating the importance of the jury's responsibility to judge the law as well as
the facts in the case before them:
For more than six-hundred years, that is, since the Magna
Carta, in 1215, there has been no clearer principle of English or
American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases. It is
not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts,
what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused;
but it is also their right and their primary and paramount duty
to judge the justice of the law and to hold all laws invalid, that
are in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons
guiltless in violating or resisting the execution of such laws.
Spooner was highly critical of the phrase "according to the evidence"
in the oath of jurors, claiming it violated the classical common law. He states:
If the government can dictate the evidence, and require the jury
to decide according to that evidence, it necessarily dictates the
conclusion to which they must arrive. In that case the trial is
really a trial by the government, not by the jury. The jury
cannot try an issue unless they determine what evidence shall
be admitted. The ancient oath, it will be observed, says nothing
about 'according to the evidence.'
If a law is assumed to be correct constitutionally and morally merely
because it's a law written by our chosen representative, the government can
give itself dictatorial powers. And that's exactly what has happened with the
massive powers delegated to the President under the Emergency Powers Actpower
sitting there to be grabbed and used at the hint of a crisis.
Spooner saw the jury as the last guard against such usurpation of the
people's rights. Sadly, that protection is just about gone. It is up to us to
restore the principle of trial by jury to its rightful place of importance.
don't have AIDS), demanding a cure. And it's done in the name of rights.
According to Lysander Spooner, a mid-nineteenth-century writer,
there are five separate tribunals protecting us from abusive government laws:
The House of Representatives, the Senate, the Executive, the Courts, and the
Common-Law Jury. He maintains that all are important but that the ultimate
protection of our liberty must be placed in the hands
of our peers. His "Essay on the Trial by jury" (1852) deserves close study by
all twentieth-century students concerned about the future of freedom in
America.
The concept of protecting individual rights from the heavy hand of
government through the common-law jury is as old as the Magna Carta (1215
A.D.). The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of this principle and
incorporated it into our Constitution.
John Jay, the first Chief justice of the Supreme Court, agreed with this
principle. In his first jury trial in 1794 (Georgia vs. Brailsford) he stated:
"You had nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to
determine the law as well as the fact controversy." Jefferson was in agreement
as well: "To consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional
questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us
under the despotism of an oligarchy. "
The twentieth century, however, has witnessed a serious erosion of
this principle. Since 1895 (Sparf vs. United States), the right of the jury to
rule on the justice and constitutionality of the law, as well as the facts in the
case, was seriously undermined. Also the lack of concern and understanding
for individual rights has affected jurors, just as it has representatives, senators,
judges, and presidents. Jurors in recent times have been just as guilty of
ignoring the principle of equal rights as have our representatives in our
legislatures, judiciary, and executive bodies of government. These two factors
have greatly diminished the value of the jury in the twentieth century.
Those frustrated with changes in the Congress, the executive, and the
judiciary -- and there is certainly good reason for frustration -- must consider
educating potential jurors as to the importance of the common law jury and
the principles of individual liberty.
An awakened citizenry, participating in juries around the country,
could bring about a nonviolent revolution of magnificent proportions,
reversing the sad trends of the twentieth century. The jury today is a weak
institution, as are all the other institutions designed to guarantee individual
liberty. The right effort could revitalize the jury and restore it to its rightful
place in curtailing the endless growth of an all-powerful state.
Several legal events needed to occur in order for big government to
thrive. The de-emphasis of the jury was crucial in the expansive powers of the
omnipresent state. Judging the moral intent and the constitutionality of the
law is no longer even a consideration of the jury. Today the judge
instructs the jury to consider only the facts of the case, and then the becomes
the soul arbiter of evidence admissible in court. The jury today has become
progressively weak over the past ninety years.
In addition, judges write into their rulings grand designs for society.
Judiciary bodies have become legislative bodies.
A major part of the judicial system has been removed from the people
placing it in administrative branches of government. The agencies of
government have usurped power unimagined by the authors of the
Constitution. Administrative justice is a great bureaucracy, independent of the
legal judiciary.
there are five separate tribunals protecting us from abusive government laws:
The House of Representatives, the Senate, the Executive, the Courts, and the
Common-Law Jury. He maintains that all are important but that the ultimate
protection of our liberty must be placed in the hands
of our peers. His "Essay on the Trial by jury" (1852) deserves close study by
all twentieth-century students concerned about the future of freedom in
America.
The concept of protecting individual rights from the heavy hand of
government through the common-law jury is as old as the Magna Carta (1215
A.D.). The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of this principle and
incorporated it into our Constitution.
John Jay, the first Chief justice of the Supreme Court, agreed with this
principle. In his first jury trial in 1794 (Georgia vs. Brailsford) he stated:
"You had nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to
determine the law as well as the fact controversy." Jefferson was in agreement
as well: "To consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional
questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us
under the despotism of an oligarchy. "
The twentieth century, however, has witnessed a serious erosion of
this principle. Since 1895 (Sparf vs. United States), the right of the jury to
rule on the justice and constitutionality of the law, as well as the facts in the
case, was seriously undermined. Also the lack of concern and understanding
for individual rights has affected jurors, just as it has representatives, senators,
judges, and presidents. Jurors in recent times have been just as guilty of
ignoring the principle of equal rights as have our representatives in our
legislatures, judiciary, and executive bodies of government. These two factors
have greatly diminished the value of the jury in the twentieth century.
Those frustrated with changes in the Congress, the executive, and the
judiciary -- and there is certainly good reason for frustration -- must consider
educating potential jurors as to the importance of the common law jury and
the principles of individual liberty.
An awakened citizenry, participating in juries around the country,
could bring about a nonviolent revolution of magnificent proportions,
reversing the sad trends of the twentieth century. The jury today is a weak
institution, as are all the other institutions designed to guarantee individual
liberty. The right effort could revitalize the jury and restore it to its rightful
place in curtailing the endless growth of an all-powerful state.
Several legal events needed to occur in order for big government to
thrive. The de-emphasis of the jury was crucial in the expansive powers of the
omnipresent state. Judging the moral intent and the constitutionality of the
law is no longer even a consideration of the jury. Today the judge
instructs the jury to consider only the facts of the case, and then the becomes
the soul arbiter of evidence admissible in court. The jury today has become
progressively weak over the past ninety years.
In addition, judges write into their rulings grand designs for society.
Judiciary bodies have become legislative bodies.
A major part of the judicial system has been removed from the people
placing it in administrative branches of government. The agencies of
government have usurped power unimagined by the authors of the
Constitution. Administrative justice is a great bureaucracy, independent of the
legal judiciary.
Privacy is one of the most sacred elements of a free society
In 1986, after fifty years, a modification of the law was made. But
there was a Computer Age IRS catch. People who wanted to work at home
(which many continue to do anyway) could do so if they got a
certificate of permission from the Department of Labor. The United States is
considered a free country, and yet a permit from the federal government is
needed to sew clothes in our own homes. My guess is that this little change
was more likely motivated by the desire of the IRS to find out where the
activity was, than to take a bold step in the direction of freeing up the labor
market.
In America we see excellent private homes for wayward children,
more successful than any state-run institution, being closed down by the
heavy hand of the government when owners refuse, for religious reasons, to
buy state licenses. This is done in the name of protecting the children from
harsh treatment. All evidence shows that the religious homes for children are
far superior to anything the state has to offer, yet are closed for failure to
register with the state. This is more evidence that the state now controls our
children, not parents or (non-state-designated) guardians.
Articles appear in medical journals debating whether choosing a
physician is a right or a luxury. (It's a shame that the correct answer is not
automatically known by everyone!)
The confusion over rights has caused numerous debates, such as
whether women have the right to join men's clubs. Women obviously have a
right to apply for membership in any group they wish, and a club has a similar
right to exclude anyone it wishes.
But the great debate goes on. A woman recently sued the Boy Scouts
because she claimed she had a right to be scout master. Women may want to
be scout masters, but where did they get this "right" to coerce a private
organization to change its rules regarding members and leaders?
Privacy is one of the most sacred elements of a free society. It is now
common to pass laws which routinely violate the Constitutional guarantee
that our homes and persons are not to be invaded by government agents.
When the title of a law incorporates the word "privacy," in true 1984
"new-speak" fashion, you can be certain it means the opposite. Government
secrets are more sacred in today's society than individual privacy. When
government information leaks occur, the FBI is called in to "protect"
government secrecy. The CIA, with its independent operations and funding, is
a law unto itself, engaging in war activities, conspiracy, and assassination.
Oliver North, with a straight face, on national television, magnificently
defended the "right" of the government to lie about covert activities. The only
resistance lying gets is when policy offends either the conservative or liberal
wing of the interventionists.
Victims of the disease AIDS argue, with no qualms of inconsistency
about rights, for crash research programs (to be paid for by people who
don't have AIDS), demanding a cure. And it's done in the name of rights.
Victims demand health care as well and scream "discrimination" if insurance
companies claim they have a right to refuse to issue a policy to someone
already infected with the AIDS virus. The rights of the insurance company
owners are not considered, while legislation is passed forcing insurance
companies to provide the insurance demanded by the victims. The individual
suffering from AIDS certainly a is victim -- frequently a victim of his own
lifestyle -- but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing
them to pay for his care. Crash research programs are hardly something, I
believe, the Found Fathers intended when they talked about equal rights.
The Supreme Court, in 1987, ruled that persons with contagious
diseases are "handicapped" and are entitled to protection under affirmative
action rules. If a person is fired because he has AIDS, typhoid fever or
hepatitis, he can now pursue his case in court.
Recently an alcoholic who developed cirrhosis of the liver demanded
a liver transplant, in the name of "equal rights." The state welfare program
assumed the obligation to provide care for the man, but insisted he quit his
alcoholic ways. The man refused, and the state held up on his liver transplant.
For this reason he sued the state, demanding his rights.
With confusion regarding rights, the end of constitutionally protected
liberty cannot be far off.
Society is filled with competing interests demanding their "rights."
Since no serious attempt has been made to define rights and limit
government's power to masquerade as economic equality in equal rights, the
confusion gets worse every year.
This is a serious flaw in today's political philosophy and, unless the
nature of the problem is identified, freedom in America cannot survive. A
lack of a precise standards for describing individual rights will destroy the
American way of life -- that gift from the Founding Fathers from which we
have all benefited.
there was a Computer Age IRS catch. People who wanted to work at home
(which many continue to do anyway) could do so if they got a
certificate of permission from the Department of Labor. The United States is
considered a free country, and yet a permit from the federal government is
needed to sew clothes in our own homes. My guess is that this little change
was more likely motivated by the desire of the IRS to find out where the
activity was, than to take a bold step in the direction of freeing up the labor
market.
In America we see excellent private homes for wayward children,
more successful than any state-run institution, being closed down by the
heavy hand of the government when owners refuse, for religious reasons, to
buy state licenses. This is done in the name of protecting the children from
harsh treatment. All evidence shows that the religious homes for children are
far superior to anything the state has to offer, yet are closed for failure to
register with the state. This is more evidence that the state now controls our
children, not parents or (non-state-designated) guardians.
Articles appear in medical journals debating whether choosing a
physician is a right or a luxury. (It's a shame that the correct answer is not
automatically known by everyone!)
The confusion over rights has caused numerous debates, such as
whether women have the right to join men's clubs. Women obviously have a
right to apply for membership in any group they wish, and a club has a similar
right to exclude anyone it wishes.
But the great debate goes on. A woman recently sued the Boy Scouts
because she claimed she had a right to be scout master. Women may want to
be scout masters, but where did they get this "right" to coerce a private
organization to change its rules regarding members and leaders?
Privacy is one of the most sacred elements of a free society. It is now
common to pass laws which routinely violate the Constitutional guarantee
that our homes and persons are not to be invaded by government agents.
When the title of a law incorporates the word "privacy," in true 1984
"new-speak" fashion, you can be certain it means the opposite. Government
secrets are more sacred in today's society than individual privacy. When
government information leaks occur, the FBI is called in to "protect"
government secrecy. The CIA, with its independent operations and funding, is
a law unto itself, engaging in war activities, conspiracy, and assassination.
Oliver North, with a straight face, on national television, magnificently
defended the "right" of the government to lie about covert activities. The only
resistance lying gets is when policy offends either the conservative or liberal
wing of the interventionists.
Victims of the disease AIDS argue, with no qualms of inconsistency
about rights, for crash research programs (to be paid for by people who
don't have AIDS), demanding a cure. And it's done in the name of rights.
Victims demand health care as well and scream "discrimination" if insurance
companies claim they have a right to refuse to issue a policy to someone
already infected with the AIDS virus. The rights of the insurance company
owners are not considered, while legislation is passed forcing insurance
companies to provide the insurance demanded by the victims. The individual
suffering from AIDS certainly a is victim -- frequently a victim of his own
lifestyle -- but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing
them to pay for his care. Crash research programs are hardly something, I
believe, the Found Fathers intended when they talked about equal rights.
The Supreme Court, in 1987, ruled that persons with contagious
diseases are "handicapped" and are entitled to protection under affirmative
action rules. If a person is fired because he has AIDS, typhoid fever or
hepatitis, he can now pursue his case in court.
Recently an alcoholic who developed cirrhosis of the liver demanded
a liver transplant, in the name of "equal rights." The state welfare program
assumed the obligation to provide care for the man, but insisted he quit his
alcoholic ways. The man refused, and the state held up on his liver transplant.
For this reason he sued the state, demanding his rights.
With confusion regarding rights, the end of constitutionally protected
liberty cannot be far off.
Society is filled with competing interests demanding their "rights."
Since no serious attempt has been made to define rights and limit
government's power to masquerade as economic equality in equal rights, the
confusion gets worse every year.
This is a serious flaw in today's political philosophy and, unless the
nature of the problem is identified, freedom in America cannot survive. A
lack of a precise standards for describing individual rights will destroy the
American way of life -- that gift from the Founding Fathers from which we
have all benefited.
In a free society, governments are not permitted to break the law for any reason.
Constitutionalists who understand the corrupt nature of our monetary
system are likely targets of an aggressive Justice Department, although the
litigants are nonaggressive as they practice civil disobedience in seeking
favorable court rulings.
Resisters to draft registration have been too numerous to prosecute.
The vocal opponents, those who publicly express their views that such
registration is unconstitutional, have been singled out as particularly
dangerous and prosecuted precisely because they spoke out.
In a free society, governments are not permitted to break the law for
any reason. Yet it has become common for legal authorities to entice citizens,
through entrapment, into breaking the law. Tempting individuals and officials
with bribes or solicitation of prostitution or offering drugs is frequently done.
FBI sting operations and Abscam-type operations are accepted procedures for
the Justice Department, permitting officers of the law to break the law to get
others to do the same.
When U.S. News reporter Daniloff received "secret" papers from
Soviet KGB agents in Moscow he was arrested. U.S. officials were outraged
at the nasty trick and called it a "set-up." Yet this is the identical procedure
followed by our government against our own citizens.
The New York Times explains editorially the purpose of zoning
(November 24, 1986): "Zoning has helped establish the principle that the
interests of property owners must yield to those of the public." Zoning under
current law, according to The New York Times, is inadequate, and the public
demands that more controls are needed to assure a proper working and living
environment. The only problem is, "who is the public" and why are
ownership rights subservient to public interest? I'm sure The New York Times
editors have a precise idea of who the public is and how its interest is best
served, according to their definition, but clearly it clashes with the entire
philosophic concept of private property ownership. If the concept of privately
owned property's being used "for the public interest" is not challenged, the
ideas of socialism will emerge victorious.
If welfare needs of any segment of society can be granted against the
wishes of society's productive segment, private property ownership will
disappear. If property can be confiscated by the arbitrary actions of the state,
the individual will also be expected to serve the state on command.
The more authoritarian the government is over the economy, the more
authoritarian it will be over the use of young people in forcing them to serve
in the military or national youth service to achieve what those in power
determine is in the "public good." In a free society, the individual cannot be
forced into serving the state, and the property he owns cannot be confiscated
for any reason, even that of a humanitarian nature. The needs of one person
cannot be used to justify the victimization of another by robbing him of the
fruits of his labor.
Traditionally the family has been the core unit in America, with
parents in charge of their children until adulthood. This means they are responsible
for their physical well-being, providing proper care and guidance. Permission
until recently, to treat a child medically was always granted by the parent, and
without proper consent, medical personnel were considered in violation of the
parents' rights if treatment were rendered. Today permission (and frequently
the financing) for this treatment is given by the state to the medical profession
to treat adolescents. It has gotten to the point where the M.D. is absolutely
protected and relieved of any responsibility to the parents. Twelve-year-old
children deserve respect, love, and treatment in a nonviolent manner, but
parents who raise and are responsible for their children deserve to know what
others may be doing to them. Don't parents deserve at least the same respect
regarding their children as others expect regarding their property?
When the state replaces the role of the parent in giving permission for
medical treatment, a serious flaw is introduced which is likely to undermine
our free society. Since a child is unable to assume responsibility for himself
or herself, the only choices are the parents (or legal guardians) or the
government. The government, through court rulings or legislation, should
never be permitted to perform the role of the parent.
Assuming responsibility for one's own acts was further undermined by
the Texas Supreme Court's 1986 ruling that a bartender was responsible for
the accident which one of his customers caused after leaving the
establishment. This is a perfect example of what happens when no one knows
what individual rights are! Once this concept is lost, the idea of selfresponsibility
is lost as well.
Since the Great Depression of the 1930's, federal laws have curtailed
individuals' rights to work in their own homes. The Founding Fathers, I'm
sure, never dreamed this could happen in the United States of America. Union
workers prompted this law to prohibit low-cost labor from doing jobs on a
piecemeal basis. No wonder the U.S. industry lost out to the low-cost labor
markets of Japan, Taiwan, and Korea!
system are likely targets of an aggressive Justice Department, although the
litigants are nonaggressive as they practice civil disobedience in seeking
favorable court rulings.
Resisters to draft registration have been too numerous to prosecute.
The vocal opponents, those who publicly express their views that such
registration is unconstitutional, have been singled out as particularly
dangerous and prosecuted precisely because they spoke out.
In a free society, governments are not permitted to break the law for
any reason. Yet it has become common for legal authorities to entice citizens,
through entrapment, into breaking the law. Tempting individuals and officials
with bribes or solicitation of prostitution or offering drugs is frequently done.
FBI sting operations and Abscam-type operations are accepted procedures for
the Justice Department, permitting officers of the law to break the law to get
others to do the same.
When U.S. News reporter Daniloff received "secret" papers from
Soviet KGB agents in Moscow he was arrested. U.S. officials were outraged
at the nasty trick and called it a "set-up." Yet this is the identical procedure
followed by our government against our own citizens.
The New York Times explains editorially the purpose of zoning
(November 24, 1986): "Zoning has helped establish the principle that the
interests of property owners must yield to those of the public." Zoning under
current law, according to The New York Times, is inadequate, and the public
demands that more controls are needed to assure a proper working and living
environment. The only problem is, "who is the public" and why are
ownership rights subservient to public interest? I'm sure The New York Times
editors have a precise idea of who the public is and how its interest is best
served, according to their definition, but clearly it clashes with the entire
philosophic concept of private property ownership. If the concept of privately
owned property's being used "for the public interest" is not challenged, the
ideas of socialism will emerge victorious.
If welfare needs of any segment of society can be granted against the
wishes of society's productive segment, private property ownership will
disappear. If property can be confiscated by the arbitrary actions of the state,
the individual will also be expected to serve the state on command.
The more authoritarian the government is over the economy, the more
authoritarian it will be over the use of young people in forcing them to serve
in the military or national youth service to achieve what those in power
determine is in the "public good." In a free society, the individual cannot be
forced into serving the state, and the property he owns cannot be confiscated
for any reason, even that of a humanitarian nature. The needs of one person
cannot be used to justify the victimization of another by robbing him of the
fruits of his labor.
Traditionally the family has been the core unit in America, with
parents in charge of their children until adulthood. This means they are responsible
for their physical well-being, providing proper care and guidance. Permission
until recently, to treat a child medically was always granted by the parent, and
without proper consent, medical personnel were considered in violation of the
parents' rights if treatment were rendered. Today permission (and frequently
the financing) for this treatment is given by the state to the medical profession
to treat adolescents. It has gotten to the point where the M.D. is absolutely
protected and relieved of any responsibility to the parents. Twelve-year-old
children deserve respect, love, and treatment in a nonviolent manner, but
parents who raise and are responsible for their children deserve to know what
others may be doing to them. Don't parents deserve at least the same respect
regarding their children as others expect regarding their property?
When the state replaces the role of the parent in giving permission for
medical treatment, a serious flaw is introduced which is likely to undermine
our free society. Since a child is unable to assume responsibility for himself
or herself, the only choices are the parents (or legal guardians) or the
government. The government, through court rulings or legislation, should
never be permitted to perform the role of the parent.
Assuming responsibility for one's own acts was further undermined by
the Texas Supreme Court's 1986 ruling that a bartender was responsible for
the accident which one of his customers caused after leaving the
establishment. This is a perfect example of what happens when no one knows
what individual rights are! Once this concept is lost, the idea of selfresponsibility
is lost as well.
Since the Great Depression of the 1930's, federal laws have curtailed
individuals' rights to work in their own homes. The Founding Fathers, I'm
sure, never dreamed this could happen in the United States of America. Union
workers prompted this law to prohibit low-cost labor from doing jobs on a
piecemeal basis. No wonder the U.S. industry lost out to the low-cost labor
markets of Japan, Taiwan, and Korea!
Monday, September 15, 2008
The individual who dares to demand to be left alone and to assume responsibility for himself becomes a criminal.
Careless disregard for liberty allows politicians to promise anything in
order to be reelected. Inevitably this leads to a steady increase in spending,
forcing higher taxes, more borrowing, and inflation of the money supply.
Government by majority rule has replaced strict protection of the
individual from government abuse. Right of property ownership has been
replaced with the forced redistribution of wealth and property, without
concern for the individual producing the wealth.
Once the dictatorial power of a majority is accepted as legitimate, the
days for the Republic are numbered -- which is the case unless current trends
are reversed. The individual, throughout this century, has suffered greatly
from this dramatic change in attitude. The individual who dares to demand to
be left alone and to assume responsibility for himself
becomes a criminal. Amish farmers have been arrested for not paying social
security taxes, though they sought no aid from the government. Any
independence from government welfare programs is deeply frowned upon.
Those failing to keep financial records for the IRS are promptly imprisoned.
The good of "society" has replaced the notion that the individual has a
sacred right to live unmolested by government interference.
Today it is usual to assume that the government owns all that we
produce, and through government generosity we are permitted to retain a
certain portion. We routinely hear that if a particular tax is reduced, it will be
a "cost" to government. This concept must be changed if the idea of
individual liberty is to survive. There is no such thing as cost to government.
There is only cost to people. Government cannot grant to us our right to life
and liberty, it would mean that government controls all that we produce.
Sadly this is essentially the situation in which we find ourselves today.
Government's intrusive role has grown throughout the twentieth
century, while individual responsibility has correspondingly diminished. The
expansion of government control over our lives is both a result and cause of
individuals' assuming less responsibility for themselves. Failure today is
rarely blamed on the inadequacy of the individual; society and environment
are blamed for all our problems. Criminal acts are frequently excused as being
the result of "bad breaks." Justifying welfare on the needs of individuals has
been upheld and expanded by the courts.
Careless disregard for individual rights, concern for group demands,
and concern for the good of society have led to a steady erosion of privacy.
Billions of dollars are spent yearly keeping records for the government.
The people, like lambs, are innocently driven to the slaughter as they
conform to all the government regulations and record-keeping--records that
frequently are used against them in a court of law.
We all naively and obediently become tax collectors for the
government, turning over the loot that the politicians will waste as they
further destroy our right to live as we choose.
We keep volumes of financial records solely for the government's
benefit. We accept currency controls with barely a whimper. We allow the
FBI and CIA to snoop on everything and everybody, and rarely is the
snooping challenged on principle. The only challenge to the secrecy of
government action is whether the activity is supported by the right or left.
The Computer Age is now upon us, and this technology could easily
eliminate completely the privacy that should be cherished by all freedomloving
individuals. Like nuclear power, computer technology can enhance our
standard of living or destroy our freedoms completely. It is just a matter of
time until we have a mandatory national I.D. card.
Lie-detector tests and urine and blood tests are now common-place
and have been strongly supported by the Reagan Administration -- an
administration that championed limited government principles. Today the
government sends out planes and helicopters to spy on farmlands and
industrial plants, taking pictures while looking for information about drugs
and violation of EPA regulations -- regulations which no one clearly
understands.
It is inevitable that, once the concept of absolute individual rights is
ignored, with each attempt to solve a problem, two new ones replace it.
Malcolm Forbes was asked whether his listing in his magazine of the 400
wealthiest Americans would draw the attention of terrorists. His answer was
affirmative: "I think the terror most people are concerned with is the IRS."
Today the lack of understanding and respect for voluntary contracts
has totally confused the issue that in a free society an individual can own and
control property and run his or her business as he or she chooses. The idea
that the social do-gooder can legislate a system which forces industry to pay
men and women by comparable worth standards boggles the mind and further
destroys our competitiveness in a world economy.
Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure
employees into sexual activity. Why don't they quit once the so-called
harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended,
but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem?
Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable. If force
was clearly used, that is another story, but pressure and submission is hardly
an example of a violation of one's employment rights.
The concept of equal pay for equal work is not only an impossible
task, it can only be accomplished with the total rejection of the idea
of the voluntary contract. By what right does the government assume the
power to tell an airline it must hire unattractive women if it does not want to?
The idea that a businessman must hire anyone and is prevented from firing
anyone for any reason he chooses and in the name of rights is a clear
indication that the basic concept of a free society has been lost.
In the name of equal rights, the State of Montana has forced insurance
companies to charge women additional premiums to make the fees equal
to those charged men, regardless of the economic realities that allow for a
lower premium.
Americans today have more people living on the street than ever
before, in spite of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to eradicate
poverty. Of course, logic tells us that if you subsidize poverty, you'll get more
of it.
New York City is plagued with thousands of street people. On cold
nights this tragedy is more apparent. Mayor Koch's approach to protecting the
"rights" of the street people is to sue hotels which refuse to house the
homeless tramps. Another attempt to solve the problem has been to round up
and force the vagrants into shelters -- to eliminate the embarrassment of
people dying on Wall Street. The American Civil Liberties Union has come to
the rescue, saying that "arresting" the homeless against their will violates their
rights as citizens -- a reasonable assumption. But the ACLU provides another
solution by claiming the
poor have "a right to a decent home." The problem, they state, is the failure of
government to provide (or steal) sufficient funds to build enough tenement
housing. This confused notion of rights regarding the New York street people
clearly demonstrates how poorly the concept of rights is understood America.
Much of the confusion over rights comes from the accepted idea that
"compromise" is the most noble trait of today's politician -- hardly a
characteristic of those who signed and defended our Declaration of
Independence. It is hardly reassuring that giving in halfway is the most
important political act of our twentieth-century politicians. Standing firm on
principles is viewed as illogical rigidity and dangerous to America. This idea
clearly ignores the fact that philosophy of compromise and acceptance of the
philosophy of pragmatism is a rigid philosophy in itself as a compromise
between socialism and individual rights. Although many justify
interventionism as a compromise between socialism and laissez faire,
interventionism is also a precise philosophy and not a compromise at all. It
requires a sacrifice from those who give mere lip service to the Constitution
and to the concept of individual rights.
Literary. Liberals who envy wealthy businessmen support free speech, but
advocate strict control over commercial speech. Conservatives, who defend
free commercial speech, carelessly support control over literary speech.
Somewhere in the twentieth century, we lost our way with accepting this
distinction.
The right of commercial speech and business activity are thought to be
something quite different from the right to publish whatever one desires and
live a lifestyle of one's choosing. The liberal has refused censorship of any
journalistic production, yet has never applied the same principle to the
entrepreneur who produces a commercial product rather than a book. It
doesn't bother conservatives to write laws regulating printed matter of a
sexual nature, which they see as offensive and harmful to society. Liberals are
unconcerned about their attack on the businessman's freedom of speech by
regulating ads for alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling, as well as controlling the
manufacture of consumer products.
Rules of fraud and product liability could surely be applied to
consumer goods, just as the rules of libel apply to the written or spoken
product. This discrepancy in dealing with commercial and literary speech
must someday be resolved if liberty is to be defended consistently.
When selected prosecution occurs, it is a clear signal that the concept
of equal rights is no longer honored. Today it is commonplace to select
special people and make them examples. It's the IRS's public policy to make
certain key community citizens examples in order to terrorize the other
segment of the population into submitting to the tax authorities.
In spite of the fact that even the IRS can't agree on the meaning of the
massive tax code and the regulations which are frequently never written, the
taxpayer is never excused for filing errors.
order to be reelected. Inevitably this leads to a steady increase in spending,
forcing higher taxes, more borrowing, and inflation of the money supply.
Government by majority rule has replaced strict protection of the
individual from government abuse. Right of property ownership has been
replaced with the forced redistribution of wealth and property, without
concern for the individual producing the wealth.
Once the dictatorial power of a majority is accepted as legitimate, the
days for the Republic are numbered -- which is the case unless current trends
are reversed. The individual, throughout this century, has suffered greatly
from this dramatic change in attitude. The individual who dares to demand to
be left alone and to assume responsibility for himself
becomes a criminal. Amish farmers have been arrested for not paying social
security taxes, though they sought no aid from the government. Any
independence from government welfare programs is deeply frowned upon.
Those failing to keep financial records for the IRS are promptly imprisoned.
The good of "society" has replaced the notion that the individual has a
sacred right to live unmolested by government interference.
Today it is usual to assume that the government owns all that we
produce, and through government generosity we are permitted to retain a
certain portion. We routinely hear that if a particular tax is reduced, it will be
a "cost" to government. This concept must be changed if the idea of
individual liberty is to survive. There is no such thing as cost to government.
There is only cost to people. Government cannot grant to us our right to life
and liberty, it would mean that government controls all that we produce.
Sadly this is essentially the situation in which we find ourselves today.
Government's intrusive role has grown throughout the twentieth
century, while individual responsibility has correspondingly diminished. The
expansion of government control over our lives is both a result and cause of
individuals' assuming less responsibility for themselves. Failure today is
rarely blamed on the inadequacy of the individual; society and environment
are blamed for all our problems. Criminal acts are frequently excused as being
the result of "bad breaks." Justifying welfare on the needs of individuals has
been upheld and expanded by the courts.
Careless disregard for individual rights, concern for group demands,
and concern for the good of society have led to a steady erosion of privacy.
Billions of dollars are spent yearly keeping records for the government.
The people, like lambs, are innocently driven to the slaughter as they
conform to all the government regulations and record-keeping--records that
frequently are used against them in a court of law.
We all naively and obediently become tax collectors for the
government, turning over the loot that the politicians will waste as they
further destroy our right to live as we choose.
We keep volumes of financial records solely for the government's
benefit. We accept currency controls with barely a whimper. We allow the
FBI and CIA to snoop on everything and everybody, and rarely is the
snooping challenged on principle. The only challenge to the secrecy of
government action is whether the activity is supported by the right or left.
The Computer Age is now upon us, and this technology could easily
eliminate completely the privacy that should be cherished by all freedomloving
individuals. Like nuclear power, computer technology can enhance our
standard of living or destroy our freedoms completely. It is just a matter of
time until we have a mandatory national I.D. card.
Lie-detector tests and urine and blood tests are now common-place
and have been strongly supported by the Reagan Administration -- an
administration that championed limited government principles. Today the
government sends out planes and helicopters to spy on farmlands and
industrial plants, taking pictures while looking for information about drugs
and violation of EPA regulations -- regulations which no one clearly
understands.
It is inevitable that, once the concept of absolute individual rights is
ignored, with each attempt to solve a problem, two new ones replace it.
Malcolm Forbes was asked whether his listing in his magazine of the 400
wealthiest Americans would draw the attention of terrorists. His answer was
affirmative: "I think the terror most people are concerned with is the IRS."
Today the lack of understanding and respect for voluntary contracts
has totally confused the issue that in a free society an individual can own and
control property and run his or her business as he or she chooses. The idea
that the social do-gooder can legislate a system which forces industry to pay
men and women by comparable worth standards boggles the mind and further
destroys our competitiveness in a world economy.
Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure
employees into sexual activity. Why don't they quit once the so-called
harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended,
but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem?
Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable. If force
was clearly used, that is another story, but pressure and submission is hardly
an example of a violation of one's employment rights.
The concept of equal pay for equal work is not only an impossible
task, it can only be accomplished with the total rejection of the idea
of the voluntary contract. By what right does the government assume the
power to tell an airline it must hire unattractive women if it does not want to?
The idea that a businessman must hire anyone and is prevented from firing
anyone for any reason he chooses and in the name of rights is a clear
indication that the basic concept of a free society has been lost.
In the name of equal rights, the State of Montana has forced insurance
companies to charge women additional premiums to make the fees equal
to those charged men, regardless of the economic realities that allow for a
lower premium.
Americans today have more people living on the street than ever
before, in spite of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to eradicate
poverty. Of course, logic tells us that if you subsidize poverty, you'll get more
of it.
New York City is plagued with thousands of street people. On cold
nights this tragedy is more apparent. Mayor Koch's approach to protecting the
"rights" of the street people is to sue hotels which refuse to house the
homeless tramps. Another attempt to solve the problem has been to round up
and force the vagrants into shelters -- to eliminate the embarrassment of
people dying on Wall Street. The American Civil Liberties Union has come to
the rescue, saying that "arresting" the homeless against their will violates their
rights as citizens -- a reasonable assumption. But the ACLU provides another
solution by claiming the
poor have "a right to a decent home." The problem, they state, is the failure of
government to provide (or steal) sufficient funds to build enough tenement
housing. This confused notion of rights regarding the New York street people
clearly demonstrates how poorly the concept of rights is understood America.
Much of the confusion over rights comes from the accepted idea that
"compromise" is the most noble trait of today's politician -- hardly a
characteristic of those who signed and defended our Declaration of
Independence. It is hardly reassuring that giving in halfway is the most
important political act of our twentieth-century politicians. Standing firm on
principles is viewed as illogical rigidity and dangerous to America. This idea
clearly ignores the fact that philosophy of compromise and acceptance of the
philosophy of pragmatism is a rigid philosophy in itself as a compromise
between socialism and individual rights. Although many justify
interventionism as a compromise between socialism and laissez faire,
interventionism is also a precise philosophy and not a compromise at all. It
requires a sacrifice from those who give mere lip service to the Constitution
and to the concept of individual rights.
Literary. Liberals who envy wealthy businessmen support free speech, but
advocate strict control over commercial speech. Conservatives, who defend
free commercial speech, carelessly support control over literary speech.
Somewhere in the twentieth century, we lost our way with accepting this
distinction.
The right of commercial speech and business activity are thought to be
something quite different from the right to publish whatever one desires and
live a lifestyle of one's choosing. The liberal has refused censorship of any
journalistic production, yet has never applied the same principle to the
entrepreneur who produces a commercial product rather than a book. It
doesn't bother conservatives to write laws regulating printed matter of a
sexual nature, which they see as offensive and harmful to society. Liberals are
unconcerned about their attack on the businessman's freedom of speech by
regulating ads for alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling, as well as controlling the
manufacture of consumer products.
Rules of fraud and product liability could surely be applied to
consumer goods, just as the rules of libel apply to the written or spoken
product. This discrepancy in dealing with commercial and literary speech
must someday be resolved if liberty is to be defended consistently.
When selected prosecution occurs, it is a clear signal that the concept
of equal rights is no longer honored. Today it is commonplace to select
special people and make them examples. It's the IRS's public policy to make
certain key community citizens examples in order to terrorize the other
segment of the population into submitting to the tax authorities.
In spite of the fact that even the IRS can't agree on the meaning of the
massive tax code and the regulations which are frequently never written, the
taxpayer is never excused for filing errors.
Today's Confusion on the Concept of Rights
After two hundred years, the constitutional protection of the right of
the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is virtually gone.
Today's current terminology describing rights reflects this sad change.
It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer
to: black rights, Hispanic rights, handicap rights, employee rights, student
rights, minority rights, women's rights, gay rights, children's rights, Asian-
American rights, Jewish rights, AIDS victims' rights, poverty rights, homeless
rights.
Until all these terms are dropped and we recognize that only an
individual has rights, the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves
will not be found. The longer we lack a definition of rights, the worse
economic and social problems will become.
Every year new groups organize to demand their "rights." White
people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are
quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and
Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus,
demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for achieving rights for
everyone.
The welfare ethic now universally accepted at all government levels
determines the concept of rights. No longer are rights individual but they are
based on demands, needs, and greed.
When Lee Iaccoca came before the House Banking Committee on
which I sat, he made the "right" of Chrysler workers to keep their jobs the
issue, not government largesse for a failing corporation. He explained in his
autobiography that the issue had to be workers' needs or he could not obtain
the bailout. Since the concept of rights is currently so inexact, he had no
difficulty convincing the Congress. The rights of the small businessman who
had his credit "stolen" and was forced into bankruptcy due to the Chrysler
bailout was not easily identified and thus ignored.
the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is virtually gone.
Today's current terminology describing rights reflects this sad change.
It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer
to: black rights, Hispanic rights, handicap rights, employee rights, student
rights, minority rights, women's rights, gay rights, children's rights, Asian-
American rights, Jewish rights, AIDS victims' rights, poverty rights, homeless
rights.
Until all these terms are dropped and we recognize that only an
individual has rights, the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves
will not be found. The longer we lack a definition of rights, the worse
economic and social problems will become.
Every year new groups organize to demand their "rights." White
people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are
quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and
Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus,
demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for achieving rights for
everyone.
The welfare ethic now universally accepted at all government levels
determines the concept of rights. No longer are rights individual but they are
based on demands, needs, and greed.
When Lee Iaccoca came before the House Banking Committee on
which I sat, he made the "right" of Chrysler workers to keep their jobs the
issue, not government largesse for a failing corporation. He explained in his
autobiography that the issue had to be workers' needs or he could not obtain
the bailout. Since the concept of rights is currently so inexact, he had no
difficulty convincing the Congress. The rights of the small businessman who
had his credit "stolen" and was forced into bankruptcy due to the Chrysler
bailout was not easily identified and thus ignored.
The Concept of Individual Rights
There is a serious lack of concern for individual rights today. The
concept of rights has been distorted to such a degree that the authors of the
Constitution would not recognize what is today referred to as a "right."
Demands for unearned wealth, based on needs and desires, are now casually
accepted as rights. We see little value placed on the traditional concept of
equal rights.
This change in the general attitude regarding rights is the most
significant event of the twentieth century. It has literally torn us away from
the constitutional guidelines given to us by the Founding Fathers two hundred
years ago. The media, the Congress, the courts, and the President reflect the
prevailing philosophy of our thought leaders -- especially those in our
teaching institutions. Without an understanding of the nature of rights, a
solution to today's political problems is impossible. The gimmicks won't
work, only philosophy works.
People must once again believe that it is in their best interest to
support individual rights, just as they now believe it's in their best interest to
vote for those who provide food stamps for the poor, corporate bailouts for
the rich, and bankers aid for the powerful.
The purpose of government is now dramatically different than that
which the eighteenth century writers of the Constitution intended.
Government is now broader in scope and bigger in size with a corresponding
reduction in individual liberty. A precise definition of individual rights,
strictly adhered to, is required to prevent the continued erosion and com
plete destruction of our once-free society.
The twentieth century has been characterized by the
diminishing importance of the individual and the rising
importance of the collective.
Prosperity, a wonderful benefit of a free society that we continue to
enjoy, has numbed our senses, hindering the motivation required to
understand the relationship of individual rights to productive effort.
Accumulation of wealth, and its forceful redistribution through government
coercion, preoccupies the special interests that determine which politician will
represent us in our legislative bodies. Political clout is now more important
than economic freedom for achieving financial success.
Rights, as understood by the authors of the Constitution, are not an
issue of current debate. Rights today are seen as collective and not something
individual. Just as economic theory has become macro and not micro, groups
are now thought to have rights, rather than individuals. The twentieth century
has been characterized by the diminishing importance of the individual and
the rising importance of the collective. This lack of definition and confusion
regarding rights has caused a hodgepodge of court rulings, bizarre legislation,
and needless guilt on the part of many.
concept of rights has been distorted to such a degree that the authors of the
Constitution would not recognize what is today referred to as a "right."
Demands for unearned wealth, based on needs and desires, are now casually
accepted as rights. We see little value placed on the traditional concept of
equal rights.
This change in the general attitude regarding rights is the most
significant event of the twentieth century. It has literally torn us away from
the constitutional guidelines given to us by the Founding Fathers two hundred
years ago. The media, the Congress, the courts, and the President reflect the
prevailing philosophy of our thought leaders -- especially those in our
teaching institutions. Without an understanding of the nature of rights, a
solution to today's political problems is impossible. The gimmicks won't
work, only philosophy works.
People must once again believe that it is in their best interest to
support individual rights, just as they now believe it's in their best interest to
vote for those who provide food stamps for the poor, corporate bailouts for
the rich, and bankers aid for the powerful.
The purpose of government is now dramatically different than that
which the eighteenth century writers of the Constitution intended.
Government is now broader in scope and bigger in size with a corresponding
reduction in individual liberty. A precise definition of individual rights,
strictly adhered to, is required to prevent the continued erosion and com
plete destruction of our once-free society.
The twentieth century has been characterized by the
diminishing importance of the individual and the rising
importance of the collective.
Prosperity, a wonderful benefit of a free society that we continue to
enjoy, has numbed our senses, hindering the motivation required to
understand the relationship of individual rights to productive effort.
Accumulation of wealth, and its forceful redistribution through government
coercion, preoccupies the special interests that determine which politician will
represent us in our legislative bodies. Political clout is now more important
than economic freedom for achieving financial success.
Rights, as understood by the authors of the Constitution, are not an
issue of current debate. Rights today are seen as collective and not something
individual. Just as economic theory has become macro and not micro, groups
are now thought to have rights, rather than individuals. The twentieth century
has been characterized by the diminishing importance of the individual and
the rising importance of the collective. This lack of definition and confusion
regarding rights has caused a hodgepodge of court rulings, bizarre legislation,
and needless guilt on the part of many.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
