What is the founding document of the United States?  If you answered the Constitution, you are wrong.  The document that founded the United States is the Declaration of Independence. After all, do we celebrate the nation’s birthday on September 17^th, or July 4^th?  If you answered July 4^th, then how can the Constitution be our founding document when it wasn’t ratified until September 17^th, 1787.  But there’s more.  If you look in the preamble of both the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution, you will find a reference in each to the pre-existence of the United States of America.  So, once again, I ask you: “How could the Constitution be the founding document of this nation is the founders, themselves, thought that the Declaration of Independence was the founding document of this union?

But this issue is even more important than you may understand.  Properly understood, the Declaration of Independence is the “What” and the “Why” of America while the Constitution is just the “How.”  One of the primary reasons for a great many of the problems we have today is due to the fact that we no longer understand this.  The enemies of individual rights and liberty have successfully divorced the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence.  Our founders never intended for this to happen.  In their eyes, the Declaration of Independence was as much a part of the law as the Constitution.  It was the source of the law, the principle and ideal to which the law is aimed and by which it is governed.  In short, the Declaration of Independence is a declaration acknowledging the existence of Natural Rights and Natural Law.  The Constitution is just the Social Contract by which we agree to protect and preserve those rights.  Unless you hold up the principles and ideal asserted in the Declaration of Independence, there is no way you can properly understand what the Constitution is intended to protect, or how it is intended to function.

Now, I have had many people tell me that I am wrong about all of this, but I know I’m not.  I know I am correct because one of the men who was witness to and participated in the birth of this nation from the start tells me that I’m right:

 “Before the formation of this Constitution…[t]his Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union and has never been disannulled.”

–John Quincy Adams

And two of the most important founders made statements in support of Admas’ assertion:

“The Declaration of Independence… [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man.”

–Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Adams Wells, May 12, 1821

“This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion”.

–Thomas Jefferson, letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825

“On the distinctive principles of the Government … of the U. States, the best guides are to be found in… The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental Act of Union of these States.”

–James Madison, letter to Thomas Jefferson, February 8, 1825

Now, people may try to make the case that these men didn’t mean what they so clearly said, or even that they are wrong in their understanding of the very documents they wrote with their own hands, but those who attempt such a feat are merely kicking against the boards.  One cannot argue with the author as to the intent of what he wrote.  The authority is always the supreme authority over his ideas.

Reject the Voices Of Those Warning Against Big Government & Tyranny

[NOTE: This is the first of what I hope will be an ongoing series of posts.  From the time I first started to develop my idea for the RTC, I have intended to include this series in the blog.  It is not enough to teach people the rules that govern Natural Law; you also have to help them understand how to apply them in real life.  That’s what this series is intended to do.  So, whenever you see one of these posts, you will find that it links to a story taken from the headlines of the day.  It will also contain a brief comment from me with links to the several posts I have written which explain the specific aspects of Natural law which are being violated by the person(s) or event reported in the link.  I hope you will find this series of value in helping you learn how to apply the principles and ideals I am trying to teach on this blog.]

The story:

Obama to College Students: ‘Reject These Voices’ That Warn of Big Government & Tyranny

Still, you’ll hear voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s the root of all our problems, even as they do their best to gum up the works; or that tyranny always lurks just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, creative, unique experiment in self-rule is just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

We have never been a people who place all our faith in government to solve our problems, nor do we want it to. But we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government.

[…]

The cynics may be the loudest voices—but they accomplish the least. It’s the silent disruptors—those who do the long, hard, committed work of change—that gradually push this country in the right direction, and make the most lasting difference. [Emphasis added]

What you should take away from this story as it relates to your understanding of the principles and ideals governing Natural Rights, Natural Law and the Social Contract:

First, because government is nothing more than people charged to handle the business of the people, we must understand that those people are as susceptible to corruption and abusing their authority as any other.  For this reason, government is a natural enemy of individual rights and liberty, and should always be held in suspicion (see: Government: the Tyranny of Power)

Second, if a person acknowledges that this is a nation intended to operate under the principles of self-government, but they tell you to ignore and/or reject the voices of a large part of the population, you should be wary as they are advocating an action which is contradictory to the principle they just espoused.  This is a fallacious assertion and is a sure sign of deception (see: Dishonesty: the Tyranny of Deception).

Third, it is another fallacy to admit that this nation was founded by people who had a justified skepticism of government and then switch to the assertion that our “democracy belongs to us.”  This is an equivocation: these two subjects are not related to each other, but the speaker here has deliberately attempted to connect them.  This is an appeal to emotion: the speaker believes the audience has an emotional commitment to the notion of democracy.  And it is a false assertion: this nation is not and was never intended to be a democracy.  All of these are indications of a deliberate attempt to mislead and/or deceive the audience (see: Dishonesty: the Tyranny of Deception).

Fourth, we need to watch for additional signs of deception.  Often times, a speaker will betray their true agenda, but you have to listen.  In this case, the speaker is trying to convince the audience that he is not a tyrant and that the government he heads is not a threat.  But then he actually admits that both accusations are true.  However, if you do not understand your language – especially the definition of words – you might easily miss this admission. If the audience is ignorant, the speaker can usually get away with such mistakes (see:  Ignorance: the Tyranny of Manipulation).  However, if the audience is properly educated as to the principles and ideals of individual rights and liberty, when a speaker makes a mistake like the one in this article, it will jump out at the audience and they will reject the speaker, not those who are trying to defend those individual rights and liberty.  If you will allow me, I’d like to show you how you should listen to speeches such as the one in this story:

First, you need to understand the most important definition in this story:

Definition of TYRANNY

1: oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>

2a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state

b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter>

4: an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act <workers who had suffered tyrannies>

And one more that is crucial you understand if you want to see the lie in this story:

Definition of TYRANT

1a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution

b : a usurper of sovereignty

2a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally

b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

OK, now, read these words again:

The cynics may be the loudest voices—but they accomplish the least. It’s the silent disruptors—those who do the long, hard, committed work of change—that gradually push this country in the right direction, and make the most lasting difference. [Emphasis added]

Notice how, after tying himself to the notion of democracy by giving the audience the impression that he believes in and supports something he believes the audience supports and in which it is emotionally vested, the speaker then claims that the people who make a real difference are disruptors who work silently to push change in “the right direction.”

You need to understand that these words are the antithesis of the principles governing both democracy and a representative republic!

Read them again, and think about what President Obama is saying:

1 – The voice of the opposition is not relevant, but under both democracy and a representative republic, all voices are supposed to be considered before making a national decision.

2 – Silent (i.e. behind the scenes) disruptors (i.e. subversives and revolutionaries) do the “real” work.  But what does this mean the “real” work must be in Obama’s mind?  If he is praising people who disrupt the current system, how can he possibly be talking about supporting that current system?  And since he just tried to tie himself to democracy, and to convince his audience this nation is a democracy, isn’t he suggesting that he advocates and supports those who work in silent to destroy that same democracy?

 3—Gradually pushing the nation is not the same as convincing or leading the nation.  It is “Progressive” force.  This is the point where he admits – through his words, supported by his past deeds – that he is actually a tyrant.  Search your memory.  How many stories have you read where Obama boasted he would go around Congress?  How many executive orders has Obama issued after Congress refused to pass the laws he demanded?  How many regulations has he directed his bureaucracies enact in direct defiance of Congress and the Courts?  How many times has he refused to uphold the laws of this nation (i.e. immigration), or openly violated them (i.e. the GM bankruptcy and BP extortion)?  And here he is telling the audience that the people they should look to are those who force change by destroying the existing system while working from the shadows.  How is this – in any way, shape or form – “democratic?”

[NOTE: in reality, this speech is so riddled with fallacies and warning signs that one could easily write a doctorate thesis on this one speech, alone.  So, please understand, I have only explained a few of the highlights in this piece.  I hope they will help you start to look at all political speeches in a different light by starting to apply the principles and ideals of both logic and Natural Law to what our leaders actually say and how they say it.]

[NOTE: I will eventually write several posts on this subject, as there are several important forms of manipulation which can only be made possible when the people are ignorant.  You will find be able to find them by going to the tab titled “Enemies of Liberty” in the header of this blog, scrolling down to “Ignorance: the Tyranny of Manipulation” and hovering over it with your curser.  Once they have been written, the additional posts will then appear to the right of the sub heading.]

“If a nation expects to be ignorant — and free — in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

–Thomas Jefferson, letter to Colonel Charles Yancey, January 6, 1816

Manipulation is a form of deception, so, to understand how manipulation is an attack on our free will, please see “Dishonesty: the Tyranny of Deception.”   Ignorance is what makes manipulation possible.  It is impossible to manipulate (and very difficult to deceive) an educated person or people.  But education does not mean schooling, and educated people know and understand this.  A person can get an education without ever attending a school.  In fact, so far as the principles of individual rights and liberty are concerned, a person can be educated without even being able to read or write.  In fact, the belief that one must go to school to be educated is actually the result of intentional manipulation.  But those with a proper education know and understand that some of the greatest minds in history were self-taught.  Therefore, it is essential that a free people be properly educated as to the fundamental principles and ideals of individual rights and liberty.  Once again, our founders knew and understood this, and they tried to help us remember this by leaving us their wisdom:

“Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.”

–John Adams, Defense of the Constitutions, 1787

 “It should be your care, therefore, and mine, to elevate the minds of our children and exalt their courage; to accelerate and animate their industry and activity; to excite in them an habitual contempt of meanness, abhorrence of injustice and inhumanity, and an ambition to excel in every capacity, faculty, and virtue. If we suffer their minds to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives.”

–John Adams, Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1756

“The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families…. How is it possible that Children can have any just Sense of the sacred Obligations of Morality or Religion if, from their earliest Infancy, they learn their Mothers live in habitual Infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant Infidelity to their Mothers?”

–John Adams, Diary, June 2, 1778

“But of all the views of this law none is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people the safe, as they are the ultimate, guardians of their own liberty. For this purpose the reading in the first stage, where they will receive their whole education, is proposed, as has been said, to be chiefly historical. History by apprising them of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views.”

–Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781

 “The best means of forming a manly, virtuous, and happy people will be found in the right education of youth. Without this foundation, every other means, in my opinion, must fail.”

–George Washington, letter to George Chapman, December 15, 1784

Government is a constant threat to the individual rights and liberty of every person subject to its authority.  All one needs to do to understand this is to remember that the government is nothing more than a group of people charged with conducting the people’s business.  Just as the CEO or the lowest employee of a large business can both violate the trust of those who own that business, so too can the highest leaders and lowest workers in government violate the public trust.  It is a fact of human nature that the majority of people are susceptible to succumbing to the allure of the wealth and power inevitably connected to those in the highest positions of government.  Whether for money, power or the ability to use government policy to create a utopian dream, everyone who enters into public service is subject to abusing the trust placed in them.  The temptation to abuse one’s position even applies to the lowliest government employee.  All those who work for the government knows that they are shielded from private citizens by the very nature of government, and this knowledge eventually corrupt all but the most zealous of individuals.  Our founders understood this; it’s why they stressed the importance of understanding that government is never to be trusted and to always be held suspect:

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”

–John Adams

 “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.”

–Benjamin Franklin

 “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”

–James Madison

 “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

–George Washington

This is also why we should be suspicious of anyone who tells us we have nothing to fear from the government: because anyone who would make such a claim is either too ignorant of the most basic understanding of human nature and of history to be speaking on the issue, or they are intentionally seeking to deceive you.

Dishonesty is an enemy of individual rights and liberty.  Whenever we are discussing matters related to individual rights and free will, or to a private contract, or to the Social Contract which establishes a society and how it is to be governed, any deliberate attempt to deceive another individual represents an attack on that person’s free will, which is a violation of Natural Law.  This point is actually very easy to understand, but it is dependent upon whether or not you understand the relationship between our free will and our right to contract (if you haven’t read The Natural Right to Contract and The Social Contract, you should do so before continuing with this post).

If you will remember, our Natural right to contract is dependent upon two key elements.  First, the terms of the agreement must be within the limits of Natural Law, and second, each Party to the agreement must willingly agree to be bound by the terms of that agreement.  However, even if the agreement lies entirely within the limits of Natural law, if just one Party to the agreement intentionally misleads or deliberately deceives any other Party to the agreement, that person is making an attack on the free will of all those being deceived.  Since the validity of a contract is dependent upon all Parties freely agreeing to be bound by it, it is essential that all Parties be fully informed of every detail necessary for them to make a fully informed decision.  If any information related to that decision is kept from or misrepresented by one Party to the agreement, the Parties being deceived have been prevented from being able to make a fully informed decision.  This is an attack on their free will, and thus, a violation of Natural Law.

It is essential that we understand this point, but we must also recognize the many forms that deception may take.  Lies are only the most obvious form of deception, but there are many other ways a person can deceive.  A person can make an attack on the free will of another individual by: telling a half-truth, withholding details, presenting details in a way that is misleading or easily misunderstood; making or false statement; citing a reference that does not support their point; taking or reciting things out of context; using equivocation; or even remaining silent about something one even thinks is pertinent to an agreement.

This is also why it is absolutely imperative that we hold our leaders to a strict accounting of honesty.  If we elect people to represent us who have proven they cannot be trusted to tell the truth, then we are violating the Natural Rights of every person in our community by voting to choose a representative who we know is likely to keep important information from them.  Because a free and self-governing people requires accurate information by which to make our individual decisions as to how to vote, and thus, keep to our duty to each other as part of the Social Contract, anyone party to a deception that limits the ability of others to fulfill their duty is as guilty of deception as the person committing it.  In other words: if I vote for a person when I know or even have good reason to suspect that person will deceive my fellow citizens, if, after that person is elected, they deceive just one person as part of their actions as an elected official, I am as guilty of deceiving that person as the person who committed the deception.