Political Parties are another form of artificial entity, and, as such, they share in all threats posed by artificial entities.  But political Parties present a special threat to individual rights and liberty worthy of their own, separate post.  In the case of political Parties, the principle threat to liberty is that of faction:

Definition of FACTION

1: a party or group (as within a government) that is often contentious or self-seeking : clique

2: party spirit especially when marked by dissension

Under the Social Contract — as constrained by the terms of Natural law — any division over the terms of the contract among the individuals Party to them actually represents a potential violation of those terms, and thus, a violation of Natural Law.  So, if a group of individuals within a community/society ban together to increase their political strength, in essence, what they are doing is forming another contract between themselves.  While it may not seem apparent at first, this is a violation of the Social Contract.

When people form a political Party, they do so with the expressed understanding that those outside the Party are not privy to it.  Unless you are a Party member, you do not share in whatever benefit that Party is intended to provide its members.  Now, because political Parties are intended to influence a community’s/society’s government, and because the Party has expressly excluded all individuals who are not a member, the Party – actually, every member in it —  has declared itself to be an enemy of the government it means to influence.  Remember, the Social Contract forms the community/society, and sets up the system by which it will govern itself.  This is done by the willing agreement of every individual within that community/society.  But the moment that a part of that community/society sets up a separate contract to pursue their own agenda, they violate the terms of their original Social Contract under which they agreed to work toward the common good of every individual in that community/society – not just those in their Party.  In essence, individuals who form a Party do so to use their combined power to force changes to the Social Contract they first agreed to live by.  That is a attack on the Natural Rights of every individual within that community/society.

There is no way for a political Party to exist within another Social Contract without violating the terms of that contract, and thus, Natural Law.  Human nature being what it is, the moment political Parties are allowed, the individuals within a Party will start to shift their loyalty to their Party and not the community/society to which they had willingly committed themselves by accepting the terms of the Social Contract that made that community/society.  In short, by joining a political Party, an individual essentially “changes sides” and places themselves in a state of war against their original community/society.  What’s more, the leaders of a political Party will naturally seek to solidify and grow their Party’s power, as well as their personal power, which further places the Party’s interest at odds with those of the terms of the Social Contract of the greater community/society.  Should a Party become strong enough, it is possible that a Party leader could actually become the de facto leader of a community/society, even if that Party leader is not actually the elected leader of the community/society.  For example: if we elected a President, but both the House and Senate were controlled by super majorities of the same Party, then whatever that Party leader told those Party members to do could conceivably be made law over the objections of the duly elected President of the nation.  Were this to happen, it would be a clear violation of the original intent of our Constitution, of Natural Law, and thus, a clear threat to the individual rights and liberties of every individual in this country.

If we look at this with an honest understanding of human nature, it should be simple to understand: a person cannot serve two masters.  They can either be loyal to a Party or their nation, but they cannot be loyal to both because – by its nature – the Party has declared itself to have a different agenda than that of the nation.  Our founders understood this, which is why the founding father of this nation specifically warned against allowing political parties.  If you would allow me, I would like to end this post by quoting a lengthy section from President Washington’s farewell address to the nation:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

— George Washington, September 19, 1796

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

–Edmund Burke

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil.

— Dietrich Bonhoeffer

So long as we wish to be a part of the Social Contract which forms and governs our community/society, this is a simple but important point.  If we see something happening that we know is wrong, yet we do not do something to try to stop it – even if all we can do is speak out in a strong objection so others know that we know it is wrong – then we willingly become a part of that wrong and share in the guilt with those who are actually committing the action.  But this issue goes further than just staying silent.  The problem here is that of apathy:

Definition of APATHY

1: lack of feeling or emotion : impassiveness

2: lack of interest or concern : indifference

When we agree to the terms of the Social Contract that formed and governs our community/society, we agree to keep our part of that contract.  Unless our Natural Rights are being trampled, we have no claim to object to our duties because we willingly agreed to do them when we agreed to the Social Contract.  In a free and self-governing society, these duties include things such as voting, but voting is much more than casting a ballot.  If we are going to vote, we have an obligation to vote intelligently, so we can vote for those who will protect and preserve the Social Contract and Natural Law.  This means we have also agreed to stay fully informed as to the issues necessary to allow us a reasoned vote.  Now note: there is no option not to vote, so there is no option not to stay informed.  These are obligations of citizenship, and if we do not meet them, we have broken the terms of our agreement with the other individuals in our community/society.  Staying informed enough to vote in line with Natural Law is the duty of every individual subject to a Social Contract.

The Social Contract can also create additional duties.  It can create the duty to participate in jury duty, or in posses.  Just because the Social Contract may provide for a police force, that provision does not relieve us from our individual duty to help protect the Natural Rights of every individual subject to it.  We still have the duty to act on our own – especially when the police are not around.  This duty includes a duty to help a neighbor fight a fire, or to provide first aid to someone who is injured – even to help another individual protect their property from loss or damage.

The social contract creates a duty to teach our children and the rest of our community about the proper principles and ideals necessary to support a free and self-governing society.  This is the primary purpose of education in a free society: not to teach a trade or profession, but to teach the principles and ideals of liberty, to teach Natural Rights, Natural Law and the Social Contract.

 If we expect that every individual in our community/society is going to protect our rights as its part of their obligation under the Social Contract, then we are equally obligated to do the same for them.  We agreed to do so when we willingly agreed to the terms of the Social Contract that formed our community/society and bound everyone to each other.  However, should we neglect our duties, we can have no expectation that others will still keep their end of the agreement.  In fact, if we refuse to perform the duties we willingly agreed to, we have broken the Social Contract.  Breaking the Social Contract effectively makes us an enemy of society, thus creating a duty for those individuals who are still trying to keep the terms of that contract to protect others from us!  In short, if we willingly refuse to perform our duties under the Social Contract, we declare ourselves to be enemies of those who still bind themselves to it.  When this happens, we are attacking the Natural Rights of every individual in that community/society and those individuals become justified in defending themselves from us in whatever manner the Social Contract prescribes (subject to the constraints of Natural Law).

Therefore, in a free and self-governing society, apathy is not only a threat to individual rights and liberty of others, it is a threat to our own individual rights and liberty as it can cause us to lose the protections offered by the Social Contract.

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