Preventing people from harming others is a legitimate role of government.  However, when government tries to claim that it has the authority to force people to do or perform a certain action, then the government is no longer legitimate and has crossed over into tyranny.  Forcing people to buy health insurance just to obtain ‘legal’ status is one example.  No one is harmed if I do not buy health insurance because there is no moral imperative to care for me should I get sick or injured and cannot afford to pay for my own care.  Likewise, forcing people to go to school – let alone public schools or schools where the curriculum is controlled by the government – is yet another example of tyranny.   Here is just one story about a growing trend of government kidnapping children simply because some official does not agree with their parents’ over how to educate the children:

Texas judge orders home schooled children removed from Christian parents’ home

“According to a recent article from the Texas Home School Coalition (THSC), a CPS caseworker investigated the Tutt family’s home and concluded by saying, “There is no problem here.” However, the caseworker also remarked, “Nobody in their right mind would want to stay home all day with so many children!” and ordered Mrs. Tutt to enroll in parenting classes and take a psychological examination. Despite the fact that Mrs. Tutt showed CPS workers numerous parenting class certificates and paperwork certifying her mental health, a local judge ordered the Tutts’ seven children to be removed from the home. In November, armed constables seized the children and kept them under government custody for nearly two months.”

This is kidnapping.  Government can have no right or power that you and I do not possess.  This is an inherent part of the Social Contract.  In this case, there was no danger to the children and no laws were being broken – per the CPS case worker’s own admission.  What we have here was a CPS case worker using the power of government to force their personal opinion onto this family, and then using the power of the government to forcibly remove the children where there was no cause to do so.  If we did this, it would be defined as kidnapping.  So, when the government does it without probable cause to suspect a law has been broken – where this CPS worker had apparently already determined none was – it is still kidnapping.  There is even a ransom demand here: that the parents comply with the personal opinions of the CPS case worker.  This is the very definition of tyranny!

Now, before anyone objects to my assertion, read the rest of the article.  This case was adjudicated and the children returned to their parents.  Furthermore, it was determined that there was no legal foundation to justify the actions that were taken in this case.

The couple appealed the decision. The judge ruled that the state return the children. Based on the facts of the case, she determined that the children were removed due to homeschooling, not abuse or neglect. She overturned Olvera’s ruling, which was not based on abuse findings, but rather complaints about homeschooling.

The reversal is good news, but the warning here is clear. There is a generation of bureaucrats who simple don’t accept homeschooling.

The fundamental drive behind these government officials’ actions is the firm conviction that your children do not belong to you, they belong to the State:

 Shorter Melissa Harris-Perry: All Your Kids Are Belong to Us

Make no mistake: this woman is claiming your children belong to the community, and she believes the community = the government, because the government is the ‘decision maker’ for the community.

This is just another example of the parallels between modern America and 1930’s Germany.  If you doubt me, please read the following post from The Rio Norte Line:

Your Kids Belong to Us: Another Example of the Left Admitting who and what they are

Please, do not be fooled.  We no longer live in a free country.  You no longer have Constitutionally protected rights.  You live in a police State where whatever rights and liberty you have is what the government decides to let you have at any given moment.  The up-side is that we still have the pretense of a system that allows for peaceful redress, but even that will go away if we do not start using it to the fullest extent possible.  That is exactly what I urge you to do.  Now, start sounding those alarm bells, because the enemy is not only inside the gates, he is sitting in the seat of power.  It will not be much longer before he solidifies his rule and all hope will be lost.

Breaking the law removes the protections of the government and places you firmly in the seat of criminal — period.  We need to start treating people that way.  In a just world — a world where the rule of law was still in operation — everyone in the government who had anything to do with taking these children from their parents — the case worker, judge and even the law enforcement officers who participated — would be charged and tried for kidnapping and subject to civil suit for violation of civil liberties.  And upon conviction, or award, they — personally — would have to pay the fines and not the people.  Finally, whether found guilty or not, they should all loose their jobs and be banned from public service of any kind for life.  This is the only way we can or ever will protect the public trust: by starting to apply the law to those government officials who violate it.

[NOTE: there is also an attack on the Christian faith connected to these stories.  Many Muslims homes chool, or attend Islamic schools, and I have not been able to find similar stories concerning children being snatched from these families/schools.  This is not to say that it doesn’t happen, but I cannot find any evidence of it.  At the same time, I can find many stories just like this one where Christian families are being attacked on the guise of religious belief — which is what this story really represents.  Education was just used as it is thought to be secular, and therefore, easier for the government to manipulate without risk of reprisal.]

I find it unsettling that so many can be so blind to the growing spirit of tyranny in this nation.  Has this country strayed so far from the principles and ideals of its founding that we no longer recognize it when we see it?  Sadly, the answer appears to be “yes.”  Otherwise, when we saw stories such as this one, the reaction would be swift, sure and overwhelming and these people would be removed and tried for subversion and/or sedition:

Obama: I’ll Act Alone Without Congress If They Don’t Pass Certain Legislation

Now, before we go any further, let’s get a few things straight:

First, I am not a racist, nor is it ‘racist’ to attack this man’s words and/or deeds.  In fact, it is closer to racism to claim that I am only opposing Obama because he is black than to object to what he is saying and doing.

Second, what Obama is doing is not part of the rule of law.  There is no Constitutional authority for the President (or the Court, for that matter) to make law.  The power to make law lies solely with the Congress.  So, these ‘executive orders’ that Obama and those before him have issued that carry the weight of law are unconstitutional!  Furthermore, this is not ‘my opinion,’ it is a matter of fact as stated in the actual text of the supreme law of this land – the U.S. Constitution.

Third, this means that what Obama is doing is the very definition of lawlessness.  Where he cannot get the legislative – and representative – body of this nation to do his bidding, he is overtly declaring he will just do so by decree.  What’s more, this is ‘undemocratic.’  By declaring that he will go around the peoples’ representatives, he is thwarting the will of the people.  This is dictatorship, and it is exactly how representative democracies traditionally fall to dictators.  And yes, Obama is becoming a tyrant:

Full 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

To those who do not think there is any comparison between what we are seeing in our country now and what happened in Europe during the 1930’s, I suggest you wake up and wake up fast.  What we are seeing in America right now is a replay of exactly what happened in Europe during the 1930’s.  We just do not see or understand it because we no longer teach history to our children.  But make no mistake about this: if this is not stopped – and it is in and coming from both Parties – if it is not stopped and stopped soon, we will go the way of Europe and mankind will never know individual liberty again (not until the second coming, anyway).  If you think I am exaggerating, ask yourself this question: if Hitler had the NSA and the ability to gather all the information our government now has, do you think any resistance would have had any chance to form, let alone operate?  And, with the abilities our government has now, do you think the Allies would have been able to defeat Hitler’s forces when Hitler would have known everything they were planning to do before they did it?  The answer is no, and anyone who doubts that either doesn’t know history, or is intentionally denying reality.

This must be stopped, and stopped now.  But before we can stop it, this country has to remember what the law is supposed to be and do, so that we can know and understand the proper role of government.  So, if you care – really, truly care – get a drink, then open this link and start reading.  This is what the law is supposed to be, all it is supposed to do, and the extent of ‘proper’ government’s duties and authority:

Frederick Bastiat and ‘The Law”

Now that I have offered a rather rough handling of Libertarianism, I want to address my ‘Conservative” friends.  But first, I want to make sure my Conservative and Libertarian friends both understand something.  I do not attack the Democrat Party directly because I consider that Party and everyone in it – leadership and membership alike – to be a lost cause.  Democrats are hopelessly tied to the American Progressive agenda and, because of this, they are irrational.  They cannot be reached with reason.  This is not true about those calling themselves Libertarian and Conservative.  The majority of you have not yet renounced the use of reason, but you are caught up in the grips of faction (as Madison defined it).  In other words, you are fighting harder for your team than for your goal.  My goal is not for a Party or even this nation.  My goal is the preservation of individual rights and liberty.  So, when I address Conservatives and Libertarians, it is in the hope that I can get you to stop worrying about your team (i.e. Party or even political label) and start worrying about the objective.

“Where liberty dwells, there is my country.”

–Benjamin Franklin

I am often criticized about worrying too much over the definition of words.  Well, there’s a reason for my concern.  Language is a form of logic, and if you do not know the words, you cannot reason properly and will open yourself to making mistakes in what you believe and why.  This is why the Progressives always seem to be obsessed with matters of language: it’s because they know they can use it to form, shape and direct public opinion.  It’s called propaganda, but it doesn’t work so well when the audience is properly educated.  And that is why we should all be concerned with mastering the language.  Unfortunately, mastering the language is only a part of the equation.  We also need to know and understand history.

The term “Conservative has a definition, and I have explained it before:

Political Labels: The History of “Conservative/Conservatism”

But the definition of “Conservative” is not the subject of this post.  The purpose of this post is to show that those who call themselves “Conservative” do not hold the same political ideology as the founding fathers because they have incorporated far too much of the Progressive philosophy into their own thinking.  There are several points we could focus on, but for the sake of brevity, we will look at just two.

The first is the Conservative tendency to embrace the police State in the name of law and order.  The Patriot Act is a perfect example of this.  Our founders would have violently objected to the Patriot Act.  It is completely unconstitutional, and yet, at the time the bill was being debated, Conservatives could be found defending the bill.  They were even going so far as to question the patriotism of anyone who objected to the law.  But look what has happened: those who objected have been vindicated, but now we are stuck not only with the Patriot Act, but also the TSA and DHS – and all in the name of law and order.  This is not a founding ideal of this nation, but an authoritarian State is most certainly a main plank in the Progressive ideal.

Next, we have the Conservatives’ embrace of corporation.  Franklin and Jefferson both wrote that those who object to the public control of property that exists only because of a public act should not partake in that sort of property.  In short, if you do not want the government to be able to have some say over your business, do not incorporate it.

Now, I have not found where any of the founders expounded on this point past the words I have read from Jefferson and Franklin asserting a public right to control publically created entities (i.e. Corporations), but I suspect the reasoning is rooted in the founders’ understanding of Natural Law.  You see, the corporation as we know it is – by its very nature – ‘collectivist.’  It is an artificial construction created by a legislative act of the entire people and, in theory, it is owned by many (i.e. stock holders).  However, in practice, the corporation as it exists today is little more than a vehicle by which the responsibility for the operation of the corporation is shifted from those corporate officers in charge of running it to the corporation, itself.  You see, we have given ‘personhood’ to something that is not real, and along with that ‘personhood,’ we have granted corporations rights as a person.  This is why corporations are usually fined but no one goes to jail.  And this is entirely at odds with Natural Law – but it is perfectly in line with the Progressive Ideal.

We could also go into the Conservative position on tariffs and free trade, on foreign military involvement and immigration.  The positions of the majority of those who consider themselves to be part of the modern American Conservative movement are quite different in these areas than that of our founding fathers.   Sadly, however, they are close to those of the Progressive movement, and this is because the Progressive movement got its start from within the Republican Party, and the Republican Party has co-opted those who consider themselves to be “Conservatives.”  In truth, this is all a big word/ideals game designed to keep people fighting over Party and ideology rather than focusing on principle and common grounds for obtaining common goals based on those principles.  And the people who have kept us chasing our tails for decades now depend on the Right being as ignorant as the rest of the population.  It’s just that they have to be much more sophisticated in their approach where the Right is concerned.  The few real thinkers on the Left already buy into the Progressive agenda, so there is little need to fool them, but the majority of those who think for themselves tend to reject the Progressive agenda because it leads to tyranny.  So the people in control of our government and social institutions have to be trickier in directing the voters on the Right.  But make no mistake about it; they still use the same basic techniques against us; they just do it in a much more sophisticated manner.  All I am trying to do is help you see this by showing you that you do not believe what you think you believe in the hopes that this will get you to step back and look a little closer at the rest of what you think is real.  If you do that, I think you might just find you have swallowed the founders’ red pill.

OK, if you have been reading my work for any length of time, you have probably run across at least one of my posts objecting to the Libertarian ideal.  Now, I am under no delusions here; I know that I have little chance of getting a dedicated Libertarian to change their world view.  I don’t write to or for those people; I write against the Libertarian ideal for the benefit of those who I might still be able to convince.  It is not that I think there is anything inherently evil about the people who adhere to the principles of Libertarianism.  Quite the contrary: I believe many of them are sincerely seeking to live their lives freely and in peace with others.  It’s just that I see a flaw in the foundation of Libertarianism.  The whole ideology is based on a fallacious assumption which is, in reality, is the same self-deception at the heart of original sin.  I’m just trying to help others see and understand that this self-deception undermines the rest of the philosophical foundation upon which the Libertarian ideal is built.

Liberty depends on morality.  I doubt I will find many ‘disciplined’ Libertarians who will disagree with this assertion.  For a person to be self-governing there must be some idea as to what is right and what is wrong.  It is this ideal of right and wrong that then allows the individual to be self-governing.  So long as the individual controls his/her own actions according to this ideal, the individual has little use or need of government because they encounter little or no conflict with other individuals.  And, when they do, they can usually resolve that conflict between themselves.  In fact, it was the self-governing Christian that built this nation.  The principles and ideals written into our Declaration of Independence can trace a direct lineage to the example set by the self-governing Christian, as evidenced in the model of the early Pilgrim and Puritan settlements in Colonial America (among others).  In fact, our foundering fathers said exactly this.  So, one of the fundamental principles of liberty is that there must be a sense of morality at the center of any self-governing societies.

Again, I doubt I will find any ‘disciplined’ Libertarian who will offer too much of an objection to my argument so far.  So far as most of the Libertarians I have known have been concerned, so long as you do not harm anyone else in the exercise of your rights and liberty, they would argue that you should not be restrained in those rights and liberty.  In short: if you’re not hurting anyone, you should be left alone – especially by the government.  And, in this sense, the Libertarian might even believe their idea of self-governing is the same as that of the Christian, just without the religious aspects.  But there is the fallacy in the fundamental assumption of the Libertarian ideal.  There can be no morality without ‘religion’ (where ‘religion’ is understood to mean a general belief in a Creator connected to the assumption of judgment by the Creator for our actions in this life).  In this sense, the self-governing Christian is very different from that of the self-governing Libertarian.

The Libertarian would claim that, since religion is a ‘private’ matter, he/she should be free from any outside religious influences – even to the point of Atheism.  In essence, the Libertarian will claim that the Natural Right of conscience imparts a right to not believe in God.  On the surface, this seems reasonable, but there is an inherent fallacy in this assertion.  If the Libertarian ideal is predicated on the individual’s right to be his or her own governor, then the individual asserting the Libertarian ideal is claiming to be his/her own governor.  In other words, the Libertarian claims to be the ruler of himself or herself.  And by logical extension, this then means the Libertarian must decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, as well as what constitutes ‘harm.’  But deciding what is right and what is wrong and what constitutes harm is the work of the Creator, not the creation. For, if the individual claims the right to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, is this not a claim to be God?  It must be, as moral law cannot be established by man; it must be established by the Creator.  This is what Voltaire was getting at when he penned words to the effect of:

“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.”

The self-governing Christian does not create his or her own idea of right and wrong because the Christian does not claim to be their own Lord.  The self-governing Christian is governed by God, and therefore, by God’s law.  This is what creates an objective standard by which other self-governing Christians can determine what the right action in a given situation is.  This is not to say that every self-governing Christian will always make the correct decision, nor that they will even all agree as to what God’s law demands.  What it means is that there is a known ideal that is known to all and which can be examined and debated so that a common understanding can be reached.  However, under the Libertarian ideal, there can be as many standards as there are Libertarians.  By definition, this also means there can be no fixed ideal for – according to the Libertarian ideal — so long as no one ‘harms’ anyone else, no one can claim the authority to tell another what is right and what is wrong.  The consequence of this is that I can decide certain people are not people.  Thus, I am free to do what I will to them as – again, by definition – I cannot harm a ‘person’ if they are not people and no one else has the authority to tell me my definition of ‘person’ and ‘harm’ is any better than theirs.  Now, before you object to this, do some research: you’ll find several leading ‘ethicists’ have already made the case that parents should be allowed to kill their children up to the age of three because ‘they are not human yet.’  In fact, ‘science’ has been used to justify Eugenics in America, the Holocaust in Germany and abortion, and in every case, the justification rests on the re-defining of who is and is not ‘human.’  So, this is not an absurd example; it has already happened!

Here is an illustration of the Libertarian problem:

Suppose one man kills an eats another man and when the police arrest him and he goes to trial, he says he has done nothing wrong because the other man wanted to be killed and eaten.  Suppose the man on trial says he even ran an ad explaining what he wanted to do and the man he killed and ate answered that add?  What is the Libertarian to do in this case?  According to the Libertarian ideal, no one was harmed because neither party was forced to do anything against their will.  Both acted voluntarily.  Now, again, before you think this example is absurd, do a little research.  The cannibal’s name was Armin Meiwes.

Now, the Christian answer to the same problem:

After WW II, when the Allies were getting ready to hold the Nuremberg Trials, the Charter of the Tribunal encountered a problem.  They could not try many of the Germans charged with war crimes because they were claiming they were merely following orders and, under the laws of the governing bodies over them at the time, what they did was ‘legal.’  The problem is that – at their heart – all laws represent what a society considers to be right and wrong, so the Allies had to find another standard by which to charge and try the German war criminals.  In the end, the Allies claimed a ‘transcended’ standard; they claimed the “the law beyond the law.”  German war criminals were tried according to the law of God, the God of the Bible. (John Warwick Montgomery, The Law Above the Law (Minneapolis, MN: Dimension Books/Bethany Fellowship, 1975), 24-25)

To end this post, I would refer you to:

Judges 17:6

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

⁶ In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.

So long as God is your King and you conduct yourself according to your best understanding of His law, there is nothing wrong with doing what is right in your own eyes:

Judges 8:23

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

²³ But Gideon said to them, “I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you; the Lord shall rule over you.”

But this is not what the Libertarian ideal says.  In fact, the very foundation of Libertarian philosophy is based in the ‘right’ to reject any and all notion of God.  Therefore, the Libertarian model puts the individual in God’s seat, and that is original sin – and the reason why the Libertarian model does not work.  It violates Natural Law; the very law by which individual rights and liberty are claimed.

The Essence of Money as it Relates to Natural Law/Natural Rights

Many of the posts in this series, “FUNDAMENTALS OF NATURAL LAW,” may be less than captivating.  So, why would a person want to spend their time reading and trying to understand the principles and concepts discussed in this series?  Maybe because it is the duty of every citizen in a free and self-governing society to do so:

“If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be…. If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.”

–Thomas Jefferson

This post is about the essence of money and how that relates to Natural Law and Natural Rights.  I started this series with this subject because I happen to agree with one of our most important founders:

“All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.”

–John Adams

So what is money?  Well, this time, simply citing the definition in Webster’s is not going to answer our question because the definition in Webster’s does not go deep enough.  First, we must remember that form and function are what define a thing or idea.  It is its nature that makes it what it is, not the word by which we call it.  And while the Webster’s definition certainly describes some of the characteristics of the nature of money, it does not define all of them.  It does not define the characteristics of money’s nature that actually apply to Natural Law/Natural Rights.  That is what we need to examine to understand what money really is: those characteristics that are connected to Natural Law/Natural Rights because, until we do so, we cannot fully understand what Adams is actually saying.

Imagine early civilization, before the invention of money.  If you could not find, make or grow something yourself, how would you get it?  Well, you could take it, but that is a risky proposition in an environment without any form of social order to keep the peace and protect the rights of private individuals, so it might not be the wisest option.  But you could barter for it: you could trade something you could find, make or grow for those things you want or need but could not make yourself.  From everything archeologists can determine, this is the most likely form of the earliest economies: a barter system.

Now imagine that society has grown.  Maybe there is even a start of the first form of government to keep some semblance of order and to protect the rights of individuals.  And imagine that people have started to invent new things; new tools and new materials previously unknown.  And still others have started to invent new ways to use the materials and previous discoveries to make more new things that help you better your life.  In short, imagine that the economy has grown and the first signs of a division of labor have started to emerge in our barter system.  There comes a point when pure barter stops being as convenient as it once was, so people start looking for a way to replace it.  Maybe you replace it by trading something of universal value.

In this primitive world, gold may not have even been discovered yet.  The chances are, people are still concerned mostly with food, clothing and shelter.  Now suppose your community lives in an area where salt is very scarce.  In such a primitive environment, salt is extremely valuable if for no other reason than it can help you preserve large amounts of food.  So your community decides that some standard measure of salt is worth an hour of labor.  This allows you to trade a unit of salt with someone for an hour of labor, but it also allows people to start setting values for the other items they find, grow or make.  Those values are set against that unit of salt.  Suppose it takes two hours to make a wooden hoe.  A person might value that hoe at two units of salt.  This system of trade also has the benefit of being easier to use.  Instead of carrying around a bunch of hoes to trade, a person could carry around several units of salt instead.  What’s more, in the event that the person you want to trade with does not need or want a hoe, they will still trade because your salt has universal value.  In other words, they can use the salt as much as anyone in that community.  This is how money developed and how it works, but it is not yet what we are looking to find.  It is not the fundamental essence of money.

To get at the essence of money, we need to look at what it replaces.  What did the salt replace in our scenario?  It replaced labor.  And what is labor?  If you have read the posts under the “NATURAL LAW” header at the top of this blog, then you know that labor represents the exercise of a person’s free will.  It is essential to their ability to protect and preserve their body, and thus, their life; which in turn is essential to preserving their free will.  And if you have read the posts in this header, then you know that our free will is the most fundamental right that a person possesses.  By your very nature, you and you alone possess and command your thoughts and your inner will.  This makes your will is a Natural Right.  The rest of your Natural Rights are then derived from your free will.  So, when you work to make or grow something, you impart part of your will – your life force – into that object.  This is how you derive a right to private property; through an exercise of your free will.  By logical extension, this means you have property in your salt because it represents your labor, and thus, your free will.

Now, here is the point Adams is actually making.  Once we understand that a person has a private property right over their money because it represents their labor, and thus, their ability to sustain their life and their free will, then many of the issues we find ourselves arguing over in terms of the law and our Constitution fall away – so long as we understand and adhere to the principles of Natural Law, that is.  If you are ‘rich,’ and the rest of the community is ‘poor,’ I still cannot take your money without violating your Natural Right to your labor and free will.  Nor can I make a law authorizing society to do so, because Natural Law says I cannot give the government any authority I do not possess on my own.  And this means welfare of any sort is a violation of Natural Law because it violates the Natural Rights of those whose property – labor and free will – are being taken and given to others.  Properly understood, this also reveals that the only tax that is in accordance with Natural Law is the tax that is either apportioned equally among all individuals (per capita), or according to an election of free will (sales tax).

Do you see why Adams asserts that many of our problems would be resolved if we just understand the nature of money?  Of course, Adams is also supposing a virtuous society that understands and embraces Natural Law/Natural Rights, but that is where Jefferson’s admonishment comes into the social equation.  We have a duty to know these things and to teach them to our children because it is only when our society understands and embraces Natural Law/Natural Rights that the individual is protected and our society can remain free and self-governing and.

[NOTE: This also explains why no society/economy based on the principles of socialism has or can ever work.  No system that violates Natural Law can or will be sustained for very long.  If one looks to history, one will find no socialist system has ever lasted more than 70-something years, yet the founders’ system – based in Natural Law/Natural Rights – still exists after some 237 years.  Furthermore, if one looks at where we have the most problems in our society or with our system, one finds that – in every case – the problem is directly connected to an attempt to force something that violates Natural Law.]