I believe I have found a timely subject for the first post of our new series on defending the language.  I was listening tot he radio today and heard a news clip of Obama’s press Secretary trying to argue that Obama did not grant ‘amnesty’ to five million illegal aliens last night, Thursday, November 20, 2014.   So the first post in this series is going to examine the meaning of the word, ‘amnesty.’  But first, I desperately need you to accept something.  I need you to accept that I am sincere when I tell you that I do not mean to sound preachy in this post.  I do not want to ‘talk down’ to anyone, or sound like I am lecturing you.  Nor do I think I am better, or smarter than you.  The truth is, I am just trying to share a process with you that I habitually apply to myself and to my own thinking.  So, in a very real sense, I am inviting you to share in my personal thoughts.  I beg you to accept this post in this manner — please.  And with that said, it’s time to look at the meaning of the word ‘amnesty.’

We start with Webster’s on line dictionary:

am·nes·ty

There are going to be many people who will argue Obama (he has forfeit his claim to the Presidency) has the authority to do what he did last night.  He does not.  Obama has violated his oath and broken the law.  But many will try to argue his case, repeating the excuses (they are not reasons) he gave for his actions last night.  You may even be one of those who supports Obama, or maybe you just aren’t sure if he is actually breaking the law as I and so many others are saying.  Well, if you’ll give me a few minutes, I might be able to help you look at it from a position that will help you see Obama’s actions as the lawless acts they are.

The first thing you need to understand is that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the President from doing what Obama just did (this is why I say Obama has forfeited his claim to the Presidency).  The Constitution says the Congress has sole authority to make law, and sole authority over immigration.  It also says the President will enforce those laws.  It does not give him any authority to ignore, alter or write law.  From the time he first started running for President until just last night, Obama openly admitted this was true.  So Obama is the primary witness against himself here.  But so does the U.S. Constitution.  So, for those who still claim to cling to God’s laws, we have two witnesses against Obama.  Now let me show you how Natural Law makes it three.

Under the rule of law, the Law is king — not men.  This means illegal aliens remain ILLEGAL unless and until the law is properly changed.  According to our laws, this would require Congress to change the law and the President to sign it and the Courts to uphold it.  Until this happens, no one can make illegal aliens legal — including the President.  But I want to make sure we all understand the principle here, so let me us a different example to illustrate it.

Obama said these illegal aliens ‘deserve’ to be made legal because they are hard working people who are just trying to survive.  He also said that many have been here a long time.  But what if I broke into someone’s house to steal their stuff ten years ago, and when they caught me, I killed them?  Would you excuse me?  Before you say no, let me explain my ‘intentions.’  I was just trying to get things I could sell to survive.  I even made sure I broke in to a ‘rich man’s’ house because — obviously — he only had all that stuff because he stole it from me and other ‘poor’ people.  While I was looking for things I could sell to survive, the rich man caught me and I killed him.  It was self-defense.  After all, had I not killed him, he would have called the police and I may have been shot by ‘bad cops,’ so — clearly — it was self-defense.  So, you see, I had the best intentions, and it happened so long ago, so — if you were President — would you tell the nation it has to forgive me, make me legal, see me as an ‘honest, hard working citizen’ and then make any and all government benefits available to me?  I hope not.  I hope you will see that I am still guilty of theft and murder.  Well, these illegals are still illegal!

Now, I understand that one of the first things Obama’s supporters will say to me is ‘this is different,’ but is it?  The law is the law, and both I (in my scenario) and these illegal aliens all broke it.  But Obama, and his supporters, will argue that illegals are ‘good’ people, but — in my scenario — I am a ‘bad’ person.  OK, I will accept that and counter it with another example using one of the most popular televisions shows on TV today, NCIS.

In the TV series, Gibbs, an NCIS agent, and his team faced federal prosecution for breaking the law.  The episode ran over three episodes, all of which continuously portrayed Gibbs and his team as the ‘good’ guys who did what they did because they had to to protect people and ‘get the bad guys.’  The problem is, the prosecutor in the show was correct: Gibbs and his team are routinely portrayed as violating the law and Constitution.  They are always portrayed as doing it ‘for the right reasons,’ and the writers are careful to make sure you like the characters so you will actually route for them as they are breaking the law.  I have seen fans of the show actually cheer when Gibbs broke the law to get the ‘bad’ guy.  The problem is, if you have to become a criminal to catch a criminal, how can you still claim to be one of the ‘good’ guys?  You have broken the law, just like the people you are trying to put in jail for breaking the law.

This is the point: if you break the law, it does not matter what your intentions are, all that matters is you broke the law.  Now, if the law is unjust, then the proper thing to do — the legal thing to do — is to work within the system to change the law.  You have no right to break it and then claim you are innocent.  MLK never claimed he was innocent when he broke the segregation laws, but he did use his arrests to fight those laws.  He used his arrests to gain support for changing those laws using the system!  Obama is not doing this.  He is just breaking the law and then demanding that he and the illegals he is trying to excuse all be seen as ‘the good guys.’  They are not.  In truth, Obama is now equal with the illegals .  Now both are criminals: the illegals and Obama.

This is something Obama and those who think like him have worked on for a long time.  It started more than a century ago: the notion that the law doesn’t matter when ‘doing the right thing’ is concerned.  Well, if you accept this argument, congratulations: you agree with the NAZI’s!  That’s right: in principle, you are no different than the NAZIs — but only if you accept Obama’s justification for his actions.  The NAZIs did much of what they did — in clear violation of German and Natural Law — because ‘the people demanded it.’  It is nothing more than what Wilson described in the early 20th Century: a dictatorship where the people elect a dictator who is ‘in touch with the will of the people.’  Hitler was just doing what the Progressives said should be done, and Obama is a Progressive descendent of Wilson’s Progressives.  In every case, they all represent lawlessness and tyranny.

But you do not have to accept any of this.  You have a choice.  You can accept this lawlessness, in which case, you are choosing to become a criminal along with these people.  Or you can reject it and start speaking out against it.  The legal thing that is required now is impeachment and conviction of Obama and everyone else involved with this illegal act.  Anything less is passive support of lawlessness.  If it helps, think of this in terms of slavery.  Slavery is wrong, but can you still claim to be against it if you stay quiet on hide in the shadows rather than oppose the slave owners?  Or does your silence actually represent support for those slave owners?  Well, if you can sit silently by while Obama tried to destroy the Constitution, then I suppose you would have been equally comfortable sitting quietly by while the South continued to keep slaves.

OH!  One more thing: if the Republicans do not make a whole-hearted effort to impeach and convict — no matter the political cost — that is the same as sitting quietly by while the Constitution is destroyed.  No matter what they might try to tell you, if this is what the Republicans do, it will mean they actually support Obama’s lawlessness.  In that case, you Republicans will have another choice to make…

This page is dedicated to the principles of Natural Law.  For those interested in related matters, such as how we apply these principles in our daily lives, you might want to subscribe to my companion page, The OYL.  That said, I have decided to add an additional sub-series to this page (I will likely cross-blog them to The OYL, as well).  This series will deal with defending our language.  The reason I believe this series belongs on this page is because language is a form of logic, and like logic, it has rules.  The way we use language and logic are directly connected to Natural Law.  When we use them correctly, we remain firmly within the confines of Natural Law.  But when we pervert either language or logic for the purposes of deception or to justify something that illegal or immoral, we violate Natural Law.  So, for this and other reasons I hope will become apparent as time goes on, I will be adding the series DEFENDING THE LANGUAGE to The Road to Concord.  I hope you will find it of use in your own efforts to understand our world and to find your place within it.

This nation was founded on a belief in the rule of law, not the rule of men.  It is under the law that we are all equal.  It is under the fair and impartial application of those laws that we all find our equal rights.  However, this rule of law is predicated upon a system where the laws are known and set.  They cannot be changed by ‘interpretation.’  If they are, that is a violation of the rule of law.  It is lawlessness.  This is exactly what Obama (I intentionally refuse to call him President) is about to do with his declaration of amnesty: he is going to violate the rule of law — again.  But this time, it is not my ‘opinion,’ but the assertion of a prominent constitutional scholar and college professor who also happens to be a leading member of the Democrat Party who says Obama is about to declare himself the first American emperor.

That’s correct: there is a prominent constitutional scholar who has taught the constitution in college and who is a leading member of the Democratic Party who says Obama is about to destroy the constitution.  This scholar says that what Obama says he will do tomorrow night is a clear violation of the constitution.  He says it is also a violation of the principles of democracy (it is also a violation of republicanism — as in representative government).  This constitutional scholar says Obama is about to violate our traditions and the way our system was designed to work.  Finally, this scholar says that, if Obama actually grants amnesty tomorrow, he will be declaring himself to be an American emperor.  But I want people to hear it directly from this leading Democrat and constitutional scholar for themselves.

That’s right: Obama said he cannot do what he is about to do!

Now, I understand there are people out there saying that Obama has ‘studied the constitution’ and now believes he does have the authority to do this — but he doesn’t.  We must remember what we have learned thanks to the Gruber story: THESE PEOPLE THINK YOU AND I ARE TOO STUPID TO CATCH THEIR LIES!

NOW FOR THE TRUTH

THe President of the United States cannot make laws.  Any ‘executive’ order that carries the weight of law is null and void.  It can rightfully be ignored.  It carries no weight of law because the supreme law of the land says so.  The U.S. Constitution clearly says all legislative authority rests with the Congress:

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

This means that executive orders are illegal when and where they are used to make law.  That then means, if Obama declares amnesty, he is making law and is not only in violation of the Constitution on this count, but also in violation of his oath of office to uphold the legal laws that are on the books.

[Incidentally, this extends to all branches of ‘regulatory bodies.’  The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate its power to these bodies.  It specifically and clearly confines it to Congress and only Congress.  Therefore, the EPA, IRS, etc. are acting illegally when they make regulations that do not start in Congress and are not signed by the President.  This is exactly the system Woodrow Wilson described for turning the U.S. into a socialist dictatorship where the dictator is elected every few years.]

Now, because form and function define, what do we call a national leader who declares he has the power to ignore the will of the people, his oath of office, ignore legally enacted laws and then make new laws without going through the legally elected representatives of the people?  Personally, I don’t know what you would call such a person.  I have noticed that too many of us have acquired an infinite ability to twist things in our mind so as to justify anything we desire.  Too many have made good into evil and evil into good.  But I know this much.  I know what the founders would have called such a person:
The man from whom our constitution was designed to protect us!Sadly, the founders never envisioned an ‘America’ in which the people would actually vote for such a man — not because they agreed with what he wanted to do, but because they wanted what he promised to give them more than they wanted to remain free.

I am well aware that many of the people who read my posts have had difficulty with my position on Capitalism.  I am also aware that these difficulties are compounded by the limitations of this medium and my style of writing.  I know that many read arrogance and condescension into my words where they are not intended.  I wish I knew how to make a video so you could hear the tone of my voice and see my facial expressions.  Then you would know I am pleading with you to understand what I am saying, not lecturing. But alas, I am barely competent enough to manage this blog, let alone make a video for You Tube.  Sadly, all I am really good at is philosophy, and that is not going to help because I am going to be making a very philosophical argument in this post.  I only hope that, for those who actually want to understand, you will excuse the length of the post (made necessary by the need to make myself as clear as possible), accept that I am sincere in my assertion that I am pleading and not lecturing, and then find the time to stay with me to the end — please.  With that said, let me explain why I say that Capitalism does not necessarily equate to a free market.

The first thing we have to do is call attention to definitions.  When I was studying logic in philosophy school, I was taught how to make strong arguments, and that one of the strongest arguments we can make is an argument that rests on definitions.  At the same time, we must understand what a definition is.  It is not the word we use that defines a thing, but the form and function of that thing (I write on this topic here).  But this has become a problem in our society as we do not have the attention span necessary to study definitions, and even if we did, we live in a society that has embraced the belief that a definition means whatever the individual claims it to be.  This is bad reasoning and the chances of finding any truth or even agreement with a person who has embraced such an attitude are very slim as they have rejected the use of reason.  All they know is what they ‘feel.’  However, for the purposes of this post, we will be using the accepted definitions for the terms discussed, and where more than one possible definition exists, we will make it clear which meaning we intend to be understood.  Let’s then start with the definition of ‘Capitalism:’

Full Definition of CAPITALISM

Now, before you start thinking that the mention of the free market in connection with the definition of Capitalism defeats my argument, let’s look at the definition of the ‘Free Market:’

Full Definition of FREE MARKET

Now, let’s apply a little logic to these definitions.  I am going to intentionally use extreme examples here so that I can paint the most apparent illustration of the point I want to communicate.

Under Adolf Hitler, corporations remained in the hands of private citizens.  Hitler also issued open competitions for military and government contracts for which these privately owned companies were freely allowed to compete.  So, by the definitions given above, NAZI Germany had a Capitalist economy based on a free market.  The problem with this conclusion is that it is false.  Hitler openly stated that he had ‘Nationalized’ the entire German people, which then means — by definition — that the people belonged to the State.  Hence, any appearance of Capitalism and the Free Market were just illusions.  Yet, by the definitions were have today, Capitalism and the Free Market still existed in NAZI Germany.  This leaves us with a contradiction that must be resolved, and I suggest the resolution of this contradiction is the purpose of this paper: understanding how and why the modern definition of Capitalism and the Free Market are flawed.

Let’s start by going back even further in our understanding of the terms we are discussing.  At the heart of Capitalism is the notion of ‘private‘ ownership.  But what does ‘private’ mean in terms of Natural Law?  Why do I now point to Natural Law?  Because, without it, we can define ‘private’ to mean anything we want — as we just discovered with the example of NAZI Germany calling people ‘private’ citizens when — in reality — they ‘belonged’ to the State.  Without Natural Law, there is no fixed foundation for anything of moral value, and that is what we are really discussing here: moral value (I write more about this issue here).  So, what does ‘private’ mean under Natural Law?

 Well, in its simplest form, under Natural Law, ‘private’ would refer to those things that are strictly between an individual and his/her creator.  I often use the illustration of being alone on an Island.  If it concerns something you can make a moral claim to on a deserted island, then that would be ‘private’ under Natural Law.  However, the moment another person is introduced to the island, the relationships change.  When there are two or more people on the island, anything and everything they can make a just claim to then becomes ‘public.’  The key here is in understanding that, under Natural Law, ‘public’ implies duties and responsibilities.  Now, let’s try to make more sense of this by applying this understanding to a hypothetical business under the terms of Natural Law.

I have written about a character I call Stick.  Suppose Stick is on an island by himself.  He has no Natural Right in the island as it has nothing to do with his free will, life or labor.  However, he can claim a Natural Right to the things he makes and grows.  This right is acquired by using his labor to sustain his life and, thus, his free will.  According to Natural Law, it is self-evident that all these things granted to Stick by his Creator.  Now, let’s assume a load of castaways arrives on the island.  How does this change things?

Now that we have many people on the island, Stick decides to start a business selling pineapples to the new arrivals.  While he has a Natural Right to the tools he made to farm, and the produce from his efforts.  These are all private property.  They belong to Stick because he made them by applying his labor.  At the same time, Stick does not have any Natural Right to the land he has cultivated.  He did not make the land.  He can only claim use of that land, and then, only so long as he continually occupies and uses it to sustain his life.  If he abandons the land, others can claim the use of that same land.  Because no one has a Natural Right to land, it is a ‘public’ property. And, at first, Stick is happy to live under this system.  Everyone finds a piece of land they can use to make or grow something they can trade with the rest of the people on the island.  The castaways freely enter into trade agreements with Stick and each other (i.e. contracts).  Everyone freely exchange their labor and the goods they make or produce they produce they grow for the services, goods and produce of others.  In short, Stick and the castaways create a free market and  — for a time — all goes well.

But then, Stick notices that some of the castaways have been taking over soe of the fields he had cleared and set up for use growing crops that only take part of the year to produce.  If he is going to keep growing these crops, he needs to be able to claim the use of that land even when it is not actively being used to grow the crop in question.  That means Stick needs to have an exclusive right to use the fields he has cleared for these crops.  But how can he do this?  Under Natural Law, the castaways have a right to use his fields if he is not actively using them, himself.  This is because the only way a person can claim a ‘right’ to the exclusive use of a piece of land is by entering into a contract with all other members of the island community. But the rest of the castaways can’t be expected to willingly enter into such an agreement without getting something in return that they deem as equally valuable.   That is the essence of the Social Contract, but it has limitations and comes with inherent duties and responsibilities to the other members of society (please read the link).

OK, so let’s assume that Stick and the rest of the castaways agree to grant each other exclusive claim to the use of specific pieces of property.  The next problem that will arise is how to enforce the terms of this contract.  This is generally how and why governments are formed: to protect individual rights.  But here is the key to the problem at hand: there are Natural Rights, which are granted by God and are inalienable to the individual.  These can truly be said to be private in that they only involve the individual and his/her creator.  Then there are rights (note: small ‘r’) that are created by agreement among the members of a community or society.  These rights are made by people through the Social Contract, but because they are something that all have a hand in making, they cannot be said to be ‘private.’  They can only and must be understood to be ‘public’ because, just as society made them, society can also change or abolish them.  And if society (i.e. people) can change or abolish a right, then that right is neither a Natural Right, nor a private right.  It is — by definition — public.  At the same time, ‘public’ does not necessarily mean ‘government.’  This is another area where we misunderstand the meaning of the words we use, which leads to even more problems.

At this point, we need to understand what ‘necessary’ means in logical terms.  If someone is speaking logically, when they say ‘necessary,’ they mean that something must follow.  It does not mean that it ‘can’ follow, but that it must.  For example: water can be wet, but it is not necessary that it be wet.  If the water in question is in gaseous or solid form, then it will not be wet.  However, it is necessary that liquid water be wet.  This is an important concept to understand at this point of our discussion as Capitalism does not necessarily mean ‘free market’ anymore than ‘public’ necessarily means ‘government.’  This is why I used the example of NAZI Germany earlier.  Now, let’s continue.

Coming back to Stick and the castaways, we now have a society that has created a public right to the exclusive use of specific pieces of land.  Our island society has granted individuals the authority to use that land as though it were a private right, but only so long as they use it within the confines of Natural Law.  If they use it to threaten the society or to harm another individual, the society retains the Natural Right to revoke the individual’s claim to the land.  This is Society’s Natural right to self-defense and is inherent in the Social Contract.  Later on, our society also extends the right (note: small ‘r’) to claim ideas as ‘private’ property.

We now have a very rudimentary form of Capitalism on our imaginary island, but note: under Natural Law, there is no Natural Right to ‘private’ property in either the land or ideas.  Both of those rights (small ‘r’) were created by the island society through the Social Contract.  Here is where we need to understand the connection between this community action and the meaning of ‘collective‘ (small ‘c’).  A ‘collective’ action merely means an action that involves the participation of a number of persons.  In this case, since the island community entered into a contract with each other to create a right (small r) to use land and ideas as private property, their action was a ‘collective’ act.  It does not necessarily follow that a collective act has anything to do with The Collective (note: capital ‘C’).

The danger here is in mixing our understanding of how we use the term ‘collective’ (an adjective) and the term Collective (a noun).  In the first case, as an adjective, it is possible — in both theory and practice — to have a collective action that remains within the confines of Natural Law.  However, as a noun, it is possible to have a Collective that remains within the confines of Natural Law only in theory.  In application, history provides no example of a true Collective remaining within the confines of Natural Law.  This is because human nature is in conflict with Natural Law.

Now, let’s apply this to our understanding of Capitalism.  First, we have already shown that Capitalism cannot be as defined and remain under Natural Law as there is no Natural Right to ownership of land or ideas.  Any way we wish to conceive of a Capitalist economy, it will require the ability to use land and ideas as ‘private’ property, as well as the use of what will clearly be public property (i.e. roads, waterways, etc).  This means that Capitalism cannot equate to ‘The Free Market.’  This is a matter of definition, pure and simple.  But this doe snot mean society cannot agree to operate a Capitalist system as though individuals can claim private ownership to land and ideas.  In fact, society has the Natural Right to create such a system, so long as the use of the land and ideas remains within the confines of Natural Law.

The next point to consider is the creation of the corporation.  In this case, not only has society created a right for individuals to claim land and ideas as private property, now society is creating an artificial entity (the corporation) and giving individuals the right to claim that entity as private property.  In this light, we must understand that the corporation is twice removed from Natural Law.  The issues is further compounded when we consider the special ‘rights’ (again, small ‘r’) given to stockholders.  In both cases of a ‘public’ and ‘private’ corporation, the corporation is still a public creation and remains under public control even though the public has given the owners the ‘right’ to treat the corporation as private property.  Then we have the problem of granting a corporation personhood; or the legal status of a person with associated rights.  a society gives.  At this point — when a society starts creating artificial people — the confines of Natural Law are irreparably breached.  Not only is society trying to declare its creations equal to itself, and thus, society to the Creator, it is destroying individual responsibility/accountability, another key aspect of Natural Law.

This is what man has been trying to do since time began: claim equality with God.  Every time we do this, we violate Natural Law.  This is because the creation is never greater than the creator.  Most every problem in our world today can be traced directly to someone or some group trying to enforce a violation of Natural Law.  When people ignore the Natural Laws governing economics, economic chaos results.  When men try to change the meaning of words, or moral laws, chaos results.  When men refuse to obey their own laws, chaos results.  So why should we expect it to be any other way with God’s laws?  And why should we expect God’s laws to ignore the things we create when, after all, we are His creation?  Would we be ‘OK’ with a computer system we created suddenly trying to destroy all mankind (I believe there are several movies about this)?  The same applies to any system that claims the private right to God’s earth, or any idea, etc.  These things can only be allowed to be claimed as private property,, and even then, only so long as individuals use them within the confines of God’s Laws.  The moment a person or persons starts to abuse their claim of private property, society not only has the authority to rescind that claim it has a duty to do so under Natural Law.  This is why I said ‘public’ implies duty earlier in this post.  Society is public, and we have a duty under Natural Law to protect and preserve other individuals as well as ideas and land (i.e. the public).

At this point, though I’ve quoted them many times before, I have to ask you if these words are starting to make any more sense?  And do they show you that the founders understood everything I have just tried to explain?  And that they understood it so well, and expected that others did too, that they saw no need to go into the depth of explanation I just went through:

“A right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant.”

–Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:45

“All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.”

–Benjamin Franklin, letter to Robert Morris, 25 December 1783, Ref: Franklin Collected Works, Lemay, ed., 1

There’s so much more to this discussion that I could write a book about this. subject.  You may think I already have.  I just hope I’ve done enough to help you see why I stress that we should not think that Capitalism is the same as the free market.  It isn’t.  At best, we can create circumstances where Capitalism is allowed to operate the same way as a free market, but there is so much more to the free market that are not possible under Capitalism as we practice it today.  This is mostly due to the corporation.  But, if you do not see why I say that Capitalism is not the same thing as the free market by now, I don’t think I will ever be able to explain it.  For that, I apologize for wasting your time…and for failing you.