Now that I have addressed the principles of Natural Law as they relate to money, I think we need to address the notion of ‘fairness.’  In general, whenever we hear someone talking about ‘fairness,’ we can assume they probably mean they want to violate Natural Law.  This is because there is no such thing as ‘fairness’ under Natural Law.  Please do not misunderstand; justice is the primary focus of Natural Law, but justice has nothing to do with ‘fairness.’  Justice is objective.  It is the same for all without respect to the person or their status in society.  But ‘fairness’ is subjective and means something different to each of us.  I propose to illustrate my point by incorporating something else we frequently hear when ‘fairness’ is being discussed: the redistribution of wealth.  In this way, I think we can tackle two issues with one post.

Wealth is not money.  Wealth is the accumulation or storing of labor (remember, money is just a representation of labor).  As such, it can take many forms.  It does not have to be and seldom is money.  Wealth is most often stored in forms such as property, stocks and bonds and precious metals.  The primary difference is that wealth — true wealth — is tangible.  It is physical, it can be held and physically possessed, thus, real wealth is very difficult to destroy.  However, it can still be stolen and/or redistributed.  So, with that established, let us think of wealth as a warehouse where we store things of value. Using this example, money is just one of many things we can store in our warehouse (i.e. one form of wealth creation).

Now, with respect to wealth, there are two types of people: those who add to their warehouse and those who consume what is in their warehouse.  If you are one who adds more to their warehouse than they consume, then you will accumulate wealth.  On the other hand, those who consume more than they save will not only consume their wealth, they will — eventually — end up in debt to someone else.  That debt is like money: it is a representation of labor.  In this case, it is labor owed.  The point, however, is that debt has a value to the one who is owed, so it is something of that can be added to the debtor’s warehouse.  There are other things of value that can be added to our warehouse, and those who understand how Natural Law works will work to add things to their warehouse that naturally increase in value. If debts are drawing interest, they increase in value.  Investments in business ventures  and some forms of property often grow in value and should be included in the list of things that add to the value of our warehouse.

However, precious metals belong to a different form of valuable items we might want to store in our warehouse.  Precious metals are important, not so much because they appreciate, but because they protect against wealth erosion due to inflation.  Sticking to our illustration of a warehouse, we can think of precious metals as a security system or rodent control.  They protect from loss due to thieves and rodents.  The point here is that they are still a valuable part of our model as they protect the valuables we store in our warehouse.

But cash is not as valuable because the amount of labor it can command varies.  What might buy you an hour of labor today could easily lose value.  Tomorrow it may only buy you thirty minutes of labor.  This is why cash is not the smartest thing to keep in our warehouse.  Instead, it is wiser to invest it.  The way to think of investing is in terms of what cash represents: labor.  If you put cash in the warehouse, it is a worker who just sits there doing nothing, which could result in the worker being able to do less work when you finally go to use him/her.  However, if you put that worker to work for you now, then it could actually make you more money than it actually represents.

This is investing and wealth-building in their simplest forms while still staying inside the confines of Natural Law.  Now we need to look at how ‘fairness’ is a violation of Natural Law.  First, when people say something is not ‘fair’ — especially where wealth is concerned — what they mean is they want control over someone else’s warehouse. They will usually deny it, and they may not even be consciously aware that this is what they are doing, but the fact remains: all appeals to fairness with respect to wealth are demands for access and/or control over another person’s warehouse.

Now, any claim to another person’s warehouse is a clear violation of Natural Law.  This is because the things in our warehouse all represent labor, and labor is a representation of free will.  So, when we call for control over another person’s warehouse (i.e. their wealth), we are actually demanding control over their free will.  In other words, we are demanding they be made our slave.  Owning another person is as clear a violation of Natural Law because it — like demanding control of their wealth — is a violation of their free will.

All humans are aware of this: instinctively, we all know it is true.  This is precisely why we construct fallacious arguments such as “fairness.”  What we are looking for is a justification for breaking the Natural Laws governing this universe.  Thus, when we understand Natural Law, we understand that appeals to “fairness” is just a way of rationalizing our lawlessness.  What we are trying to do is convince people to agree with and join us in our crimes, and that is because we think company in our crimes will help us assuage our guilty conscience.  Of course, if we rationalize our lawlessness often enough and long enough, we eventually erode our conscience.  When that happens, we run the very real risk of becoming a tyrant — or worse.

So, the next time you feel yourself being tempted to agree with someone claiming they are only interested in ‘fairness,’ stop and ask yourself why this person is trying to break into your warehouse.  If the person is rich, they are probably trying to get you to join with them in breaking into someone else’s warehouse (i.e. buying your vote by promising to ‘get the rich‘).  But even the rich can be greedy, so they may want your warehouse on top of getting you to help them break into others.’  That happens when we elect people thinking they will give us something for nothing, then they use their power to manipulate our currency and steal from us by causing inflation and deficit spending.  In short, these people are lawless.

On the other hand, the person who is not already rich and does not have power, but they are still claiming that something is not ‘fair,’ then you are probably dealing with a thief who wants to break in to as many warehouses as they can.  This person is not so much lazy as they are greedy.  While it is true, they are lazy — seldom working to add to their own warehouse.  They will often expend a great deal of energy to break into other peoples’ warehouses.  This is because their true or stronger motivation is greed.  What they are after is maximum gain with minimal work — yet another violation of Natural Law.  Natural Law dictates that we fill our warehouse slowly, over time, taking care not to violate the law in the process.  But the person who wants to break in to your warehouse is often looking to get rich quick.  In other words, they are lawless.

So, the next time you hear someone talking about fairness, understand that they do not care about justice.  If they did, they would be fighting to protect other peoples’ warehouses, not to raid them.  Understand that all appeals to fairness are just attempts to excuse lawlessness — period!

In the Bible, God makes covenants with His people.  He promises to do certain things for those who agree to and uphold their end of the covenant.  The Social Contract is no different: it is a covenant between every member of society promising certain rights and privileges.  Unfortunately, the people of the Old Testament were prone to making the same mistakes we make today with respect to the Constitution.  They we quick to reach for the promises of God’s covenant, and quick to blame God when those promises were withheld, but just as we do today, they never looked to the first part of God’s covenant.  We have conveniently forgotten the other side of the Social Contract.  Sadly, we also seem to have forgotten that it is this other side that actually makes the Social Contract work, and without it, society either falls apart or falls into tyranny.

The other side of the Social Contract is duty — duty to every other individual in society.  It is this sense of duty that makes the Social Contract work.  Duty demands that you put the rights of others before your own desires, and that you seek to uphold justice and rebuke those who pervert it.  It is duty that demands we defend the innocent and care for the helpless.  Only after we have done all these things can we then claim any right or protection promised by the Social Contract.  After all, if we will not defend the rights of others first, then why would anyone feel compelled to help us when the time comes to actually defend our own rights?  This is the forgotten side of the Social Contract, the side that actually makes the Social Contract work: duty to our fellow countrymen.

In the Bible, God keeps every promise He makes.  The problem is that His people forgot that the other side of God’s covenants.  God starts out first by saying “IF you will first, then I will.”  But God’s people are just like the majority of us today: they wanted the rewards, but they didn’t want the responsibilities that come with them.  Today, we are just as quick to cry out at the slightest hint that someone may have trespassed against our rights, but we will not lift a finger to attend to our duty to others.  Instead, we think those who benefit at the cost of others are clever and we glorify the ways they pervert the law for personal gain.  We ignore affronts to morality and ridicule anyone who still shows any sign of shame at what we have become.  And when things all go wrong — as they repeatedly did in the Bible — then we are no different from those who rebelled against God: we stand and thump our chests and act as though we have been wronged and claim that it is all proof that God does not exist — or worse, that if He does exist, this is all proof that He cannot be a good God.

It took me some forty-six of my forty-eight years to realize how badly I have sinned against God.  I have been among those who pervert justice while telling myself that it shows how clever I am.  I wasn’t clever, I was evil — still am.  The only difference is I see it now.  I also understand that God does exist.  If He doesn’t, then complaining about what should and should not be is an absurdity.  It would be like a fish complaining that water should not be wet.  But there are those who do not see or understand this, and, sadly, they may never see it because — in their ‘cleverness’ — they have convinced themselves that it is ridiculous to think that morality cannot exist without God.  Some are so depraved as to laugh at the very idea of morality.  They would deny it even exists.  Such people are animals.  They have no place in civil society, and it is why the Bible commanded they be killed.  But then, that is also a sign of rebellion.

Skeptics like to attack Biblical commands to kill people who commit certain crimes.  But they never look at why Scripture commands it.  God tells them — if they will take the time to read on, that is.  The Bible tells us that certain people are to be removed or killed so that we can remove evil from society.  This is part of God’s covenant; part of our duty.  Now, God gives us free will, which means we are free to refuse to obey God’s commands.  We can decide we know better than God and design an entirely new system of justice.  But if we do, then we do not have any claim to God’s promises, nor do we have any justification to accuse God when things go wrong.  To claim that the messes we make when we disobey is proof that God either does not exist or, if He does exist, He cannot possibly be good is to pile crime upon crime.

But I guess we have ‘progressed’ past any need for God’s justice.  I mean, look how great the system we have designed works.  You can commit murder and get out in just a few years, but the person who kills you as you try to add to your thirsty-page rap sheet will be put in jail for life.  We also bettered God where slavery is concerned.  God’s law just recognized that man is evil and evil will always exist, so God told us how to act as both slave and master.  But we ended slavery — showing how much better we are than God.  We ended slavery, then we forced a different group of people to work against their will to support those in whatever favored class we decide is worthy of the wealth they create.  After all, God does not seem to understand that it is acceptable to exploit people based on how productive they are, but it is an abomination to allow it to happen based on skin color.  We have even figured out how to force people to ‘live right,’ something God did not do, and yet another reason to deny that God is all-powerful.  God created a world where people suffer and even harm themselves, but we have fixed this.  Now, we tell people what they can and cannot do and force them to comply.  It is for their own safety, so it is acceptable to stomp on another person’s free will — except when it comes to abortion.  Then the person’s right to choose can never be questioned.

I pray you know that I am being sarcastic, and that I do not believe we have done anything better than God.  I also pray that you will see and understand that we have made a huge mess out of our nation and the world because we have ignored God’s laws.  Whether Revealed or Natural, the universe works according to God’s eternal laws.  We can ignore them for only so long and then they will reassert themselves.  Any sense that we have defeated these laws is nothing but an illusion, and no society can survive if it chooses to believe in an illusion.  So we have a duty to each other.  We first have a duty to seek and accept reality.  Water will wet us and fire will burn, and no amount of clever word play or cognitive dissonance or moral relativism can ever change this.  This means we have a duty to watch over each other and, when our neighbor starts to believe in — or worse — advance these illusions, it is our duty to offer correction.  If they refuse correction, we have a duty to rebuke them and shun them from society.  These are duties everyone one owes to all men, and it starts in our own families.  After that, we have a duty to the Social Contract that defines our State and/or Nation.  In my case, this means I have a duty to Florida first, and then to the United States of America second.  The moment a society forgets or rejects these duties, it has started down a road that must lead either to collapse or tyranny, and less the people repent and turn back to God’s laws, those same laws dictate there can be no other outcome but collapse or tyranny.

“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

If John Adams felt this strongly in his time — when the average American was far more educated than today — I wonder what he would think today.  We’ve had some two-hundred and thirty-nine years to build a better understanding of the foundational principles underlying money and monetary practices.  Yet, for all our pride and arrogance, we not only haven’t gained in our understanding, we’ve regressed.

Natural law governs every aspect of this universe.  This includes money and monetary practices.  Every time Man ignores or tries to change Natural Law, Natural Law eventually re-asserts itself.  This is what Rudyard Kipling’s poem, “Gods of the Copybook Heading” is all about.  If you’ve never read it, I urge you to do so.  Then consider that the principles that govern money and monetary policy are part of Natural Law.  Therefore, it only stands to reason that, if we ignore those principles, Natural Law will — eventually — reassert itself.  History is clear on this, and if we look with wisdom and understanding, we will realize that is what recessions and depressions and hyper-inflation are: evidence of Natural Law reasserting itself.  Well, we are about to experience a serious reality check.  We have been ignoring the laws governing money for far too long and on far too broad a scale.  This time, when Natural Law reasserts itself, it will likely be on a global scale.

First, we need to understand what money is.  Money is nothing more than a convenient means to represent and trade in our labor.  If you do not understand this, I urge you to work your way through my previous posts on the basics of Natural Law.  So, we can think of that $1 bill in our pocket as a representation or quantification of a set amount of labor.  Since our labor is an extension of our free will, this then means that money is a quantification of our free will; of our essence as an individual.  Once we understand this, we can understand why so many people try so hard to control money and monetary practices.  They are no different from those who seek to control and enslave humanity through political or military means.  The only difference is in the method they have chosen to seek that control over others.

Now, let’s address the fact — FACT — that the majority of Americans are utterly clueless when it comes to the Natural Laws governing money and monetary practices.  Do you remember when Ron Paul was laughed at for saying he could buy a gallon of gas for a dime during the last Presidential Primary Debates?

Now, did you notice how they tried to cut Paul off and not let him explain what he was saying?  Did you ever wonder why?  Why did Paul say this?  Why did the moderator try to cut him off?  And why did so many people laugh at him?  HINT: it is directly connected to the gold standard, and to the reason FDR made private ownership of gold illegal.

There is a reason that gold and silver have always been used to support monetary systems.  They maintain their value.  This is what Ron Paul was trying to explain in that debate.  If we had still been on the gold standard at the time, then the weight of a silver dime would have been worth the cost of a gallon of gasoline.  If you listen to talk radio, you may have heard a talk show host use the gold $20 coin as another example of this principle.  At the time of our founding, a $20 gold piece would have bought you a very nice suit.  Today, if you had that same $20 gold piece, it would still buy you a very nice suit.  SO what changed and why?

What changed is our government took us off the gold standard.  Our money used to be backed by gold and silver.  You could take a $1 silver certificate to the bank and get $1 in silver in exchange.  But this is a system tied to Natural Law, and because Natural Law does not allow for debtor-based monetary systems, and that is what our government wanted, they took us off the gold standard and put us on what is known as a fiat monetary system.  When they did that, it gave them far more control over  each of us than we realize.  In very real terms, they made us all slaves.  Remember, money = labor = free will, so if I can control your money, I can control your labor and — to a large extent — even your will.

The first thing our fiat monetary system does is allow the government to run huge, open-ended deficits.  It also allows our economy to be based on debt rather than real wealth.  The problem with both of these is that they cannot last.  Eventually they must collapse.  No debt-based monetary system has ever sustained itself for more than a hundred years or so.  The only thing that has saved America — so far — was her free market tradition and the fact that WW II eliminated any and all competition.  However, the free market has been all but destroyed and the world has more than recovered from WW II.  Yet, our leaders — in their arrogance — refuse to realize that this has set America up for a huge crash.

The next thing this fiat money system does is allow those who control it to steal your money.  Inflation is the traditional method by which the “haves” steal what little the “have-nots” manage to acquire.  By devaluing your money, they steal your labor.  If you have to work twice as long or hard to earn the same buying power, they have stolen your labor.  What this does is limit your freedom.  If you once had time to pursue political agendas, but now have to work twice as hard and long just to survive, you are no longer a political threat because you no longer have the time to dedicate to political efforts.  This is what they are doing when they print money.  Also, when you hear the media talking about the Federal Reserve “monetizing” our nation’s debt, understand that this is another way of saying they are printing money.  Eventually, this will lead to economic collapse.

Finally, by keeping us on a fiat money system, they limit our freedom by removing privacy.  The laws restrict how much cash currency you can carry.  Even then, your money has electronic strips in it so they can count what you are carrying from a distance using detection devices.  This is so they can control how you use your money (labor/free will).   By doing this, and by making banks report your transactions, the government is extending their control over your life.

Now, don’t be fooled: there is real fascism here.  The banks are not victims of the government in all this, they are willing partners in it.  If you doubt me, look into something.  Go see if you still own the money you have in the bank, or has that money been turned into a legal loan to your bank?  Yes, when you make a deposit now, you are making a loan to that bank.  Now, think about this.  If the government owes so much it can never repay it — and it does — what will happen when our economy collapses and your back does not have the money to pay you back?  Remember, the government is already broke, so your FDIC protection is just words.  SO what will happen?  AT best, the government will just print more money and give it to you — which is exactly how the Weimar Republic destroyed itself.  Only someone totally ignorant of the principles underlying money can think that what happened to the Weimar Republic cannot happen to America, but those who do know and understand the Natural Law behind money know that it not only can happen, we’re probably past the point where it must happen.  Incidentally, this is why Keynesian economics doesn’t work and never will.  Keynes was one of those who thought he could re-write the Natural Laws governing money.  He might as well have declared he had re-written the laws governing gravity.  He would have been just as correct.

Now, here is the key to correcting the mess we have made: we must return to the principles of Natural Law which govern money.  That means getting off fiat money system and back on to something like the gold standard.  I understand that many who support the corporate system will object to this as it will make their economic system all but impossible.  That is because all of Wall Street is fake.  If the market crashes, fake wealth would be lost, but nothing more.  The real wealth — the buildings, machines and people operating them will all continue to exist, but the paper value will have disappeared.  However, if we had a gold-based system, then we could not have the same crash.  Yes, we could still loose the fake, on paper only value of things, like we did in the Great Depression, but the money you and I have in our hands will remain the same.  If we had $20 in gold before such a crash, it will still buy the same if not more in good sand services.

In this sense, a gold-based monetary system favors the individual and not the government as it limits the control the government has over the individual.  This is why FDR made private gold ownership illegal: so he could further his control over the individual.  You see, when you have gold in your pocket, the government cannot control what it is worth.  You and I do; the whole world does.  What’s more, the government cannot steal your money while it is in the bank.  In fact, if the government makes a mistake and causes inflation, you and I — those who save and follow Natural Law practices by staying our of debt — the government makes us more wealthy.  Suppose you have one of those $20 gold pieces.  Now imagine the government prints money and — over night — the paper $1 is worth $0.01 in real buying power.  Now you need $100 to buy the same thing your $1 bought yesterday.  However, that $20 gold piece is now worth $2000 — or more!  In no way will it be worth less in buying power than it was the day before.  In most cases, it will be worth more.

This is how money works when it is allowed to operate by Natural Law.  When monetary systems are tied to the principles of Natural Law, then they favor those who govern themselves by those same principles.  The ‘rich’ cannot exploit the poor nearly as easily — especially if the rule of law is also under the rule of Natural Law.  Nor can the government control you and I as easily as they can if we are forced to use fiat money because they cannot steel your money while you sleep by manipulating its value.  In short: a monetary system governed by the principles of Natural Law supports and promotes the individual and individual liberty.  A fiat system supports and promotes control and theft. It is that simple, and those who would tell you it is not are telling you they are part of the cabal who wants to control you.  Yes, I mean to say that anyone who tries to tell you it is not this simple is looking to control you.  Any time men make things complicated, it is a sure indication that they are looking for ways to ignore or re-write Natural Law.  never forget that.

ADDENDUM

Just to make it a little easier to sleep tonight…

Evil people like George Soros have taken advantage of fiat money to crash governments and steal the savings of retired people.  That’s what he did to England (and is accused of doing to several other nations).  But don’t worry, ‘geniuses’ like Bill Gates are fighting this by pushing for a paperless money system.  That will be harder to manipulate (did my sarcasm come through thick enough there?  🙂  )

OH!  And there are other people who understand how Natural Law works.  They are working to get the entire world back on a sound monetary system.  They have been buying gold and working to establish a new currency based on gold and sound monetary practices.  So, no worries, I am sure Russia and China have our best interest in mind as they work to remove the U.S. $1 as the world reserve currency.  After all, if they succeed, the world will be better off — well, the world minus the U.S.  We will collapse if/when this happens, but that will open the door to someone who want sot correct our mistakes 😀  (again, is my sarcasm coming through OK?)

With the killings in France, it has become popular for people in this country (The United States) to say “I am Charlie!”  But that is an ignorant statement.  Now, I understand that the people who are saying this mean well.  They think they are supporting free speech, but they are not.  They are actually supporting the destruction of civil society, they are just doing it in a different way.  Now, don’t get me wrong: I am not defending the Muslims who murdered those people in France.  All I am doing is asking you if you whether or not you understand the limits of free speech.  If you think you do, then answer me this question: what would the founders of this nation have done to the person who made the “Piss Christ?”  How about Larry Flynt, the founder of “Hustler Magazine:” what would our founders have done to him?  If you think the founders would have defended either of these men, you need to read the rest of this post. Continue reading PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW: Free Speech has Limits →

This nation was founded on the notion of the Social Contract.  Unfortunately, too few of us know what this is, let alone what its limitations are.  In fact, when it comes to the Social Contract, many people are completely ignorant on the subject — even people who make their living talking about and defending it don’t understand it.  For example, I recently heard a ‘conservative’ radio talk show host, Andrew Wilcow, complaining about people who refer to the Social Contract.  According to Mr. Wilcow, the Social Contract does not exist, yet the man makes his living talking about and defending it.  In the radio spot I heard, Mr. Wilcow was challenging listeners to show him a Social Contract.  Well, Mr. Wilcow, I accept your challenge.  What’s more, I am going to link you directly to the most famous social contract in human history.  Mr. Wilcow, if you read this post, here is the link to that famous social contract: The U.S. Constitution!  Now, Mr. Wilcow, please, stop talking to people about the Constitution and matters of Natural Law until after you have taken the time to educate yourself on the subject.  Once you have done that, maybe you could help the situation by explaining what you learned about the limits of the Social Contract to your listeners instead of making things worse by telling them the Social Contract does not exist.   On the slim chance that you or one of your staff reads this post, I took the time to give you the Cliff Notes version on those limits.  Please keep reading. Continue reading PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW: Limits of the Social Contract →