It is time to restrict the right to vote! There is no such thing as a Natural Right to vote! There is a Natural Right to contract, but the right to vote is a civil construct, therefore, it is not a Natural Right. This is true by both definition as well as logical extension. In fact, the notions of voting and democracy are synonymous with tyranny. Democracy is nothing more than the tyranny of the masses. This means it is — again, by definition — the negation of Natural Law. The truth is simple: it is possible to construct a Social Contract that is in perfect agreement with Natural Law without the people ever being afforded a vote in any part of their government. I believe the time has finally come to give serious consideration to doing exactly this: re-writing the U.S. Constitution so that the civil right to vote is either severely restricted or eliminated all together.
First, you need to be aware that the U.S. Constitution was originally written so that the influence of popular voting by the masses was severely restricted. In fact, the people only had a direct vote for their member of the House of Representatives. The States were supposed to elect their own Senators, as well as the President. This was just another aspect of the checks-and-balances our framers built into our system to protect the people from tyranny. This is also why the Progressives attacked these protections first. They did this by pushing the notion of ‘fairness’ cloaked in the emotional camouflage of ‘democracy.’ This is how and why we came to elect our Senators, as well as the President. It is also the primary reason the Progressives were able to destroy the Federal system our founders built and replace it with a National system which is much more powerful than ever intended, and much more easily controlled by those who manage to gain power. I propose we end this by eliminating the right to vote.
We can do this by simply remembering what the Constitution was designed to do: protect and preserve individual Natural Rights. Since there is no Natural Right to vote, we do not have to include voting in the re-write of our Constitution. All we need to do is make sure the new Constitution conforms to the principles and ideals of Natural Law.
STEP ONE: Eliminate all bureaucracies. They are extra-constitutional. This means they violate the Social Contract, which in turn means they violate Natural Law. They need to be ended and all legislative power returned to the Congress.
STEP TWO: Return the balance of power by returning the States to their proper positions as sovereign nations. We do this by returning the election of the Senators to the State governments. We also return the election of the President to the States — and we do so in the manner originally defined in the Constitution. Each of the States representatives to the Congressional Congress will cast two votes for President. At least one of these votes must be for a person outside of their own State. This will yield one hundred votes. they will be tallied and the winner becomes President. The runner up becomes Vice President. This is all because the Federal government actually exists to arbitrate between and on behalf of the States — not the people in general. This is the meaning of ‘federal,’ and it needs to be re-instated.
STEP THREE: Eliminate the election of Representatives to the House. Replace it with a lottery system. It could operate similar to the way jury members are selected, only it will not be something a person can opt out of without extraordinary circumstances. If the person selected is of sound mind and physically capable of doing the job, they will not be allowed to decline service. This will create a system much akin to appointing “the first one hundred names from the phone book” to the House of Representatives.
IF it is deemed unacceptable to remove all voting from the system, then I would propose the right to vote be limited only to those citizens who own real property and/or have seen combat in the defense of this nation. This is not ‘unfair.’ In fact, it is imminently fair. As voting is a civil construction, and it should be seen as a duty which carries grave responsibility, it should be limited to those members of society who have — by their actions — demonstrated both an understanding as well as a willingness to accept those responsibilities in the execution of this duty.
STEP FOUR: Establish a set limit on the total number of years a person can spend in public service in any capacity. I am including the military and law enforcement. Personally, I think twelve years total service is more than enough time for anyone to be allowed so close to such powerful positions. Eight might actually be a better number, but it can be argued later. I just would not agree to anything more than twelve years.
Now, look at a partial list of problems that have just been solved (in no rank order):
–Checks-and-balances are restored
— No need for term limits.
— Lobbyists have been eliminated.
— No more campaign spending issues.
— Bad judges are removed after the set limit on their total years of service.
— Because anyone can be chosen for government service, public education will have to be reformed so that students are taught how to think instead of what to think
— Without the bureaucracies, Congress will no longer have time to meddle in State affairs.
— The United States will have to return to the militia system.
— This will keep the u.S. from meddling in world affairs where we do not have a legitimate claim based in our Natural Rights.
— Government will have to return to localized control, as the national system will be destroyed.
— The control of the government will finally be restored to the People, where it rightfully belongs.
These would be my suggestions. I make them because, if the goal is actually for a free and self-governing society based upon the principles of protecting and preserving individual rights and liberty, then these suggestions will work. Furthermore, I would submit that anyone who objects to the general concept in this post does so not out of concern for this nation, its people or the preservation of individual rights and liberty, but out of a desire to preserve a path toward seizing power and control over them for themselves.
14 thoughts on “PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW: Voting is NOT a Natural Right”
Reblogged this on Giftoftruth United and commented:
Voting removes one’s sovereign right while giving you ‘benefits’ such as being taxed and plundered by pirates; only a referendum for the people and by the people is meaningful in ANY way; remove yourself from the voter’s roll; DO NOT use your signature if you can avoid it nor give your signature to ANYONE; conscientiously object!!! Resist this evil, no matter what the price; don’t fight this beast, just starve it; without our signatures there can be no commerce; in a fractional reserve banking system it hurts the beast tenfold if you deny it; in peace
Agreed! Not to mention the “privilege” of voting automatically places you on the list for jury duty and selective service registration. Worst of all, you become an artificial commercial entity complicit with this system of corporate zionist control. Voting actually becomes quite fascist, we reduced to tools for the elites to manipulate and justify their agenda. After all, we “voted” for our elected representatives (which are invariably bought and paid for) – if that’s not a tyrannical conspiracy, what is?
In Step One you by bureaucracies you mean all the un-elected gov’t agencies like the EPA, OSHA the IRS and all the rest right ?
Correct. They are not authorized by the Constitution, therefore, they violate the Social Contract. Even if the Constitution allowed for them, that would then place the Constitution outside the confines of Natural Law. This is because these bureaucracies function as miniature fiefdoms unto themselves — not as the proper agents of a free and self-governing people.
Incidentally: this is exactly why Washington warned us against allowing Parties == because they function as their own special interest and, therefore, work against the interest of the People.
Uhmmm …. are you sure ?
The Democrat party promotes “democracy”. And the Republican party promotes the Republic for which the “democracy” stands. Thus they work together to promote each other and ….. oh wait.
Yeah …. you’re correct !
As you know, I reject the idea that the two Parties are different entities. they are the same troop playing different roles in the play.
This post holds a special place in my heart. Reading this I get the sense that you’ve “arrived”, fully come on-line. Congratulations! You’ve joined the ranks of a very rare (but growing) group of individuals who understand voting = slavery, and can see the complete immorality of voting as used today.
It’s not “dumb voters, and dumb politicians” that are the problem. It is “all voters, and all politicians”, the entire flawed system, based on the immoral notion that a bunch of people can ‘vote’ and then enact laws which violate the Natural Law rights of others ‘with majority permission’. Legalized tyranny, enacted by ignorant masses who believe they have ‘rights’ which are actually wrongs. Complete pawns playing into the hands of controllers who are more than happy to stay in power violating the rights of all with the blessing of the ignorant masses.
Thus I applaud you for being able to see outside the box, and calling the game for what it really is.
Laws are either in harmony with Natural Law, and thus superfluous and unneeded, or they violate Natural Law, and thus immoral. You don’t need a law to say “Murder is wrong.” or “Stealing is wrong.”, they just are (without your law stating them as such). You don’t need a written law to ‘enact gravity’, it just is, it exists (without your written law). It is inherent. Trying to enact what is with a law is a bit silly. You might write a proclamation stating principles (which could serve as valuable reminders of Truth), but no written law can change Morality as established by the Creator. He is the only author (Author-ity), and has reserved those rights. Man seems to struggle with wanting to play God and enact Morality of our choosing, but it doesn’t work that way.
Plus I love some of the ideas you’ve put forth here. Much food for thought.
I would qualify your argument. Voting does not necessarily equate to slavery. I use the term ‘necessarily’ in the logical sense: meaning that it does not follow that where the people vote, slavery must follow.
As with most things, it depends on the people. The founders said pretty much the same thing you have here: if the people are moral and just, they have no need of law. But if they are corrupt, they must be governed by taskmasters. The more wicked the people become, the more harsh their masters.
Sadly, the rebellious among us have convinced the majority of us that the founders made little use of the Bible in framing their ideology or this nation and its government. However, if we still knew and understood the truth of history, we would immediately recognize the pattern I just described: it is the story of Israel in the Old Testament! It is also where the founders got this idea, and the warning they used to guide them in designing a government with multiple layers of checks-and-balances. Even then, they were still conscious enough of human nature to declare that what they built would only work for a moral people, and that without God, there is no morality. The Secular Humanists know this, and that is why they are still trying to destroy the religious foundations of this nation.
I think I just found my next post 🙂
“I would qualify your argument. Voting does not necessarily equate to slavery. I use the term ‘necessarily’ in the logical sense: meaning that it does not follow that where the people vote, slavery must follow.”
Agreed. A moral and just society could vote in support of and defense of Natural rights, but an immoral and unjust society devolves through a belief in “Democracy”, where the collective thinks it can dictate to the individual what they can or cannot do, in violation of their Natural rights. Which is exactly as you point out in “The Secular Humanists know this, and that is why they are still trying to destroy the religious foundations of this nation.”
Keep the posts coming. They are helping me expand my awareness, push my boundaries, question and strengthen my beliefs, and understand the limits of what is right and just. I don’t have it all figured out either, especially around the edges of my understanding, and me posting is a way of testing whether my current understanding resonates with others, or if there are obvious flaws. I appreciate you pointing out when we disagree, as those are areas of growth for me. It takes strength for you to do so publicly, so I value the honesty and willingness to take risks and dialogue.
Agreed, and thank you — you bless and honor me. :*)
“if the people are moral and just, they have no need of law. But if they are corrupt, they must be governed by taskmasters. The more wicked the people become, the more harsh their masters.”
As a parent of two, I’ve realized recently there is a Hermetic principle at play here, “As above, so below”. To the extent my children can show maturity and responsibility and adherence to Natural Law principles, my job is unnecessary. To the extent they act immature and ignorant of these principles, I have a duty as a parent to assist.
The same principle is happening outside as well, with citizens as the ‘children’ and governments as the ‘parents’. The more the citizens are willing to grow into social maturity and act in adherence with Natural Law, the less need for government. The more immature people want to be, and the less they want to comply with Natural Law, the more we will give excuse for the justification for ‘big brother’ and the iron fist of tyranny.
What we are undergoing as a civilization (all of humanity) is a maturity test. Do we want to remain social children who need an adult to care for us and tell us what to do and keep us in line? Or do we want to become social adults who act responsibly and in harmony with Natural Law and make our own decisions and live Liberty and free?
As ironic as it may seem, the more tyranny we see rolling out, and the more immorality people engage in, the more it polarizes and catalyzes the awakened, and the more of a wakeup call is sent to the unawakened among us. There may be little action yet, but I see a growing awakening and building desire for Liberty among all people.
It’s a growing process, socially maturing from adolescence into adulthood.
I learned the following a few years back, that knowledge goes in stages
Unaware -> Aware -> Understand -> Believe -> Act
Most people can only move one or two steps at a time (from Unaware to Aware, or maybe to Understand) as it takes time to grow through the changes. So many are currently going from Unaware to Aware. There are those among us who Understand, but lack conviction. A few Believe with conviction, but are unsure what to do. A precious few (you included) are at the Action phase, actually doing something about it.
Enlightenment is difficult, even painful, because you can see what is going on while most slumber at the Unaware stage. The only hope we have for a better future is to try and raise awareness, help others understand, help them to believe in what is Right, and then offer concrete actions they can take to help them align their beliefs in changing the world for the better.
One of the most powerful tools I’ve seen for making it crystal clear to others is to explain the rules of Morality to them, so they can see Rights and Wrongs. Once you can see that, then so much of the shenanigans pulled by ‘authorities’ all around us become so obviously intolerable. Dial it in for people, make it crystal clear, refine it and make it obvious. Change for the better will then become unstoppable in those infected with the Truth.
My friend, you just explained one of the central messages in Scripture. You should feel blessed. Many Christians follow the Lord their whole lives and never learn this.
Very well done, and beautifully stated, thank you 🙂