A reader posted a comment in my previous post that deserves a thoughtful reply. In his comment, he pointed out that I am actually making the case that the North was and remains in the wrong for its aggression against the South in the War of Northern Aggression (i.e. Civil War). He is correct: the North initiated force, therefore, according to the principles of Natural Law, the North was in the wrong. And since the War of Norther Aggression nullified the Constitution (at least in spirit), the North remains in the wrong today. However, if the South were to suddenly take up arms against the North, it would then be in the wrong, as well. This is because the South would be violating the principle of self-defense and that is lawlessness. However, if the South were to first secede — an action that is permitted by both the Constitution and Natural Law — and the North again initiated force against the South, then the South would be justified in defending itself — because it would be acting in accord with the Natural Right of self-defense.
Now, I understand that there are many who take issue with my position about the initiation of force. More than one reader tried to tell me I was wrong in the comments of my last post. But I would ask them to study the founders a lot more closely. Our founders never acted lawlessly. They clung to the law every step of the way because they knew they had to if they were to hold the moral high ground. And although the Crown claimed the Colonists were in rebellion to the law — as with the federal government today — it was the Crown and Parliament who were acting lawlessly. the Colonies were created by Charter with the King, which meant Parliament had no authority over and no place seeking authority over the Colonies. The Charters were contracts between the Colonies and the King, and as such, they granted both sides certain rights. The King repeatedly violated the terms of these Charters, placing him in the wrong. But even when the British dissolved the Colonial governments, the Colonies continued to do everything they could to seek redress of the wrongs done to them by using the law! And when they were finally pushed to declare independence, how did they do it? By first forming State governments which then authorized delegates to act on their behalf in the drafting of eventually became the Declaration of Independence.
Now, let’s look at another aspect of how our founders dealt with an oppressive government. The Boston Tea Party was lawless in that it destroyed property, but it did not attack the British with force of arms. The Boston Massacre was the result of another act of civil disobedience, only, this time, the British killed several Colonists. There were many such incidences where the British killed or executed individuals, but the founders did not use these events as an excuse to act in a lawless manner and retaliate. They understood the difference between vigilante actions and true justice. It is why, when all other recourse had been exhausted, the appealed their case to the Highest Court in the universe:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Notice what the founders did and how they did it. Even though they no longer had access to British courts, they were still seeking a legal redress, so they appealed to the Highest Court known to man — the Creator. And even then, they first formed legitimate governments so they could legally act in the name of the people.
Now look at how this played out leading up to the Revolution. When the British murdered Colonists in Boston or executed them in other cities, the Colonists did not respond with war. This is because, even though they are wrong and lawless, acts against an individual do not legally justify war between nations. However, when the British fired on the militia, a duly authorized representative of that State, then the Colonists did respond with force — because now they were legally authorized to defend themselves as a community or State. they were an organized body acting under the direction of a legitimate representative authority.
So, taking this to America today: if individuals take it upon themselves to attack the government, then they act lawlessly. We still have legitimate governing bodies to fall back on before we devolve into Anarchy. I concede that the States are no longer bound to obey the Federal government. It has violated its part of the Social Contract known as the Constitution. But the Constitution is between the Federal and State governments, not the American People in general. So long as the States retain authority over their land and people, then the people are bound to obey the States. If the people were to attack the Federal government without the authorization of their State, they would be acting lawlessly — period! And lawlessness is never justified.
This is why we must do everything we can to keep individuals from taking things into their own hands. If this happens, then the Federal government can claim authority to put down the rebellion in that State or States — and it will. When this happens, man will lose his last grip on liberty forever. Instead, do everything you can to put pressure on your State government, and encourage everyone you know to do the same. Explain this to them: make sure they understand why they must seek redress in this way. Make sure you tell everyone you know that we must cling to the law because — eventually — we may have to appeal to the Supreme Judge of this world. If that time comes, and we are not in line with His Natural Law, then — as Perfect Justice — we will not be happy with His verdict. You see, God is on no one’s side but His own. It is up to us to get on His side, and that means we must remain lawful.
80 thoughts on “PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW: Lawlessness Is NEVER Justified”
Reblogged this on The Rio Norte Line.
Yes, and yes, and … No! The no is in regard to if fed gov has any legitimate right to claim authority. I think we could have a long discussion on whether, in claiming that authority, .gov and it’s representatives are trying to suplant the laws of creation, and where folks who see the truth need to draw a line in the sand. I do agree that any opposition needs to get their house in order, agree on principles, maybe, I don’t know, swear life, fortune, and sacred honor to a set of very agreeable (meaning 13 colonies agreed) principles. If at that point the adversary wants to fight, according to my understanding, the creator will assure us that we have picked the fight that can be won.
When I say the Federal government would have authority, it is because, IF the States cede their authority, then they are agreeing to federal demands. If the people allow the States to do that, then they are bound to that decision. Right or wrong, the people are still bound to the decisions of their governments. This does NOT mean they have to obey — as we have previously discussed — but it means they will have to submit to the consequences while they play to the hearts of the greater population.
I understand the difference between civil and Natural Law. This is the whole purpose of this blog: to teach Natural Law. But Natural Law includes Romans 13, and I want to make sure people understand this. We do NOT have to obey a civil law contrary to Natural Law, but we DO have to submit to the consequences of that civil law. Even Christ did this, and He is the Creator. There is the Supreme Lesson for us to follow.
“If the people allow the States to do that, then they are bound to that decision. Right or wrong, the people are still bound to the decisions of their governments.”
How do you suggest a state could legally go against the fed gov?
It seems to me that most states are more than happy to violate their own constitution to appease the feds. Telling my congressional representatives that I don’t agree with their decisions does not cause them to change. Nor does voting in someone else. What is left?
First, the States have a Constitutional right/authority to secede and/or nullify UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions by the Fed. They can simply ignore them. We must remember, the States made the fed, so the fed dances to the States, not the other way around (though Lincoln did arguably end this with the War of Northern Aggression).
As for people not listening to you: that is the problem with representative government. If the majority wants to live lawlessly and elect lawless people, then the only thing left to the lawful people is to disobey, even if it means going to jail. But a minority that tries to rebel is as much in the wrong as the majority that votes for lawlessness. Even if it is for right, we cannot force others to comply against their will. God gave us free will — even to the point of rejecting Him and choosing the consequences. It is why Christ did not tell His disciples to punish those towns that rejected the Gospel, but to shake the dust off their feet and leave those people for God to deal with.
This is why I wrote that we need to start getting ready to move to those States where the majority still embrace the ideology of our founders. If we do this, then we have a chance of being able to act for the majority and to salvage some piece of this land where liberty remains.
Again, I am not blind nor deaf to the objections being raised here. I want pretty much the same thing: to stay free. BUT, I refuse to become lawless in the pursuit of liberty because I KNOW that Natural Law says such an act will ultimately cost us the liberty we seek. I am trying to encourage people to follow our founders’ example: to fight for our liberty lawfully. But this requires people turn to God and repent and get right with the Creator and His law, and this nation no longer cares to do that…
Also, I would add that with the Bundy situation last summer, the only reason there was no explosion into a larger scenario was that whether everyone there knew it, defending that land at that time was in accordance to creations will. I see no other reason for restraint on the part of fed gov. other than the adversary knowing natural law was not in his favor.
I agree 100 % with Suspect’s comment re: the Bundy defense standoff.
And I would like to raise the stakes and ask……. If the goobermint had attacked and killed more than Cows, would that have constituted the legitimizing “street” action or Lexington moment you were referring to in the prior post ??
Don, I would hope that if .gov moved to force the property owner and his defenders out of the area with aggressive tactics, or chose to confiscate the remaining cattle at the point of a gun, that those in defense would not do so in vain. At that point, where the situation would spread is anyone’s guess. Does it make it ok to attack a postman walking his route, just because he is the representative of .gov? No, morality cannot be tossed to the wind. If a group of folks who support the defenders (Bundy) chose to demand that the BLM office in their local area be closed and were to block access to those officials assigned there, and the group of defenders felt they needed to be armed, or have and armed security team, they would still hold the moral high ground when/if .gov forces arrived to open the office. Many will choose not to see the distinction. The intent of any action against authority is muy importante. This is true even in questions of faith, if one is questioning the existence of the Creator, as long as the intention is honest and meant to find truth, it is righteous. On the other hand, the same question being asked by someone who intends to ignore the answer, instead focusing on the questioning itself, is done only to obfuscate truth.
The men who were present and participated in founding of this republic understood the need for the moral high ground, and that the trip to the top of the hill does not go directly up the slope, rather winds across the face of the hill. They did not however, step onto the green without maneuvering themselves, intentionally, to be in a specific place at a specific time, so that if the match was struck, the kindling would burn.
Exactly my point: I am encouraging us to consciously maneuver ourselves into that same position. As of today, we are far from standing on Lexington Greene with our founders. I wish to correct that, so that WHEN the time comes, we respond correctly, lawfully — and not lawlessly. If we — the People — turn lawless, ourselves….
Well, in that case, Suspect, you KNOW what the Creator MUST do in return…
That is my greatest fear that incrementalism will prevent enough momentum to take a stand, that even amongst those who do not deny the tyranny, there is no unity of purpose, that the sacrifice will be exacted on my children and their children. That judgment is the prerogative of a presence that I will never understand, and my generations living in the absence of that presence, is a greater punishment of my sins than any trial or tribulation that was meant for me to bear. All that said, I will happily put on my “fightin undies” and stand with anyone willing to call a lie a lie. Until we once again agree on the self evident Truth.
What you say about incrementalism and unity of purpose is exactly my feeling.
Was Bundy acting for himself, or on behalf of his State and/or the People of his State?
When the gov’t comes for one person based on constitutionally illegal laws, but those laws apply to many landowners, then it is a divide and conquer strategy on the gov’t part. The incrementalism Suspect refers to. This is what I was getting at about the “Modern” version of a Lexington that we have to respond to. It did represent a unity of purpose by many who showed up. So his concerns were his but were DIRECTLY related to and applicable to ALL Nevada property owners.
But you answered my question with a question.
I really would like an answer to what you think would have happened in the scenario I gave re: Lexington etc.
The militia on Lexington Greene was created by the People and with the consent of the government of that Colony/State. Therefore, they were acting in a semi-official capacity. If we — as a band of citizens — do something like this without at least State sanction, then even our State laws recognize us as in rebellion. This is lawlessness.
Don, I did not say this would be easy, but do you think what the founders did was any easier in comparison to the times in which they lived? The difference is they ever advocated the high ground, pointing to and appealing to the Creator, calling for public unity and fasting in the process. They sought to do things according to the law: man’s and –when that failed — God’s. Now, where are we doing this anywhere in this nation save for the few lonely bastions of Natural law such as the Road to Concord?
Let me ask you a question: if the Brady group had fired on the feds, where do you think we would be right now as a nation? And be honest? And when you answer, tell me if you do not see the value in what I am trying to do — even if you disagree, tell me if you at least see the VALUE in my efforts?
The Brady Group ?? God I hope not….those girls were cute.. ;- ))
I think like Suspect, that the Feds backed off because the Bundy folks had Natural Law on their side. If the Bundy folks had fired what you say is true.
but …. I have asked 3 times now and would really like you to answer, If the Feds had fired first and killed many, and say the Bundy group did not fire in return….. would that have constituted a “New” Lexington moment ?
Because times and tactics have changed, that’s what I have been getting at and the commenters on the other thread are tapping into.
The range and number and caliber of comments are testimony to your efforts….dontcha think?
Bundy, yes — MY bad (me and names 😦 )
OK, direct answer: NO! Times and tactics change, yes. But Natural law does not. The People still need the force of govt. behind them before they can resist another government.
Maybe it would help to point out that which I thought was understood: war is an act between nations. This requires governments to represent those nations. When it is a band of people verse a nation, it is called a rebellion and is unlawful. The most common form of this today is called ‘terrorism.’ Now, do you want to argue that the Jihadis are justified in their actions? I hope not. But what if they had a Caliphate with a properly seated Caliph and HE declared war? Then, while they would be wrong for declaring war and initiating force, they would at least be in a different ream of the law than they are now, acting as stateless individuals.
Am I making my point? Or is the emotion of this issue still clouding the field?
What do you call it when the gov’t kills its own citizens ?
Are they lawless if they resist?
Were the Jews and political prisoners correct then in going to their deaths at the Concentration Camps without revolt ?
I know you are trying to paint this so I MUST answer the way you want me to or ‘admit’ I am wrong or supporting suicide, but it is fallacious on your part and you know it.
OK, the Jews: YES! They were correct in submitting to Hitler — but only if you are going to follow Natural law. If you chose to follow man’s law, then have it your way, but understand what that would have cost.
Had the Jews revolted, then no one would have had ANY sympathy on them and even more would have been killed after the war. HOWEVER, as it turned out, what happened to them is much like what happened to the early Christians. The Christians went to the lions willingly and it changed Rome and created the Western world, which lead to man being free for the first time. The Jews went silently to slaughter and Israel was reborn as the direct result.
Now, if you are following MAN, you may see these as irrelevant or unnecessary. But if you follow GOD, then all of this was the fulfillment of prophecy and, in that scheme, the greater context of Natural Law. So, like I said, we can play the long game and maybe win, or we can chose man’s way and definitely lose.
My friend, I did not make the rules. I’m just looking back through time and explaining them — at least, I’m trying to. 😦
My first question ?
What do you call it when a gov’t kills its own Citizens ? Just ? Lawless ?
Don, you know it is lawless. But does that justify lawlessness in return? Especially when there IS a lawful way to achieve the same goal you and I seek?
I think what you really want is a way to have your cake and eat it too: to justify lawlessness when you cannot get a majority to join you in doing it the lawful way. Sorry, my friend, but two wrongs do not a right make. They make a Statist instead. 😦
You and I are not — at least — we must resist the urge to become what we oppose.
Also, By your argument the second amendment shouldn’t exist. Only the mass death of Citizens by the gov’t is legitimate to fulfill God’s law.
And if the Jews had been armed, we know there would have been resistance and God would have sided with the Nazis because the Jews didn’t have a legitimate gov’t behind them ? Therefore the Nazis acted correctly and the Jews acted correctly in allowing themselves to be mass murdered ? So the Nazis were doing God’s will and we shouldn’t vilify them then ?
Israel is re-established. But the World hates Jews at I would argue an even MORE intense level. So all Jews should submit to islamic and others extermination and those who would defend her should at the very least put down their arms…..and preferably turn them in to the Central gov’t.
Therefore Obama should be praised especially now for giving Iran Nuclear weapons and criticism of him is wrong because he is the instrument of Israel’s destruction and Obama is doing God’s will ?
I think this all needs to be mapped out.
So according to you self protection is unlawful.
What was the lawful way for the Jews to protect themselves? What was the lawful avenue for them to remain alive ?
Why should I answer. You have decided you are just going to arbitrarily tell me I am wrong so you can justify the actions you want to take. So go for it. Advocate open rebelion before you put some form of law under you. But if you do that, remember that you will be throwing away any chance of success that may still remain. they will just use it as the excuse they need to exterminate us.
I will jump back in here, maybe to bridge the point both commenters are trying to make.
In acute situations where an illegitimate authority is acting to deny an individual, or group of their rights granted through birth, it is their right and responsibility to resist, no matter the consequence. There will be consequence dictated by authority. Just or unjust. Those who decide to resist in the name of truth must, must, must be aware and willing to face the authority of the unjust master.
This is a spur of the moment, instinctual reaction to evil.
This would also come to bear in a situation where an authority who claims just authority is in fact an arm of evil and in a nightmare scenario, in a night of pure evil, attempts to secret away any person who would stand firm.
It does not apply when those who see the truth, see how illegitimate the authority is, seek to cover their own inability to galvanize support (an authority in waiting) in the illegitimacy of those currently in that position. If a tyrant cares more for those lost souls with their heads in the sand, or at least understands how useful they can be, then if there is truly a higher power, would it allow anew power to arise, that considers the ostrich to be fuel for the falling bombs.
The difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution is the difference in what it means to be human or animal. Yes, there is a way in which the reflection of truth will reflect off your drawn blade, but it is the responsibility of he who unsheathe the blade to ensure he is not in cloud cover but bathed in the light of right before blood is spilled.
You have been saying the same thing I have tried — and apparently — failed to say. I only WISH I could say it as eloquently and beautifully as you have.
B3A, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for the compliment, but please in turn accept mine. A place for allies to hammer out an inspired way forward is refreshing. I have found comments in 2 other places directing me to your blog. Too many are all too willing to throw off the armor of truth for the satisfaction of revenge. I will admit I think that arguing the righteous path also needs to be tempered with the heat of liberty’s forge, and even righteousness can make others shy away from truth. my only knowledge of the word, is that which my gut tells me is truth or the salty taste in my mouth warns has been co-opted. I am truly an intelligent, ignorant individual, who learns only through the lash. I have tried to become a part of a couple groups (militia, whatever you want to call them). I am more convinced than ever coalescence cannot happen until people who know, become the base of a group and quit demanding purity, focussing on the impure composition of the tyrant.
Truly I tell you, we are brothers — and in more ways than one. And though you may call yourself ignorant, as am I, I know that you are guided by The Light. SO many who claim to be guided by the same Light are not, and it shows in what they say and what they do. But your words and your actions testify for you. I know that you have tested all things against His Truth, and it shows. Peace to you, my brother 🙂
…and to you, friend.
do you read my other blog, the OYL? if not, you will want to read the post I just put up. go to:
The question I asked re: Jews and the 1930s are good rhetorical questions. And they need to be addressed and answered in order for what you advocate to be successful. Your work has partially focused on the Close similarity of 1930s Germany and what is happening today in the USA.
Rather than get your ruff up, you should consider what I’ve asked ….. because in the context of this discussion MANY would ask the same questions. If Christians and Constitutionalists are like the new “Jews”, or are in a similar situation to the Jews in that time, then all the more reason to consider seriously what I have rhetorically asked. Because what needs to be done is avert that happening again.
The issue thus is sans a State seceding first, what actions are legitimate in your estimation to stop the spiral of events that lead where they always do,and always quicker than we think ? What actions do we take to stop the rounding up of Citizens, of Confiscation of Guns in say just One State ? Because to me it seems that NO ACTION taken at those points, because there is no alternative gov’t established to legitimize any action, is basically an enabling action of the Lawless govt itself.
As I said, we need to map this out. Because as the saying goes.. “History doesn’t repeat but it rhymes”….. we need to figure out the rhymes before it hits us.
I HAVE answered you — several times. My ‘ruff’ is up because, if someone who is awake as you does not see the necessity to remain lawful in resisting lawlessness, then what chance is there to turn this nation back to the right path?
What actions do we take? Look to Louisiana and Texas. They are skipping the Federal government in dealing with Planned Parenthood and the invasion of illegal aliens. Oklahoma ignored the feds and outlawed Shari’a and passed a religious freedom act designed to shoot-down the ramifications of the gay marriage ruling. There are PLENTY of such examples.
Now, I am doing exactly what you ask: I am trying to push my State to respond by opposing the feds while doing my best to encourage others to do the same. But I am also trying to wake people to the fact that we must abandon the Party system as well. You and I both know the GOP=Democrats=Progressives. We must break from this cycle. We must return to first principles, and that requires we teach people what they are and from where they come. I KNOW you know this, so why are we playing Leftist ‘what-if’ games when the question has already been answered many times?
Now, if we agree the States are not going to defend their citizens, then we can discuss making a new State government, but I will NEVER stand with anyone who thinks they have a right to go to war with the State on their own accord. That is lawlessness, and two wrongs do not, cannot and will NEVER make a right, Don.
Yes You and I agree on all of the things you have mentioned and more>
But specifically, if Confiscation of arms begins or the “detainment” of citizens begins……. What then is the course of action if action against those things is lawless ? That is the essential thing which must be addressed. You seem to be implying that any action to stop this would be Lawless until a “New State” is formed.
That being the case, do we just let the Disappearance continue, the jailing continue, the Confiscation continue…until a New State is Formed ?
I think these are crucial questions, because the method of Tyranny has changed and the incrementalism described by Suspect is in effect. So at what point is resistance allowed and legitimate to you? Only and IF a New State is formed first ?
Hard as it is to say, yes — we let it continue. My friend, if the time you describe comes and the people of a given States refuse to wake up and rally to their own defense, then what exactly are you trying to defend? They have the right to sell themselves into slavery for false promises if that is what they wish to do (Natural Right to be wrong).
This is why I am SERIOUSLY Advocating that like-minded, liberty-loving people start moving to that region of the country where they are still in a majority already. It will be much easier to remain lawful this way.
I am assuming that those who are subject to the Confiscations, Jailings and “detentions” are subject against their will. And further that those who would prevent or stand up against those actions represent those who DO NOT submit themselves and the victims to that slavery, and that they are residents of that State as are the victims. So both the victims and those protesting those actions form a like-minded group or legal “class” if you will.
Thus to answer your question they are defending against their Natural Rights.
You seem to be implying that only a Consensus constitutes a legal action. So in a way nobody has a right to fight for their or another’s Natural Rights unless a Consensus agrees ? Then the next logical question follows……what is a Consensus? 51 % ? Like wise it is popular to say the 3% fought the War of Independence, although you and I and those who actually study history know it was more like 35-36%. Still THAT was not a Consensus in that regard……even though a Declaration had been declared and even though that Declaration was Declared from the Legal Entities known as Colonies.
I think as I said this needs MUCH more discussion and needs to be mapped out. To quote you ” I did not say this would be easy”……and I agree. As with Suspect’s comment : … “This a place for ALLIES to hammer out an inspired way forward…” ( “forward”, NOT in the communist connotation of course ).
Mapped out means exactly what it says…..a way to, (as Suspect also put it about Lexington),…. ” maneuver ourselves, intentionally, to be in a specific place at a specific time…..” What I am adding is that because times have changed that maneuvering of necessity needs Much forethought and planning. Which includes the obvious questions that will arise about legitimacy of gov’t action versus legitimacy of Counter-action.
And here I will again quote Suspect because (He?) put it so very well :
“.. I am more convinced than ever coalescence cannot happen until people who know, become the base of a group and quit demanding PURITY, focussing on the impure composition of the tyrant. “.
Only governments can wage war. You know this. When a band of citizens wages war against another government, they act lawlessly. You know this too.
Now, I am not looking for purity, nor do I think consensus is the answer. You know me well enough to know this, as well. But I suspect you are trying to force me to concede to something to which I will never agree: a lawless act never justifies another lawless act — period. You can plead special case or play reduction all day long, or tell me the times demand we abandon the law, but you know all of this is the same game the Progressives play when morality and the law stand in the way of what they want. I would expect better from you — and I do!
The situation you present: let me use it — the same example — in a different way. Ruby Ridge. The government was lawless. So, was McVeigh justified in his actions? If you say no, then you need to take another look at the example you have been using to try to bait me into conceding that one wrong justifies another. But if you say McVeigh was justified… Well, I won’t go there because I do not want to think you are such a person. I have to much respect for you that to even allow that possibility in my mind.
However, what if, after Ruby Ridge, Idaho had declared the State off limits to any and all federal personnel? What if the State had also authorized the formation of regulated militias under State authority and control? And what if the Feds had tried to enter Idaho and then been shot by the militia? Do you not see the difference here? In this last scenario, the people of Idaho would be totally within the law.
But the States will not do this for two reasons:
1 — most of them and their people want the federal handouts more than their really want their liberty.
2 — Few States have enough true liberty-loving citizens to affect the political changes necessary to stand up to the feds.
So, either we all start to wage a culture war by moving to States with a higher population of like-minded liberty-lovers so we CAN affect these necessary changes, we educate enough people to change the hearts and minds in our States where will live now and then affect these changes — or we quit looking for lawless shortcuts and accept that the nation is too bloody far gone to save!!!
Right. I am not trying to goad. Only show the questioning Road that will eventually follow. And that the answers are not easy.
Look again at the % tages for the Colonists and the Revolutionary War. Because there is a Key there. There is no special case or subterfuge on my part. Remember Chhelo’s assumed % tage and mine at 60/40…..this % tage is disseminated throughout the States. Remember that Pat Buchanan has , I think, correctly stated that many Americans have ALREADY seceded in their Hearts.
We have to put all these pieces together to form a whole, and from that a plan of action ( an inspired way forward, as Suspect said ). Because actions from the fedgov may happen quicker than the slow turning of the State demographics will allow. Then again look at the %tage of the Colonists. One could make the argument that those militias WERE NOT in line with the Colonists of whom they represented because the macro-support was only tabulated at 36 %. Now you and I agree that that isn’t the case…..that Lexington Greene was correct. However, as the Crow flies, the %tages did not support a Consensus. This needs to be addressed. Because the socialists would and will make the exact same argument about their own military action against the Constitutionalists. That being that BECAUSE it is the STATE doing it….it is therefore right and lawful. EVEN if only 27 to 49 % support it.
Planning and addressing a priori is the Key to “Hammering out an inspired way forward”.
Now we’re getting somewhere. Yes, I understand the percentages here and in the time of the founding. BUT, there was a difference then we do not have now. The Colonists, though they may not have necessarily wanted to separate from England, did understand the Spiritual aspect of their cause. So, when modern historians count those who did not ACTIVELY favor Revolution as being against it, they make a logical fallacy. Not favoring does NOT mean they opposed Revolution. Had that been the case, then the States would not have had the political support to push for the Revolution that they did. It’s just that many Colonists remained silent and waited to see who would win.
Today, that silent crowed is a HUGE problem as they have been bought and paid for by the socialists in our government. Plus, the moral foundations upon which the cause of liberty is built have been torn down. This is why I blog: to do what little I can to shine the light of righteousness into the darkness of our time. If we are to have any hope, we either have to pray for a REAL Revival, or we need to collapse back into a few States so as to concentrate those of us who remain.
Do you see why I advocate collapsing back into the South now?
Well I agree with you about collapsing into the South.
And during the Revolution it was about 1/3 actively supporting in various ways, 1/3 supporting and Silent and about 1/3 against. I believe we actually have around that figure today with my 60/40 split. But we are fractured. Which makes Suspect’s wonderful comment about the Faithful and the Secular coming together in 1776 important and germane today. In 1776 They came together around the Truth….around Natural Law. We need similar, and actually I don’t think Liberty is a dead Idea. It has been muddled in men’s minds by the Schools and disinfo industry……but it is still there.
We have to fight the pessimism and the disjoint agenda of those who do see ( Know) as Suspect says. And part of that is anticipating the questions and counter-arguments that will come…..to fight this muddling and disinfo.
Seems we have come back to common ground. Thanks, Don. I needed that — really.
Maybe I’m too much of a Yankee, and I’ve heard more most if not all arguments and the counter arguments never convince anyone but…
In regards to declaring Independence from the British you quote: “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;”
However, the constitution says:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
“To form a more perfect Union.”
The social contract of the United States of America, The Constitution, legally bound 13 states together, as with any contract law, for a contract to be dissolved and parties to be allowed to leave (secession) then all parties must agree to dissolve said contract. Seven southern states left the Union out of fear of what might Abraham Lincoln do to their institution of Slavery, up to the point of their seceding he had made no aggressive actions towards any Southern state. In many ways, by your example, The South, preemptively initiated conflict by breaking contract law.
Re-read the Constitution. the States remain sovereign. As a sovereign State, they retain the right of self-control up to and including the right to secede. The social contract is an if-then contract: if you want to partake, then you must comply with… But, if we want out, then we can. This is the whole point of a FEDERAL government: a federation is NOT a nation, it is a willing coalition.
So, yes, I think you have accepted the argument of the North, which — by action — effectively dissolved the Federation and created a national government by force. This is a violation of the Constitution and Natural law.
As to the South NOT having the right to secede: you might want to address the men who wrote and ratified the Constitution. THEY said the States retain the right of secession, so where did that right go? Lincoln was in the wrong when he attacked — period! It does not matter why the South left, the point is they had the LEGAL right to do so. This means the North acted ILLEGALLY.
This is the whole point of my recent line of arguments/posts: that we leave those States that want to live lawlessly, but that those States which leave do so legally. I am trying to achieve the same ends as our founders: liberty founded upon the moral and legal high grounds. Anything less will result in the loss of the liberty we seek.
The problem with your conclusion is I simply don’t agree that compact theory existed after the ratification of the Constitution. I agree with Hamilton’s conclusions and later Lincoln’s argument of the binding contract. By the Social Contract, I believe Lincoln acted lawfully.
“Re-read the Constitution. the States remain sovereign”
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
The only autonomy the states are granted is those not defined by the Constitution, other than that they are completely bound by the UNION.
“you might want to address the men who wrote and ratified the Constitution. THEY said the States retain the right of secession.”
Where is it said in any sort of consensus of the founders that the states have the effective right to secede?
Washington, see his will, as well as Hamilton, wished to build a National University to eliminate sectionalism.
John Adams also expressed the need to provided universal education for the same ends in his Thoughts on Government.
This idea of secession largely stems from Jefferson and Madison’s Resolutions, which was further exploited by Calhounism. My belief is that Compact Theory ended with the Constitution’s ratification.
Furthermore, The forts were STILL Federal PROPERTY, and so were the SEIZED post offices, and without proper compensation for those facilities the Southern states were guilty of theft, thus breaking natural law. Lincoln, and the federal Union, had every right to protect their facilities when they were unlawfully attacked, especially in defense of forced takeover like that of Ft. Sumter and potentially Ft. Pickens, which Jefferson Davis had already gave Bragg the order. The North was in full compliance with the law; however, as Locke shows with the rights of property, the South with their continuation and strengthing, seeing 1850s, of the institution of slavery, had been violating the rights of property.
The south’s intent does matter if you believe they are legally binded by contract law, take a look at the Secession decrees, Lincoln gave full indication of his intent in his First Inaugural Address that he would uphold the Constitution including the Fugitive Slave Act, and the south still broke the contract to protect the vital cog of their economic system, the unlawful institution of slavery.
Our understanding of the Civil War, and furthermore, secession, is based on our perception of the Constitution. The legal and philosophical arguments that we hold completely hinge on that point.
“Where is it said in any sort of consensus of the founders that the states have the effective right to secede?”
By the man who wrote and ram-rodded the ratification, and thus, was i the best position to know: James Madison (and he is only 1 of many).
Phadde, you are arguing that the States and their people are held in a suicide pact made by people long since dead. THIS IS ENTIRELY CONTRARY TO NATURAL LAW, thus, it is not and cannot be binding. That undermines everything you just said — EVERYTHING! What’s more, every indication is that the founders knew this and understood that the States DID retain the right to leave the union. Again, the creation is not and can never be greater than its maker.
I know you will disagree, and it is because you side with the most flawed faction of our founding — that represented by Hamilton. But you are essentially arguing that man can create a computer and then agree we will all be bound by whatever it decides and forever give ourselves over to it. So — by your argument — if that computer ever malfunctions, we ares till bound to follow whatever it tells us to do. I REJECT THIS AS SLAVERY — and that is EXACTLY what you are arguing: the tyranny of the masses.
Your entire argument is contrary to the very spirit of the Declaration, which is — essentially — the spirit of Natural Law. That is why I reject your argument.: because you are justifying tyranny.
Well Joe, what more is there to say? You know my position align more with Hamilton and I knew you held the more Jeffersonian view. You call my position that of tyranny, which in return I could charge that yours is the position of anarchy. However, in the words of Lincoln’s First Inaugural address I must say, “We must not be enemies.”
Although you may see tyrannical assertions from Hamiltonian beliefs, at least feel comforted that even true Hamiltonians have their limits.
LOL, phadde, I am not commenting on YOU, but the position you are holding. And yes, I know I lean more toward Jefferson and you toward Hamilton, but then, history has shown than Hamilton’s position is the more flawed between the two. But you are correct: we should try not to be enemies.
That said, let me ask you how Lincoln thought that was possible? He was happy to announce that he did not want to be enemies with the South, but he was equally happy telling the South that it was irrevocably bound to do whatever the North dictated it do. Now I ask you: if you agree with this, why disagree with me? Note the example I am going to use:
You come to my blog and engage me in conversation. So, I agree and say I do not want to disagree. However, once you come here, you are agreeing to be bound by whatever I say, so if I declare Hamilton’s position to be wrong, you must agree and we will not be enemies. Now, I know it is rough, but it works. The question is, do you see the problem with this example? And if so, how do you not see the same problem existed with Lincoln and his position regarding the South?
Mine is NOT a position of Anarchy. That is fallacious on a level that I KNOW is beneath you. And I KNOW you know better. You and I both know I am and have consistently called for legal actions, and legal requires properly sanctioned governing bodies to speak for the people. So, please, do not play that game. You can make better arguments than this.
At the same time, if all the States are bound by the Constitution, then the federal government only need be seized by a small group of infiltrators who then pass laws that make it impossible for the States to take their power back and you have a dictatorship to which you are arguing the States must submit without recourse. If one looks to form and function, one will find this is exactly what Lincoln did, and more so what we have now. Tell me, how is this not tyranny? Look what is happening right now in D.C. We are being told the Congress can refuse to pass something, but the President can veto their refusal (regarding the Iran deal). How in the blazes is this not dictatorship? It has no Constitutional basis, but you are arguing the States are bound to accept this lawlessness because they signed a suicide pact???
I dare say, my friend, that even Hamilton would stand in opposition to you in this case, but this is more because he didn’t imagine the nation would ever get to the point we have. Still, the Anti_federalists have been vindicated on every count. Theirs was the correct positions. History has shown this. I am merely trying to learn from history and advocate that we — as States — do the same while holding to the first principle that allows us to claim our liberty: Natural law. And there is nothing in Natural law that dictates a Party to a contract is irrevocably bound. So long as I abandon claim to my rights under a contract, I am always free to walk away — always!
I trust you know I am not intentionally trying to be argumentative. I care that my point is understood while — at the same time — we know we are not enemies. So let me see if this is a better example:
When we agree to the terms of a credit card, and the credit card company later changes the terms — where did that come from? Why is it they get to change terms but you do not? Yet this is exactly how these contracts work. So, when they change the terms, you have one of two choices: agree and accept them, or leave the contract (pay off and close the account). But what if the credit card company tells you that you CAN’T leave the contract and are bound by whatever terms THEY set?
So, taking this to the War of Norther Aggression, when the North started to force changes without Amending the Constitution — which they knew they could not pass due to the numbers in the ratification process — what option was left to the States? They did exactly what you would do if your credit card company told you your interest rate is now 100% MONTHLY! The States said good-bye. But the North said NO! You will stay and we will use force to make you stay.
Now, tell me something: IN PRINCIPLE, how is this different from telling someone you own them and the law says you can use force to make them stay and work for you on your property? The North called this slavery…except when they did it on a State level. In that case, they called it “a binding contract.’
Now, I pray you will see that the North (and Hamilton) was wrong, and why.
I know its hard to tell with text, but my “charge of anarchy” was hyperbolic sarcasm.
“He was happy to announce that he did not want to be enemies with the South, but he was equally happy telling the South that it was irrevocably bound to do whatever the North dictated it do. Now I ask you: if you agree with this, why disagree with me? Note the example I am going to use:
You come to my blog and engage me in conversation. So, I agree and say I do not want to disagree. However, once you come here, you are agreeing to be bound by whatever I say, so if I declare Hamilton’s position to be wrong, you must agree and we will not be enemies. Now, I know it is rough, but it works. The question is, do you see the problem with this example? And if so, how do you not see the same problem existed with Lincoln and his position regarding the South?”
The analogy doesn’t change the debate. In accordance to the analogy I would probably sayJoe, are those the agreed conditions of your blog? If I participate in your blog must I agree to everything you say? This only gets us back to square one, which is our differing perception of the agreement of the Constitution. Your position is that the Colonies were under the impression they did not give up the consent to leave if barring a disagreement.
I am going to have to ponder on your analogy and assertions, I suppose you can make a case that Hamilton would disagree with this position and Lincoln’s. He writes very extensively on the matter I believe in Federalist #28. I will also examine his views on the Supremacy clause in Federalist #33. I shall re-read that and consider your argument.
Now, to concede a few points in your favor: Hamilton — to my understanding — was not saying the States were irrevocably bound to the union as much as he was saying IF they chose to stay, THEN they were bound to the dictates of the Federal government as described in the Constitution. TO this, I offer no contest as I hold the same understanding. BUT, and this is the key point, the States did not understand the Constitution to be a suicide pact. if they did, then they would have never Revolted against Britain, and Hamilton would have been a Torrie. This, or the Colonies ARE guilty of all the modern liberal charges of hypocrisy and greed, to which I suspect you and I would both strenuously object.
So, if you — a State — stay with the union, you are bound by the Constitutions –and rightfully so. But you retain your sovereignty, and with it, your right to leave the union. If you do that, then you have no claim to any protection of guarantee under it, but neither do the remaining States have a JUST right to force you to stay. This is the position of Natural law, and to argue that it is NOT the case — even for Hamilton — is to undermine the whole ideology undermining the Constitution, itself. Do that and Hamilton and the Federalists are no better than Hobbes. Now, do you SERIOUSLY think Madison would have sided with Hobbes? 🙂
You forget that the States as sovereign created the Structure of the Federal gov’t to administer according to the Constitution / Bill of Rights. Of which the primary goals were to insure and protect Individual liberties and State sovereignty. That was the point of the “Union”. To create a more perfect union was in reference to the articles of Confederation which had structural problems especially with regard debts being paid and intra-state commerce etc. Thus the whole impetus for the Constitution was to make a structure whereby the Collection of Sovereign States could effectively operate while retaining their sovereignty.
It was not some kind of binding contract in perpetuity which somehow justified the opposite. Lincoln did what Obama does assume an interpretation that justifies his own goals. Thus the Constitution became for Lincoln some kind of Business Contract that had been broken and the “injured” party had the right to redress.
Likewise where in the Constitution/ BoRs does it say ” for all time, you and your children and all the lands and treasure of the said States or any others who may join in the future are bound to this Federal gov’t Union under punishment of jail or death should you leave or attempt to leave this ‘Contract’ “.
Rhetorically your stance is such that no breaking apart is ever allowed. In essence it seems The United States shouldn’t even exist, because the “Contract” was broken with The King and Parliament.
And one could carry the argument to any governmental structure with its implied social “Contract”.
In essence you seem to argue that Contract = justified servitude ( in perpetuity). Irrespective of Natural Law or Lawless action by the “owners” and operators of that Contract.
Joe, I’m still working on our discussion, but I want you to take a look at this article, see my comments below, my ole buddy Steve Hochstadt is up to it again: http://myjournalcourier.com/news/54043/the-myth-of-liberal-media
Do you consider media ‘independents’ to be mostly conservative? I don’t I would…maybe I’m wrong?
No worries, and sure, I’ll hop over there later tonight, when I have time to pay closer attention to the discussion 🙂
Perhaps you’re right about those folks, I love it when I call them out for red herrings, only to get the reply that I was using red herrings. The expressed opinion was clear in the article, not addressing it what was implied by the ‘supporting data’ is intellectual dishonesty.
My desired goal is to have them just admit that assertions are linear, refute them with more evidence (even better explanation), because if they have to do that, then they’re admitting to their hypocrisy without being aware of it.
However, they are masters of circular logic.
My friend, I sympathize with the desire to enlighten these people, or barring that, just get them to admit to their hypocrisy. Sadly, they can do neither because they honestly cannot see their error. This is because they can only look inward. All these people will ever see is themselves. You cannot reach such a person as they live in a world divorced from reality and as far from that reality as the East is from the West.
Based on our previous conversation, I think it’s futile for me to explain my interpretations of these quotes from Hamilton and Lincoln, so I simply wish to quote them and read your feelings on them.
“But it is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land. But what inference can be drawn from this, or what would they amount to, if they were not to be supreme? It is evident they would amount to nothing. A LAW, by the very meaning of the term, includes supremacy. It is a rule which those to whom it is prescribed are bound to observe. This results from every political association. If individuals enter into a state of society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their conduct. If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed.”
“Though a law, therefore, laying a tax for the use of the United States would be supreme in its nature, and could not legally be opposed or controlled, yet a law for abrogating or preventing the collection of a tax laid by the authority of the State, (unless upon imports and exports), would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution.”
“The inference from the whole is, that the individual States would, under the proposed Constitution, retain an independent and uncontrollable authority to raise revenue to any extent of which they may stand in need, by every kind of taxation, except duties on imports and exports.”
Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address:
“In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts;
It appears Lincoln and Hamilton are in agreement but does Federalist #28 void this or does the supremacy clause ultimately grant the Federal government legal authority to enforce the collections on the duties and imposts?
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.
The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!
Let me counter ALL of that by asking you — and Hamilton through you — these tow questions:
Where does the CONSTITUTION say the States cannot secede?
And since the Constitution is silent on this point, but the 9th and 10th would encompass such a right, then how can the right of secession be denied when — by you and Hamilton’s own reasoning — the right of secession is the law of the land?
I trust you will realize that this is the logical equivalent of “check — and mate” 😉
I may agree that Hamilton believes that the states have rights to secession by his explanation in Federalist #28; however, I’m not sold that the southern states had authority based on his criteria to condemn Lincoln.
Hamilton only agrees it appears, if the Federal government in effect breaks the law, usurps it. I would also trust that you would realize that your logic, and its ability to properly condemn Lincoln, hinges on the establishment of Lincoln breaking the law. I believe this is where we find our impasse, you believe he did, I see no evidence of it. I firmly believe the South initiated the conflict.
For example, I’ve always said had Jefferson Davis offered to supply Fort Sumter with food. He would have taken the moral high ground and forced Lincoln’s hand, as in my opinion no matter the position on secession, any Union installation in a southern state, by laws of property, still belonged to the Union without proper compensation.
Furthermore, on the South’s right to secede, based on Hamilton’s proposition made in Federalist #28, One must effectively establish that the Federal government did anything more than enforce the supreme law of the land. I don’t see where this occurs, it appears in many ways the south initiated the conflict by force.
Perhaps you can better explain.
So you believe that Hamilton admits to the right of secession in Federalist 28, if the usurpers take control of government? If Hamilton does admit to it, did the ‘usurpers’ properly give the South recourse to secede?
Lincoln rejects this many times over:
First Inaugural Address:
The Laws being UPHELD
“The fugitive- slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. ”
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”
Letter to James Conkling:
” It will then have been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost.”
Speech in Ohio, addressing the proper recourse for those who oppose his election:
“The question is, as to what the Constitution means—“What are their rights under the Constitution?” That is all. To decide that, who shall be the judge? Can you think of any other, than the voice of the people? If the majority does not control, the minority must—would that be right? Would that be just or generous? Assuredly not! Though the majority may be wrong, and I will not undertake to say that they were not wrong in electing me, yet we must adhere to the principle that the majority shall rule. By your Constitution you have another chance in four years. No great harm can be done by us in that time—in that time there can be nobody hurt. If anything goes wrong, however, and you find you have made a mistake, elect a better man next time. There are plenty of them.”
phadde, Hamilton was in the camp that saw no need for the Bill of Rights because — and this is their reasoning, no mine — if the Constitution does not directly authorize it, it has no authority in said matter. There is NO authority to bind the States to the Union in the Constitution. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights was adopted to insure ratification, and it DOES implicitly retain the right of the States to secede. In fact, one could even argue that, since the Constitution admits to the States being and remaining sovereign, that this also implies a right to secede.
Therefore, the ONLY point Hamilton has is that, IF the States agree to remain in the Union, then the federal government IS supreme — over the States. I would concede this. But to any and every argument that the Constitution was an eternally binding contract… Well, honestly, had the men who ratified it understood that this is what it was, they would have never ratified it at all. You know this to be true, so I honestly do not understand your continued attempt to defend something that simply cannot be defended other than to say you want it because you want it and are willing to use force to have your way. In which case, I would say… “How very LINCOLN of you” 🙂
Again, check-and-mate 🙂
I’ll think more on it, I don’t believe I agree, it’s of no consequence in the grand scheme of things. I do believe that if the government breaks the law, breaks the contract, usurps it, we the people have the authority to defend ourselves even by Hamilton’s definition. The time, It’ll be apparent when it arrives.
lol, it’s all good, my friend. However, I’ll give Hamilton this much: a State should really have a good case before it secedes. Our founders said as much in the Declaration, and I am not sure the South had such a case. They did secede so they could continue a practice contrary to the stated ideal of this nation, so while they had the right to secede, I do not think they had the moral argument to justify it — not by a long shot.
Something else to keep in mind on this issue of right of secession. We must remember the Spirit of the times. The Articles of Confederation had just fallen appart, so — essentially — the States had all seceded (in a manner of speaking). Yet, the framers did not put any language in the Constitution to specifically forbid the States from seceding again. I think this is because they all agreed the States had the right. But it would also explain Hamilton’s stance. He was not so much reacting to the States not seceding, but to the fact that, IF they were going to be a part of the Union, they had to obey the federal government. After all, this was why the Articles of Confederation failed: the States failed to keep their promised end of the deal.
Looking at it in this light may help us BOTH understand Hamilton and the federalists a little better 🙂
Definitely something to ponder, Mr. Hochstadt replied, you’re right that he doesn’t understand the error in his arguments. He belittles the notion to form logical arguments and that we must simply trust him to present his assertions without fallacy. He accuses me of not properly analyzing the evidence, more or less because drawl a different conclusion, therefore, it must be wrong. Master of the circle.
The primary fallacy these people commit is in the way they set things up. The define and structure everything so that you MUST reach their conclusion. They might as well put a gun to your head and ask you if you agree for all the reason they are employing.
Phadde, you cannot reach these people. They are intelligent animals. And before anyone thinks this is an insult, go read the Marxists. They call man the ‘graduate animal.’ By that, they actually mean man is the most intelligent ANIMAL. So when such homo sapiens act like animals, we should recognize and treat them as such. Now, when was the last time you tried to ‘reason’ with an animal? You don’t because you can’t. You either condition them, ignore them or put them down, but those are the only three options for dealing with an animal.
I see what you are saying however, they are not intelligent animals at all. Even if they have chosen to be disillusioned and brainwashed to believe this or that will not, and shall not change their humanity. Ignorance changes nothing biologically.
I think you may have missed the point. Humanity is not a biological characteristic. It is a characteristic of being civil, and being civil is connected to being lawful. If people act lawlessly, then they are not acting like humans.
Many will tell me I am playing semantics here, but I think you meant to say we are all Homo Sapiens. But that does not mean we are all human — not in the sense I am arguing.
Ask yourself what is a hammer? If I use the hammer as a fork is it now a fork? No it’s still a hammer. Dehumanization is not human by your own measure. Having understanding to the conditions is also human thus, the Marxist point of view and calling it something else is still Marxist. All men are created equal and part of that natural order ignorance is still a human choice. By your matrix of thought we all could be considered non human just for using debt based currency as money and never collecting what the banks owe us in return for we are the only creditors. Just a thought.
I do not follow how you are arriving at your conclusions. Nor do I think you have read enough of my posts. I make the very same argument about not being able to change something in my post “Form and function define.”
I think the problem here is you are equivocating without realizing it. You keep trying to hold to humanity being equal to Homo Sapien. I contend they are not. The notion of ‘humanity’ is connected to universal moral law. But being Homo Sapien is connected to biology. One is material, the other is Spiritual. This is the problem. One cannot sever the spiritual and still retain their humanity.
That said, this is a red herring. I do not see how it has anything to do with the point of my argument in this post.
My point is all HOMO SAPIENS are people and all people are human thus all humans are spiritual even if they have no sense of it. What you are saying is dehumanizing people that don’t think and act like you which is exactly the ideologies that have no place any longer. We have gotten sick of judgmental thinking. I do completely understand your thought process and it is exactly the same in principle as all the rest and it is exactly the opposite of the natural order.
I would urge you to read my entire series on Natural Law. I am not dehumanizing anyone. I am merely saying that those who reject any restraint on their actions dehumanize themselves. If you cannot see that, then I’m sorry — but it does not change the truth. If one refuses to live in accordance with the constraints of civil society, then one is — for all practical purposes — choosing to be an animal. He or she may well be a Homo Sapien animal, but an animal none the less.
judging again, people are never animals.
If people are not animals, then what are they? Are they not mammals? Are they not carbon-based, biological entities similar to all other mammals on this planet?
You see, I am trying hard to use language accurately, so I can discuss very important concepts in as clear a manner as possible. And, so far as the dictionary is concerned, I believe I am using my words correctly. You may not like this, you may even disagree. But all you are doing in the process is affirming the very point of this post. 😦
Do other mammals poses the natural ability contemplate and influence past, future present? The post is of the same mind that all eugenics agendas throughout time have had. Are you a eugenicist? And if you are then you need to find some kind of spiritual sense of yourself. Cause thats what separates all man from the other species found here. Seeing as though you wrote the article and argue the points it is making then it is fare to assume you condone and encourage the mind set that you are an animal and nothing more. And as you have clearly said several times, only some are. If you are the arbiter of that judgment in this case, what would you do to these ANIMALS that don’t meet your standard of QUALITY?
OK, this discussion has ended. You are playing a game I know VERY well, and I do not tolerate it — not on my blog. If you had bothered to read more of my posts, you would know I am NOT a eugenicist. Furthermore, YOU introduced this false flag/red herring by claiming I said people are animals. The word animal is not even in this post. So all you are doing is introducing fallacy upon fallacy to muddy the waters — AND THAT IS LAWLESSNESS! Which then makes you one of the very people I describe in this post. What’s more, that is not ;judgmental,’ it is an application of definition, which makes it FACT!
Next, to suggest I am not a believer in the Creator is another utterance from ignorance. It is also ad hominem, and that is definitely not tolerated here — especially after it has been pointed out (as it has been).
Finally, if you are not an animal, then I suppose I must be talking to some flawed form of AI. Yet another reason to end this discussion.
Save yourself the trouble: I will not be approving any more of your comments unless you confine yourself to the Natural Laws governing logic and right reason.
Sorry to upset you. I’m not playing a game i was having an mature conversation with someone that I feel might need to think things out a little differently as all men are created equal endowed by their creator with unalienable rights that is the natural law. Not some but ALL! Your right you should CENSER people that disagree with your distortions of the natural order.
I know you believe that, but it is not the case.
You have introduced something into this post that I did not say, then insisted that I did say it.
You have denied the plain meaning of words.
You have tried to re-define the meaning of those words.
You have spoken about my beliefs out of total and WILFUL ignorance — even after I repeatedly told you you were wrong.
You have insisted on continuing to use fallacious argument after it has been pointed out to you.
Finally, as to your claim that I am censoring you. I do not see it as censorship. I gave you time to make your case RATIONALLY. I tried to help you see where you have =gone wrong. And I even allowed this LAST rebuttle. yet, you have insisted on holding to IRRATIONAL arguments, choosing to tell me I am being ‘judgmental’ instead. I feel sympathy for you if you do not realize that loic is part of Natural Law, and that it has clear and FIXED rules, but this is a fact. When I apply these rules to your comments and draw the obvious conclusions, this is not ‘judgment,’ it is just stating what is. And, in this case, you have demonstrated that you do not know what I believe, do not care to learn and do not care to confine yourselve to the rules of logic and right reason. This is not ‘mature,’ this is irrational, and since this is NOT a public blog, I have every right to restrict conversations — especially after one party has demonstrated they have no desire to act within the bounds of Natural Law.
Thanks for reading, but this conversation is now over.
I do understand why you are drawing that conclusion but no matter how you play with the words you are no judge if a living man is not a human or sub human. They have been given life as you and I and their freewill is to be ignorant then so be it. As long as they do NOT hinder, prevent, others from their natural right of freewill.
How can one choose to remain ignorant and NOT violate th free will of others? Unless they live as a hermit, I do not see how that is possible.
Also, you keep telling me I am being judgmental. How ‘judgmental’ of you. Don’t you see the other three fingers pointing back at you when you do that? 🙂
No, I am not judging anyone. People are free to live ignorant. I never said they weren’t. All I am saying is that, if they do so, THEY are the ones who choose to be what that makes them, and THEY must be willing to accept the result of that choice. That is not ;judgmental,’ that is simply stating a fact.
Keep in mind, this page argues NATURAL LAW! I am not discussing theology on this blog. If you want that, you need to read my other blog, The Oyl.com.
Federalist 28* typo