I spend a great deal of time reading what our founders actually had to say about liberty, and the proper role of government.  I do not read what historians tell me the founders thought, mostly because I have learned those historians do not know.  Instead, I like to read what the founders actually had to say about things.  It is how I came to understand that very, very few of us in our society agree with them on much of anything.  For example, I ask you to consider what Benjamin Franklin had to say about ‘Freedom of the Press,’ then think about what his words have to say about our media today:

“If by the liberty of the press were understood merely the liberty of discussing the propriety of public measures and political opinions, let us have as much of it as you please: But if it means the liberty of affronting, calumniating and defaming one another, I, for my part, own myself willing to part with my share of it, whenever our legislators shall please so to alter the law and shall chearfully consent to exchange my liberty of abusing others for the privilege of not being abused myself.”

–Benjamin Franklin, An Account of the Supremest Court of Judicature in Pennsylvania, viz. The Court of the Press, September 12, 1789

This is a simple but profound Principle of Natural Law.  Willful deception for the purpose of manipulating the actions of another person is a clear and egregious violation of Natural law.  The reason it is a violation of Natural Law should be clear: willful deception is an attack on a person’s free will.

First, Natural Law dictates that every individual is personally responsible for their own actions.  This means every individual has a duty to make sure they act within the confines of Natural Law.

Natural Law dictates that no one has the authority to trespass against the Natural Rights of another individual, or against the Social Contract which forms Society.  This means every individual has a duty toward both Society and every other individual with whom they interact.  They have a duty to safeguard their rights and uphold the principles of Natural Law.

This duty toward Society and other individuals creates a secondary duty to be informed.  A person must know and understand Natural Law so that they know and understand what is and is not a Natural Right, and what is and is not a violation of those Rights.  They must also know and understand Natural Law so they know the limits of a just government.

In the case of individual interactions, a person must know and understand Natural Law so they can apply it to the governance of their private affairs.  This means they have a duty to learn as much as they can about the individual(s) with whom they are dealing, as well as whatever deal of interaction into which they are entering.

In the case of Society, a free and self-governing people have an additional duty to be informed about any issue on which they might vote or otherwise influence the Social Contract.  It is not enough to know and understand Natural Law; a citizen must also know the issues well enough to properly apply Natural Law to the governance of their participation in self-government.

In both cases, anyone who knowingly and willingly lies or otherwise acts to deceive or conceal information is guilty of violating Natural Law.  In the case of individual interactions, deception trespasses against the individual’s right to be fully informed so that they can make proper decisions for their personal affairs.  In the case of Society, deception not only tramples on the individual’s right, but also on the right of Society as a whole under the terms of the Social Contract.  In both cases, deception is fraud, and fraud is a clear violation of Natural Law.

Therefore, because deception is fraud, and fraud is a violation of Natural Law, deception is a violation of Natural Law.

If it helps, think of it this way:

If a person must deceive you to get you to do what they want you to do, they are admitting that what they want you to do is wrong and that — if they told the truth — you would not do it.  Therefore, the very act of deceiving implies and admission of guilt by the party seeking to deceive.

Or:

If one person deceives another and tricks them into acting in a way that they otherwise wouldn’t have, then the person who is deceiving is placing a claim on the will of the person they deceived.  This is a form of slavery, and slavery is a clear violation of Natural Law.

Any way we look at it, deception is a form of manipulation of another person’s actions, which is a trespass against their free will.  This clearly demonstrates that willful deception for the purpose of manipulating the actions of another person is a clear violation of Natural Law.

The Left likes to attack ‘Capitalism,’ saying that ‘Capitalism’ is the source of greed and corruption in society.  But how can they believe such a thing?  Do they honestly believe that the people in government are less human than those in private business?  Or that being in government service somehow immunizes a person against greed or corruption?  If they do, I have to wonder what it must be like to live in their world?  Exactly what are the colors of the Mad Hatter’s outfit, and how late is their rabbit?  And will they ever find their way back out of that looking glass?

Now, I know my words sound judgmental and harsh, bu, if they sting, then they are a warning to whomever feels their bite.  To those to whom my words do not apply, there is no pain — save, perhaps, for a feeling of frustration and lament.  But it’s true: those who serve in government are no less susceptible to the failings of human nature than those in the private sector.  The real difference is that those in government represent a far greater threat than those in the private sector.

You see, all of us can become greedy and corrupt.  But, when a private businessman does it, or even the leaders of a corporation, they extent of the damage they can cause is limited.  This is because they cannot exercise control over the whole of society.  What’s more, they still have to sell their product or they will go out of business.  This serves to limit how greedy they can be, as well as to how far that greed can reach.  But the same does not apply to government.

In the case of government, the threat is multiplied many-fold.  First, a business cannot extend its greed and power into government unless there is a government official who is already corrupt enough to sell their power to that business.  I understand many will argue that the greedy business can corrupt an otherwise good government worker, but that simply isn’t true.  If a person does not have corruption in their heart to being with, then they will not sell their principles for any amount of money.  The problem is that all humans have some degree of corruption within them — all of us, every one!  So the government official who sells their power to private interests is never innocent.  They are every bit as greedy and corrupt as the person who buys them.  Only, in the case of government officials, there is the additional threat that the government official’s greed will grow beyond simply selling their power to that of extorting all businesses.

Sadly, this happens to be where we are in our nation’s life right now.  We have a government filled with greedy and corrupt people seeking their own enrichment at the expense of the entire nation — business included.  How many politicians leave office with a great deal more wealth than when they entered it?  And from where does that wealth come when they have had nothing to sell while in office — except their office, itself?  And how many politicians exempt themselves from their own laws?  How many have used their power to control private businesses?  To threaten them with legal action if the businesses did not do as they were told?  Do you remember the TARP bailouts?  When otherwise healthy businesses were told they would have to accept the government loans — and government control that went with them — or they would be put out of business? How about the stock holders who lost their money in the GM and Chrysler bailouts so that the government could pay off their allies in the unions; allies who fund the same politicians who arranged the bailouts at the expense of the rightful owners of GM and Chrysler?  Or how about a President who openly boasted that he would end the coal industry — simply because he doesn’t like coal?  Tell me, what corporation in America has the power to put an entire industry out of business? NONE!  But people still trust a government that has done so and boasted about it more than they trust the businesses that provide the jobs by which they feed their families.  And these are just a few of the examples I could give.  If I wanted, I could write a book on them.

So, I ask you again: do you really believe the people who trust government over private individuals are acting rationally?  Or do you see why I ask whether or not they’ve fallen through some looking glass somewhere?

One of the principles of Natural law is that everyone must be accountable for their actions.  This includes the press.  If immunity from prosecution and/or civil suit is granted to the press, it removes any possibility of holding the individual’s in the press accountable for their actions.  The story about the alleged connections between Trump and the Russians is an excellent illustration of why individuals must be allowed to sue the press.

Before I make my case, let me make something perfectly clear: I am not a Trump supporter.  I believe there is little real difference between him and his agenda and that of the Obama Administration, and that what differences there are have less to do with where they want to take the country and more about how they plan to take us there.  Now, with that said, allow me to explain why granting the press immunity is counter to Natural Law and Liberty.

Imagine you were given immunity for anything you said or did to other people.  What would stop you from harming others — especially if it benefited you to do so?  Most of us would like to think we wouldn’t harm other people for personal benefit, so our first instinct is to dismiss my question.  But we are human, and there is not a human alive who has not — willingly — harmed another person for selfish reasons.  Now, we may not see it this way.  Or we may not realize the times we caused harm to others.  But the fact remains: every one of us has harmed others to serve ourselves, and e will do so again in the future.  So, why should we believe that people in positions of power won’t do the same, especially when they have been given great power and immunity from the consequences of their actions?

There are few people in our society who wield more power with less accountability than those in the press.  They can print or air anything they wish, then use it to destroy the lives and careers of anyone they wish and they are all but immune to any legal recourse.  If you doubt me, consider the case of Sarah Palin.  Do you remember her comment about being able to see Russia from her back door in Alaska?  Or how the press used that line to ridicule her and destroy her political career?  Well, she didn’t say that, and the press knew it.  The line actually comes from a Saturday Night Live skit in which Tina Fey played the role of Sarah Palin in a skit.  But this didn’t stop the media from reporting Fey’s words as though they were Palin’s, or from using the lie to harm Palin in tangible ways.  This is a violation of Natural Law.  It is both a lie and an act of violence against another person, and had it been between two private citizens, Palin would have been able to sue.  In some cases, the person behind the law may have even been subject to criminal prosecution.

Now we have a similar situation with the story about Donald Trump being connected to Russia.  There is no evidence of any which directly connects Trump, or any of his people, to the Russians — and the media knows this because they have reported it:

Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia

House Intelligence chairman says he hasn’t found evidence of Trump team’s ties to Russia

In fact, Obama even admitted there is no evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC:

Obama Admits Gap in Russian ‘Hack’ Case

So, why is the media still reporting a lie?  Or, to put it the way President Trump likes to say, why are they printing ‘Fake News?’  Well, the answer to that one is simple: because they can!  And they can do it because Congress repealed the laws that made it illegal to print propaganda in the U.S., but has done nothing to allow injured Parties to sue the press.  Both are violations of Natural law.

Now, I anticipate that there will be many who claim the press needs immunity to stay ‘free.’  And to those people, I say:

“Then why don;t I have immunity for my actions?”

If freedom requires immunity to the law, then why are any of us held accountable to the law?  Now, this may sound absurd — but only to those lawless personas among us.  To the rest of us — to those decent, law-abiding members of society — the absurdity is that the press is immune whereas we are not.  If we are free but not immune from the law, then there is no requirement for immunity. However, if freedom requires immunity, then there can be no such thing as law: only Anarchy.  This means that those claiming the press needs to be immune to remain free are arguing for Anarchy, and that is also a violation of Natural law as they are arguing for the destruction of the Natural Contract which forms and binds all of society together.

The truth is: there is no requirement for immunity in order for the press to remain free.  All that is required is that there be no direct government influence over what the press is and isn’t allowed to print.  This is what the term ‘free press’ actually means: a press in the hands or and controlled by private citizens and not the government.  It is similar to the freedom of religion, which is why it is no coincidence that the First Amendment covers and protects both institutions from government control.  But being free does not mean one if free to harm without consequence.  If the press causes tangible harm to another person — public or private — it should be held accountable to the law in the same way as any private citizen is.  In fact, not to hold the press equally accountable to the law is a violation of the 14th Amendment (as currently interpreted and applied), as well as Natural Law.  This makes the press’s current immunity illegal under both man’s and Nature’s laws and it is why we should be allowed to sue the press when they cause harm to others.

But there is one more objection I need to address before I rest my case.  People will no doubt argue that the press needs to be immune from prosecution when they harm others who are actually guilty.  Suppose the press exposes a corrupt government official, or a corrupt billionaire.  Couldn’t either of these two people then sue the press for what they claim is tangible harm?  NO!  Yous see, under Natural Law, a person who is in the wrong cannot be harmed by someone who is in the right.  If the press prints the truth about a corrupt official or businessman, and that official or businessman looses everything as a result, there is no harm to that person because that person was — themselves — a harm in the first place.  By abusing their position, power and/or wealth, they are the one who is doing the harm to society.  In such a case, the press is actually righting the wrong of the official or businessman.  Therefore, the press need only concern itself with making sure that it only prints the truth, and that it can support the truth of any claim it prints.  If the press does so, it is immune, not because the law exempts it, but because it has caused no tangible harm.  However, if the press were to print false or even unsubstantiated accusations against our official or businessman, and they are harmed as a result, then our official or businessman would have a right to sue the press.  The added beauty of this system is that it not only holds people accountable for their actions, but it causes people to give pause — just as the law is supposed to do.  The law is supposed to presume innocence and, in a case where there is reasonable doubt, give the benefit of that doubt to the accused.  If the press could be sued for their actions, then they would be wise to presume innocence, as well, and where there is lack of evidence, chose not to print a story for fear that it could end up costing them and not the person they attack.

This is Natural Law, and the press is not immune…except in a corrupt and lawless society.