This story is an indication of how far we have strayed from the society which founded this nation:

Google’s Eric Schmidt says government spying is ‘the nature of our society’

Tech giant’s executive chairman calls for greater transparency but declines to ‘pass judgment’ on spying operations

Our nation was founded upon the principles of Natural Law, Natural Rights and the Social Contract – as Locke understood them.  Under this understanding – the understanding of our founding fathers – the government can have no authority to do anything that you and I do not have.  In other words, government can never become greater than any of its individual creators.  Government is a servant and never the master.  Therefore, unless you and I can claim a Natural Right to spy on each other – which we cannot do under Natural Law – then the government cannot claim such a right.  The best we can do is to grant a civil authorization to government to do so and even then, only under very narrowly defined conditions.  This is why we have a 4^th Amendment: to define these narrow conditions.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Essentially, the right to be secure in our person, property, papers and effects is the right to privacy.  The nature of a ‘reasonable’ search depends upon the evidence that we have violated an essential term of the Social Contract.  Government’s power to look into our private affairs comes from the reason for the Social Contract: to protect individual rights and liberty.  If there is no indication that a citizen has actually harmed another person or caused monetary damage to the private property of another person, then there can be no authority for government to infringe on that person’s Natural Right to privacy.  The government cannot first look for that evidence and then claim authority; the evidence must be presented before government can claim the authority to look into our private affairs.  This is why the 4^th Amendment stipulates that someone must swear an oath or affirmation of what it is I am said to have done and what the government is supposed to look for and where the government should look to find it.  Any search or discovery outside the thing(s) this oath alleges would not be within government’s power to investigate – period.

In this sense, a government search is the transfer of our collective Natural Right of self-defense to the government.  We have no Natural Right to invade each other’s privacy.  However, if we know that another person has caused harm, or we have reasonable cause to suspect another person has caused harm, then we do have a Natural Right to defend ourselves and our neighbors from that harm.  This would then give us a Natural Right to investigate the person suspected of having caused the harm – but not before or without reasonable cause.  When we enter into a society (i.e. agree to the Social Contract which formed that society), we agree to transfer the majority of our Natural Right to self defense to the government.  However, under Natural Law – as our founders understood it – the government is still bound by the same restrictions as each of us is individually.  Thus, the government still needs a citizen or citizens to present the evidence that justifies a search.  We cannot just ‘spy’ on each other until we find evidence, then go back and use the results of our spying against that person after the fact because, before the evidence is presented, it is we who are violating Natural Law.  And, in the case of government spying before hand, the government is violating both Natural Law and the Social Contract.

This is why the NSA and other domestic spying programs is such an egregious offense.  It amounts to a total reversal of the foundation of this nation.  Hobbes is the one who argued that our rights come from government.  The European model is the system of justice where a person is assumed guilty and must prove they are innocent.  None of this is “American” in nature.  None of this is in accordance with the principles of individual rights and liberty.

Nor can we claim that a violation of the Social Contract/Natural Law is allowable in the name of security.  The government mandate to protect and defend is not a mandate of ordered importance.  In other words, it is not above the government’s mandate to protect the Natural Rights of every individual.  If this means our society is put at risk in order to protect the individual rights of our citizens, then this is simply the price that a free society must be willing to pay.  To claim otherwise is to claim society is greater than the sum of its parts, thereby rendering the Social Contract null and void. Republican government and the rule of law cannot recognize an artificial entity as having more rights than any of the real persons who created that artificial entity.  At the point where the rights of society (artificial) are asserted to be greater than the rights of any one citizen (real), liberty and the rule of law end and tyranny begins.

Since the end of WW II, every time we used our military against another nation, this nation has acted outside the confines of the Constitution.  The Constitution is the Social Contract which formed this nation, and under which this nation continues to exist.  This means the Constitution is the supreme law of our land.  This also means that the government has violated the Social Contract every time it used military power since WW II – and the people have done nothing about it.  If one side of a contract continuously breaks their terms of the agreement and the second Party doesn’t object and seek restitution, eventually, it is assumed that the second Party agrees to the violation.  At that point, the Party that has been violating the contract either assumes those violations as rightfully theirs, or the contract is considered null and void all together.  This happens with republics, as well.  If we allow our government to continuously violate the Constitution, sooner or later, it will either assume those violations are part of its authority or, more likely, that the Constitution no longer applies to it or its actions. When that happens, we will have the tyranny our founders warned us about, and it will have come from exactly the place our founders told us it would: from within our own borders – from us.

The Constitution grants the authority to declare war and to raise an Army to Congress and only to Congress:

Article I, Section 8

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 This means that the War Powers Act is unnecessary and unconstitutional.  If it is deemed that changes in modern military technologies make it necessary that the President, as commander in chief, be able to respond to an attack faster than Congress can declare war and authorize that response, then the Constitution needs to be and should be amended.  But Congress has no authority to amend the Constitution via legislation.  Nor does it have the authority to cede its powers to the Presidency.  Likewise, there is no inherent authority in the Presidency – as commander in chief – to commit a military action against another nation without Congressional action.  The Constitution is very clear on this matter: the military is under the direct control of the Congress.  And even though the President is the commander in chief, he has no authority to commit the military to action unless and until the Congress declares war.  And Congress must declare war to grant such action as it has no other Constitutional means to authorize military action.  Anything and everything outside of this process is a clear violation of the Constitution and, thus, of the Social Contract, Natural Rights of every citizen and, ultimately, Natural Law.  And every attempt to usurp Congressional power for the Presidency is an open act of tyranny.

Yes, this applies to UN sanctioned actions, as well.  There is nothing in the Constitution giving the President or Congress authority to cede this nation’s sovereignty via treaty.  Any such treaty would be unconstitutional, thus, it is null and void – even if it was ratified.  Therefore, the UN has no authority to direct this nation to engage in military actions without Congress actually voting to declare war first.  Once again, any attempt to supersede the Constitution through treaty represents a violation of the Constitution and an open act of tyranny.

This is why it is vital that every citizen of a free and self-governing republic know and understand the principles of Natural Law: the foundation upon which liberty is built.

Trampling Free will, Freedom to Contract and Freedom of Conscience (Freedom of Religion)

Under the NATURAL LAW tab at the head of this page, in Free Will: the First Principle of Natural Law, I explained that we all have a right to our free will.  No one else can lay claim to it without violating our ownership of our will.  It is through this undeniable individual ownership of our will that all other Natural Rights follow, and Universal Morality is established.  Essentially, morality is a function of whether or not we violate another person’s free will.  When we do so, we violate Natural Law.  And when we force our will on another, it is tyranny.  That is what this next story represents: government tyranny.

Court Says Christian Couple’s Refusal to Photograph Same-Sex Ceremony Was Illegal — Why ‘You Will Be Made to Care’

It is a state court decision that could have national reach. In the words of Red State’s Erik Erickson, “You will be made to care.”

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Christian wedding photographer violated the state’s human rights law by refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.

Natural vs. Civil Rights  In examining this story, we must start by understanding that ‘human rights’ is merely another term for ‘civil rights.’  The term ‘human rights’ is intended to be an equivalent term to Natural Rights, but the two terms are not equivalent.  Natural Rights rests on the existence of a Creator whereas human rights rest solely on the reason of man.  Thus, though some may try to elevate it beyond the position, human rights are merely civil rights as they exist only as an act of legislation.  But Natural Rights exist independently and in spite of man’s law.  So we need to understand that human rights are always subordinate to Natural Rights.

The Natural Right to Contract  The next thing we need to understand is that all business transactions are essentially the result of people exercising their Natural Right to contract.  Civil/human rights cannot alter this Natural Right: they can only subvert and trample it.  The Constitution rests on the same Natural Right.  The Constitution is the result of a social contract between every citizen in this nation.  If they seek to claim the protections established by the Constitution, they must also agree to live according to its restrictions.  And if they reject those restrictions, they cannot claim its protections; rather, society has a right to direct the full force of those protections against those who reject the terms of the Constitution.  In the same manner, wherever they would conflict with the protections of the Constitution, States cannot claim their own civil/human rights.  To do so is a violation of the terms of the Social Contract that have been set above the authority of the States.

Now, let’s look at this story.  First, the State of New Mexico has declared that its ‘human rights’ are superior to the protections of the U.S. Constitution.  This is a violation of the Social Contract, thus it constitutes an attack on every American who still claims those protections – including the citizens of New Mexico.  Second, there is no such thing as a Natural Right to not be discriminated against.  Any attempt to prohibit discrimination requires that the government force its will on others.  This is a clear violation of Natural Rights because it tramples the free will of the individual.  Though we may find it disagreeable, so long as it does not physically or materially harm someone, we have a right to be bigots, or to discriminate.  We also have a Natural Right to do business according to our biases.  We do not have an individual right to force each other to do business with us, and we are not harmed because someone refuses to do so.  We can do business with others or do without, but the absence of an action does not cause harm: personal or otherwise.  Therefore, the State of New Mexico is not only violating the Constitution by forcing someone to do business against their will, it is violating Natural Law and this – by definition – is tyranny.

The same applies to forcing the State’s will over an individual’s objections of conscience.  So long as our beliefs do not cause positive harm, any attempt to force us to do something against our conscience is a violation of our free will.  Once again, the State of New Mexico is violating the Constitution and committing an act of tyranny.

Hence, this story is not about ‘gay rights.’  That is a false argument.  This story is about a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution and an overt act of tyranny by the State of New Mexico – period!  And any attempt to make this into anything other than a violation of the Constitution and act of tyranny is an attempt to deceive — a further violation of Natural Law.

The notion that democracy equals freedom has become wide-spread in the Western world, but, unfortunately for the cause of individual rights and liberty, nothing could be farther from the truth.  In fact, democracy is the negation of individual rights and liberty.  I explain why in my post, Democracy: the Tyranny of the Masses.  This is why our founding fathers rejected democracy when they devised our system of government, choosing instead to make the United States into a republic.  If we are to have any hope of regaining and preserving the principles and ideals of our founding, the principles and ideals upon which liberty must be established if it is to survive and flourish, we – as a people – must re-learn the difference between a republic and a democracy.

We’ll start by looking at the definition of a democracy:

Definition of DEMOCRACY

1a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2: a political unit that has a democratic government

4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

At first glance, there doesn’t appear to be much of a difference between a democracy and a representative republic, but there is a big difference.  Sadly, too few Americans have been taught enough about our language and the basics of critical thinking to notice it.  This is not necessarily a condemnation of the individual, but rather, of our school system and our political leadership. 

If you will allow me to do so, I will explain how and why a democracy is vastly different from a republic.  But first, we must look at the definition of a republic:

Definition of REPUBLIC

1a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>

2: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>

Now, assuming you have read all of the posts under the heading at the top of this blog, Natural Law, let’s look at the differences between a democracy and a republic, paying careful attention to distinguish which is designed according to Natural Law and which is designed to circumvent it.

First, notice how a democracy includes the whole body of “the people,” while a republic includes only citizens.  This is a crucial distinction as anyone can be part of “the people,” which is nothing more than all of the individuals living within a certain geographical region.  But only those who have willingly agreed to and are entitled to the protections of the Social Contract which created and governs a specific community are citizens.  What’s more, as long as it does not violate the constraints of Natural Law, it is possible to willingly agree to a Social Contract under which the terms restrict the civil right to vote.  In other words, a Social Contract can be in agreement with Natural Law while denying people who have willingly agreed to be Party to it the privilege of voting.  However, in a democracy, everyone is entitled to vote – even those who have joined the community illegally, or who have joined it while fully intending to destroy it for their own purposes.  Thus, so long as their Social Contract does not violate the constraints of Natural Law, the citizens of a republic are operate in agreement with Natural Law, while “the people” in a democracy routinely violate Natural Law by voting to impose the will of the majority upon the will of the minority.

In fact, it is possible to construct a system of laws to govern a republic that can provide equal protection of individual rights and liberty for every citizen subject to the Social Contract which created that republic where there is never an election of representatives at all.  Just as an example, imagine what this nation would be like if, rather than allowing elections, our founders had designed the Constitution such that State Senators, Congressional Representatives and the President were all changed at the same appointed intervals, but by a State and Nation-wide drawing of lots.  So long as this Constitution made provision for exempting those individuals honestly incapable of performing the necessary duties, it could be argued that this would be a far superior system to the one our founders actually designed as the whole community — Regional, State and National – would have a vested interest in providing an equal and proper education, as well as attending to the development of individual moral character of every one of its citizens.  Whereas, the only interest the “people” have in a democracy is in forming the largest possible alliance so as to force their collective will upon that of those individuals who may happen to disagree with them.

Historically, democracies never last long, and usually end in violence and with great bloodshed.  Conversely, as the citizens of a republic become spoiled by their own affluence and start to lose their morality, history shows that their republic often decays to the point where it becomes too weak to defend itself and, usually, it is taken over from within by a person who eventually appoints themselves as dictator.  This is why it is absolutely vital that those who would preserve individual rights and liberty understand the difference between a democracy and a republic.

Natural Rights are not the same as civil rights.  This is another crucial distinction that is essential to understanding the principles of liberty.   Natural Rights are a part of Natural Law and, therefore, come from our Creator.  But civil rights are a part of human law and are created by man.  Thus, they are not and can never be equivalent.

We need to start this post by defining a Natural Right.  Fortunately, I have already written a post in which I derive and explain the definition of a Natural Right.  If you have not already read Defining Natural Rights, you should do so now, before continuing with the remainder of this post.  This post was written with the assumption that you have been following my explanation of natural rights from the beginning, so, if you have not read my post on the definition of a Natural Right, it is unlikely you will be able to fully understand the discussion that follows.

Now, we need to define a civil right.  As always, we start by looking at the definition of civil:

Definition of CIVIL

1a : of or relating to citizens

b : of or relating to the state or its citizenry <civil strife>

2a : civilized <civil society>

3a : of, relating to, or based on civil law

b : relating to private rights and to remedies sought by action or suit distinct from criminal proceedings

c : established by law

As you can see, civil pertains to matters of society: of the citizens of a given government.  In other words, Parties to the Social Contract which formed and govern a given community.  Therefore, a civil right is a right that is established by law as a function of the terms of a given Social Contract and not by Nature.  However, a civil right must be enacted in accordance with the constraints of Natural Law, as Natural Law governs the Social Contract from which all civil law draws its authority.  If a civil law attempts to create a right that would be a breach of Natural Rights, then it is not a law or a right because it violates Natural Law.  In essence, Natural Law can nullify man-made laws, and this includes civil rights.  So, as a general rule of thumb, we can define a civil right as a right constructed by a law enacted according to the terms of the Social Contract which formed and governs a community and which is in accord with the constraints of Natural law.  Some examples of a civil right would be the right to a speedy trial; to face your accuser; to a jury trial; to a lawyer; to call witnesses and present a defense; and, if you are convicted, to an appeal.

NOTE: Because a civil law is created by an act of legislation under the terms of the Social Contract which authorizes and supports whatever government passes the law creating it, a civil law is always subject to being changed or eliminated whereas a Natural Right can never be abridged or eliminated.

IMPORTANT: There are two other types of rights that are commonly confused with Natural and Civil Rights, and they are “human rights” and entitlements.  Ignorance of the distinction between Natural and Civil rights often opens the doors to those who would deceive to abuse these additional terms for the purpose of subverting Natural Law.  If we are to defend against such attempts to trample our individual rights and liberties, we must understand where and how “human rights” and entitlements fit into the distinction between Natural Rights and Civil Rights.

First, a human right is a Natural Right.  Because all humans have certain inalienable rights simply because they exist, how could this be otherwise?  Once again, I would direct you to my posts, Free Will: the First Principle of Natural Law and Defining Natural Rights. The threat here comes when someone tries to claim that human rights are something more; that they encompass things that – by their very nature – place a demand on the free will of another individual.  Some things that are commonly claimed as “human rights” but which are not rights at all would be a claim to have a right to food; housing; employment and health care.  One has a Natural Right to pursue these things, but not a right to be guaranteed these things.  Nor can one have a civil right to these things.  In both cases, claiming these things as a right would require that others provide something for you, which is a claim on their free will and, thus, a violation of Natural Rights and Natural Law.

The next thing that is often confused as a right is even more difficult to define because – under some circumstances — they are equivalent to a civil right, and these are entitlements.  Look at the definition of an entitlement:

Definition of ENTITLEMENT

1a : the state or condition of being entitled : right

b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

If one is due something according to the terms of a private contract; or the terms of a Social Contract set up and functioning within the constraints of Natural Law; or as a civil right duly passed by the terms of such a Social Contract; then that “entitlement” is actually a civil right.  It is legally due to that person as a function of that person’s Natural Right to contract.  However, if someone claims an entitlement that is outside the authority of the Social Contract, or which violates Natural law, then that which is claimed as an entitlement is neither an entitlement nor a civil right.  In other words, just because someone claims something is so doesn’t make it so.  It must meet the requirements of Natural Law, which is why it is essential that those who would protect and preserve individual rights and liberty understand the distinctions discussed in this post.