The following is a response to an article asking What Would Free Men Do posted February 27, 2011. We have to consider this premise more thoroughly now since America has to decide on whether we will continue to be free men and women or whether we will accept tyranny. Or is the premise whether we can regain our freedom from a tyrannical government which has already enslaved its people?
David DeGerolamo
WWFMD? Revisited
Hans is spot on – in all things social, there is a fulcrum, and it moves along the axis of individualism/collectivism. The further the fulcrum moves in favor of collectivism, the more leverage is available to the collective to suppress the expressions of individuals. We do not “pine for civil war” – we pray and act in accordance with our belief that the greatest good is vested in the individual.
Only the individual can appreciate and pursue liberty; only the individual can experience justice or suffer injustice; only the individual possesses the power to choose and act in the real-time/real-world environment of life, towards success or failure.
Where life itself is an ongoing concern of the individual who has developed and continues to practice said choice successfully, there is liberty. Where life is an ongoing battle of the individual to mitigate the efforts of others to subvert and control the individual, there is tyranny.
Liberty admits only free men, and these only with their active consent – a free man is also free to enter bondage, if that is his choice; but he may recant, and reclaim his liberty, should he so desire, and be committed to such a course thereafter. A free man is born into dignity, and should he live a dignified life, his dignity is also his reward, even in death…
Collectivism does not admit any; rather, it demands that all be enrolled regardless of their will, and has as a core value that there should be no free choice anywhere – even outside the collective; no man, once enrolled by the collective, may recant his entry thereto, for the collective releases those who dissent only by death. Even death is denied it’s dignity by the collective…
This is not hypothesis – this is truth, plaid out upon the tapestry of the lives of our forefathers, and th history of our entire world, time after time.
Those who love dignity must defend liberty, and thus war upon collectivism. This is not “pining for civil war” – we must serve and defend liberty, as it serves and preserves us and our descendants –
First, by teaching the forms and functions which, by their essence, create the most liberty for the greatest portion of our population. What good things every man desires for himself, a free man also desires for others. This is the ONLY DEFINITION of “the common good” our forefathers held to in the documents which are our nation’s foundation.
Second, by adopting forms and means for the assurance and propagation of liberty, laws, customs and commerce are only good which, by their structure and prosecution, give men the power to generate financial gain _and_ good will towards each other in equal parts. A free man, in a free market, who violates these precepts, is a pariah, and therefore a failure; but a free man, in a free market, who upholds these precepts, shall be known and respected by all, and his wealth shall grow not only by his industry and ingenuity, but also because other free men will _desire_ to do business with him because of his good will and respectability. Thus, freedom possesses the incredible potential for growth limited only by the good will of men.
Third, through reverence, not of men, and even less towards any given man; but of things greater than man, liberty calls forth the best from every man. Liberty reveres and promotes the conceptual “greater good” only through active pursuit at the individual level – God, Liberty, and good will are the pursuits of free men as individuals, and by those pursuits all benefit – no organization, agency, or court is required in a society of free men to compel them to be generous or dignified – their love of liberty extends beyond their person and family, to encompass all men, and thus to promote the benefit of all men.
As a corollary – Liberty, by its very nature, abhors celebrity and other grandiose but empty things. Liberty is humble, because it knows both it’s fragile and valuable nature, and thus it’s weakness is it’s greatest strength. Through liberty, every man is encouraged, in all humility, to achieve all the potential with which he is endowed, and through the fellowship of others who believe and strive as he does, he is affirmed to this end in his daily affairs. Thus, liberty is the only sustainable state of man.
More, later…
Warmest regards to all who love liberty!
LT
Thought for the day -- Are you (or anyone) really “Entitled” to anything from the US Federal Government?
Q: Are you entitled to welfare or other benefits from the US Federal Government?
A: No. There is no contract or other voluntary covenant of obligation between the Federal Government and it’s citizens, which obliges the US Federal Government to distribute any such benefits (a.k.a. “entitlements”).
Object First -- The United States constitution is the WHOLE CONTRACT between the US Federal Government and the Citizens of the United States of America, as parties thereto; there is no other contractual instrument between these parties, whether jointly, severally, or singularly, which so binds them to any material obligation that they are thereby compelled beyond reconsideration to fulfill such obligation forthwith. In other words, there is no other enforceable instrument which binds the citizenry to the US Federal government, or vice versa.
Object Second -- “LAW” does not constitute contract between the parties, nor is law empowered to extend any existing contract. The SOLE LEGITIMATE PURPOSE OF LAW IS TO CODIFY THE PARTICULARS OF AN EXISTING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THERETO. As such, ALL LAW IS CONTRACT LAW, and is void on it’s face wherever and whenever it transgresses the terms of said contract IN EITHER PARTIES FAVOR. In other words, any law which extends the obligations of any party to the contract, and/or narrows the privileges granted to any party, is of no power or force whatsoever, being ouside the covenant exchange between said parties; and in any such case where a LAW or PENALTY OF LAW is in conflict with the establishing contract, THE USE OF LAW, or PENALTY(IES) OF LAW, AS A COMPULSORY FORCE AGAINST ONE PARTY BY ANOTHER PARTY, IS A DE-FACTO BREACH OF SAID CONTRACT BY THE PARTY USING SAID COMPULSORY FORCE.
Object Third -- The United States Constitution, as the whole contract between the parties, has, as a necessary element of any perpetually binding instrument, a built-in set of well defined conditions by which the agreement may be amended, so as to prevent catastrophic obsolescence, which would otherwise be the fate of every perpetualy binding instrument. This capacity for amendment; and the terms whereby said amendments may be proposed, considered, revised, presented to the parties, and ratified; is clearly and carefully constructed -- it leaves no question as to what has, or has NOT been made a portion of the contract, by way of amendment. This distinction is essential -- a LAW is NOT AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT -- a LAW has no authority of it’s own, it is dependent upon the underlying contract (The Constitution) for it’s valid authority.
Now, with firm grasp upon the structure and bounds of said contract, let us examine the proposition of “entitlement” as a function of the pervailing contract, which is the Constitution of the United States of America:
Funy, there are no descriptions, references to, prescriptions for the consideration of, or other language identifiying, proposing or authorizing the preparatrion and/or issuance of any benefits or other favor or priviledge to be distributed to individuals in the constitution. In section 1.8, we see a great enumeration fo powers granted to congress, a total of 19 stanzas in quantity, but no mention of payments, preferences, benefits, or other priviledges to be provided to individuals, as “entitalements” or otherwise. Ditto for the other 6 articles of our Constitution.
Not a single mention of any of the then (or now) prevalent synonyms which would indicate that there was any recognition of rights or claims to be satisfied through any such benefit, payment, favor, aid, assistance, or any similar mechanism of distribution of money or goods whatsoever, through any of the defined branches of government specified in the constitution. None, zip, zilch, nadda -- sorry Charlie.
Wow, that was just too easy -- Welfare, Social Security, Section 8, Title 19, and twenty score of other federal programs are, in fact and by proof, unconstitutional. Now onto the tough part: These are all violations of contract. Most of these violations have been enforced by threats of penalty under law…which as we have established above, are clearly acts of breach of contract. Therefore, anyone who has ever paid income tax is a breached party, who therefore has a claim to judgement and relief in law and in equity, against the US Federal Government…
But just you try to go there, and you will meet the IRS. BTW, the IRS has, in fact issued more Bills of Attainder than any other government entity in the entire history of the concept (Bills of Attainder first being used in the early 1300s in England). Go ahead…google a bill of attainder and read what they’re all about -- the government decreeing you guilty of something, and prescribing a forfeiture for said offense, without the benefit of a trial by your peers…
But wait, doesn’t the Constitution explicitly proscribe the issuance of any Bill of Attainder, both for the US Federal Government, and as one of the very few abridgements of States Rights? Yes, it most certainly does, and in no uncertain terms, too. [ US Constitution, sections 1.9 and 1.10, respectively, re: no Bills of Attainder] It’s a funny side note to most people, but I think you will now see why Section 1.10 not only prohibits the issuance by States of any Bills of Attainder, but also Ex Post Facto laws, and laws which “impair the obligation of contracts”…since the Constitution is, itself, a contract! And thus we come full circle… it stinks now like it did in the 1770’s, and the question is, who will do what about it?
With love of liberty for all,
LT
Yes, some will argue that I am blowing smoke, or that I contrive too much.
Here, then, is a bit of precedence for you nay-sayers out there:
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
“When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
Love Liberty, love yourself!
LT