|
American Patriot Party
Universal Definition of
Political Left and Political Right
INDEX:
OF POLITICS
1.) Definition of Political Left and Political Right
2.) Overview of the United States
3.) Effects of Social Collectives to Independents
4.) General Examples in Political Parties
A.) True Right Constitutional
B.) Fictitious Right Collectives
C.) Fictitious Right Union Labor
D.) Obvious Left Socialism
E.) Libertarian Left Humanism
The Following are some Basic Foundations and Limits of Free Society, Freedom and Liberty:
OF LIBERTY
5.) Inconsistent Forms of Liberty
6.) Historical Definition of Liberty
OF SOCIETY
7.) Stepping from the State of Nature, into Society That Respects the Law Of Nature
OF FREEDOM
8.) True Freedom Abolishes of All types of Slavery, Including Voluntary Slavery
and Voluntary Relinquishment of Any Essential Natural and God Given Rights.
9.) Historical Foundations of Freedom
10.) Freedom's Natural Limits
OF FREEDOM'S LIMITATIONS
11.) Atheism and Humanism only Conditionally Tolerated in a Free Society
12.) Promulgated, Standing and Known Laws at the Time of the Original Compact Remain.
13.) What Powers are Assumed in a Free Country.
14.) Modern Libertarianism Inconsistent with Historical Definitions of Freedom
15.) Freedom is Not Unrestrained
OF LOCAL LEGISLATURES
16.) Local Legislatures The Fence against Distant Legislatures and Private, Domestic and Foreign Collectives
17.) Local Community Powers of Local Commonwealths
OF COMMON LAW
18.) Common Law Continues Today
OF RESPONSIBILITY
19.) Responsibility to Protect Defined Freedoms
OF MISUSE
20.) Collective Federal Bribery Practices
21.) Dangers of Incorrect Political Definitions
22.) Freedom Not an Excuse to Merge into any Type of Socialism
23.) Exclusive State Privileged Social Collectives
24.) Laws that Create Advantages in Society
OF FREEDOM'S INTENT
25.) Freedom's Related Papers
OF CORRUPTION
26.) Power Cannot be Transferred Outside the Legislative
27.) Evincing Designs Toward Despotism
28.) Collectives are Not Free Enterprise
OF FREEDOM'S FOUNDATION
29.) Right and Left issues of Religion
30.) Universal "Right" By Historical Definition
1.) The American Patriot Party Universal Definition
of Political Left and Political Right
Right: (up) Freedom as historically defined in natural law and defined by the originators of freedom.
Left: (down) Socialism, Social Collectives, slavery, voluntary slavery and involuntary servitude, as historically defined;
This is a global definition to all countries, and establishes basis to the meaning of Political Left and Political Right.
The present assortment of definitions regarding "left" and "right" around the world are basically meaningless;
This is because the vague undefined "liberal" and "conservative" titles, often given by press and political parties to such titles, are not definitive in description; nor in any fixed association with left or right, as incorrectly attempted by many political or private entities;
Therefor these cannot be adequately defined as to any "absolute position" or establishment in law or reason;
See also: "Socialism as Defined", "The Progression of Socialism" and "Curbing Enterprises of Ambition"
2.) Overview within the United States
Political Left and Political Right questions are usually distorted; and in the US of late, often sound like "are you for Union Labor, or are you for Corporate Labor";
Both, by freedom's standards, are "left";
This is as they encourage joining, working for and becoming dependent on social collectives (Corporations - Unions - special interests - government bureaucracies) which are state born and state privileged, social collective institutions;
Neither define that of free independents: i.e. mom and pop type - true independents holding single person individual TITLE to property, which include private individual, private partnerships, non corporate, non union contractors and businesses.
If you have ever watched Canadian Broadcasting (CBC), it is quite laughable when they attempt to describe left and right between two political parties or candidates that are both socialists;
This is an occurrence in most countries of the world, because no country besides the United States practices freedom, and we ourselves fall below the mark set by our founders;
Just look at the election between Obama and Mitt Romney; You can hardly find any difference in their policies to issues that would change the "status quo" and socialist agenda of big spending, ever increasing and socialist styled big government..
The question posed in many surveys within the US reads the same;
This because Unions and Corporations are both social collectives.
"Social dependency" is "social dependency";
Whether in the government arena, or private arena of social collectivism through state granted exclusive privileges. (Corporations - Unions - tax supported special interests and undelegated government bureaucracies);
"Social dependency" is not "independence" or "self sufficiency".
It is simply Socialism.
3.) Effects of Social Collectives (left)
Opposing a True Free Market Economy of Individuals (right).
Note that by entering a social collective, Corporation, Union or other, one enters "a society" where one gives up ones "exclusive right" to that property (money, labor) given into it, completely;
This is because it then becomes a generally owned property in common and or controlled by the collective and the members who direct it;
This describes socialism, not freedom.
The collective itself becomes a entity of privilege by the state and not of right, which is subject to laws that restrict it's operation due to the advantages it inherently possesses as a social collective within a free society.
Without this state privilege or blessing, a corporation or union would not exist.
Weigh the fact that private and public "Cartels" are illegal because of the effects of social collective controls it has over pricing and free trade.
Then compare the effects of multi faceted social collectives in many areas of the market;
The effects of collectives regarding market controls and "price fixing" which can be seen daily in oil company prices which closely follow each other when prices increase or lower;
If oil was truly in a competition market or a free market were any individual could drill for oil anywhere, this would not be the case, as there would be many and varied price ranges of fuel. True Free Competition would establish prices which would be different in many areas.
Society is becoming where social collectives through their fiscal and legal powers, supported by the dependency of shear numbers of citizens to them, are in a national and international position of power to promote laws that create regulations that limit competition.
Oil companies often play the "green" environmental card to limit competition within the US and to hold prices up, as when there is fewer places to drill, and unobtainable regulatory feats for the individual to comply, the oil becomes a limited exclusive source which market growth can then be controlled;
It is a fact, "Wildcats" or "Independents" have been opposed by large oil companies from the beginning of oil production for the very reasons presented here.
Corporations do not like competition and will play both sides of the card to make sure there is none.
Understanding that "social collectives" such as corporations, unions and non profit (profit) special interests are in fact measures of socialism or "Left", is important in understanding the propaganda they use in attempting to falsely portray themselves as either free enterprise, free trade or right wing, when by both their construction, operations and actions, establish the basis and operation of socialism.
4.) General Examples with Regard to Political Parties
and Recognizable Party Candidates in the US
For some present day insight in US politics, we give a few small examples for perspective.
"liberal" and "conservative" titles, when used, are simply what political parties have presented of themselves, or named by other parties; This should not to be construed as any substantial or definitive meaning; As these are invented vague definitions of side of left or right, and not definitions established by law or history.
See also Compare the American Patriot Party to other parties.
A.) Historical "Right"
Constitutionalists as historically defined by the originating founders and documents. (Inalienable Rights - States Rights - Local Control) -
Supports:
a.) absolute free trade, mineral and oil extraction by anyone anywhere to establish true price values;
b.) Import taxes for federal government operation - no federal taxes inside the United States;
c.) Enumerated consensual taxes "always"; So to limit spending to
only those services which is absolutely necessary, granted by
citizen consent only; Controlled by polls and local county legislatures
answerable to their local citizens that have the ability to vote taxes up or down at each election.
d.) Moves to Remove IRS completely.
e.) Not only a balanced budget, but a consensual budget; determined by
local legislatures and local citizen consensual vote.
f.) IRS and income tax are to be removed.
See 17 Grievance of the Declaration of Independence, defining taxation without consent is Tyranny.
g.) Government unions removed to make public servants answerable alone to the local public
who employs them. (Rights of the Colonists, citizens have a right to determine pay, Governors
and public servants do not.)
The American Patriot Party moves toward having any government employee, state or federal, working within any county, to be non union and employed, salaried and answerable to that county and that local society of which they work, alone.
(a modern political candidate generality - Ron Paul - (True) Republicans / Constitutionalists of historical constitutional laws;
other examples in parties: American Patriot Party and Constitutional Party)
B.) The Fictitious "Right" - Collectives
"Corporate" conservatives. Social Corporate Collectives (Left). Usually considered "Fiscal Conservatives" - (nationalists, internationalists and corporate industrialists).
Although possessing some aspects of the right, the pursuit of the greater industrialization of the country through corporate collectives and acceptance of large unlimited national and international private social corporate entities, including the World Bank, Federal Reserve and World Trade Organization, places those that support such unlimited social institutions into the category toward socialism and not freedom.
Tendencies to use non delegated federal powers and allow international trade agreements and federal taxing powers to bribe and subvert local legislative powers, also places this group in opposition to the "true right" of those that historically respect very limited delegated powers of the federal government and independent power of local legislatures.
Dependencies such collective entities create of its members, and the limitations created against or in limiting true free independent enterprise are inherent of large unlimited social institutions of "lasting assemblies".
See Locke 138 regarding the dangers of "LASTING ASSEMBLIES" below.
One inherent practice for self preservation of such private social collective entities is to manipulate laws through lobbying, then utilize those laws for protectionism against targeted or general competition; Including the practice of drawing from government money for national or international projects through exclusive grants or contracts, derived from taxes that they never really paid into from burden, but derived without the consent from those in local communities who actually paid the burden of the tax that has been arbitrarily collected and pooled by the federal government, then spent on contracts not approved or given consent by the local communities that the taxes were derived from..
Such entities are also at least in verbiage if not competitive practice, supporting free trade "outside" the US opposing import taxes;
However these entities generally are not opposed (in any serious political actions) to taxed trade inside the United States as they benefit in such taxation under the current tax system;
In practice, the collective entity physically "handing" taxes to the government, but deriving (drawing) the tax from products that defer the "actual burden of the taxes" to those who cannot write the tax off; Often related to what is also called "inflation tax", but not limited to inflation when costs of producing items can be further lowered either through foreign manufacture, efficient manufacture i.e. down sizing or lower labor costs; This to allow the addition of such increased taxes on manufactured goods established by the government, to be "handed" to the government when higher taxes are imposed; This is accomplished however without paying the actual tax burden; which is simply derived in full, without effect to the entities profits, from those who pay the actual burden of the tax attached to the collective's product or service upon purchase.
Note: This is just one reason why taxes on income or wealth do not work - As the harder you tax the wealthy on income, in reality, the harder you are taxing the poor who pay the greater proportion of the actual burden of the tax; and certainly the highest proportion of percentage of tax burden to their income. See Heritage Foundation Report and Anonymity Tax;
In the process such tax system empowers social collectives from the arbitrarily collected tax money that can, once collected, be spent on anything for any purpose by government, and manipulated by those lobbyists who weld the political powers by financial political might to direct where that excess money is spent;
You cannot control social collectives through taxation; Social collectives, which are privileged by the state, must be controlled by very localized legislatures and localized monopoly laws.
Note that any exclusive privileges to any person or group of persons in society is completely opposed by the Founders of freedom and the existence or operation of such is against freedom and liberty; and politically "Left".
George Mason - Virginia Declaration of Rights: IV:
"That "no man", or "set of men", are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community,"
The Jealousy card always works against the poor who ultimately pay the "burden" of the tax on products.
It is used by Democrats to increase taxes for bureaucracy and Republicans while in control to funnel taxes to federal contracts, the taxes never go down because the purpose of taxation is being ignored;
THE PURPOSE That is, consensual services and consensual taxation determined by local legislatures;
Not arbitrary general taxation determined by distant legislatures.
Further, that such abuse of powers and "enterprises of ambition" need to be kept in check by localized county monopoly laws and state laws, not national federal laws, nor through federal taxes;
Such local monopoly laws are generally opposed by large collectives, because very local constitutional powers of multiple local state and county legislatures which, when not effected by manipulated unconstitutional "case laws", are harder to control than federal national laws and lobbied federal mandates, which are used by collectives to bribe states and local communities into compliance to such mandates;
Bribes, such as often done highway funds, where such funds, already taken from the states through federal taxation for use on the highways, are withheld from the states until they comply with the attached federal mandate such as environmental, or zoning mandates or such arbitrary mandate which has not been authorized by any local community but are now state mandated by the state taking the bribe.
A major corruption of local community powers which were intended by the founders to be supreme
See the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions by Thomas Jefferson (who wrote the Declaration of Independence) and James Madison (who wrote the Constitution -which "supremacy" in law is limited to delegated powers).
Strong Local legislative powers can limit non-enumerated, nonconsensual taxes from ever leaving the state where it can be misused.
Who pays the tax is not as important as the consensual control of citizens and their local legislatures as to what services are to be rendered by their federal, state and local governments, staying completely within the limited enumerated powers;
This is because, it is the "unrestrained, unconsented, arbitrary taxation "that creates the costly bureaucracies to regulate these tax systems;
And it is "that arbitrary taxation" and regulations that create the high cost of taxation on everyone.
Where on the other end of the spectrum a consensual tax requires no harsher or costly regulation than is absolutely necessary;
The IRS by "this" group, is allowed to remain as it benefits from the manipulation it can use within the system;
This "retains the regulations" which is 50% of the cost of direct taxation, from the
a.) regulations themselves supporting the bureaucracy,
b.) compliance costs incurred from the individual,
c.) costs incurred by investigation and prosecution and
d.) housing so called tax criminals who are provided 100 percent heath care while incarcerated;
(a modern political candidate generality - George Bush - Republican)
C.) Fictitious Right - Union Labor Conservatives,
Protectionists, Collectives.
Social Corporate and Union Collectives (Left) against cheap foreign labor or products,
As Protectionists they vote against free international trade and for state and federal controlled trade that will benefit them through corporate and union contracts that will pay a "prevailing wage";
These groups generally want a flat tax (fair tax etc.), which really doesn't solve anything, because it is based on continuing to throw unlimited tax moneys that are not enumerated, nor consensual, into the hands of government; who raise it when they want arbitrarily, and spend it wherever they want, creating greater bureaucracies, greater burden and greater dependency which continues to move our country toward socialism;
Proponents to tax money spent into public or private collectives - corporate and union contracts or special interests; that these groups, of course as social collectives, support for such government contracts;
As to Unions, forcing the public to pay the wage they set for themselves to establish their own salary, we do not have to look any further that the Rights of the Colonists to determine that this practice has nothing to do with freedom.
Note the "Community which they serve" is in regard to the "local community", not a federal scale determined in Washington DC, a distant legislature, to extract a universal pay, for which the local communities for which they serve have no absolute determination or control.
SEE The Rights of The Colonists in regard to who has the power to determine government employee pay:
" .....but then the "same community" which "they serve", ought to be assessors of their pay:
Governors have no right to seek what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honorable servants of the society, they would soon become Absolute masters, Despots, and Tyrants.
Hence as a private man has a right to say, what wages he will give in his private affairs,
so has "a Community" to determine what they will give and grant of their Substance, for the Administration of public affairs. And in both cases more are ready generally to offer their Service at the proposed and stipulated price, than are able and willing to perform their duty.--"
Note that any exclusive privileges to any person or group of persons in society is completely opposed by the Founders of freedom and the existence or operation of such is against freedom and liberty; and politically "Left".
George Mason - Virginia Declaration of Rights: IV:
"That "no man", or "set of men", are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community,"
The IRS by "this" group, is allowed to remain as it benefits from the manipulation it can use within the system;
This "retains the regulations" which is 50% of the cost of direct taxation.
a.) regulations themselves supporting the bureaucracy,
b.) compliance costs incurred from the individual,
c.) costs incurred by investigation and prosecution and
d.) housing so called tax criminals who are provided 100 percent heath care while incarcerated;
Note that our own government employees belong to unions!
Regulations support not only government bureaucracies but the social collective unions. (more dependency)
(a modern political candidate generality - Pat Bucanan - Republican)
D.) The Obvious "Left" Socialism
Union Labor - private and government, Large Government Bureaucracies, Liberals, Socialism (Left). (Social Corporate and Union Collectives including Government Labor Unions and Special Interests) you name it, big government, invasive bureaucracies, anything financed and supported by forced arbitrary government employee and or union determined taxation, tax exemption beneficiaries (non profits, special interests), Government Grants etc.
In the true form of socialism, this party attempts to establish that property can be taxed or condemned for the government, or by others than the owner's determination, for the collective good of society, in so doing, it stands against the laws that a free government has been established to protect.
John Locke: 140. "It is true governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent -- i.e., the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves or their representatives chosen by them; for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his own authority, and without such "consent of the people", he thereby "invades the fundamental law of property", and "subverts the end of government". For what property have I in that which another may by right take when he pleases to himself?
So long as people cannot at each election cycle, vote taxes up or down at all levels, it cannot any longer be considered consent by representation; This as the representatives in this country have proven by the debt they have already created, that they have impoverished and continue to impoverish our country though wasteful spending, unlimited expansion of undelegated government bureaucracies and printing unbacked money;
We are now even borrowing from China and paying interest.
This, as John Locke presents, clearly establishes that the legislative has exceeded its powers:
John Locke: 135." ...the legislative can have no more than this. Their power in the utmost bounds of it is limited to the public good of the society. It is a power that hath no other end but preservation, and therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects;"
John Locke: 142. Thirdly: They must not raise taxes on the property of the people without the consent of the people given by themselves or their "deputies..."
As to Unions, forcing the public to pay the wage they set for themselves to establish their own salary, we do not have to look any further that the Rights of the Colonists to determine that this practice has nothing to do with freedom.
Note the "Community which they serve" is in regard to the "local community", not a federal scale determined in Washington DC, a distant legislature, to extract a universal pay, for which the local communities for which they serve have no absolute determination or control.
SEE The Rights of The Colonists in regard to who has the power to determine government employee pay:
" .....but then the "same community" which "they serve", ought to be assessors of their pay:
Governors have no right to seek what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honorable servants of the society, they would soon become Absolute masters, Despots, and Tyrants.
Hence as a private man has a ""right" to say, what wages he will give in his private affairs,
so has a "Community" to determine what they will give and grant of their Substance, for the Administration of public affairs. And in both cases more are ready generally to offer their Service at the proposed and stipulated price, than are able and willing to perform their duty.--"
Note that any exclusive privileges to any person or group of persons in society is completely opposed by the Founders of freedom and the existence or operation of such is against freedom and liberty; and politically "Left".
George Mason - Virginia Declaration of Rights: IV:
"That "no man", or "set of men", are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community,"
Again, the IRS by this group is allowed to remain for obvious reasons; To collect funds from non consensual arbitrary taxation for expanse of bureaucracies that create dependencies.
The IRS by "this" group, is allowed to remain as it benefits from the manipulation it can use within the system;
This "retains the regulations" which is 50% of the cost of direct taxation, from the
a.) regulations themselves supporting the bureaucracy,
b.) compliance costs incurred from the individual,
c.) costs incurred by investigation and prosecution and
d.) housing so called tax criminals who are provided 100 percent heath care while incarcerated; ;
Note that our own government employees belong to unions!
Regulations support not only government bureaucracies but social collective unions. (more dependency)
(a modern political candidate generality - Bill Clinton -Democrat)
See next, which also applies to this group.
E.) Libertarian Left of Humanism
Inconsistent definition of liberty; Humanism form of political Left and Inconsistent Constitutional Right with a small Anarchist faction;
This political organization, because it has created a "catch all" for those in opposition of the major two political parties, has varied members that range from those who consider themselves constitutionalists at right, to the modern "liberals" at far left.
Because Libertarian views vary widely, we will address the most generally accepted stands by this party and the inconsistencies of this party's platform stands to historical founding documents.
To understand the difference between True Liberty which as clearly defined by John Locke as being based upon established common law, and not "a liberty to do anything one lists" as attempted by the Libertarian party, one must understand some basic principles of freedom.
Principles, which are clearly establish throughout all of freedom's documents, and which are the foundation to such liberty and freedom.
The remainder of this segment, is to present documentation to those principles and dispel those areas in the Libertarian, Democratic and Republican parties where they are inconsistent with true and just liberty and freedom defined by the founders of this country.
5.) Inconsistent form of Constitutional "Liberty"
Liberty, heavily espoused by the Libertarian party, has within it's own historical party definitions, features that are so completely inconsistent with the historical foundations of freedom that the term liberal, as it would be hoped to be associated with Liberty, is an absolute fallacy;
These inconsistencies are shared in many areas of both the Democratic and Republican parties as we will show by looking at the historical foundations of freedom and liberty themselves.
These inconsistencies make the Terms "Conservative" and "Liberal" for the most part, "vague party banter" and not based on established foundations of the true and just liberty and freedom clearly defined by historic documentation.
The remainder of this page deals with the factual historical definitions of freedom and liberty, that most parties have simply ignored as they have pursued the manipulative practices of socialism for their own advantages, whether through forced taxation, exclusive privileges, or legislative corruption of our most cherished laws.
6.) Historical Definition of Liberty:
First, Liberty is and has always been" Defined" by natural law; and natural law has "established" foundations;
The form of liberty that many Libertarians attempt to establish in a free society to "do what whatever they wish", is halted by the fact that they are subject to two sets of laws:
1.) Laws of God,
2.) The second, Laws of nature
The Second law which cannot contradict the first, or of any positive law of Scripture; A rule to which all other laws must adhere; This, is a documented fact in regard to the actual historical definition.
Man's compliance required, themselves being within a free "society" which has its original foundations and original compact having been established and deeply rooted in the laws set down by God and Nature.
From which laws are derived those fundamental freedoms that determine public good, freedom, free law and liberty;
Richard Hooker 1580: ( Whom by John Locke, Samuel Adams, George Mason and the foundations of freedom developed)
"Human laws are measures in respect of men whose actions they must direct, howbeit such measures they are as have also their higher rules to be measured by, which rules are two -- the law of God and the law of Nature; so that "laws human" must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made." Richard Hooker, Eccl. Pol. iii. 9.
See also the Samuel Adams in the Rights of the Colonists 1772:
"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty" in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all Men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable laws Of God and nature, as well as by the law of Nations, & all well grounded municipal laws, which must have" their foundation" in the former.--.--
Absolutely no change between 1580 and 1772; nor 1772 to 1776; nor from 1776 to the signing of the Constitution. And the Constitution did not alter Common Law accepted in the original compact;
Therefore it remains today:
MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
GEORGE NICHOLAS: "...But the "common law" is "not excluded". There is "nothing" in that paper (APP note: referring to the US Constitution being considered) to warrant the assertion."...
... "A bill of rights is only an acknowledgment of the preexisting claim to rights in the people. They belong to us as much as if they had been inserted in the Constitution." (APP Note: Which they were, by way of this debate)
John Marshall: "...The state governments did not derive their powers from the general government; but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away?"
GEORGE NICHOLAS: "But why were the articles of the bill of rights read? Let him show us that those rights are given up by the Constitution. Let him prove them to be violated. He tells us that the most worthy characters of the country differ as to the necessity of a bill of rights. It is a simple and plain proposition. It is agreed upon by all that the people have all power. If they part with any of it, is it necessary to declare that they retain the rest? Liken it to any similar case. If I have one thousand acres of land, and I grant five hundred acres of it, must I declare that I retain the other five hundred? Do I grant the whole thousand acres, when I grant five hundred, unless I declare that the five hundred I do not give belong to me still? It is so in this case. After granting some powers, the "rest must" "remain with the people".
For more on Richard Hooker, Samuel Adams and Historical Documentation on the Laws of Freedom and Liberty, see our 2007 News letter, Foundations of the Laws Freedom and Liberty. For the full day debate of the Constitution of the exerts presented here, see our 2006 News Letter The Division of Power.
7.) Stepping from the State of Nature
into a Society that Respects the Law of Nature
And in such a society, though retaining inalienable rights guaranteed by natural law and protected from misuse chiefly by our many constitutions, gives up certain natural laws and rights to live in a society that has laws to give greater protection to the lives, liberty and their property within it.
John Locke - Extent of Government:
57. "For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, >>>where there is no law there is no freedom .
For "liberty" is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which "cannot be" where there is no law;
>>> "and is "not", as we are told", "a liberty for every man to do what he lists."
Though the laws of freedom not limiting much, this is a clear correction to the fallacy of Libertarian portrayal of freedom and liberty of the power to do anything.
John Locke 63. "The freedom then of man, and liberty of acting according to his own will,
>>> "is grounded on his having reason" ,
which is able to instruct him in that law (APP Note: Law and intents set down by the "Original Compact") he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. ..."
8.) True Freedom Abolishes of All types of Slavery,
Including Voluntary Slavery and Voluntary Relinquishment
of Any Essential Natural and God Given Rights.
Consistent with God's law, natural law, Independence, liberty, justice and Constitutional law, is the abolishment of slavery, voluntary slavery (for which slavery would not exist) and involuntary servitude.
Of these, the Libertarian party fails to recognize the concept of voluntary slavery, do to not understanding some basic foundations of freedom:
Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty,
>>> it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."
Giving up any God given essential natural right being clearly a "mistake".
Such relinquishment of any essential natural right is an act of "voluntary slavery" by the person who relinquishes his rights, and an act of "slavery" by him that accepts them:
Voluntary Slavery Exists:
When when one person, short of death, gives up any God given or Natural Right (which is based on God's law) that he possesses to another;
These rights are rights of nature that even the ""individual" has "not the power" to give up; (SEE "10" Following)
Committing the act of Slavery, exists simultaneously by the person or government accepting such relinquishment.
9.) Historical Foundations of Freedom
To properly understand the laws of freedom and liberty, one must understand the history and laws relating to their definitions.
Brief explanation of John Locke.
By going to this link and reading, you will find that much if not all of our foundations defined of a free society, including the definitions of liberty our country follows, were from the writings of this Philosopher;
Often word for word (we have highlighted many instances on that page) you will find his text in both the:
Rights of the Colonists, (Samuel Adams)
Declaration of Independence. (Thomas Jefferson)
and Virginia Declaration of Rights. (George Mason)
John Locke is also mentioned during the Constitutional Debates, for these and many other verged reasons.
John Locke set these foundations over 86 years before our Declaration of Independence.
For more on the history of freedom see also our 2007 News Letter Fundamental Laws of Freedom and Liberty
10.) Freedoms Natural Limits
John Locke: 6. "But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license;
though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to "dispose" of his person or possessions , yet he has not liberty to "destroy himself", or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some "nobler use" than its bare preservation calls for it."
APP Note: There is a difference in disposing of his person within the laws of nature; and disposing of his person outside the laws of nature which he has not been given the power, i.e. right, to do.
The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is "that law", teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure.
The "Reason" spoke of is the basic understanding of nature, which laws are based upon God's laws.
John Locke 8: ".... In transgressing the law of Nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of "reason" and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men for their mutual security, and so he becomes dangerous to mankind;"
John Locke 12: "...For though it would be beside my present purpose to enter here into the particulars of the law of Nature, or its measures of punishment, yet it is certain there is such a law, and that too as intelligible and plain to a rational creature and a studier of that law as the positive laws of commonwealths, nay, possibly plainer;
as much as "reason" is easier to be understood than the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words; for truly so are a great part of the municipal laws of countries, which are only so far right as they are "founded" on the law of Nature, by which "they are to be "regulated" and "interpreted"."
See also the Rights of the Colonists:
"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty" in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all Men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable laws Of God and nature, as well as by the law of Nations, & all well grounded municipal laws, which must have "their foundation" in the former.--.--
These rights are, and is clearly defined, in the Declaration of Independence, and Natural Law as illustrated above, as those which "Natures God and God entitle you":
Declaration of independence: When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of "nature's God" "entitle" them,
This defined "entitlement" is in fact a "Limitation"
To those who would assert or question "Which God", It is clear in both the history of freedom and rights as Judea Christian, God of the Bible. Any other assertion would clearly indicate he who made it, one unlearned of any history, and a invention of his own contrivance;
See the Foundations of the Laws of Freedom and Liberty for historical documentation and Rights of the Colonists, as Christians. God given rights in freedom and liberties laws, are defined by the laws of the Bible, from the Magna Carta 1215 to the Constitution, there is no other definition.
11.) Atheism and Humanism Conditionally Tolerated in a Free Society
As Clearly Defined by John Locke 1689: Toleration and Civil Government, quoting the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.
And where clearly there is a line drawn in the case of toleration:
John Locke: "Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are "the bonds of human society", can have no hold upon an atheist.
The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that "by their atheism" "undermine and destroy all religion", >>>can have no pretense of religion whereupon to challenge the "privilege" of a toleration . As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error,
>>> if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated.
".... and teach that liberty of "conscience is every man's natural right, equally belonging to dissenters as to themselves; and that nobody ought to be compelled in "matters of "religion" "either by law or force".
------- Note the difference between toleration on one hand; and establishing dominion over others or being subversive in action to others or the general Christian society for which foundations and laws regarding man's actions, protect everyone, on the other.
Or, which is a freedom, right and liberty; and what is a privilege of toleration. And where is law, i.e. reason, Based on God's reason, (see God's Reason verses Mans Reason without God's Laws for the documentation) that establishes the extent of toleration.
Here it is presented:
Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772:
In regard to Religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof, is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced; and both by precept and example inculcated on mankind: And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society "is the chief characteristical mark of the true church" & In so much that Mr. Lock has asserted, and proved beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to "all whose doctrines" are "not subversive of society".
12.) Promulgated, Standing and Known Laws
at the Time of the Original Compact Remain.
Note the word "promulgated" as it pertains to "known and established biblical laws" in natural law.
Here it is described further:
Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772:
2d. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians-- "These may be best understood by reading--and carefully studying the institutes of the great Lawgiver (Christ) and head of the Christian Church: which are to be found clearly written and "promulgated" in the New Testament--"
Secondly, The Legislative has "no right" to absolute arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people: Nor can mortals assume a prerogative, not only too high for men, but for Angels; and therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone.--
"The Legislative cannot Justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore "arbitrary decrees"; but it is bound to see that Justice is dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects be decided, by "promulgated", "standing" and "known" "laws", and authorized independent Judges;" that is independent as far as possible of Prince or People.
"There shall be "one rule" of Justice for rich and poor; for the favorite in Court, and the Countryman at the Plough."
John Locke - Extent of Government:
John Locke 131. " ... And so, whoever has the legislative or supreme power of any commonwealth is bound to govern by "established" "standing" ""laws", >"promulgated" and "known to the people", and not by extemporary decrees..."
John Locke 134 This legislative is not only the supreme power of the commonwealth, but sacred and unalterable in the hands where the community have once placed it.
Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772:
"When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a "right to" >>>demand and insist upon the performance of >>>such conditions ,
>>>>>>> And previous limitations as form an equitable >>>> "ORIGINAL COMPACT".--
Every "natural Right" not expressly given up or from the nature of a Social Compact necessarily ceded >>>>remains.--"
Rights of Colonists as Men:
"..... "Just and true" liberty, equal and impartial liberty" in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all Men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable laws Of God and nature, as well as by the law of Nations, & all well grounded municipal laws,
which "must" have their "foundation" in the "former".--"
13.) What Powers are Assumed in a Free Country?
Declaration of Independence:
".... When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God" "entitle" them..."..."
The Laws of Freedom give great leniency and protections to all faiths and religions including the religion of atheism;
But there is a limit, and that limit comes when there becomes an attack upon the very laws and original foundations of the Christian society that protect all faiths and beliefs, the Christian foundations; or as defined, the "True Church" documented from as far back as the Magna Carta..
Here it is clearly presented in the Rights of the Colonists quoting John Locke with regard to Both laws and "Toleration":
Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772:
Rights of Colonists as Men:
"..... "Just and true" liberty, "equal and impartial liberty" in matters"spiritual and temporal", is a thing that all Men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable "laws Of God and nature", as well as by the law of Nations, & all well grounded municipal laws, which "must" have their foundation in the "former".--
In regard to Religeon, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof, is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced; and both by precept and example inculcated on mankind: And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society "is the chief characteristical mark of the "true church" & In so much that Mr. Lock has asserted, and proved beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such "toleration" ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are "not subversive of society"...."
Creating laws that either omit or destroy those foundations of established" "standing" "laws", >>>>"promulgated laws which are of God that protect us all, is subversive to all of that free society and to all persons protected within that society by those laws, whether they be Christian or other.
John Adams:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
14.) Modern Libertarianism Inconsistent
with Historical Definitions of Freedom
The Libertarian Party is inconsistent with all of these laws when it presents that a person in all cases (although though true in many cases by our rights in a free society) has a right to do anything one wishes with his or her own body, especially when the act involves a relinquishment of an inalienable natural or God given right;
Or, most particularly, it is incorrect when it attempts to present the right of one person to accept from another person the consensual relinquishment of that persons natural and God given rights which are inalienable.
By definition, the act of the person accepting such relinquishment engages in slavery, the one who relinquishes his rights engages in voluntary slavery.
For how else can a person be enslaved except where one person accepts the relinquishment of another person's natural rights, and where that other person accepts willingly or unwillingly, short of death, the relinquishment of his own rights to the one who accepts that relinquishment.
Such areas are:
a.) Homosexuality in morality, where one accepts relinquishment of another persons natural right established by both the laws of God and of Nature;
b.) Abortion for convenience (as opposed to rape, incest or to save the life of the mother).
c.) Drugs, although of the lesser, is detrimental to the good of the society, health of the people and adding to dependency to others, corruption and crime.
d.) Usury or the act of freely and habitually granting unconscionable credit or interest; Financial slavery; In history, relate to condition of being indentured from debt, or as in company stores that lend through convenience knowingly beyond the workers pay.
All clearly outside the foundations of God's laws and Natures laws that are to protect life; and against the "good" of the society that is to protect life, liberty and property.
The Libertarians platform of anything goes, contradicts the historical definitions of Liberty; the word they have espoused in the name of their party.
Note that they are not alone, as the Democrats and Republicans follow such contradictions.
John Locke (Extent of Government):
15. Quoting judicious Hooker (Eccl. Pol. i. 10): " where he says, "the laws which have been hitherto mentioned" -- i.e., the laws of Nature -- "do bind men absolutely, even as they are men, although they have never any settled fellowship, ...."
15.) Freedom is Not Unrestrained
John Locke (Extent of Government): Here, John Locke explains the definition of Law, freedom and liberty and establishes when a unrestrained form of liberty must be put aside.
John Locke 57. The law that was to govern Adam was the same that was to govern all his posterity, the law of reason. But his offspring having another way of entrance into the world, different from him, by a natural birth, that produced them ignorant, and without the use of reason, they were not presently under that law. For nobody can be under a law that is not "promulgated" to him; and this law being "promulgated" or made known by reason only, he that is not come to the use of his reason cannot be said to be under this law; and Adam's children being not presently as soon as born under this law of reason, were not presently free. For law, in its true notion, is not so much the limitation as the direction of a free and intelligent agent to his "proper interest", and prescribes no farther than is for the "general good" of those under that law. Could they be happier without it, the law, as a useless thing, would of itself vanish; and that "ill deserves" the name of "confinement" which hedges us in only from bogs and precipices. So that however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to "preserve" and "enlarge freedom".
*** For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, >>>where there is no law there is no freedom .
For "liberty" is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which "cannot be" where there is no law;
>>> "and is "not", as we are told", "a liberty for every man to do what he lists."
For who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?
(APP Note: also dependency)
But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property
>>>"within the >>>allowance" of >>> "those laws"
under >>>which "he" >>>"is" , and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of "another", but freely follow his own."
John Locke 63. "The freedom then of man, and liberty of acting according to his own will, "is grounded on his having reason", which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. ..."
John Locke 128. "For in the state of Nature to omit the liberty he has of innocent delights, a man has two powers. The first is to do whatsoever he thinks fit for the preservation of himself and others within the permission of the "law of Nature"; by which law, common to them all, he and all the rest of mankind are one community, make up one society distinct from "all other creatures", and were it not for the corruption and viciousness of degenerate men, there would be no need of any other, no necessity that men should separate from this great and natural community, and associate into lesser combinations. The other power a man has in the state of Nature is the power to punish the crimes committed against that law. Both these he gives up when he joins in a private, if I may so call it, or particular political society, and incorporates into "any" "commonwealth" separate from the rest of mankind."
John Locke 129. "The first power- viz., of doing "whatsoever" he thought fit for the preservation of himself and the rest of mankind, he gives up to be regulated by laws made by the society, "so far forth" as the preservation of himself and the rest of that society shall require; which laws of the society in many things (APP: not all) confine the liberty he had by the law of Nature."
John Locke 130. "Secondly, the power of punishing he wholly gives up (APP - But not in immediate self defense or war, See Locke - Extent of Government 16 through 22), and engages his natural force, which he might before employ in the execution of the law of Nature, by his own single authority, as "he thought fit", to assist the executive power of the society as the law thereof shall require. For being now in a new state, wherein he is to enjoy many conveniences from the labour, assistance, and society of others in the same community, as well as protection from its whole strength, he is to part also with as much of his natural liberty, in providing for himself, as the good, prosperity, and safety of the society shall require, which is not only necessary but just, since the other members of the society do the like."
John Locke 131. "But though men when they enter into society give up the equality, liberty, and executive power they had in the state of Nature into the hands of the society, to be so far disposed of by the legislative as the good of the society shall require, yet it being only with an intention in every one the better to preserve himself, his liberty and property (for no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse), the power of the society or legislative constituted by them can never be supposed to extend farther than the common good, but is obliged to secure every one's property by providing against those three defects above mentioned that made the state of Nature so unsafe and uneasy. And so, whoever has the legislative or supreme power of any commonwealth, is bound to govern by established standing laws, >"promulgated" and known to the people, and not by extemporary decrees, by indifferent and upright judges, who are to decide controversies by those laws; and to employ the force of the community at home only in the execution of such laws, or abroad to prevent or redress foreign injuries and secure the community from inroads and invasion. And all this to be directed to no other end but the peace, safety, and public "good" of the people."
John Locke 133. By "commonwealth" I must be understood all along to mean not a democracy, or any form of government, but "any independent community" which the Latins signified by the word civitas, to which the word which best answers in our language is "commonwealth," and most properly expresses such a society of men which "community" does not (for there may be subordinate communities in a government), and "city" much less. And therefore, to avoid ambiguity, I crave leave to use the word "commonwealth" in that sense, in which sense I find the word used by King James himself, which I think to be its genuine signification, which, if anybody dislike, I consent with him to change it for a better.
16.) Local Legislatures The Fence against
Distant Legislatures and Private, Domestic and Foreign Collectives
The greatest subversive act is to remove the powers of very localized legislatures which are the key stone of liberty and freedom, that protect these foundations from the abuse of unconcerned National Distant Legislatures (which see).
Very Localized legislatures insure the grievances of the people are heard and that their rights and liberties as defined, are protected.
Casting those powers into the hands of the general or federal government to wield arbitrary, questionable or non-delegated powers is subversive to all laws of freedom.
Constitutional Debates:
MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
James Madison: "... An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself, which deserves to be attended to.*** If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we "should choose to renounce {415} it", "this is an additional safeguard to our defense"
George Nicholas: "...He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in all well-regulated communities, determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers.
If they exceed these powers, the judiciary will declare it void, or else "the people" will have a "right" to "declare it" " void"
These points were established again in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions by Thomas Jefferson an James Madison.
17.) Local Community Powers of Local Commonwealths
The best interpretation in a free country of independent individuals rights in a commonwealth, is a local community or localized area smaller than a county that possesses particular separate interests;
Though a county can be considered; and of which several parts reside within a county also, but not absolutely confined to such;
The issue here is, areas that result in adequate representation to the needs and grievances of that commonwealth; and not of unconcerned distant legislatures that have no way of adequately representing them.
The dangers of collective societies that have no borders, have private collective legislatures (stock holders, union heads, special interest group structures) is that they, as do distant government legislatures, can have no care for local opinions of commonwealths who have different interests and needs.
Samuel Adams - Rights of the Colonists 1772:
The inhabitants of this country in all probability in a few years will be more numerous, than those of Great Britain and Ireland together; yet it is absurdly expected [Volume 5, Page 397] by the promoters of the present measures, that these, with their posterity to all generations, should be easy while their property, shall be disposed of by a house of commons at three thousand miles "distant" from them;
and who cannot be supposed to have the least care or concern for their real interest: Who have not only no natural care for their interest,
"but must be in effect >>> "bribed" against it"; as every "burden" they lay on the colonists is so much saved or gained to themselves. ..."
Thereby, being within a free society as defined by the founders, there are "limits and guards against limits";
18.) Common Law Continues Today
Inalienable natural and God given rights that is the basis of common law possessed in our free society still continue. Even though they are not written in the Constitution or our state Constitutions.
This is established in the Rights of the Colonists, natural law and presented clearly, that prior rights and laws proceed from long before the Declaration of independence, past the Constitution and are present today.
The Constitutional debates present clearly the existence and continuation of such sacred rights and that limited federal or state constitutions cannot and do not remove these:
Virginia Ratifying Convention:
MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS: "...But why were the articles of the bill of rights read? Let him show us that those rights are given up by the Constitution. Let him prove them to be violated. He tells us that the most worthy characters of the country differ as to the necessity of a bill of rights. It is a simple and plain proposition. It is agreed upon by all that the people have all power. If they part with any of it, is it necessary to declare that they retain the rest? Liken it to any similar case. If I have one thousand acres of land, and I grant five hundred acres of it, must I declare that I retain the other five hundred? Do I grant the whole thousand acres, when I grant five hundred, unless I declare that the five hundred I do not give belong to me still? It is so in this case. After granting some powers, the "REST" must "remain with the PEOPLE".......
"... But the "COMMON LAW" is NOT EXCLUDED.
There is >>> NOTHING in ""that paper" (APP Note: The US Constitution being debated) to warrant the assertion."
If Governments attempt to remove such rights by law, they are to be considered VOID and of NO FORCE.
Here Thomas Jefferson and James Madison establish this fact and intent in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions:
Kentucky Resolution - by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison:
".... that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers,
its acts are >>> UNAUTHORITIVE, VOID, and of NO FORCE: "
If only our state and county governments, and JUDGES would take actions to defend this FACT.
19.) Responsibility to Protect Defined Freedoms
The "rights" of the colonies and states as Christian societies established in the Rights of the Colonists, and the toleration and protection of all those whom faiths and religions are not subversive to that Christian society; a society that protects all men, faiths and religions within it, as is present today.
Patrick Henry: "That" system of law which has been admired, and "has protected us and our ancestors"
Freedom's Laws are not created for the purpose of allowing the free exercise of, or to be built upon, mans failings, man's evils, or the corrupt;
But Freedom's Laws are to establish healthy and good ideals and in the defined protections to all peoples life, liberty and property.
It is the responsibility of the states and local communities of people themselves to insure that these are maintained.
We should never allow any distant and unconcerned legislatures; established as unconcerned by the founders as a inherent feature of any distant legislature; the arbitrary and non enumerated power to dictate or bribe local powers; Either through laws unauthorized by local county community and local citizen approval; or by undelegated laws and powers practiced by those distant legislatures;
Nor should there be allowed any mandated or bribery by any such laws or policy, in exchange for receiving funds already taken from local communities for particular purposes; and which have mandates outside the original intended uses, have not been local county community authorized.
20.) Collective Federal Bribery Practices
Note that if your state is receiving federal highway funds in exchange for federal mandates - environmental or other, your state and communities are being bribed by distant legislatures;
Your local governments would be better served by finding ways to limit or prohibit the tax moneys from ever leaving the state in the first place so that you will not be placed in the position of being bribed to get it back.
Virginia Resolution, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison: That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the "plain sense and intention" of the instrument constituting the "compact"; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants "enumerated" in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the "states" who are parties thereto, have the "right", and are in "duty bound", to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
21.) Dangers of Incorrect Political Definitions:
The Dangers of considering collectives as "right" wing, is that the structures themselves resemble and operate like socialisms;
From the advantages collectives possess over free true independent enterprise, including liability protections, collective financial powers, social collective structure and unlimited life;
All which resemble governments within a government, a "collective of people" looking out for only those within that collective's interests;
This is no different than having a Union called "Soviet"
and a Corporation called "China"
both within our boarders, dictating through dependency, and removing all competition from between them.
22.) Freedom Not an Excuse to Merge into any Type of Socialism
People can "freely" move into and join the Soviet or China society, but when they do, they become part of that society.
When they choose to enter into a social collective, they become part of the workings of that "social society",
whether by finance or labor or politic.
Even though people "freely enter" into such a "social collective", it matters not to the "resulting condition" of the "socialist styled" collective society that it places them.
23.) Exclusive State Privileged Social Collectives
are Not Free Societal Institutions
Though Collectives that are granted exclusive privileges by the state through incorporation or by other exclusive grant, are seen by some as relative to a simple group of free individuals within a civil society, there are some very large differences;
1.) Local civil governments and legislatures, view the entire collective of that society within their local jurisdiction; and are answerable to all citizens of and within that very localized civil society;
In contrast: Heads of collectives are given the ability to make decisions without fully considering the local society, only finance, without concern to the views of them that are effected or become dependent to them.
2.) Like a monarchy, they pass power from one to the other within their private structure without consideration of the whole of a local society (ies) where it exists; (see Locke next)
3.) Because they operate like a monarchy, and do not die, a collective becomes as a beast that cannot be removed without destroying the whole of that society that is dependent upon it for its sustenance.
John Locke: 138 "But in governments where the legislative is in one >>>"lasting assembly", "always in being", or in one man >>>as in "absolute monarchies" ,
"there is "danger still", that they will "think themselves" to have a "distinct interest" from the rest of the community, and so will be ""apt" to "increase their own riches and power "by taking what "they think fit" from the people."
APP Note: John Locke presents the clarity of danger; Compare with a "financial legislative monarchy" as in a collective or corporation that lasting assembly which are "always in being".
A Collective being a social private government, both outside and within a civil legislative government.
If you think this is a light issue, attempt to take away that state born "exclusive privilege", and you will see this form of state born social cancer attempt to destroy all who do. Not because their properties cannot be dispersed equally into shares to individuals that own them, because they can;
But because of the power that had been given them by the state that allows them exclusive powers of collectivism above an individual, taken away, would render them on equally competitive footing as an "individual"; and without exclusive privilege in liability and powers which are achieved through a collective, that places them above the rest of society;
The condition of no exclusive privileges being the intent of freedom, as clearly presented by John Locke; and further documented in the Virginia Declaration of Rights - lV by George Mason.
Virginia Declaration of Rights: IV
"That "no man", or "set of men", are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community,"
4.) That should the Heads be endangered, they can dissolve the whole without suffering the extent to that of those whom are, or have become, dependent.
5.) The goals can be national or international and not of interest or control of the local legislatures or local citizenry that have become dependent, or are not part, of that state "privileged and exclusive society".
6.) Large numbers of collectives create the "effects" of total monopolies within communities, voiding competition from independents against those collectives.
7.) Cartels, which are against the law for individuals to form on their own, are by the exclusive privilege grant of the states allowed to form under the banner of corporation and union to serve the same principle of a cartel; Controlling prices and limiting competition.
24.) Laws that Create Exclusive "Advantages" in Society
Virginia Declaration of Rights: IV
"That "no man", or "set of men", are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community,"
In an attempt to protect the larger of the Collectives or Corporations, and to allow similar protections to smaller groups, S-Corps and Limited Liability Companies (LLC's) have been allowed so to grant the protections of smaller groups with similar protections granted the larger Corporations;
However, the allowance of yet more "exclusive parties" that are granted protections above the "actual individual" (note that in law, corporations are "fictitiously" established as "individuals" even though corporations can be composed of thousands), simply creates a condition that more people are involved or dependent of a system that can hold itself exclusive and personally unaccountable in many instances; It also provides that more will be accepting of the larger of the two because of more involvement in having exclusive privileges in law.
The smaller and larger however are not the same, nor should the lesser (S-Corp - LLC's) of these, because of the added protections, defend the expansion of the greater, falsely believing their situation resembles it;
For the increased employees and their dependencies carry the weight of monopolies, cartels, exclusive societies and private governments; each with the dependency to the financial monarchy it wields.
This simply compounds the problem of creating "laws" "in governments" or Government type "social collectives" that create "exclusive state privileged advantages" of one over the "individual" in a free society.
25.) Freedoms Related Papers
John Locke #2 Essay Concerning:
The True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government:
John Locke 38: "For the "preservation of property" being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that by entering into society which was the end for which they entered into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own. Men, therefore, in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that nobody hath a right to take them, or any part of them, from them without their own consent; without this they have no property at all. "...
APP Note: "Use" and "Possession" is "A PART" - There by Condemnation and Zoning have no place in a free country as the ability of others to take property without consent or place arbitrary limits to the use of that part is clearly like having no property at all:
.... "For I have truly no property in that which another can by right take from me when he pleases against my consent.
Hence it is a "mistake" "to think" that the "supreme" or "legislative" power of any commonwealth can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the >>subject arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure.
This is not much to be feared in governments where the legislative consists wholly or in part in assemblies which are variable, whose members upon the dissolution of the assembly are subjects under the common laws of their country, "equally" with the rest.
But in governments where the legislative is in one >>> "lasting assembly, always in being" , or in one man >>>as in "absolute monarchies" , ....
APP Note: Compare with a "financial legislative monarchy" as in a collective or corporation, that lasting assembly which are "always in being";
A Collective being a social private government, within a civil legislative government.
....there is danger still, that they will think themselves to have a "distinct interest" from the rest of the community, and so will be "apt" to "increase their own riches and power" by taking what "they think fit" from the people.
For a man's property is not at all secure, >>>though there be good and equitable laws to set the bounds of it between him and his fellow-subjects, if he who commands those subjects have power to take from >>>"any private man" what "part" he pleases of his property, and "use and dispose of it as "he thinks" good"."
APP Note: Compare this last sentence with:
a.) city corporations condemning individuals property for what they "think" is good; or
b.) environmental collectives passing bills that engage state and federal governments to condemn private lands that they "deem" or "think" should be;
These groups masquerade as "public opinion" by using their national or international membership under their exclusive state privileged status as non profit, though creating huge national and international money though tax right off and donations from that exclusive state privilege, in the same way distant legislatures use unauthorized powers and forced taxation to use social collective control to override local legislation and local interests,
c.) or corporations condemning, or engaging the legislative to condemn, lands for "projects" they "think" worthy for their own benefit;
d.) Or federal projects condemning local private lands for what they, by "so called" "national public opinion" usually guided by distant special interests and lobbyists, "think" worthy.
e.) Or state projects condemning local private lands for what they, by "so called" "State public opinion" usually guided by distant special interests and lobbyists, "think" worthy.
See excerpt from the Rights of the Colonists following John Locke below, "representative" powers being limited
26.) Power Cannot be Transferred Outside the Local Legislative;
Powers of the Collective Left Limited
Powers of the Local Legislative cannot be transferred to any Private Collective, nor to Members "through acceptance of their opinion", of any such Collective's Members outside the Jurisdiction of that local Legislative;
Or else this acceptance of opinion where it would effect local law or policies state, federal or county, would be the same as transferring power to outside hands to decide such local law and policies; Such Legislative actions taken or attempted to be taken, which are based upon either the transfer of such power, or "consideration" of such foreign opinions of any person; or Collective or their members being outside the jurisdiction, by common law are void.
John Locke: 141. Fourthly. The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws To any other hands, for it being but a "delegated" power from the people, they who have it "cannot pass it over to others".
(APP Important Note: The State also cannot pass powers to the federal government whose delegated powers are also limited)
"The people alone can appoint the form of the commonwealth, which is by constituting the legislative, and appointing in whose hands that shall be. And when the people have said, "We will submit, and be governed by laws made by such men, and in such forms,"
nobody else can say other men shall make laws for them; nor can they be bound by any laws but such as are enacted by those whom they have chosen and authorized (APP: and Delegated) to make laws for them.
John Locke: 142. These are the bounds which the trust that is put in them by the society and the law of God and Nature have set to the legislative power of every commonwealth, in "all forms" of government.
First: They are to govern by promulgated established laws, "not" to be "varied in particular cases", but to have "one rule" for rich and poor, for the favourite at Court, and the countryman at plough.
Secondly: These laws also ought to be designed for no other end ultimately but the good of the people.
Thirdly: They must not raise "taxes" on the "property" of the people without the "consent" of the people given by "themselves" or their deputies. And this properly concerns only such governments where the legislative is always in being, or at least where the people have not reserved any part of the legislative to deputies, to be from time to time chosen by themselves.
Fourthly: Legislative neither must nor can transfer the "power" of making laws to anybody else, or place it anywhere but where the people "have".
The above is repeated in part within the Rights of the Colonists:
Rights of the Colonists 1772, by Samuel Adams.
Compare:
First, "The first fundamental positive law of all Commonwealths or States, is the establishing the legislative power; as the first fundamental natural law also, which is to govern even the legislative power itself, is the preservation of the Society." 6
Secondly, The Legislative has no right to absolute arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people: Nor can mortals assume a prerogative, not only too high for men, but for Angels; and therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone.--
"The Legislative cannot Justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore arbitrary decrees; but it is bound to see that Justice is dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects be decided, by promulgated, standing and "known" laws, and authorized independent Judges;" that is independent as far as possible of Prince or People.
******* "There shall be "one rule" of Justice for rich and poor; for the favorite in Court, and the Countryman at the Plough."7
****** Thirdly, The supreme power cannot Justly take from any man, any part of his property" without his consent", in person >>>or by his Representative.--
APP Note the Major Difference in Freedom - "not even" a "representative" without a individual's consent.
****** These are some of the first principles of natural law & Justice, and the great Barriers of all free states,"...
APP Note: The "One Rule" for all is breached by Corporate, Union and Special interest non profit status, by state born advantages in law toward and in favor of the collective.
In government, it is breached by government unions. Where all free governments should be jealous and not confident; See below.
Unions in government create confidence and security in social bureaucracies often not answerable to local legislatures but administrative born; and not jealousy.
SEE THE:
Kentucky Resolution 1798:
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (see Full Resolution to the top right on our Candidates Page)
8th: "...free government is founded in "jealousy", and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and >>>no further , our confidence may go;"
John Locke continued:
Chapter 13: Of the Subordination of the Powers of the Commonwealth
John Locke: 149. "THOUGH in a constituted commonwealth standing upon its own basis and acting according to its own nature -- that is, acting for the preservation of the community, there can be but "one" supreme power, "which is" the legislative, to which all the rest are and must be subordinate, yet the legislative being only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends, there remains still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them.
For all power given with trust for the attaining an end being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those that gave it, who may place it anew where they shall think best for their safety and security.
And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and "designs" of "anybody", even of their legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish or so wicked as to lay and "carry on" "designs" against the "liberties" and "properties" of the "subject".
For "no man" or "society of men" having a power to "deliver up their preservation", or consequently the "means of it", to the absolute will and "arbitrary dominion of another", whenever "any one" shall go about to bring them into such a "slavish condition", they will always have a right to preserve what they have not a power to part with, and to rid themselves of "those who invade" this fundamental, sacred, and unalterable law of self-preservation for which they entered into society.
And thus the community may be said in this respect to be always the supreme power, but not as considered under any form of government, because this power of the people can never take place till the government be dissolved."
(APP Note: See the Right to leave (change) any society and enter (create) another - Rights of the Colonists - this is defined and by example accomplished in the Declaration of Independence, it establishes individual that persons and local communities have this power and the right of secession to preserve these rights)
27.) Evincing Designs Toward Despotism
When collectives begin to evince "designs",", that place those not adjoined to them, in a position of subordination.
Subordination caused by multiple social collective competition consuming the trades and populous, price fixing through carteling between multiple collectives; setting of grounds, regulations and terms that independents cannot compete without forming yet another social collective; or establishing incalculable deterrent to competition created by such privileges, to an extent that it directs independents toward such collectives for employment and dependency upon them;
And through the existence of state born exclusive privileges, whether government or private, place the general public into a position where the collective social construction in it's public saturation, offers working for or within collectives the only feasible path in the economy to existence, benefits and security; leaving few choices for the independent citizen(s) except to seek a position of such dependency upon collectives for such employment.;
The construction is a progression and a design toward socialism.
The term Collective meaning any group or person given the grant of state exclusive privileges, social construction, operation, unlimited life span and unlimited expansion, nationally owned or internationally owned, whether as simple or unionized social government bureaucracies, a private social collective such as a corporation, union or special interest, or any state or federal born entity of privilege different from the individual citizen.
Virginia Declaration of Rights: IV :"That "no man", or "set of men", are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community,"
See Declaration of Independence: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the sameobject, "evinces a design" to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security."
The situation of multiple social collectives has been made worse by the advancement and expansion of collective land trusts, environmental land trusts, collective corporate farms, government monuments and federal parks;
That these social institutions continue to expand land control by corporate collectives, special interests and bureaucracies, that in turn expand government boundaries (See Magna Carta @ 47 - Read Sidebar on expanding jurisdiction and land by "expanding forests"); The King returning the land to the people when such acts were done then, is what needs to be done now with regard to land grabbing by governments, collectives and special interests.
Environmentalist Collectives are presently buying state lands and selling that land for a profit to the Federal Government and placing the land out of the possibility of ownership by individuals or control and management of such land within local community borders by local counties and states.
The "design" is "willing sellers" - Now read again John Locke:
... whenever "anyone" shall go about to bring them into such a "slavish condition", they will always have a right to preserve what they have not a power to part with, and to "rid" themselves of "those who invade" this fundamental, sacred, and unalterable law of self-preservation for which they entered into society"
The Right to Property is a fundamental right to citizens.
This is a right not granted to government to withhold land acquisition from its citizens;
But only possessed where absolutely necessary for use in community defense, or necessary operation by local, state and federal governments.
See the Declaration of Independence and another definition of Tyranny in government:
7th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence: (defining tyranny in government):
"He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither,
and >>> raising the "conditions" of new appropriations of lands ."
The Government practice of "Refusing land", is a "condition" that makes acquiring land completely unachievable, and a act of tyranny by a tyrannical government.
Social collective ownership (socialist societies within a free local legislative society) will eventually create limited areas of land acquisition for "actual" individuals, independent trade and true independent business.
(Note that corporations are "fictitiously" considered "individuals" by law, even when made up of thousands);
28.) Collectives are Not Free Enterprise
This is because their entire existence, though made up of only part of the society, is dependent upon the grant of privilege by the state to operate with those advantages it possesses; Privileges by the governments of a free society which are not suppose to create any exclusive privileges.
George Mason - Virginia Declaration of Rights: IV:
"That "no man", or "set of men", are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community,"
Collectives cannot espouse "free trade" when by advantages granted to it by government to:
a.) Possess a unlimited collective advantage of fiscal, legal and labor might;
b.) Possess exclusive protections against personal liability;
c.) Possess the benefit of exclusive "legal practice of cartel" through employment saturation of population, shear size or creating an effect of size and employment saturation between varied numerous collectives in comparison of the independent in a society;
d.) By any limiting of contracts (private or government) granted to unions or corporations only;
e.) By establishing Union set excessive prevailing wage contracts only to unions; Or only to Union based contracts.
f.) By granting Union pay to government employees serving government jobs not expressly delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, and for which such pay is not dictated by > local Community legislators for "which they serve";
Rights of the Colonists:
"...but then the "same" "community" "which they serve", ought to be assessors of their pay: Governors have no right to seek what they please;
by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honourable servants of the society, they would soon become Absolute masters, Despots, and Tyrants.
Hence as a private man has a right to say, what wages he will give in his private affairs,
so has a >>> "Community" to determine what they will give and grant of their Substance, for the Administration of publick affairs.
And in both cases more are ready generally to offer their Service at the proposed and stipulated price, than are able and willing to perform their duty.--"
f.) When unobtainable regulatory feats are established by the government that prevents free competition of and by "the individual" that would otherwise be able to compete, if not prohibited by those additional feats of government regulations or limited government considerations toward individuals. This would include limited military contracts to very few and limited corporations.
g.) Or to limit competition in any way that would otherwise allow competition against any collective in the free market.
An example would be if the Auto industry creates air bags that must be purchased from them because of patent; Then promotes and lobbies legislation that restricts any automobile from being manufactured and sold on the market without one.
A actual example can be established from the "CARA" bill, that would, if passed, grant exclusive rights to oil companies to drill for oil in Alaska; instead of a bill allowing anyone to drill for oil in Alaska which would establish true free trade and true market competitive prices;
The content of this Bill was for the government to engage with the oil companies who would finance condemnation of private property in the lower 48 states, for which land was then to be placed into federal land reserves through environmental trusts to the tune of 1.2 trillion!
Several other attempts in similar bills such as the "Get out and Go" bill are a common and continue attempts to misuse the laws of freedom.
A further established example in Oregon and other western states, is where environmental groups are now purchasing private land and sell it back to the federal government for a profit, removing land out of the hands of individual ownership.
The last two illustrate the dangerous combination of collectives that are becoming more and more visible;
Where corporation, special Interest and government (union) bureaucracies are directing powers against, and in exclusive agreements taking lands and the ability to compete away from independents.
29.) Political Left and Political Right Issues Of Religion
John Adams:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
The essential natural rights spoken often by the founders are from the basis of the belief in God of the bible.
This is founded in historical documentation of our country and long before.
You can review the historical documentation and view the visual graph on our:
2007 News letter entitled The Fundamental Laws of Freedom and Liberty, which see.
Universal Right, whether in matters spiritual and temporal, is based on God's reason.
Rights of Colonists as Men:
"..... Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty" in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all Men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable laws Of God and nature, as well as by the law of Nations, & all well grounded municipal laws, which "must" have their foundation in the "former".--
Read Also:
John Locke: Toleration, with regard to Church, State and Man; and
John Locke: The Extent of Civil Government, and
See: Samuel Adams: Rights of the Colonists - "Right of the Colonists as Christians" - i.e. "Christian civil societies".
and Foundations of Inalienable Rights (Found in our site index )
These documents presented, defines without question, our government as a civil society based on God's Laws; and "Sectarian only to the extent" that "toleration is extended" to all those "that are not subversive to the "civil society" in which they live;
"Civil society", which is defined as a "Right" to all states (colonies) as Christian, which law is the basis of all defined "civil societies", "civil law" or "natural law".
a.) Immorality (where subversive to Christian civil society) - left;
b.) Or morality - right;
c.) The religion of Atheism or Non-Christain religions (where subversive to Christian civil law and society) - left;
d.) To Judeo-Christian sects and societies - right.
Islam actually falls under a sect of Judeo because of its historical ties; and "tolerated" except when the religion is practiced by those "subversive to that civil society in which they live";
This can be referred to as "limited" or "not to be tolerated" when, as indicated by John Locke - Toleration and in the Rights of the Colonists, such describing the practice of those old Catholics and Papists sects that "in their day" (this does not present any resemblance of these today) would destroy others they simply claimed as heretics;
And to any that are subversive to the civil (Law of God and of Nature based) society which they live and whom by these laws place them under >>> the mutual protections of .
This is clearly defined, and in this way, in the Rights of the Colonists when they quote John Locke regarding Toleration:
Rights of Colonists as Men:
In regard to Religeon, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof, is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced; and both by precept and example inculcated on mankind: And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society "is the chief characteristical mark of the "true church" & In so much that Mr. Lock has asserted, and proved beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such "toleration" ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are >>> "not subversive of society" ...."
Creating laws that either omit or destroy those foundations of established", "standing", >>>>"promulgated "laws"which are of God that protect us all, is subversive to all of that free society and to all persons protected within that society by those laws, whether they be Christian or other.
The greatest subversive act is to remove the powers that protect those laws of very localized legislatures which are the key stone of liberty and freedom, that were created to protect these foundations from the abuse of unconcerned National Distant Legislatures (which see).
Very Localized legislatures insure the grievances of the people are heard and that their rights and liberties are protected.
Casting those powers into the hands of the general or federal government to wield questionable or non-delegated powers is subversive to all laws of freedom.
See the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions defining the founder's intent and firmly against such transfer of power to any general government.
See John Locke, that such relinquishment or transfer of power to a general government is an act of abandonment by the legislature dissolving all legislatures and governments to return the people to the state of nature to choose a new legislature any community chooses for their own protection.
As an extreme example in religion, if the protections of the basic Christian foundation in law were voided:
Imagine a Aztec religion arising that allowed sacrifice of humans to a sun god, and the excuse was that it was OK because the individual "voluntarily" allowed himself to be sacrificed;
This is not allowed in a Judeo-Christian society where individuals cannot even of themselves part with their inalienable right to life.
This act would fall under Voluntary Slavery which is (consensual) self slavery to others and an act of Slavery by those who accept relinquishment of a natural right to them;
Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."
This "exceeds the powers of consent or rights" possessed of an individual to give up any inalienable natural or God given right to others. (A right that Libertarians espouse incorrectly);
Includes exclusion of voluntary (consensual) death at the hands of others, or ones self - voluntary (consensual) grievous bodily injury for the sake of that injury by ones self or others (masochism) or similar insanity;
John Locke 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some "nobler use" than its bare preservation calls for it.
The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and "reason", which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of "one" omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure.
And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station willfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.
John Locke 7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others' rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of Nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of Nature is in that state put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation. For the law of Nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world, be in vain if there were nobody that in the state of Nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders; and if any one in the state of Nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so. For in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.
John Locke 8. And thus, in the state of Nature, one man comes by a power over another, but yet no absolute or arbitrary power to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats or boundless extravagancy of his own will, but only to retribute to him so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint. For these two are the only reasons why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. In transgressing the law of Nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men for their mutual security, and so he becomes dangerous to mankind;..."
See Locke 128 to 131 (shown above), where the individual himself gives up the power to punish unto society when he enters it, except in self defense or war (Locke 16 -23) . Then balance with:
Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
"...The natural liberty of Men by entering into society is abridg'd or restrained so far only as is necessary for the Great end of Society the best good of the whole--
In the state of nature, every man is under God, Judge and sole Judge, of his own rights and the injuries done him: By entering into society, he agrees to an Arbiter or indifferent Judge between him and his neighbours;
but he no more renounces his original right, than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law,
and leaving the decision to Referees or indifferent Arbitrations. In the last case he must pay the Referees for time and trouble; he should be also willing to pay his Just quota for the support of government, the law and constitution; the end of which is to furnish indifferent and impartial Judges in all cases that may happen, whether civil ecclesiastical, marine or military.--
"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man; but only to have the >>>"law of nature" for his rule."--
In the "state of nature" ""men" may as the Patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their lives, liberty and property: ....."
See also again John Locke:
"For "no man" or "society of men" having a power to "deliver up" their "preservation", or consequently the "means of it", >>> to the absolute will and "arbitrary dominion of another" , whenever "any one" shall go about to bring them into such a "slavish >>> condition ", they will "always" have a "right" to "preserve"
what >>> they have >>> "not a power" to part with ,
and to >>>"rid" themselves of "those who invade" this fundamental, sacred, and unalterable law of self-preservation for which they entered into society."
30.) Universal "Right" By Historical Definition
Universal Right is not in modern varied interpretation, but based in historical definitions that oppose all forms and designs of slavery and defend Freedom as established by the Laws of Nature and of Laws that God entitles man. (Declaration of Independence opening paragraphs)
This is backed historical documentation, See 2007 News letter entitled The Fundamental Laws of Freedom and Liberty for further documents.
Inalienable Rights granted and defined by God and Nature are in fact inalienable.
This is the foundation of freedom.
Freedom and true liberty as historically defined, defines Political Right.
Slavery, in any form, tyrannical, social, dependent, conditional, voluntary, physical, financial, usury and other as historically defined, defines Political Left
Related Quotes:
James Madison
"...Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the
>>>"enterprises" of "ambition" ,
more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
All Social Collectives are correctly described as
"enterprises of ambition"
Whether private or government.
Below James Madison's Full Quote:
-----------------------
James Madison
who wrote the Constitution together the Bill of Rights:
"The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in "any" country
does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.
This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.
To "these"
would be
"opposed"
a
"militia"
amounting to near half a million
"citizens"
with arms
in their hands,
"officered by men
chosen from "among themselves",
fighting for "their" common liberties
and united and conducted by government"s" possessing
"their"
affections and confidence.
It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced
could ever be conquered by such a "proportion" of ""regular" troops.
Besides the "advantage" of "being armed",
it forms a barrier against the "enterprises" of "ambition",
more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms.
If they did,
the "people"
would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny,
as America "did".
Let us "not insult" the "free and gallant" "citizens" of America
with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the "rights"
of which they "would be" in "actual possession"
than the "debased subjects" of "arbitrary power" would be
to rescue theirs
from the hands of their oppressors."
-----------------------
Samuel Adams
American Patriot
1776
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We seek not your counsel,
nor your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity
forget that ye were our countrymen."
|
