Thursday, April 22, 2010

Lincoln hero or villain?

Many Tenth Amendment Resolutions have been passed by State legislators across the nation. These resolutions are non-binding in that they are not laws, just resolutions. The importance may be difficult for those of us who have been educated in the public school system to appreciate. The view that the States had the right, or power to nullify Federal Laws they view as unconstitutional, was a widely held belief. Thomas Jefferson's famous "Kentucky Resolution of 1798" was written in response to the "Alien & Sedition Act". This act imposed criminal penalties for criticizing government officials, and was a clear violation of the First Amendment.

The main idea is that the States created the Federal government for limited and clearly defined purposes. The first part of Jefferson's "Resolution" states:

"1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

State vs Federal power has been an ongoing debate in the history of this nation. In the USA of today most believe that the Federal Government always has the final word of what is Constitutional. But how did this happen? How did an ongoing battle over power just get laid to rest? Well most scholars will tell you something like "the states rights issue was settled at Appomattox." What they are saying in effect is "might makes right". But does it? To understand the issue facing the nation back in 1860 and for insight to the current 10th amendment movement lets look at the "Hero" honest Abe.

Take a look at Lincoln's words during his First Inaugural Address:

I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it
will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

That "will" is important as it is can be taken by the South as a direct threat of force.

His view of contract law may be correct but what of the use of force? If you contract to have a guy build you a house and he reneges on the terms, may you legally use force against him? You may sue and be entitled to the term of the original contract, maybe even damages, but can you go to his house and steal his property as payment? At best by the legal view presented by Lincoln he would have had to settle this contract dispute in court. Not by marching troops South.

He said this at the very beginning of the his speech

" Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
'Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.'"

I do not see a line that said: "Unless i feel there are folks who are in insurrection in which case i will burn, pillage, and rape the entire south."

Lincoln goes on to say this:

"Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism."

How is this view correct in light of the fact that the Union itself was formed through secession from the British?

Then in this same speech he says:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their
revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

(so much for his previous statement of "It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination")

Talk about a good word-smith lawyer politician....He ignores our history to suite his view of secession then plainly claims the people have the right to go into revolution and overthrow the Government!!!

So if they south wanted to overthrow the Union and create the Confederacy then Lincoln would be OK with that. if they wanted to create a separate nation then in Lincoln's view he had the duty to "put down the insurrection". But who would decide what acts were those of revolution which is a right Lincoln acknowledges, and those of insurrection? Would not a revolution by necessity, start as insurrection?

Lincoln's own Constitutional theories were contradictory. The south saw him (rightfully IMO) as just a lawyer who worked for the Rail Roads, that would continue the rape of the South by Northern industrialist. Here was a guy who was employed by the largest industry in the Country at that time. It would be similar if we had the leaders of the largest financial institutions elected to high positions of power and then they told us how they only needed to hurt us for the "good of the country" (wait a min, i think that is exactly what is happening!!! DOH!!).

The South had already started seceding at the time of this speech. Jefferson Davis had already been elected the President of the Confederacy. knowing that re-read this:

"I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary."

In what manner could his "rightful masters" show authority to direct him to the contrary? The North wanted no part of a war. The Norths reaction to subscription proves as much. The South was in the process of "altering or abolishing their ties to the Federal Government and laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such a form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness". Based on these facts, what more could the "masters" do?

It is also interesting that Lincoln used the analogy of a husband and wife when referring to the Union. he said:

"A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this."

Well lets for a second take a look at the analogy in reverse. A union by definition is voluntary.

If a women decided to get a divorce and the husband refused to allow that, would they still be in a Union? Can a union exist when held together by force?

Lincoln changed this nation in one HUGE way, and it was not the "freeing" of the slaves. He established a precedent that no State could exercise independence without the Federal Governments approval. "The states rights issue was settled at Appomattox.", but prior to the "War of Northern Aggression" (AKA Civil War) States often nullified what they felt were unconstitutional Laws, now we have a system where all Federal power is considered "above" state authority. This has directly lead to our republic becoming an Empire that claims to be a democracy.

Now there are some out there who will tell you that States rights are nothing more then a way for racist to enact Jim Crow laws. Look into history to see if they are correct. You may find that that view is selective history. There is no disputing the fact that proponents of Jim Crow claimed states rights/ Nullification. It was also used to by certain States to nullify the "Fugitive Slave Act". Some of the most vocal abolitionist supported States rights and nullification.

Lincoln said this in that same Inaugural Address:

"I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional."

Compare that with Jefferson's resolution.

The founders feared centralized power above all else. The idea that the States would be independent was put in place to prevent the centralizing of power. The Civil War combined with the direct election of State Senators firmly established the States as nothing more the satellites of the Federal Government. If the Federal government is allowed to determine the lengths of their power we do not have a limited Constitutional Republic as our founders intended. Today's renewed interest in States Rights is a good sign. If we ever want to return to a limited Government who's sole concern is protecting the rights of individuals we must rediscover our history.

-J. Avitabile

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Counter-terrorism team launches in Westchester NY

Taken from the North County News

WHITE PLAINS — Westchester County residents and visitors may notice some unusual police activity in the southern part of the county this evening, Sept. 29, as police for the first time deploy a highly visible Hercules Team as part of ongoing counterterrorism initiatives in Westchester.

The decision to use Hercules Teams in Westchester was not made in response to any specific terrorist threat. It is a new initiative of Counterterrorism Zone 3, which includes all police departments in Westchester, and has been planned for some time, according to Kieran O’Leary, spokesman for the Westchester County Department of Public Safety.

The chairman of Counter-terrorism Zone 3 is Chief Louis Alagno, of the Mount Pleasant Police Department.

Comprised of specially trained and heavily armed police officers, the Hercules Team will begin paying unannounced visits in the weeks and months ahead to a range of locations in Westchester from transportation hubs to busy shopping areas. The goal of the Hercules Team is to provide an additional, and unpredictable, layer of security to key locations in Westchester where people congregate.

A Hercules Team comprised of officers from the Mount Vernon Police Department, the Yonkers Police Department and the Westchester County Department of Public Safety will visit a number of different locations this evening.

“People should not be alarmed when they see the Hercules Team tonight or at any point in the future,” County Executive Andy Spano said. “These officers are being deployed as part of an overall strategy to deter those who would do us harm. It is one more way that law enforcement in Westchester is working to keep our communities safe.”

Good thing they are "Heavily Armed" to deal with the terrorist ground offensive that threatens our individual liberty so much...

Friday, September 18, 2009

Open Letter To Jacob G. Hornberger

Recently I read this article on a favorite website. I respect the author very much and wanted to reply to his piece. So I sent him this email:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your article posted today at I found it very informative. I hope you are able to take a few minutes to read this email. I am not expert on the attacks of 9/11, and fully agree that our foreign policy produces significant “blowback”. I hope your comments on the evidence are open to discussion. I am not attempting to convince you of anything. Your comments though, seem to indicate that the official story is the most plausible to you, or rather that the “truthers” are unable to "make their case”.

“…simply isn’t convinced by the evidence that the Truthers have produced to make their case. Personally, this is the category I fall into. “

I too felt the same way as you for years. That is until I asked some simple questions about the event. A detailed article explaining why the evidence you have seen is not convincing would be helpful to others like me. In my opinion the evidence to support the official story is the thinnest of all. There is no one that can fully explain how WTC 7 collapsed at freefall speeds into its own footprint towards the path of most resistance. The 9/11 commission ignored the topic all together. AT this point 6 out of 10 commission members have publicly stated that the commission was lied to and mislead by NORAD, the Pentagon, and the White House. Those who understand Operation Northwoods, have already crossed one of the most important roadblocks to truth, that is the idea that our own government could do such a thing.

Fear of being labeled a “truther” is large hurdle for most to jump. Over the years 9/11 “truthers” have been labeled “kooks” and “nut jobs” by the main stream media. You may recall a certain Congressmen who ran for the Republican nomination in 2008 that was also referred to as a “kook”. This constant reference to people who have questioned the official story has worked well to convinced the general public to ignore the issue, less they be called a “kook”. But the evidence exists, parts of which seem to be irrefutable.

Our Government and our World took a turn for the worst as a result of that day’s events. It is a fact that most of the legislation like the US PATRIOT ACT was drafted years prior to 9/11, and only able to pass into law because of the events of that day. It was used as an excuse to invade two countries. Over a Million lives have been lost as a result. Based on these facts, do you not think that a thorough review of 9/11 is a good idea?

I respect your opinion greatly, as you are responsible for waking me up to the ideas of liberty. Your voice is needed to help wake up others. To dismiss “truthers” without explanation, to even refer to those who do not trust the governments story as ”truthers”, is a way to stifle open debate and further strengthens the “official” story. Even if that is not your intent, that is the result. If someone claimed that the Keynesians’ economic theories are correct regarding the Great Depression, folks like you would want more information to back up such a statement. Why is 9/11 any different? There is a mountain of evidence available to those willing to look. Short sales on airline stock, inconsistent NORAD response times, burn temperatures, changes to standard shoot down procedures, eyewitness testimonies, peer reviewed papers, and on and on. The “coincidences” that had to happen to allow the official story to be true are overwhelming.

The political price of becoming a “truther” is more burdensome than excepting the official story. If “truthers” are “conspiracy theorist” then those who believe the official story are “coincidence theorist”. In the end the truth will be known. I wish I could dismiss “truthers” as easily as you, then too I wish more people could dismiss Keynesian economics as they do “truthers”! Thank you for your time. Looking forward to your response.


For those interested in 9/11 I suggest doing a little questioning. I started with "these people who think 9/11 is an inside job are crazy, and I bet I can prove it!"

Jeff Avitabile

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

The Essence of Government

by Doug Casey

The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitable he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is apt to spread discontent among those who are.

~ H.L. Mencken

I give a good number of speeches each year. For some time I’ve asked audiences a question: "What useful purpose does the US government serve?" I do that not to be challenging or provocative, but to actually find out if anyone else can think of a useful purpose the government serves. The question at fist shocks, then amuses and then perplexes almost everyone because it is both so obvious and outrageous that no one ever thinks of asking it. Most people accept the institution of government because it has always been there; they have always assumed it was essential. People do not question its existence, much less its right to exist.

Government sponsors untold waste, criminality and inequality in every sphere of life it touches, giving little or nothing in return. Its contributions to the commonweal are wars, pogroms, confiscations, persecutions, taxation, regulation and inflation. And it’s not just some governments of which that’s true, although some are clearly much worse than others. It’s an inherent characteristic of all government.

The essence of something is what makes the thing what it is. But surprisingly little study of government has been done by ontologists (who study the first principles of things) or epistemologists (who study the nature of human knowledge). The study of government almost never concerns itself with whether government should be, but only with how and what it should be. The existence of government is accepted without question.

What is the essence of government? After you cut through all the rhetoric, the doublethink and the smokescreen of altruism that surround the subject, you find that the essence of government is force. And the belief it has the right to initiate the use of force whenever expedient. Government is an organization with a monopoly, albeit with some fringe competition, on the use of force within a given territory. As Mao Zedong said, "The power of government comes out of the barrel of a gun." There is no voluntarism about obeying laws. The consent of a majority of the governed may help a government put a nice face on things, but it is not essential and is, in fact, given with any enthusiasm.

A person’s attitude about government offers an excellent insight into their character. Political beliefs reflect how a person thinks men should relate to one another; they offer a practical insight into how he views humanity at large and himself in particular.

There are only two ways people can relate in any given situation; voluntarily or coercively. Almost everyone, except overt sociopaths, pays at least lip service to the idea of voluntarism, but government is viewed as somehow exempt. It’s widely believed that a group has prerogatives and rights unavailable to individuals. But if that is true, then the Ku Klux Klan, the Irish Republican Army, the PLO – or, for that matter, any group from a lynch mob to a government – all have rights that individuals do not. In fact, all these groups believe they have a right to initiate the use of force when they find it expedient. To the extent that they can get away with it, they all act like governments.

Terrorists, Mobs and Governments

You might object that the important difference between the KKK, IRA, PLO or a simple mob and a government is that they aren’t "official" or "legal." Apart from common law concepts, legality is arbitrary. Once you leave the ken of common law, the only distinction between the "laws" of governments and the ad hoc proceedings of an informal assemblage such as a mob, or of a more formal group like the KKK, boils down to the force the group can muster to impose its will on others. The laws of Nazi Germany and the USSR are now widely recognized as criminal fantasies that gained reality on a grand scale. But at the time those regimes had power, they were treated with the respect granted to any legal system. Governments become legal or official by gaining power. The fact that every government was founded on gross illegalities – war or revolt – against its predecessor is rarely an issue.

Force is the essence of government. But the possession of a monopoly on force almost inevitably requires a territory, and maintaining control of territory is considered the test of a "successful" government. Would any "terrorist" organization be more "legitimate" if it had its own country? Absolutely. Would it be any less vicious or predatory by that fact? No, just as most governments today (the ex-Communist countries and the kleptocracies of the Third World being the best examples), demonstrate. Governments can be much more dangerous than the mobs that give them birth. The Jacobin regime of the French Revolution is a prime example.

Is the State Necessary?

The violent and corrupt nature of government is widely acknowledged by almost everyone. That’s been true since time immemorial, as have political satire and grousing about politicians. Yet almost everyone turns a blind eye; most not only put up with it, but actively support the charade. That’s because although many may believe government to be an evil, they believe it is a necessary evil. (The larger question of whether anything that is evil is necessary, or whether anything that is necessary can be evil, is worth discussing – perhaps in another forum.)

What, arguably, makes government necessary is the need for protection from other, even more dangerous, governments. I believe a case can be made that modern technology obviates this function.

One of the most perversely misleading myths about government is that it promotes order within its own bailiwick, keeps groups from constantly warring with each other and somehow creates togetherness and harmony. In fact, that’s the exact opposite of the truth. There’s no cosmic imperative for different people to rise up against one another – unless they’re organized into political groups. The Middle East, now the world’s most fertile breeding ground for hatred, provides an excellent example.

continue reading

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Chuck Norris is Getting it!

Back in March of this year the pro-wrestler Glenn Jacobs (A.K.A. "Kane") wrote An Open Letter To Chuck Norris where he asked Chuck to abandon his support for the Fair Tax and instead support the End The Fed movement. Yesterday, Chuck posted an article on WorldNetDaily called "A Force of One: the Federal Reserve".

After reading Chuck's article, it is clear that he no longer will be pushing for a "Fair Tax". The Banksters should know Chuck Norris is not one to be taken lightly. They say under that beard is another fist, waiting to strike!!!

I don't know if it was Glenn Jacob's letter that pushed Norris to learn more about the Federal Reserve, but it is nice that we have another patriot on our side.

-J. Avitabile

Monday, July 6, 2009

Sleep easy

So I wake up this morning to read that Obama and Medveded have agreed to a path to an arms deal. about relief. I am so angry I cant even make jokes. The Russians? We are wasting time talking to the Russians about decreasing the amount of arms we both have. What the fuck is wrong with this world. We have the worst economic collapse in the history of the world going on right now, there are 2 active wars we are fighting, plus the global war on terror. Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power, North Korea is shooting of missles like its the home run celebration at the new Yankee Stadium and our fearless leader is in Moscow talking to the Russians about Nuclear Arms Proliferation? Did I miss something? I thought that problem went away about 20 years ago. Next you will hear Obama call for the Berlin Wall to come down. I mean come on. Quit wasting our time and get something done.

Now that I think about it, this is a great policy, maybe his best. After all it is the only thing he has done that hasnt cost the taxpayers 100s of billions of dollars. So maybe I was too quick to judge. Good job Barak. Thanks for doing something that wont either bankrupt us or devalue the American dollar.


Thursday, July 2, 2009

Life, Liberty, and Property Are Inseparable

Written by Tom Mullen

The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence.

- John Locke[1]

Life, liberty, and property were the central, inalienable rights that formed the foundation of the great experiment in self government called the United States of America. The founders of our country never broke apart this sacred triumvirate, because each one of these rights is inextricably bound to the other. No one of these three can exist without the other. Moreover, when all three are secured, it is almost impossible for injustice to exist. Wherever one does find injustice, one invariably finds a violation of one of these three basic rights at its root.

While it is certainly true that today the rights to life and liberty are grossly violated in innumerable ways, they are nevertheless at least spoken of by our politicians. However hypocritically, they at least say that they value life and liberty, even as they pervert those sacred rights as justification for their wars and plunder.

Yet, they never even hypocritically evoke the right to property. No journalist ever challenges them based upon it, and honestly, most average Americans don’t talk about it either. As a principle, property has vanished from our consciousness. However, as all of the great philosophers throughout history have understood, there is no right to life or liberty without property. In fact, property is part and parcel of life itself.

What is property? It is that which an individual rightfully owns. Included among every human being’s property are his mind, his body, his conscience, and his actions. Every act of mind and body undeniably belongs to the actor, including that act which he engages in more than any other: his labor. To deny someone’s right to ownership of his mind, body, or labor is to make him a slave.

It is labor that allows each individual to sustain his existence and pursue his happiness. All consumption must be preceded by production. Production can only be achieved through human labor. In fact, there is no way for an individual to pursue any goal, whether material, intellectual, or spiritual, without exertion. Even the search for God requires an intellectual and spiritual effort – it cannot commence without labor.

For most of us, the bulk of our labor is devoted to providing the basic necessities of life for ourselves and our children. Some portion of it also provides the extras – the toys, the vacations, or the dining out that enriches our lives and adds to our happiness. A further portion is devoted to study, prayer, or just simple reflection – the quest for meaning and purpose in our lives. None of these things are possible without labor; our labor provides them all. Every item in every store is the product of someone’s labor. Every phone call you make is made possible by someone’s labor. Healthcare is someone’s labor, as is education.

However, the actual effort of mind and body is not the most precious aspect of labor. If human beings were immortal, we could afford to spend our labor and its fruits indiscriminately, consuming as much as we wished and providing anything to anyone who asked it of us. If a shoemaker were able to make shoes for the rest of eternity, then certainly there would not be a bare foot on the face of the earth. If the land developer were immortal, we would all live in a mansion.

However, we are not immortal, and it is this fact that places such a premium on our labor. Our labor is not just composed of the exertion of mind and body that is necessary to produce some good or service. That exertion happens over time, the hours or days of the laborer’s life. Every hour of our labor is an hour of our life from a limited supply which cannot be replenished. Whatever we have produced with our labor now contains that portion of our life which we have sacrificed to produce it.

So, when human beings trade their goods or services with one another, they are really trading pieces of their lives. If they have exchanged their labor for money with an employer or customer, that money now contains some part of their lives – a part that can never be reclaimed. That is why the same verb is used for both money and time – both are “spent” in exchange for some benefit. Both also represent each individual’s means of self determination.

Therefore, it is impossible to call a person free if he does not own his labor and all the product of his labor. It is only through his labor that he can provide better food, clothing and shelter for himself and his family, send his children to better schools, or realize the leisure time necessary to grow intellectually and spiritually. His labor is his means to determine the course of his life. Without self determination, there is no liberty.

Furthermore, to deny a human being ownership of his labor is also to deny his right to life itself. Since his labor is his means of sustaining his existence, once his right to ownership of his labor is denied he lives only at the arbitrary whim of whoever has claimed ownership of it. For such a person, life is now a privilege granted by someone else, rather than a right.

To the founders of the United States of America, all of this was self evident. When one reads the writings of Samuel and John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, or Locke, one finds one word that is used many times more often even than liberty: property. Recognizing property as nothing more than the individual’s labor and/or the product of his labor, the founders placed the protection of property as the very highest priority of government. In fact, they often stated that it was the only priority of government. While no high school history book or Hollywood biopic even hints at this fact, merely reading the words of the founders for oneself puts any debate on this point to rest.

Let us apply this concept to a contemporary issue. The unambiguous statements in the Declaration of Independence that all human beings have unalienable rights and that government’s sole purpose is to secure them should absolutely beg at least one timely question from most Americans today. Why did the founders not provide for the right to health care? Why did they not establish Medicare or Medicaid? Given a whole system of government whose purpose was to secure individual rights, why was this right so glaringly overlooked?

Of course, the answer to that question is that the founders recognized that health care was not a right. Health care, like every other good or service, is someone’s labor. No one but the laborer can have a right to it. To say that people have a right to health care is really to deny the health care provider a right to his own life, for it is impossible for both he and his patient to have a right to ownership of his labor. It is no less a crime to forcefully rob the health care provider’s fee from a third party (the taxpayer), for that simply denies the taxpayer’s right to his own life. In either case – whether the health care provider is forced to treat the patient for free or a third party is forced to pay the bill – someone’s labor, some part of someone’s life, is being stolen from him. This is the specific crime that government exists to defend its citizens against. By instead committing this crime, government becomes the most grotesque absurdity imaginable.

This is not to imply that we are at some sort of crossroads because President Obama and his pet Congress are closing in on expanding government healthcare. We came to that crossroads decades ago and quite undeniably took the wrong road. Until our philosophy changes and we recognize that retirement benefits, health care, research grants, corporate subsidies, investment in alternative energy – all money, goods, and services – are really pieces of someone’s life that cannot be seized from them without their consent (not even by majority vote), we will never restore the liberty that we have lost. Instead, we will continue to be the most pitiable form of slave, not bound to one master, but to everyone.

When a fellow human being offers to buy your product or hire you for your services, he has paid you the highest compliment imaginable. That person has offered a piece of his life to you in exchange for something that you have to offer, which is itself a piece of your own life. He is saying that you have value and that what you offer is worth hours or days of his life that he can never reclaim. This consensual interaction between free people is the most beautiful aspect of civil society and has been responsible for every improvement in the quality of human life that has ever occurred throughout history.

Conversely, when a fellow human being points a gun at you and demands that you provide him with some good or service, he commits the most egregious crime imaginable, short of pulling the trigger and ending your life at that moment. For in reality, he is really stealing a piece of your life that you can likewise never reclaim. He may be committing this crime because he wishes to increase his wealth without earning it, or he may desperately needwhatever he takes from you, but it is the same crime nonetheless. This interaction is the most evil aspect of civil society and has been responsible for every war and human misery that has ever occurred throughout history.

Government can only be organized to fulfill one of two purposes: to protect your property or to take it from you - for whatever purpose government or its constituents deem fit. There is no third choice. To organize society around competing groups stealing from one another is to create a society whose citizens exist in a perpetual state of war with one another – for the use of force to obtain another’s property without his consent is the definition of the state of war.

Such a society cannot endure indefinitely. Ours has come to the beginning of its inevitable end. Countless empires throughout history – some much more preeminent in their worlds than we are in ours – have disintegrated for exactly the same reason. We can still choose justice over injustice but our philosophy must change. We must again institute a government that secures our rights, rather than annihilates them in the attempt to provide us with the property of others.

This will not happen by any act of government itself. Whether we elect a liberal or a conservative, we will never achieve different results by continually electing different people or parties but asking them to do the same thing – provide us with the property of others. It must be the people who change their philosophy and then demand that government assume its appropriate role according to that philosophy. Our government ultimately gives us what we ask for. For the past century, we have increasingly asked it to make us slaves, seduced by the siren’s song of comfort and security without responsibility. This can only be provided to each of us at another’s expense and can only be provided to others at ours. Once we reject the idea that we can claim a right to another human being’s life, the chains that bind us will be broken. Then, it will matter not who makes our laws.

Check out Tom Mullen’s new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!

[1] Locke, John Second Treatise of Government Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Indianapolis, IN (1980) Pg. 111

Thank you Tom for permission to re-post your work here.