What Does It Mean To Be A Libertarian (PART TWO)

Governments around the world proclaim that they govern by the consent of those that are governed. This is no less true in the United States than it is anywhere else. However, such declarations demand questions that are rarely if ever asked. Did you personally consent to your government? Do you know of any person that is currently living, whom actually and personally consented to your government? Because your great, great, great, great grandfather consented to the government, does that mean that he legally bound all future generations by his personal consent? Can a contract outlive the lives of its signatories?

I know that these questions may seem silly, but only because the answers are so obvious. Of course, your ancestors cannot bind you to a contract with the local store or the government or anybody else. Likewise, a contract dies with those that entered into the agreement. The government would have you believe though, that you are born into a contractual obligation with it. Simply because your ancestors consented to it at some point in the past. Not even all of your ancestors. Just some of them. You see, universal suffrage did not exist then. So your female ancestors had no voice. Black citizens were not recognized as such and so they had no voice either. Native Americans were not considered citizens. Americans, that did not own land had no vote and likewise they had no voice with which to consent. So those who consented, were landed, white, educated, gentry. A very small, fraction of a single percent of the population actually had a legally recognized voice with which to consent at all to ratification of the federal government by way of the United States Constitution.

What does the government mean then, when it claims that all citizens have consented to be governed by it? I believe that it only means that Americans have not kicked in the doors of the powers that be and demanded back the power ceded to the federal government by the states almost 240 years ago. In the United States, there have been plenty of opportunities, and there have been plenty of calls throughout the years to do just that. However, calmer voices prevailed, like Thomas Jefferson's voice. He spoke out against his state seceding from the union when the Federalists under President John Adams passed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. These laws made it a federal crime to say anything bad about the president or any member of the government except the vice president (Thomas Jefferson), whom the Federalists did not like. Many people were convicted and imprisoned by way of this law. But when calls arose for the states to secede over this horrific abuse of federal power, Jefferson said no, the time has not yet come to do something so drastic. Little did Jefferson realize that because of his hesitation, he would ensure that the states would never attempt secession until it was too late. In retrospect, it was the perfect time to create the precedent that the states were the sovereign powers of the United States and that the federal government was just an employee of the states. Thomas Jefferson later had the following to say of precedent...

"A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sin and suffering."

The federal government has never cared about the individual rights of the citizens of these United States. Not since our founding did it ever care about anything but providing for itself on the backs and by way of the hardships of good, decent, hard working Americans! We have one example after another to act as proof of that fact. From the Whiskey Excise Act, under President Washington and Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, which caused the Whiskey Rebellion, to Thomas Jefferson acting without Congress to make the Louisiana Purchase, to Thomas Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807, to Andrew Jacksons open defiance of the Supreme Court and the rights of the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muskogee Creek and Seminole Nations, to Abraham Lincoln's open defiance of the sovereignty of the states and his declaration of war with the southern states over tariffs and excise taxes. The list of presidential overreach and outright abuses of power are long and include practically every president that has ever served. 

Unfortunately, just as much damage has been done to the rights of states and citizens by the Supreme Court. A small number of available examples begins with Marbury v. Madison, which established that the federal government is the final judge of its own power; McCullough v. Maryland, established the primacy of the federal government over the states and established the concept of implied federal power; Dred Scott v. Sanford, established the principle that a class of human beings can be defined as non-persons because of an immutable characteristic of their birth; Wickard v. Filburn, which permits the Congress to regulate personal, private, and even trivial behavior; Korematsu v. United States, which permits the attribution of guilt and the infliction of punishment based on an immutable characteristic of birth; Roe v. Wade, which permits murder based on the age of the victim; and National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, which permits the Congress to tax any event or non-event it wishes. In fact, for one particularly damaging period of time (from a citizen's perspective) from 1937 to 1995, the United States Supreme Court did not rule against the federal government one single time. All of this to say that it was a terrible idea to have a body of the federal government sitting in judgment on disagreements between the states and the federal government!

The third component of the federal government has let us down more than the other two combined. I am of course, referring to the United States Congress. I think that I should devote an entire article about the degree to which the House of Representatives and the Legislature have used the Treasury and the law to subvert and undermine the United States Constitution. In effect, the Congress has committed every crime against our nation and our people as it is possible to commit.

So tune in next time for my discussion of the Congress in; Examples of Legal Plunder and Legal Murder by the United States Congress.

What Does It Mean To Be A Libertarian (PART ONE)

Have you ever had a conversation with somebody where they proclaim to be something, i.e., Christian, Republican, Democrat, etc., and then heard them say something else that was diametrically opposed to one of the basic tenets of the group they just associated themselves with? Examples of this would be somebody that identified themselves as Christian, only to then profess a belief that abortion is a good thing, or a necessary evil, or Democratic Party supporters railing against welfare or federal supremacy, or Republican Party supporters that profess a desire for more gun control or corporate regulations, or self-proclaimed Libertarians that support a militarized police state, or the war on drugs, or conscription. How is it that so many people can be so mistaken about what it means to be a member of the groups that they most want to be identified with? Perhaps it means that there is simply a lot of confusion about what it means to be a Christian or a conservative, or a liberal and most certainly about less than mainstream philosophies such as Libertarianism. But it could also mean that these various groups are trying to be all things to all people and are in the process of appeasement, losing what differentiates them.

The following link is to a video statement from the folks at Libertarianism.org

Exploring Liberty: An Introduction to Libertarian Thought (By: David Boaz)

The most fundamental explanation I can provide for Libertarianism is that “The government is the embodiment of the collective rights of the individual citizens it serves. As such, the government, whether it is local, state or federal in nature, cannot legitimately employ any rights, responsibilities or authority that is not also possessed by the individual.”

I have changed the size, and color of the words above because they are of such import to the basic understanding of what it truly means to be a libertarian, and it is such a game changing concept for those of you whom have only been exposed to the more traditional and mainstream statist philosophies of the Democratic and Republican parties, that it must stand out as completely different and as immensely important!

Governmental power and authority is not merely (supposed to be) constrained by the fact that it only has that authority which its citizens can rightfully bestow upon it. It is also (supposed to be) limited by the fact that its citizens have rights that predate government. Such rights are, depending on a citizen's perspective, a product of their humanity or a gift from their creator. We call these our 'Natural Rights', and governments have no legal authority to create laws that would attempt to minimize, limit, or to take away such rights. This is particularly true in the United States, where the U.S. Constitution specifically acknowledges our natural rights and attempts to protect them with the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. Our natural rights are universal and they are INALIENABLE. Which means that not only can our natural rights not be taken away, but we cannot give them away either!

The main question on my mind most of the time is; can government even exist without encroaching on my natural and constitutional rights, freedoms, and protections? I believe that 239 years of American government history has shown conclusively that it cannot. The government exists by taxing the citizenry. It cannot tax the citizenry without compromising our natural and constitutional rights. Our natural rights say that we own ourselves. That we are individually sovereign beings with the right to self-ownership, not just of ourselves, but of the product of our labors and of the property that we purchase with whatever accumulated wealth we are fortunate enough to have earned.

Income tax negates our right to self-ownership. Income tax openly makes slaves of us all to the state and federal governments that enact it. Declaring in no uncertain terms that the government has more of a right to the product of our labors than we do! Then going so far as to say that it must be paid what it considers to be its share of our earnings, plus 15% on average (an interest free loan from the citizen to the government), before we are allowed to even see one penny of our income. The reason is obvious. Our government does not want to give us the opportunity to make the personal decision about whether or not we want to give what the government demands by threat of force. What could the government do if it let you have all of your hard earned money and then for whatever reason, you and a significant portion of the society refused to give it away to the local, state, or federal governments? This is the reason that the IRS has demanded of employers that the government is paid before us. To prevent the possibility of a tax revolt that could damage or even topple the government.

The next most common tax is the property tax. This tax is every bit as destructive to our natural right to own property, as the income tax is to our natural right to own ourselves and the product of our own labor. The government that enacts a property tax is declaring openly that the government, not the people, is the only legitimate owner of any and all property within its borders. To illustrate this fact, we can look at what happens to the citizen holding a deed for the property they have worked and worried over, often for the majority of their lives. Even with that free and clear deed, the failure to pay the local and or state property taxes will see the state relieve that citizen of their property and sell it for taxes the state feels it is owed, to a different citizen who is in turn forced to pay taxes (rent in perpetuity) on the property they would otherwise truly own!

The argument from statists (In political science, Statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both) on both sides of the aisle in American politics, is that without a strong federal government taking our money and spending it as it desires on defense and infrastructure and on social programs, is that a strong military, police and fire departments, schools, good roads, sewage, social security, and Medicaid and many other systems and services that we enjoy and which improve the quality of our overall lives, would simply not exist. This argument is disingenuous at best. We won the war for independence with a well-organized militia, not a standing Army! Furthermore, roads and mills and lighthouses and railroads and much more existed before the state took them over. They were built and maintained by private businesses and industry. The only difference since the state involved itself in such infrastructure and services, is that the costs of such works have increased exponentially (along with the size and cost of government), and the quality and reliability of such infrastructure and services has decreased as a result.

I have said it before and I will say it as often as necessary until the message begins to sink in for the multitude of Americans that have been thoroughly indoctrinated into statist thinking by state run schools. The government, whether it is local, state or federal, is an 'Aggressively Predatory Parasite', and as such, it is akin to an "Indeterminate Growth Species"! It creates nothing, but it consumes more and more as it grows. It is aggressive in its pursuit of ever more resources from its host (the American people), and will use force whenever a citizen refuses to passively comply with the demands of any level of government. Be it local, state or federal! It is predatory in so far as it actively seeks out new streams of revenue to steal from the American people, and new services and projects it can use to justify its existence and further insinuate itself into the everyday lives of individual citizens. Government also displays indeterminate growth characteristics, in so far as government will grow to be as large as the citizenry allows it to. So long as there are more resources to be stolen, and the citizens are not at the gates of government with pitchforks and torches, government will continue to grow as large as available resources and public apathy allow it to! Government is predatory in its use of the law to continuously assume more and more power over our individual lives from before the womb to beyond the grave. Our current government is guilty of so many trespasses against the rights, liberties and property of the American people that it is hard to conclude that we actually have any rights left that are not merely an illusion allowed by the state to mollify and pacify the electorate.

I will end this first part of what it means to be a libertarian with something for you to think about until I can complete and publish the second part of what could become many parts. President Obama has declared that he and the upper echelons of federal power have the authority to assassinate Americans, without congressional oversight, by their sole discretion, and without due process.

The following link is to a video debate about this claim by the executive office. Please watch it and consider the arguments from opposite sides of the legal spectrum of logic and reason.

Welcome to the Vengeance Press!

The Vengeance Press is a labor of love. My love of objective and critical thinking about the most important issues of our age. The law is without a doubt one of the most crucial tools of society and statecraft ever devised. Laying down the rules by which human beings are to interact with one another. Protecting the rights of individuals and limiting the potential damage to the individual by governments, businesses, and other individuals is key to insuring the brightest, most promising future for us all.

Unfortunately, law, like any other construct of man, can, and often is perverted by the judicial and legislative bodies of local, state, and federal governments. I prescribe to Frédéric Bastiat's view of law. What it should be, and what it has become under the control of legislators the world over. To appreciate what I mean by this, you must read Bastiat's seminal work entitled: The Law. Below is a link to an audio version on YouTube.

The law is simultaneously the greatest hope for mankind, and the greatest threat to it. From the modern town council that establishes local ordinances to criminalize certain behaviors and activities of individuals and businesses alike. To the state and federal legislators that create regional and national laws. We the people are completely at the mercy of whatever it is those in such positions decide to pass into law. The point of the spear, where law is concerned, are the local and state police. These officers of the law take oaths such as the following one, which was provided by the International Association of Chiefs of Police;

On my honor,

I will never betray my badge,

my integrity, my character,

or the public trust.

I will always have

the courage to hold myself

and others accountable for our actions.

I will always uphold the constitution

my community and the agency I serve.

In and of itself, this is a fairly straightforward and reassuring oath. This oath provides the public with a particular image of the officer's role within their community. A role that honors and upholds the rights and protections guaranteed by the constitution and the bill of rights. A role in which the police officer understands that it is a community and not just an agency of the law that is being served.

Unfortunately, the role of the police officer in the community is one that creates an "us and them" view of the world. Where police officers come to see themselves as operating outside of normal society, or at least on the periphery. There are many reasons that law officers tend to adopt this perspective. Too many reasons for this single article to bring to light. Suffice it to say that when police officers are being scrutinized by the public they serve, the agencies they serve, the individuals whom they arrest and their lawyers, the courts and so on. When they are constantly confronted by the very worst acts of humanity, from murder, to rape, and thuggery and every other imaginable and unimaginable type of malicious behavior. It is easy to see why they would quickly adopt the attitude that they live and work outside of the society they are employed to protect, as that society can hardly appreciate, or even understand, the emotional rigors of their responsibilities.

It is a natural consequence of the horrors' experienced so often by law officers, that the line between right and wrong, where their personal conduct is concerned, can become blurred, if not vanish altogether. Add to this reality, the fact that they are pressured by their agencies and their peers to make arrests and to have a high percentage of those arrests result in convictions, and you have a recipe for the institutional disregard for individual rights and protections under the constitution that their oath demands they protect.

One very clear indication that law officers are not in any way conditioned or expected to consider the implications of the constitution where the laws they enforce are concerned, is that the law officer has one mandate that overrides all others. He is to enforce the laws as they exist, with no authority to use personal discretion in determining whether a law is constitutionally valid or not. This creates a circumstance where obviously unconstitutional laws such as those that unambiguously stifle free speech, or discriminate against minorities, or provide unequal protection of the law to certain groups or individuals in our society, must be enforced by the law officer, despite any ethical dilemmas that an officer may face.

The real meat of this issue is not the law enforcement officers though. As I stated earlier, they are simply the sharp end of the government's spear. Government is the problem. It has always been the problem! And government will continue to be the problem for good hearted, hard working, honest individuals the world over, until such a time as the people of the world, in their respective countries, realize that they do not need a government to protect their lives, their freedoms and their property from other individuals. If that is all that government did, protecting individual rights, freedoms and property, I would have little to take issue with. However, governments are inherently parasitical in nature. They create nothing, and they rarely if ever decrease in size, save when the individuals (hosts) they feed upon have become so weakened by the government's lust for evermore power, authority, and money, that the parasite is forced to shrink for lack of sustenance.

So this blog is about the law, those representatives that create and enforce the law, and the perversions and failures of the law in America and abroad that strike me as being particularly important to discuss.

I am honored that you have come to review my writings here, and hope you will also take the time to join in the discussion and leave your thoughts on what I have written. I do not intend in any way to change anybodies mind with what I write here. It is really more for my own benefit and that of my children. That they will be better able to understand me and my thoughts on what I consider the most important issues of my time.

Jared Matthew Sewell