The Declaration of Independence
Rights, Revolt, and Entitlement
Rights, Revolt, and Entitlement
During the early part of 1776, a young thirty-three year old man was commissioned to articulate the ideas of Liberty, of Rights, and the justification for revolt against the prevailing system of Government. The first element of his justification for revolt—the declaring of Independence for all oppressed persons –was cited as Entitlement granted by “Nature’s God.” Implied in that declaration is the idea that all oppressed persons share in the conception of “Nature’s God”, whoever or whatever that is. It is also asserted that the Laws of Nature have jurisdiction, being the expression of “Nature’s God.”
Eh? What manner of thinking is this? Predicate one’s entitlement to make or break political bonds with others upon a nebulous and ill-defined idea of a Creator? Upon the ill-defined and poorly understood Laws of Nature? Nearly three hundred years later, Man is still discovering what the “Laws of Nature” consist of. That endeavor is broadly termed, Physics. Underscoring this entire perspective of a common conception of a Creator and his or its granting of Entitlement is the idea that government, the exercise of authority to control the behavior of others derives from God who extended that authority to Men. That God ever did such a thing at all is only discovered in antiquity, and upon inspection of its origin, we learn that such a God was actually “human” after all. The entire matter is contained in the Sumerian Tablets recording the Creation, or rather, the reconstruction of civilization after the destruction of Man and Beast and Vegetation from the Flood era. It is highly probable that the Crown of England and his sycophants guffawed loudly at the sight of such a poorly reasoned justification for political independence.
Under their collective prominent probiscii were a people who had regulated their social affairs for thousands of years upon a simple declaration: No man has the Right to demand of another what he shall do. There is no right granted to anyone, no entitlement, permitting anyone to regulate, control, or impede the actions or the speech of another person. All persons are sovereign over themselves, and none other. They also further defined such sovereignty to extend to a person’s life, and his property. No person was ever granted the right to take away another person’s life, nor could they covet the property of another without agreeable and just compensation. Life, Liberty, Property. What then, is the cause of political association of persons?
To these ancient peoples, the answer was obvious. Political association to intervene in the affairs of others is only justified in the case of common defense against the aggression of others that violate these three axioms. Such association is preventative. Violators who could not self-regulate their behavior were expelled from sociality by the group. This concept of association for common defense was further articulated by a French economist about 50 years later:
Rights
What is a right? Webster has numerous entries, but here the subject is political right, which is derived from personal right. The idea is based on the notion that humans are autonomous beings who are sovereign over their own person, freedom to act, and control of their possessions. Jefferson however, implies that Political Right derives from a Creator. Such a definition requires the intervention of that Creator whenever sovereignty of one’s person, property, and actions are constrained by another. Every serious student of history knows there is not one instance of God intervening in the individual or collective aggression of persons against each other. Jefferson however, infers that when God created Man, sovereignty was given to him and he was thus empowered to be his own agent for their defense. The same concept was outlined by Frédéric Bastiat in his essays comprised in the book, The Law. This is a concept refuted by the 200 Elite families who have accumulated the world’s wealth and seek to manage human affairs as superior stewards.
Jefferson went further by declaring such Rights as inalienable. They could not be taken away. Yet he, and all his contemporaries, could not recognize that if Rights are inalienable, then the delegation of them unto the preservation of them by a representative government is inimical to them. Any system of government predicated on the idea of collective representation of individual interests inherently destroys Life, Liberty, and personal Property. It is inevitable because the individual and the representative have conflicts of interests.
In Jefferson’s original Declaration editions, he did not specify Pursuit of Happiness, but Property. Herein is another of the great fallacies introduced by the Founders—that Government, instituted to secure these Rights, can secure a person’s pursuit of Happiness. Happiness has little to do with Life and Liberty or Property. Happiness is an attitude. Its pursuit is an internal matter, having little to do with social regulation. While happiness can be diminished by the collective actions of others, the collective actions of others cannot effect happiness. Government, whether for Evil or Good, cannot secure Happiness. It can only diminish it. The only thing an organization of people can do is prevent/punish aggression and protect thereby Life, Liberty, and Property. People are MOST secure when they have no fear of aggression, not in its confrontation.This is where Jefferson and his contemporaries erred in the context of government. Government cannot secure Rights, as they are defined as self-existent, inherent within an autonomous being. Government can only infringe upon Rights, by forcing the invalidation of some to the benefit of others. For over a century, the New England Puritans sought to regulate by government the behavior of the colonists (A History of Matrimonial Institutions v2, George Howard), until at length there were enough inhabitants fed up with it to attempt restructuring the form and function of government to lie outside their Puritanical grasp. It was a grand and worthy effort, but it failed immediately when put into operation.
Within the context of representative government, James Madison deliberated extensively his argument that the will of the majority could be balanced against the will of minorities. Such rationalizations are absurd in the face of the preservation of Life, Liberty, and Property. Such thinking is an attempt to put mob rule in opposition to mob rule, regardless of numbers. Time has demonstrated what a rational thinker recognizes. It does not work. Collective mentality has never been known to be synergistic. This aspect of human behavior is well described in Elias Canetti’s Crowds and Power.
Equality
Jefferson also declared that it is self-evident than all men are created equal. NO, they are not. No two men are equal in form, nor equal in capability and skill. So also is it with women. Men and women are NOT equal. Each has their own physical constitution and form. Each has different capabilities that science has demonstrated diverge at the onset of sexual differentiation in the womb. Men and women perceive the world differently, value life differently, feel and think differently, use language differently, and emote their feelings differently. In a world where diversity has become an element of law (for it is the lack thereof in human relations that they came into being), it is great irony that so many people insist on uniformity between the sexes. That confusion has risen to such great proportions that men are now artificially cultivating female traits into their physical bodies, and want to call it a new “gender.” Females are striving to emulate the illusion of male aggression and physical power, to the extent they also artificially modify their bodies to take on male characteristics. Neither, failing attraction to the other, are finding felicity in traditional male-female diversity. They each seek to incorporate those traits of the other sex into their own bodies and behavior, believing that males and females have both qualities. Learned responses can never substitute physical traits governed by genetic encoding.
What was behind the idea of Man being created equal had to do with being treated equally before the Law. This erroneous concept of human equality was exposed for the fallacy it is by Alexis deToqueville in the early 1800s when he published his Democracy in America. He reasoned and prognosticated correctly, that idea of total Equality between persons would be the cause of the government and social collapse of America. The great experiment in self-government would fail.
Government
Government, as defined, is a system of ruling, an exercise of authority, whether it be a state, a district, an institution, or an organization. It is the collective force of appointed representatives in Democracy, or the collective force of an oligarchy invested into Law.
Such is the purpose of Norman/Anglo-Saxon government—to exercise authority by law over the actions of men. It has its roots in the plundering of conquered peoples, for the express purpose of instituting a Feudalist system between rulers and the militarily impotent. The concept that some are better endowed, more intelligent, of purer genetic descent, which justifies their exercise of authority over men considered of lesser ability by hubris is as old as the earliest mythology of antediluvian times. In such circumstances it makes not the least difference in terms of justice, whether the plundered people consent to it or not. It is astonishing to me to observe in this late date of human existence that no two neighbors would consent to be plundered one by the other to their faces. Yet they will go to the polls at every election cycle and consent to massive plundering of each other through taxes, market regulation, behavioral regulation, tariffs, and the enlargement of government duties toward the same, by the misappropriation of law. They consent to lawful plundering of their neighbors behind their backs, and suppose it to be justice. To resist is to invite further plundering and the ultimate threats of poverty, incarceration, or death.
It must be observed in summation that Liberty does not need government to exist. Life does not need government to survive. Property does not need government for man to possess it. Government can only effect one thing beyond the protection of their innate existence: destroy them.
To carry out the nefarious subjugation of Man by the few, two systems of government have been invented: the twins, Feudalism and Socialism. In both instances, Man is no longer an autonomous being. The power to determine one’s own destiny and the expectation of felicity therein is usurped, suppressed, and frequently punished. Any attempt to restructure the prevailing manifestations of these two under the names of “Republic,” “Democracy,” Monarchy, Oligarchy, or Dictatorship is doomed to fail, for they each and all have been tried. They have all failed because Man cannot resist regulating the affairs of others rather than attending to his own, and will seek every advantage to live a life of ease through plundering his neighbor.
Of the few worthy statements made by Edmund Burke, that pseudo-Libertarian, it was these:
The question remains to be decided: Who are the Knaves, and who are the Wise?
Coming soon: Part Duh, The Federal Constitution
SethSmee
REFERENCES
Crowds and Power, Elias Canetti
A History of Matrimonial Institutions, 3 vols, George Howard
The New Nation, Merrill Jensen
On Power, Bertrand de Jouvenel
E Pluribus Unum, Forrest McDonald
Novus Ordo Seclorum, Forrest McDonald
We the People, Forrest McDonald
The Writings of Thomas Paine, 4 vols.
Our Enemy the State, Albert Nock
No Treason, Lysander Spooner
The Law, Frédéric Bastiat
Eh? What manner of thinking is this? Predicate one’s entitlement to make or break political bonds with others upon a nebulous and ill-defined idea of a Creator? Upon the ill-defined and poorly understood Laws of Nature? Nearly three hundred years later, Man is still discovering what the “Laws of Nature” consist of. That endeavor is broadly termed, Physics. Underscoring this entire perspective of a common conception of a Creator and his or its granting of Entitlement is the idea that government, the exercise of authority to control the behavior of others derives from God who extended that authority to Men. That God ever did such a thing at all is only discovered in antiquity, and upon inspection of its origin, we learn that such a God was actually “human” after all. The entire matter is contained in the Sumerian Tablets recording the Creation, or rather, the reconstruction of civilization after the destruction of Man and Beast and Vegetation from the Flood era. It is highly probable that the Crown of England and his sycophants guffawed loudly at the sight of such a poorly reasoned justification for political independence.
Under their collective prominent probiscii were a people who had regulated their social affairs for thousands of years upon a simple declaration: No man has the Right to demand of another what he shall do. There is no right granted to anyone, no entitlement, permitting anyone to regulate, control, or impede the actions or the speech of another person. All persons are sovereign over themselves, and none other. They also further defined such sovereignty to extend to a person’s life, and his property. No person was ever granted the right to take away another person’s life, nor could they covet the property of another without agreeable and just compensation. Life, Liberty, Property. What then, is the cause of political association of persons?
To these ancient peoples, the answer was obvious. Political association to intervene in the affairs of others is only justified in the case of common defense against the aggression of others that violate these three axioms. Such association is preventative. Violators who could not self-regulate their behavior were expelled from sociality by the group. This concept of association for common defense was further articulated by a French economist about 50 years later:
“If every person has the right to defend--even by force-his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right-its reason for existing, its lawfulness-is based on individual right.” p2 The Law
Rights
What is a right? Webster has numerous entries, but here the subject is political right, which is derived from personal right. The idea is based on the notion that humans are autonomous beings who are sovereign over their own person, freedom to act, and control of their possessions. Jefferson however, implies that Political Right derives from a Creator. Such a definition requires the intervention of that Creator whenever sovereignty of one’s person, property, and actions are constrained by another. Every serious student of history knows there is not one instance of God intervening in the individual or collective aggression of persons against each other. Jefferson however, infers that when God created Man, sovereignty was given to him and he was thus empowered to be his own agent for their defense. The same concept was outlined by Frédéric Bastiat in his essays comprised in the book, The Law. This is a concept refuted by the 200 Elite families who have accumulated the world’s wealth and seek to manage human affairs as superior stewards.
Jefferson went further by declaring such Rights as inalienable. They could not be taken away. Yet he, and all his contemporaries, could not recognize that if Rights are inalienable, then the delegation of them unto the preservation of them by a representative government is inimical to them. Any system of government predicated on the idea of collective representation of individual interests inherently destroys Life, Liberty, and personal Property. It is inevitable because the individual and the representative have conflicts of interests.
In Jefferson’s original Declaration editions, he did not specify Pursuit of Happiness, but Property. Herein is another of the great fallacies introduced by the Founders—that Government, instituted to secure these Rights, can secure a person’s pursuit of Happiness. Happiness has little to do with Life and Liberty or Property. Happiness is an attitude. Its pursuit is an internal matter, having little to do with social regulation. While happiness can be diminished by the collective actions of others, the collective actions of others cannot effect happiness. Government, whether for Evil or Good, cannot secure Happiness. It can only diminish it. The only thing an organization of people can do is prevent/punish aggression and protect thereby Life, Liberty, and Property. People are MOST secure when they have no fear of aggression, not in its confrontation.This is where Jefferson and his contemporaries erred in the context of government. Government cannot secure Rights, as they are defined as self-existent, inherent within an autonomous being. Government can only infringe upon Rights, by forcing the invalidation of some to the benefit of others. For over a century, the New England Puritans sought to regulate by government the behavior of the colonists (A History of Matrimonial Institutions v2, George Howard), until at length there were enough inhabitants fed up with it to attempt restructuring the form and function of government to lie outside their Puritanical grasp. It was a grand and worthy effort, but it failed immediately when put into operation.
Within the context of representative government, James Madison deliberated extensively his argument that the will of the majority could be balanced against the will of minorities. Such rationalizations are absurd in the face of the preservation of Life, Liberty, and Property. Such thinking is an attempt to put mob rule in opposition to mob rule, regardless of numbers. Time has demonstrated what a rational thinker recognizes. It does not work. Collective mentality has never been known to be synergistic. This aspect of human behavior is well described in Elias Canetti’s Crowds and Power.
Equality
Jefferson also declared that it is self-evident than all men are created equal. NO, they are not. No two men are equal in form, nor equal in capability and skill. So also is it with women. Men and women are NOT equal. Each has their own physical constitution and form. Each has different capabilities that science has demonstrated diverge at the onset of sexual differentiation in the womb. Men and women perceive the world differently, value life differently, feel and think differently, use language differently, and emote their feelings differently. In a world where diversity has become an element of law (for it is the lack thereof in human relations that they came into being), it is great irony that so many people insist on uniformity between the sexes. That confusion has risen to such great proportions that men are now artificially cultivating female traits into their physical bodies, and want to call it a new “gender.” Females are striving to emulate the illusion of male aggression and physical power, to the extent they also artificially modify their bodies to take on male characteristics. Neither, failing attraction to the other, are finding felicity in traditional male-female diversity. They each seek to incorporate those traits of the other sex into their own bodies and behavior, believing that males and females have both qualities. Learned responses can never substitute physical traits governed by genetic encoding.
What was behind the idea of Man being created equal had to do with being treated equally before the Law. This erroneous concept of human equality was exposed for the fallacy it is by Alexis deToqueville in the early 1800s when he published his Democracy in America. He reasoned and prognosticated correctly, that idea of total Equality between persons would be the cause of the government and social collapse of America. The great experiment in self-government would fail.
Government
Government, as defined, is a system of ruling, an exercise of authority, whether it be a state, a district, an institution, or an organization. It is the collective force of appointed representatives in Democracy, or the collective force of an oligarchy invested into Law.
“It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.” p6 The Law
Such is the purpose of Norman/Anglo-Saxon government—to exercise authority by law over the actions of men. It has its roots in the plundering of conquered peoples, for the express purpose of instituting a Feudalist system between rulers and the militarily impotent. The concept that some are better endowed, more intelligent, of purer genetic descent, which justifies their exercise of authority over men considered of lesser ability by hubris is as old as the earliest mythology of antediluvian times. In such circumstances it makes not the least difference in terms of justice, whether the plundered people consent to it or not. It is astonishing to me to observe in this late date of human existence that no two neighbors would consent to be plundered one by the other to their faces. Yet they will go to the polls at every election cycle and consent to massive plundering of each other through taxes, market regulation, behavioral regulation, tariffs, and the enlargement of government duties toward the same, by the misappropriation of law. They consent to lawful plundering of their neighbors behind their backs, and suppose it to be justice. To resist is to invite further plundering and the ultimate threats of poverty, incarceration, or death.
It must be observed in summation that Liberty does not need government to exist. Life does not need government to survive. Property does not need government for man to possess it. Government can only effect one thing beyond the protection of their innate existence: destroy them.
To carry out the nefarious subjugation of Man by the few, two systems of government have been invented: the twins, Feudalism and Socialism. In both instances, Man is no longer an autonomous being. The power to determine one’s own destiny and the expectation of felicity therein is usurped, suppressed, and frequently punished. Any attempt to restructure the prevailing manifestations of these two under the names of “Republic,” “Democracy,” Monarchy, Oligarchy, or Dictatorship is doomed to fail, for they each and all have been tried. They have all failed because Man cannot resist regulating the affairs of others rather than attending to his own, and will seek every advantage to live a life of ease through plundering his neighbor.
Of the few worthy statements made by Edmund Burke, that pseudo-Libertarian, it was these:
“People crushed by law, have no hopes but from power. If laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to laws; and those who have much to hope and nothing to lose, will always be dangerous.”
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites,—in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity,—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption,—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
The question remains to be decided: Who are the Knaves, and who are the Wise?
Coming soon: Part Duh, The Federal Constitution
SethSmee
REFERENCES
Crowds and Power, Elias Canetti
A History of Matrimonial Institutions, 3 vols, George Howard
The New Nation, Merrill Jensen
On Power, Bertrand de Jouvenel
E Pluribus Unum, Forrest McDonald
Novus Ordo Seclorum, Forrest McDonald
We the People, Forrest McDonald
The Writings of Thomas Paine, 4 vols.
Our Enemy the State, Albert Nock
No Treason, Lysander Spooner
The Law, Frédéric Bastiat
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.