|
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, 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.
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 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 very good 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 Judeo 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
|
