- PRINCIPLE #1: ALL PERSONS ARE
RIGHTFULLY SOVEREIGN OVER THEIR OWN AFFAIRS WHICH DO NOT INFRINGE
UPON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
- PRINCIPLE #2: FAMILIES SHALL BE
SOVEREIGN OVER ALL FAMILY AFFAIRS WHICH DO NOT INFRINGE UPON THE
RIGHTS OF OTHERS OR PRESENT AN IMMINENT, PHYSICAL THREAT TO THE
LIFE OF INCLUDED CHILDREN
- PRINCIPLE #3: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
ARE SUPERIOR TO ALL EARTHLY LAW AND SHOULD BE SECURED BY A
CITIZENSHIP COVENANT DOCUMENT THAT IS ACCEPTED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT
AND NEVER MADE SUBJECT TO MAJORITY RULE
- PRINCIPLE #4: GOVERNMENT SHOULD
ONLY BE FORMED BY INITIAL UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THOSE TO BE GOVERNED
BY SUCH, FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING MUTUAL DEFENSE FOR THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ALL CITIZENS.
- PRINCIPLE #5: CITIZENSHIP SHOULD
BE BY COVENANT AND QUALIFICATION RATHER THAN BY BIRTH, WHEREBY THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS, AND THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
OF BOTH PARTIES (GOVERNMENT AND CITIZEN) ARE CLEARLY
SPECIFIED.
- PRINCIPLE #6: EQUAL JUSTICE (not
results) SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR ALL CITIZENS UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW THAT STRICTLY LIMITS THE SCOPE OF ALL LAWMAKING POWER TO THE
DEFENSE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
- PRINCIPLE #7: GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE
FINANCED BY USER FEES FOR ALL DIRECT SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS AND
GENERAL TAXES FOR UNIVERSAL SERVICES (DEFENSE, JUSTICE,
ADMINISTRATION, AND LEGISLATION); THE LATTER SHOULD BE UNIFORM AND
EQUAL FOR ALL CITIZENS.
- PRINCIPLE #8: MILITARY AND POLICE
POWER OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD ONLY BE USED WHERE THERE EXISTS A DIRECT
THREAT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ITS CITIZENS, AND TO ENFORCE
LAWS WHICH ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AND BASED UPON THOSE RIGHTS. ANY
ASSISTANCE FOR LIBERTY GIVEN TO FOREIGN NATIONS WHERE A SIGNIFICANT
THREAT TO THIS NATION CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED
BY GOVERNMENT BUT CARRIED OUT BY VOLUNTARY MEASURES.
- PRINCIPLE #9: CITIZENS SHOULD BE
PRIVATELY ARMED NOT ONLY FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION AGAINST CRIME, BUT
TO ACT AS THE ULTIMATE FORCE AGAINST POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT TYRANNY
AND AGGRESSION AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS DETAILED IN THE
CITIZEN COVENANT.
- PRINCIPLE #10: GOVERNMENT MUST BE
STRICTLY LIMITED IN ITS POWERS, ESPECIALLY IN THE FOLLOWING THREE
AREAS OF UNLIMITED INTRUSION:
- PROVIDING ANY SPECIFIC BENEFIT TO ANY PERSON OR
GROUP, FINANCED BY ANY FORM OF TAXATION, NOT CONSTITUTING A USER
FEE.
- PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM NATURAL DISASTER, SAFETY
HAZARDS, RISK TAKING OR ANY OTHER DIFFICULTY NOT CONSTITUTING A
THREAT TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
- PROSECUTION OR MAKING ANY ACT A CRIME IN THE
ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC COMPLAINANT OR VICTIM, EXCEPT IN CASES
INVOLVING IMMINENT THREAT TO LIFE
PRINCIPLE #1:
ALL PERSONS SHALL BE SOVEREIGN OVER THEIR OWN
AFFAIRS WHICH DO NOT INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
All persons have the right to be equally free and
independent, and to possess equally the full range of fundamental
rights, which are those powers to act or be, which all persons can
possess simultaneously without exercising compulsion upon
another.
There are only four truly fundamental
rights that pertain to individual or personal sovereignty:
These are the rights of
- LIFE, LIBERTY, OWNERSHIP, SELF
DEFENSE.
Each of these rights has certain conditions which
limit their application in a way that does not trespass against
others equally asserting the same rights. There are also many
corollary rights which are derived from these basic four. These
have all been discussed in the previous section and detailed
listing of fundamental rights.
Lets now take a brief look at the principle of
sovereignty which will allow us to discuss individual, family, and
national rights.
THREE AREAS OF RELATIVE SOVEREIGNTY: INDIVIDUAL,
FAMILY, NATION
Sovereignty refers to the possession of ultimate
authority within a certain framework of law. When one is sovereign
in a certain area, there is no higher authority. He or she has the
right to make all judgment and carry them out. In the context of
liberty within a nation, we will be referring primarily to
individual and family sovereignty relative to governments and other
individuals or groups. Associations, including governmental
associations, are merely extensions of the sovereignty of the
individuals composing such associations.
The individual is sovereign (meaning the
possession of ultimate earthly authority) over all his personal
affairs which are not in direct and harmful conflict with the
fundamental rights of others.
The family has certain sovereign powers distinct
from the individual by virtue of the presence of dependent children
who, having been brought into the family as a consequence of
parental procreation, must be accorded special protection and
training by those parents who engendered the child. While parents
have given up a portion of their individual sovereignty by
engendering a new child, they must also be accorded a special form
of sovereignty with ultimate earthly authority over those children,
short of acting in a way which presents an imminent and pernicious
threat to the life of the child. The reason for this "balance" of
authority and responsibility will be detailed later in the section
on family sovereignty.
Lastly, individuals may group together and form
associations by initial unanimous consent which also may act in
sovereign matters relative to other persons or groups. A government
is simply a large form of such an association of individuals, as
will be explained later. The government association is never
sovereign relative to its individual members (who constitute the
creators and controllers of their government association), but is
sovereign relative to other separate nations, or groups.
PRINCIPLE #2:
FAMILIES SHALL BE SOVEREIGN OVER ALL FAMILY
AFFAIRS WHICH DO NOT INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS OR PRESENT
AN IMMINENT, PHYSICAL THREAT TO THE LIFE OF INCLUDED
CHILDREN
FAMILY SOVEREIGNTY AND RESPONSIBILITY OVER FAMILY
AFFAIRS
There exists a natural covenant relationship
between parent and child, beginning at conception, that is binding
upon the parents and requires them to assume the ultimate
responsibility for child care, safety, and education until the
child arrives at an ability or desire to be responsible for
himself.
In deference to the voluntary covenant
relationship which generally involves the sacred act engendering a
child, governments should never be granted power to intercede in
the affairs of parents and children as long as parents are not
proven guilty of gross cruelty or extreme negligence which
threatens the life of the child, as clearly defined in
constitutionally restricted law, and in no case against the will of
the child, when that child is of sufficient age to express that
will and understand the alternatives.
In order to preserve family sovereignty from the
slow, steady encroachment of government, parents must have full
discretion over the care of children unless they reach a point
which we may easily describe as imminently and perniciously
threatening to the life of the child (e.g. child beating that is
life threatening). While children have many times had to suffer
from the poor decisions of parents, that seems to be one of the
necessary prices to pay for freedom.
To allow the government to scrutinize the
decisions of parents at any lower level than imminent (not the mere
possibility of) threat to life, is to allow the government total
ultimate authority over instruction, safety, discipline, nutrition
and medical care. In short, all children become "wards of the
state" which, besides being impractical, is a violation of the
fundamental rights of parents. The specter of uniform state
guidance in the care and upbringing of all children only guarantees
an intellectually sterile generation, devoid of moral values.
Agents of the government may be knowledgeable as to the things of
the world, but they will lack the understanding and moral courage
to defend freedom and personal moral and religious values of the
individual family.
As a fundamental premise, the state can only
legitimately interfere in family affairs in protection of the right
to life. A child, as long as he remains in a dependent
relationship, living off his parents, does not, and cannot claim
his other rights. To do so would make the parents or their property
the slaves of the child. Those rights are synonymous with being an
independent person, qualified for citizenship.
The child is free to declare his rights and
become independent at any time he or she may be capable of
meeting the qualifications of citizenship, but in doing so he
can no longer claim his dependent relationship. The implicit
reasoning behind this is based upon the child's superior standing
as to the covenant nature of the family. The parents engendered an
automatic obligation, which they cannot break without harming the
child. The child is the only one that can dissolve the bond since
he had no choice in the act which brought him into the covenant
relationship, and does no damage to the parents by dissolving their
obligation to care for him. This concept does not attempt to make
light of the emotional pain such separations may cause, only to
indicate that disappointment and emotional pain usually cannot and
should not be construed as adjudicable damage.
This aspect is worrisome to some families who
have become accustomed to using the power of the state to compel a
child to stay at home until reaching the legal age of
maturity. Upon close examination, it is clear that the setting
of an age for "maturity" or independence is quite arbitrary. There
is no basis for it in principle. In fact, by handing over such
powers to government determination, parents have unwittingly given
justification to the state to enter into some REGULATION of family
affairs, when dependent children have become independent and are
not allowed to exercise that independence.
I believe I can demonstrate, to those who are
worried about children being enticed away into evil paths through
the exercise of independence, that such true freedom is less
likely to induce a child to leave and is more beneficial to
family relations in the long term, but only if we possess a
complete structure of covenant government as explain in this
work.
First, it must be remembered that, under these
principles, there would be no permissive government welfare or
social structure available to induce children to leave home and
find a "free life." In a contractual government, every member
of society would be required to have legal standing as a citizen,
or be under a contract with a citizen, either as an employee or a
dependent. The citizen would be responsible for the conduct and
welfare of all non-citizen employees or dependents under his or her
care. If a person wanted to establish independent citizenship, he
would have to either sign the Constitutional covenant and become a
citizen (obligating him to participate in citizen responsibility,
including the payment of his share of legitimate taxes). Thus,
leaving home would require a high degree of responsibility--not a
welcome prospect unless the child was properly prepared or
possessed some compelling reason to leave.
Given a high level of evil influences in a
pluralistic society, most good parents would exercise their freedom
to form covenant societies with other like minded people in order
to shield their children from many of these harmful
influences.
In such a society, if there were sufficient
justification for a child wanting to leave home, for protection, he
would probably have little trouble finding refuge with other good
people. On the other hand, a rebellious child would have difficulty
finding refuge within a small covenant group of like minded, good
people. If he or she chose the non-covenant world for a first try
at independence, the child would find the world fairly harsh under
the full weight of self-responsibility and citizenship that may
require a hefty examination and certification of financial
responsibility. These factors would hardly be conducive to leaving
home except under proper preparation.
Remember also that any act of rebellion against a
parent's wishes which do not constitute the limits of cruelty is a
form of declaration of one's independence. Such rebellion
automatically relieves a parent of the obligation of support. While
this would be technically defensible, I doubt if many parents would
jump at the chance to stop support so quickly. Even if they did,
the child could always bring himself back under covenant protection
by complying with the wishes of the parent, as long as such erratic
behavior did not become a tool of manipulation. This definition
diminishes the danger of so-called "children's rights." Equating
rebellion with independence is important because it protects a
parent against a tyrannical child who would otherwise go to state
authorities to force his parents to provide his wants while he
refuses to help around the house.
But more importantly, it is better for parents to
realize that THEY are responsible to ensure that they protect their
developing children from influences that they deem harmful.
Religious parents who allow their children to be constantly exposed
to mindless television and the pervasive undisciplined bad behavior
of public school children, or who live in an unsavory neighborhood,
can hardly complain when their children develop problems. When
parents rely upon the secular state to force their children to stay
at home, the parents have either failed to properly attend to the
upbringing of the child, or the parent's life is alien to the child
(sometimes rightfully) or the child is simply innately
rebellious.
Even in the latter case of full rebellion, the
child will more quickly learn the folly of his ways by becoming
subject to life's consequences than by continual pampering at home.
Certainly, constant parental permissiveness of slothful conduct and
acceptance of rebellion is not a proper solution. Removing a tough
teen from you home may be tough to handle emotionally, but
sometimes it is the only way that some children will learn. As in
almost all areas of life, parents or individuals become better in
their tasks when government does not attempt to secure them from
their own errors. Government's only task is to prevent wrongful
compulsion by others.
Lastly, one of the unique aspects of these
principles is the final element which safeguards the family from
intrusion by government. When there is a gray area concerning
whether a certain family action is "life threatening" or "grossly
negligent" and the state rules to take the children from the
parents, the children can refuse to go with the state. More
than any other safeguard, this effectively deters a state from
declaring a family's religious beliefs as "gross mental cruelty" or
spanking as "physical cruelty".
While I am aware of some cases of children who,
even after child abuse, have desired to return to the parents, who
are we to say that the child does not legitimately view life in an
unknown foster home as a worse alternative than home? Often only
one parent's care is enough to keep the child desiring to return
home. In such cases, where a child prefers to stay at home, the
government would have just cause to continue surveillance or even
prosecute the parents. In view of the total picture, both for and
against, I am convinced, that no normal child is such a glutton for
punishment that they would not desire to leave after it becomes
apparent that the parents are constant abusers. If the child is
clearly and certifiable mentally deranged due to the abuse, the
parents or parent responsible should go to jail and the child
should be given over to proper private foster care. However, the
simple act of desire to remain at home should never be allow as the
sole determination of mental incompetency in the child. However the
final determination should be by a jury of parents rather
than by government officials or psychologists.
This whole question would not be such a problem
to adjudicate if there were not such an entrenched hostility in
social working circles toward spanking and physical punishment in
general. Many view any type of physical punishment as "cruel and
unusual" and are constantly attempting to convince legislatures and
courts to outlaw firm physical discipline. Since it is nearly
impossible to distinguish in law between a justified spanking and
what social workers persist in calling "child abuse", I prefer to
defer, short of "imminent threat to life" to family sovereignty. I
think the damage has to be fairly rough to qualify as abuse--enough
to cause bleeding, deep bruising, intentional burns or broken bones
and the like, to be viewed as imminently threatening. I say this
not because I am a callous person, but because we must remember
that there are numerous circumstances in which children do wild
things themselves which result in these injuries, and if the
standard is set too low, the parents become suspects of abuse,
every time a child goes to the hospital for an accident. There are
also cases in which the parent is giving a well-deserved spanking
and the rebellious child, in fighting back, may hit his head on
something, or pull away and be injured without the intent of the
parent. We don't want reasonable parents going to jail on an
accident of mixed causes like this. Rabid anti-spankers will claim
that the parent shouldn't have been struggling with or trying to
spank the child in the first place. But when a parent is faced with
really abusive children who prey upon their young siblings or in
other ways severely threaten the order of the home, very strong
action is required. Of course, I am of the opinion that if a parent
has let things get this far, he or she has been way too permissive
for too long anyway. But, parents must be free to take the full
range of measures, short of physical harm, necessary to bring a
tough teen into compliance.
Remember, the potential for long term damage to
children is small given the principle which allows a child to
voluntarily leave at any time.
There are obviously some gray areas in this
discussion, which will of necessity have to be left up to human
judgment. What I have attempted to do here is to secure a firm base
upon which parents can control, to the largest extent, their family
affairs. It is said that tough cases make bad law. We all have
qualms about any injustice being done to children, but let us be
wise, and also realize the magnitude of injustice that is possible
if we allow the state to exercise the type of social control over
the family as occurs in other socialist societies. Some mistakes
and suffering do occur in freedom, but they are always the
exception when compared to the all-powerful state.
PRINCIPLE #3:
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE SUPERIOR TO ALL EARTHLY
LAW AND SHOULD BE SECURED BY A CITIZENSHIP COVENANT DOCUMENT THAT
IS ACCEPTED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT AND NEVER MADE SUBJECT TO MAJORITY
RULE
THE SUPERIORITY OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OVER
EARTHLY LAW:
By the fundamental character and essential nature
of freedom, the inviolable, fundamental rights of man shall never
be made subject to political confirmation. They exist regardless of
the nature and institution of governments on earth, and cannot
therefore be denied, rightfully, even by a majority of persons
using democratic powers. While they may be listed for reference and
voluntary approval in a constitution, they are not, by nature,
subject to the ratification or amendment process.
PRINCIPLE #4:
GOVERNMENT SHOULD ONLY BE FORMED BY INITIAL
UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THOSE TO BE GOVERNED BY SUCH, FOR THE SOLE
PURPOSE OF PROVIDING MUTUAL DEFENSE FOR THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF
ALL CITIZENS.
THE COMMON CONSENT DOCTRINE AND
SUCCESSION
Within the society of citizens, laws enacted by
majority rule are limited to those issues which directly and
harmfully affect members of the majority, thus maintaining the free
will of individuals and other minorities from democratic tyranny.
Laws passed outside these and other constitutional bounds are null
and void, and without effect.
In the act of forming a government, men do not
cede their right to withdraw from the pact unless specifically
stated in the citizen contract (which I would not recommend).
Wisdom would dictate that freemen must never relinquish the right
to revolution, which is: that men are free to reject any
governmental association, at any time, if not afforded these
essential fundamental rights, or in the absence of initial
voluntary consent. This last phrase acknowledges the right of those
who live under a non-contractual government to leave such
government since majority rule-making was imposed upon them. I know
of no true contractual government established by true common
consent in existence today.
The foregoing doctrine points out two historical
deficiencies in our constitutional Republic: First, the absence of
full common consent in the beginning of the Republic, and second,
the absence of a written citizen contract which each new citizen
would be required to sign in order to be on an equal and unanimous
footing with existing citizens.
The original founders of the American
constitution were doctrinally committed to the concept of initial
unanimous consent--what they called "common consent." The doctrine
of the citizen compact goes back to Anglo-Saxon days, and was
manifested at varying times, including the time when the original
Pilgrims formed their Mayflower Compact. In essence, common consent
meant that no man could be compelled to submit to the rule of the
majority unless he voluntarily consented. Refusing to consent meant
that he was still a "freeman" acting alone and free insofar as he
did not tread on others' rights.
Under this common consent doctrine, the founders
of the Constitution in 1787 knew that it would be improper to force
any of the colonies to submit to the Constitution, even if a
majority had ratified it. But unanimous consent did NOT mean that
no state could implement the Constitution unless all agreed, it
simply meant that it was only binding upon those that ratified
it. In fact, the majority of colonies began to act under the
Constitution's provisions before all had ratified it. The
non-ratifying colonies were simply treated as separate sovereign
nations. Eventually, the other Colonies saw that the advantages of
joining outweighed the dangers they perceived in the document, and
they joined in the union.
Unfortunately, while the founders correctly
refrained from compelling other states to join the union, the
states themselves failed to obtain the unanimous consent of their
citizens. Once again, this doctrine did not require that they
delayed acceptance of the Constitution until every citizen was in
agreement, but it did require that those who did not agree were not
bound by its provisions until they gave their consent. In essence
the states voted by majority rule to force a minority to accept the
majority's jurisdiction over certain aspects of their fundamental
rights.
The danger of this is not so apparent until one
envisions what kinds of laws the majority can implant upon a
non-consenting minority. Suppose that the majority at that time
were non land-owning peasants, and had voted to install a state and
national constitution giving them the power to confiscate all lands
over 500 acres "for the public good." The fact that all large
land-owners would refuse to consent points out the virtue in
requiring initial common consent from all.
If a state wants to attract the best people, the
constitution must guarantee justice and fairness to the highest
degree. The more arbitrary and capricious a constitution is, the
less potential for universal support.
In reality there were certain aspects of the new
Constitution that were dangerous, such as the lack of protection of
the full range of fundamental rights, and the "necessary and
proper" clause under which the Supreme Courts would allow massive
intrusions of Congressional authority upon individual and state's
rights. The Constitution possessed the seeds of monetary debasement
in giving Congress the power to "regulate the value" of currency,
and clearly avoided any language which would declare slavery a
violation of human rights.
All of these objections were real and proper.
Many people believe that majoritarian ratification was justified
because of the rapid attainment of unity that it brought, but it
was this very question of whether majority power could impose its
will upon non-consenting states that brought us to the brink of
destruction in the Civil War. As to the ultimate principles of
government, the Confederacy was correct on one basic fundamental
right: secession from the Union. They were wrong on one of the
objects of that right--the defense of slavery.
Secession was an important doctrine for
maintaining the essence of common consent. If we begin from the
proposition that fundamental freedoms cannot be taken away by
majority rule--they can only be ceded by individual voluntary
consent, then we derive the fundamental premise that a majority
cannot implant any system of government upon other freemen without
their initial consent. This then implies that those who consent to
majority will still possess the right to leave the group at any
time, if the compact is broken and if the majority begins to
encroach upon freedoms specifically not ceded or limited in the
original agreement.
If the Supreme Court declares certain acts
constitutional which a state believes is a violation of the
original compact, it can simply disregard it under the doctrine
that unconstitutional infringements on state or individual
sovereignty (involving fundamental or contract rights) are null and
void, and unenforceable. If the highest court rules the law
constitutional and government decides to enforce the law with
police powers, the state has to choose between compliance or
secession, involving the loss of certain benefits as members of the
union--primarily a matter of facilitated trade and joint protection
powers. On all non-criminal matters, severance of relations with a
state would be the only consequence of law--no jail terms for state
officers would be proper or permissible.
Secession does not have to mean war, only that
each body's ultimate sovereignty be respected. The northern states
clearly violated the sovereignty of the southern states in forcing
them back into the union. Such use of force clearly sets a
precedent that no matter how tyrannical the Federal government
becomes, no state or individual can leave. The peaceful right to
secession should be stated in the constitution, and it should
protect the fundamental rights of citizens both ways. In other
words, no state could secede by majority rule, unless it continued
to allow individuals who wished to remain part of the union to do
so, without territorial integrity. This is a great difficulty, but
not insurmountable.
No matter how pragmatic we all view the
historical benefits of the union, the precedent of forced
repatriation is no less onerous than the use of power in the Soviet
Union to keep its conquered peoples within its
dominance.
GOVERNMENT BY INITIAL COMMON CONSENT, IN DEFENSE
OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS:
As an extension of individual liberty, all men
have the right to form a governmental association with others in
the pursuit of a more effective defense of their fundamental
rights. Furthermore, they may establish independence from all other
governments in the pursuit of these fundamental rights.
This can only be rightfully accomplished through
a covenant association, where ALL the governed consent to abide by
the rule of law as enacted by elected leaders and officials, under
pre-determined constitutional limitations on majority
rule.
Within the covenant framework (which would
include a Bill of Fundamental Rights, a Constitution, and a citizen
signatory contract outlining duties and penalties for failure to
comply), there are certain limited areas of authority delegated to
the government for future determination. A citizen joining the
national compact, or any special sub-unit thereof, agrees to abide
by the laws enacted by elected representatives, and interpreted by
the appropriate courts, insofar as such laws do not violate the
initial compact defending fundamental rights.
Since it is improper to force someone to join a
governmental association against his will, the enactment of laws
and the enforcement thereof, by a government of majority rule, can
only have effect upon those specifically consenting to such
majority rule.
How would one possibly form a government under
unanimous conditions? Unanimous does not mean "all at once." It
means that whoever joins in the movement signs on voluntarily with
full understanding and not through coercion by the majority. That
is how the US Constitution began--only those states that agreed
where part of it to begin with. Others joined later as they
realized they would be greatly disadvantaged by not be a part of
the whole. What I am saying is that individuals themselves
must sign on--not just state governments--because states are
controlled by majorities, and the minorities would not have been
represented at all since the very inception of
government.
But unlike former times, when there was a lot of
unclaimed land on the earth, it is now impossible to start a new
form of government without dealing with an existing government--and
there are virtually no existing governments that are going to
let anyone be free from their power to start a new one
without the force of arms. So, there are only two
possibilities short of revolution. First, men who want real
liberty must wait for the occasional window of opportunity when the
horrors of war or some other form of destruction destroys or brings
an existing government to a crisis, and then try to control the
majority influence in forming the new one. Or second, they
must work, while under the umbrella of an existing government to
gather enough people willing to sign on to a covenant government
(while having no actual power) till they become a significant
enough force to gain permission to start an enclave of freedom
within the nation.
The first is essentially what happened in
America--the loose federation of states was floundering in
financial crisis right after a war of independence, that forced the
need for a convention to remedy the government structural problems.
But I think this highly unlikely today for two reasons.
1. The American revolution was unique in history,
being a revolution of the higher, educated class of people.
A much larger percentage of the educated, landed class that has
ever existed before or since were well schooled in the English
traditions of law and liberty. Very few of the leaders we have in
power today have that same allegiance to liberty. A Constitutional
convention today would be controlled by those who believe in raw
democracy and many forms of socialism.
2. The colonists were coming from a weak,
confederated form of government, which by its very nature,
considered each state sovereign and independent from the others. So
it was much more tolerant of the idea of each being a covenant
society. Today we have an ever more powerful centralized government
that has already demonstrated in the Civil War their intolerance
for sovereign enclaves.
The second possibility is the only choice short
of revolution. Convincing a majority to join in regaining freedom
would seem at first glance an easy task, but it is not for this
reason: the majority of people in every nation are on the other
side--they either want and receive government benefits or they have
become convinced that there is no harm in this. The historical
tendency of human nature demonstrates that those who are corrupted
by benefits will never give them up voluntarily unless they become
enlightened by higher religious values--and they never come to
those without war, death and destruction, and often not even then!
Those that ignorantly sympathize with socialist benefits are almost
as hard to change because the victims and dangers of socialist
wealth transfer programs are hidden. In addition, almost all
citizens of all nations are cut off from critical information by
government controlled education and socialist control of the
information media. I realize this is discouraging.
With all that said, I believe the only course of
action is to set upon a course of establishing on paper a specific
ideal form of government, and then set about the converting people
to it, and refining the system, ideologically as we progress and
interact with the best and brightest of those who desperately want
a return to liberty. If we are successful in converting a
significant body of citizens who can wield enough electoral power
(would have to be at least 25% of the nation and more preferably a
full 33%, as well as an absolute majority in at least one state)
then there would exist either a possibility of pressuring a larger
party to enter into a coalition for governance that would allow for
a freedom enclave within the existing structure. Or, if a crisis of
government arose, the liberty movement would be sufficient poised
to negotiate an enclave status from a new form of government. Now,
I realize this is a very difficult task given the level of benefit
corruption today. This group and their sympathizers constitute a
large majority, which is growing yearly. On the other end of the
spectrum, the increased tension within the American nations is
increasing the liberty side of the spectrum as well. But it is very
undereducated due to the dominance of public education. A larger
and larger portion of the youth are lost to socialism each year due
to bad education. Those who consciously view themselves as
conservatives of liberty are probably less than 10% of the nation
and are heavily factionalized. So, there is much work to be
done.
This enclave must involve a specific territory at
least as large as one entire state (the state where that covenant
body could control the majority in the legislative body), and where
complete tax exemption from all levels of social and welfare taxes
is granted to those who join the enclave. State citizens who are
not part of the covenant would still pay welfare taxes and would
continue to receive welfare benefits. There would, however be a
tremendous incentive for every small business owner to join the
enclave, since they would be free from all the onerous employee
regulations and taxes that weigh so heavily upon
entrepreneurs.
The essential ingredient to providing for the
viability of a truly free, competitive society is not only
receiving some minimal agreement on the right to a establish
self-sufficient, self-directing governing enclave within the
national federation, but also the right to expand it by voluntary
consent of those adjoining the area. As the results of dynamic
liberty become demonstrable and new people are converted and move
into the enclave, the socialist model will begin to lose what
productive class it has, and will have less and less wealth to
confiscate and transfer to others. Hopefully the liberty enclave
can then convince the suffering masses in the majoritarian,
democratic-socialist sector to vote away their benefits and expand
the covenant of liberty to themselves. Now, I am not naive enough
the think this could happen without a severe crisis. Neither am I
unaware that this large, corrupt majority would try every
legislative maneuver to attach the wealth of the enclave to further
service their benefits.
The proper way to expand liberty in an enclave
system is by individual conversion one by one. You have to sell
each person on the benefits of mutual defense of fundamental
rights. Only those who join and become citizens would have the full
range of protection of rights, and exemption from the burgeoning
federal tax load. Here are some specific ways in which a citizen
covenant would work:
PRINCIPLE #5:
CITIZENSHIP SHOULD BE BY COVENANT AND
QUALIFICATION RATHER THAN BY BIRTH, WHEREBY THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
OF CITIZENS, AND THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF BOTH PARTIES
(GOVERNMENT AND CITIZEN) ARE CLEARLY SPECIFIED.
THE CITIZEN CONTRACT: One of the ultimate
safeguards of individual freedom is the use of a signature document
for becoming a citizen of a constitutional republic. Since every
relinquishment of one's fundamental rights, even though partial,
necessitates a voluntary contract, it is indispensable that this
process be formalized in a signature document.
Under this doctrine, no person, not even children
of citizens, are recognized as citizens unless they have met the
requirements of citizenship, are financially responsible to the
contractual support obligations of government and commit to such in
writing. This does not mean, however, that only citizens can live
in the nation and enjoy the benefits of freedom. What it does
require is that each non-citizen be contractually attached to a
citizen. Thus, children have rights under the citizenship of their
parents because of the obligation of parents to care for such,
within the previously stated conditions. Leaving the home,
therefore, is a major step--one which requires real preparation and
serious consideration. Few would do so for flimsy reasons,
therefore enhancing a teenager's sense of responsibility to prepare
himself for citizenship, and to act as a responsible family member
prior to stepping out on his own.
In like manner, any citizen is free to hire any
person in the world, of whatever nationality (as part of his right
to contract and dispose of assets) as long as he assumes full
responsibility for the person under his contractual care. This
system solves most problems involving unwanted illegal aliens. The
liabilities of citizenship coupled with a citizen's desire to
protect his status as a citizen would serve as an incentive to
bring only competent, good people into this nation. There would be
no welfare problems, as each person would be linked to a citizen
for responsibility. Any person without such a link would be
punished and deported. Punishment for illegal entry is important as
a deterrent. Deportation alone is like getting a free and regular
tour of the various border crossing areas--at taxpayer expense.
There would be little excuse for good persons of foreign
nationalities to attempt illegal entry given the ease of meeting
the legal requirements through employment with a
citizen.
People working under the protection of a citizen
would not have a free ride. The citizen would have to pass on in
lower wages the costs that he would incur to accept responsibility
and head taxes for non-citizens, which would only be fair. This
would provide an excellent inducement for persons of solid
character and industry to apply themselves toward gaining the
privileges and responsibilities of citizenship.
The concept of a citizen contract would solve
many other current problems as well. For example, a military draft
is improper involuntary servitude, except under the pre-agreement
of a citizenship contract where the limits of such service are
defined beforehand. Also, strict limits upon government power, and
taxation should be pre-agreed upon thereby eliminating coercive
government policies as presently instituted. Citizenship might even
be contingent upon exercising one's right to vote. It might also
require an extensive examination in order to ensure that all
applicants understand the principles of law and government that
preserve liberty. I would strongly suggest the requirement that a
person agree not to assist foreign governments that take others'
property involuntarily (socialism). A uniform knowledge of the
national language may also be appropriate.
The inducement to become a citizen would be
obvious to those working hard enough to exercise their right of
ownership. No one should be able to own property that required
title protection (land, buildings, or other expensive, serialized
assets) unless they became a contracting citizen agreeing to
support the government set up to defend those rights.
PRINCIPLE #6:
EQUAL JUSTICE (not results) SHALL BE
GUARANTEED FOR ALL CITIZENS UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THAT STRICTLY
LIMITS THE SCOPE OF ALL LAWMAKING POWER TO THE DEFENSE OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
JUSTICE FOR ALL UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW:
The purpose of law is to define, codify
and specify penalties for harmful behavior, and to do so in a
uniform manner for all persons so that arbitrary and
prejudicial behavior is removed from governing processes.. The
purpose of a constitution is to set up the structure of
government institutions and define and limit lawmaking and law
enforcement power. There are good constitutions and bad
constitutions. The best type is the one which sets up a structure
that allows for speedy trials, judgments and penalties for legal
infractions to be determined at the local level, and at the same
time centralizes the powers of the federated local governments in
national legislative, executive and judicial institutions. These
institutions provide a basic and uniform body of law applicable to
all citizens, a system of federal and appellate courts, a
Constitutional Supreme court for ruling on the validity of laws,
and an executive branch for enforcement of these laws. In addition,
the national government has uniform powers of dealing with foreign
policy matters. In this manner, there is a uniform body of basic
law which all citizens everywhere can depend upon to defend
fundamental rights uniformly, and, in addition, a fast reacting
national defense force is provided so that the nation does not fall
victim to an aggressor while internal debate is on
going.
PRINCIPLES of Constitutional law:
all government functions involved in legislating,
administering, interpreting and defending laws which require
uniform application and interpretation to all citizens, should be
handled at the national level.
Determination of applicability of law to specific
circumstances, trial procedures, and enforcement of the law should
occur at the lowest level of government having jurisdiction in the
matter.
Legislative, Executive, and Judicial powers of
the National government should reside in separate institutions with
appropriate cross-checks between these institutions to prevent any
institution from infringing upon the fundamental rights of
citizens.
The fundamental rights of man are only the basic
elements of freedom. The implementation of freedom, where
interaction with others is involved, requires a mutual compact or
agreement on the rules of government. Unfortunately, in the
exercise of their fundamental rights, men may ignorantly form a
constitution where they give away all of their rights to government
authorities under the enticement of the supposed benefits of state
security and control. Thus, the illumination of fundamental rights
in no way ensures the outcome of a great constitution. For this
reason, principle #6 is a statement of the proper GUIDELINES for a
constitution which guarantees justice for all and the preservation
of fundamental rights. The following principles of justice are
essential for a government charged with the defense of
liberty:
UNIFORMITY AND PREEMINENCE OF BASIC
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXCEPT WHERE MEN UNANIMOUSLY AGREE TO ABIDE BY
MORE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS:
All men are entitled to the uniform application
of constitutionally limited law, where similar circumstances exist
pertaining to such law, and where men have not voluntarily agreed
to abide by more stringent covenants.
Simply put, this means that the Federal
government shall defend basic fundamental rights everywhere within
the nation, but that such defense constitutes a minimum and maximum
standard for majoritarian government, but not a maximum rule
of law for covenant enclaves within the federal system. Present
"public policy" rules which prohibit men from making private
contracts constitute a violation of federal lawmaking powers and
would not be legal under this doctrine of law.
Such application of the law shall be exercised
without regard to class distinctions except where such the law is
specifically addresses the special circumstances of a particular
class. This means that matters of race, creed, and sex, for
example, could be taken into consideration in the adjudication of
law, but only if such class distinctions were directly relevant to
the circumstances of the case, and specifically limited in
application. Class distinctions, though a private fundamental
right, are prohibited in all criminal cases where the nature of the
crime is no matter who commits it. Class distinctions could not be
used arbitrarily to declare a person guilty because he is a member
of that group classification. Neither can class distinctions be
used to exempt a group from a crime (such as youth offenders) when
the crime meets the same standards of violence and vicious intent.
In contrast gender differences could cause types of sexual offenses
to be treated differently.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
All men should be deemed innocent until proven
guilty by the verification of evidence and testimony.
This is the basic law of liberty and should be
applied to both criminal and civil cases. However, this doctrine
should not be used as a means to justify release of dangerous
prisoners pending trial. It simply means that there must be
presented sufficient and credible evidence of a crime to at least
justify the internment. Habeas Corpus (a legal demand by
representatives of the accused to bring forth the accused before a
tribunal for review of the charges) is an essential right necessary
to preclude indefinite and arbitrary imprisonment without charges
being filed or brought to trial.
A police officer's sworn testimony of his
personal knowledge of a violent crime or the sworn testimony of an
eye witnesses should be sufficient preliminary evidence to
establish internment. In order to avoid abuse, this concept has to
be coupled with another principle making government officials
personally responsible for false statements.
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION SHOULD ONLY BE INITIATED
WITH THE CONSENT OF A CITIZEN GRAND JURY:
By placing a jury of the people at the beginning
of criminal proceedings and at the end, for the final determination
of guilt, we allow the citizens themselves to determine the
appropriateness of both the law and the facts surrounding the case.
If either are deemed to be improperly applied or unjust, no
prosecution will commence. This procedure keeps a tyrannical
official from doing damage to others for unjust reasons, which may
involve the excessively strict application of the law in
unwarranted circumstances. In order to be effective, grand juries
should be completely independent and not subject to intimidation by
persecution or judges. Jurors should have the power to make charges
against judges or prosecutors who purposefully withhold evidence or
manipulate the jury by legal threats.
DETERMINATION OF GUILT BY DUE PROCESS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW WITH THE BURDEN OF PROOF UPON THE
ACCUSER
Due process means that the process of guilt
determination should be uniform for all circumstances and codified
in a manner not subject to arbitrary or retroactive changes. In
this manner, the government cannot pass a law to prosecute people
for something which is presently legal. The new law can only have
affect on actions that take place after enactment.
The burden of proof must always be on the
accuser. This doctrine would also apply to civil cases and would
invalidate large portions of the tax code where the IRS is given
arbitrary and unconstitutional powers to simply declare a person's
presumed income, assess the tax and a penalty, and then make the
accused prove that the IRS is wrong.
IN ANY COURT PROCEEDINGS, JUDGES SHALL BEAR
THE ULTIMATE LIABILITY TO ENSURE THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF ALL
PARTIES TO CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PROSECUTIONS ARE
PROTECTED.
This doctrine avoids the expensive and unjust
procedure where the taxpayer is forced to pay for an attorney for
the accused. This is not to say that lawyers would not or could not
be used--only that the highest and most competent officer of the
court would be charged with the protection of each party's rights,
regardless of the financial condition of either party, rich or
poor. Judges would be liable for showing any bias or allowing any
arbitrary or one-sided procedure in court which unduly placed one
party at an unjust disadvantage.
Judges are and always have been required to be
impartial. Under this system, with both sides watching carefully
for any favoritism, there would exist maximum incentives to remain
fair. Judges have also been selected (presumably) because of their
superior knowledge and long experience with the law. There is no
valid reason why they ought not to exercise that impartiality and
experience in ensuring the rights of both parties regardless of the
presence of an attorney. This would tend to decrease the growing
number of suits brought by defendants, claiming they were
represented by an incompetent lawyer. While the possibility exists
of incompetent judges, being far fewer in number than lawyers, they
would be more noticeable and more quickly eliminated by this
procedure.
THE ACCUSED IN ANY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SHOULD
NOT BE REQUIRED TO GIVE TESTIMONY AGAINST HIMSELF, NOR BE DENIED
LEGAL COUNSEL AT HIS OWN EXPENSE.
The right against self-incrimination should be
held inviolate throughout the full range of judicial proceedings,
especially where life or property may be in jeopardy. The right to
legal counsel at one's own expense is also essential even though,
in this system, the judge is ultimately liable for the protection
of both party's rights.
THE ACCUSED MAY DEMAND EITHER A TRIAL BY A
JURY OF HIS PEERS, OR A TRIAL BY A JUDGE. JURIES AND JUDGES SHALL
HAVE THE POWER TO JUDGE THE VALIDITY OF THE LAW AS WELL AS MATTERS
OF FACT.
It is absolutely essential that judges and juries
be able to judge the validity of the law--both as to its
constitutionality and its applicability to the case at hand. While
juries have traditionally been viewed as the ultimate safeguard
against government abuse, I believe there is sufficient potential
of public prejudice and ignorance that a person ought to be able to
avoid a jury trial if he feels he may not gain a fair trial. The
possibility of a criminal using this procedure to "shop" for a
sympathetic judge is reduced by the liability the judge would carry
to be impartial. The prosecuting attorney would challenge any
attempt by the judge to distort the law in favor of the criminal.
While a judge may declare a law void or inapplicable in a
particular case, his justification must be on a solid ground of
principles in order to avoid prosecution for breaking his oath of
Constitutional allegiance and impartiality. Jury nullification
would only apply to the case at hand, and to no others.
PUNISHMENT AND RETRIBUTION IN PROPORTION TO THE
SERIOUSNESS OF THE CRIME
All laws governing the protection of the
fundamental and contractual rights of the citizens should have a
punishment affixed that is proportional to the seriousness of the
act, taking into consideration the actual harm done and the
restitution, if any, afforded to the victim.
The basic principles of effective punishment
dictates that punishments should be sufficiently harsh and final so
as to deter nearly all crime. A deterrent only stops criminal
activity effectively when it is viewed as sufficiently unpleasant
that potential criminals avoid even the approach to a crime. Thus
criminals would cease to test the legal limits of permissive action
and stay well clear of any offense.
The death penalty should be employed for serious
and malicious crimes where permanent damage occurs that cannot be
remedied by restitution. In my opinion, it should also be employed
for all types of violent crimes after the third offense. There is
no principle of justice that demands that taxpaying members of
society have an obligation to support the lives of chronic
criminals in prisons--especially with the luxuries now demanded by
the courts.
If the death penalty does anything, it is the
ultimate deterrent to a criminal's own future propensity to commit
a crime. The one who dies will never kill again.
The multiple offending criminal likewise has
demonstrated his unwillingness to respect the rights of others and
should die or be exiled from the country if another country will
voluntarily accept him. Those that violently deny to others their
rights, including life, liberty and property can no longer claim
those same rights. He or she is only left with the right to a fair
and speedy trial. Even ownership rights should be taken away, to
the extent necessary to pay any victims. A proper constitutional
government has the right to take life as an extension of the
fundamental right of self-defense, in accordance with the
seriousness of the crime.
It is, however, a matter of legitimate
disagreement among principled people as to what punishments should
apply to various crimes. My opinions are a derivation of the
principle of proper deterrence.
While the death penalty is more properly
justified when there is clear evidence that a person is STILL a
threat to other's rights, it is less so once the crime is over and
the criminal shows no more disposition to evil. At this point we
must recur to the doctrine of restitution and retribution, by prior
agreement through the citizen covenant.
The doctrine of retribution states that each
crime must have a punishment affixed, solely in response to the
evils of the act--regardless of repentance of the criminal
(obviously after the fact). Otherwise, a person would easily decide
upon a crime, knowing that he could escape punishment by feigning
sorrow for the act. Retributive punishment must be carried out so
that every violation of rights has a just consequence--even if
restitution is made. For some, crime would be very tempting if the
only possible consequence was to simply repay--if
caught.
Causing a criminal to repay 3 or 4 times the
value is a form of punitive retribution, as well as restitution.
While punitive punishment does not undue the act any more than
sorrow, it does serve as a better deterrent than simple
restitution.
However, as indicated earlier, punitive
punishments should be limited to criminal cases. I am against all
use of punitive punishments in civil tort cases unless malicious
intent can be proven. The awarding of large punitive judgments in
cases of injury to people for defects in products that not done
with bad intent is ludicrous and puts a chilling effect on all new
product development. I would, in general, be opposed to all damage
claims to accidents where no direct fault of another is capable of
being determined.
PRIOR RESTRAINT ONLY UPON IMMINENT THREAT TO
LIFE OR LIBERTY
Laws regulating or restricting individual action
prior to any harm occurring should be allowed only in exceptional
conditions where the threat to the life or liberty of someone other
than the actor is imminent and extremely dangerous. Otherwise
prosecution and punishment after the crime is preferred in order to
secure liberty against progressive intrusion by
regulation.
This doctrine is intended to make void almost all
regulations of conduct prior to an offense, except those that meet
the "imminently and extremely dangerous to others" test. As
previously stated, vigorous prosecution of the offense after the
fact, coupled with high penalties, can have a high deterrent effect
that can accomplish the original aims of regulation--but without
dangerous government powers.
THE INTENT OF THE LAWMAKER SHOULD ALWAYS BE
ACCORDED PRIMACY IN THE INTERPRETATION OF LAW
Documented statements of intent produced by the
lawmakers should be considered concurrently in the consent process
for law, as well as in subsequent interpretations by judicial
authority.
ALL LAWS ENACTED IN VIOLATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS OR IN VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
OF MEN ARE NULL AND VOID, AND UNENFORCEABLE.
The burden of proof is upon government to
establish the validity of law in any challenge to its
constitutionality. No enforcement can proceed prior to a ruling on
its constitutionality. This does not preclude additional challenges
by individual, who may disagree with the court's
opinion.
As previously covered, this is a restatement of
the doctrine of nullification--the power to disregard unjust laws.
The presence of such a doctrine is to maintain an atmosphere of
respect only for JUST law--not all law, which can often be
tyrannical.
PRINCIPLE #7:
GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE FINANCED BY USER FEES FOR
ALL DIRECT SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS AND GENERAL TAXES FOR UNIVERSAL
SERVICES (DEFENSE, JUSTICE, ADMINISTRATION, AND LEGISLATION); THE
LATTER SHOULD BE UNIFORM AND EQUAL FOR ALL CITIZENS.
Thus, it is proper to tax the use of roads to
provide for their construction and maintenance, but not to tax
everyone for schools not used by everyone. Public schools should be
funded by user fees of those who use them, leaving others free to
apply their money to competing education.
Under this principle, there are three basic forms
of taxation: User fees (for everything that is directly tied to a
benefit or service that can be applied to the individual using it),
property taxes (for direct services protecting property---fire,
police, national and state defense), and people taxes (head
taxes---because people are the other major factor needing
protection: police, state and national defense etc.
Property taxes should be graduated only in
classes, and not based upon valuation---which penalizes
beautification and fix up. Residential housing, no matter how ugly
or beautiful should be taxed at a certain sq. foot price, equal for
all. Commercial a still higher price, and Industrial a higher per
sq. foot price. Thus the only factor affecting taxes is size, not
value, which greatly simplifies taxation and evades the
conflict.
PRINCIPLE #8:
MILITARY AND POLICE POWER OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD
ONLY BE USED WHERE THERE EXISTS A DIRECT THREAT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS OF ITS CITIZENS, AND TO ENFORCE LAWS WHICH ARE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND BASED UPON THOSE RIGHTS. ANY ASSISTANCE FOR
LIBERTY GIVEN TO FOREIGN NATIONS WHERE A SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO THIS
NATION CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED BY GOVERNMENT
BUT CARRIED OUT BY VOLUNTARY MEASURES.
A PROPER FOREIGN POLICY:
The implicit assumption behind all government
endeavors, in accordance with these principles, is that they must
be based upon the defense of the fundamental rights of the
citizens. This also applies to foreign affairs.
Citizens are free to trade and negotiate with any
foreign person, except where such trade would aid an enemy of these
rights.
In the case of a nation which had a socialist
regime, (which by disposition violates the ownership rights of its
citizens), it is doubtful if such a regime would constitute any
direct threat to the freedoms of American citizens--unless it was
trying to internationalize its system. If it were only a local
violation of rights, our government could not prohibit citizens
from trading with that government, as long as the citizen contract
does not explicitly prohibit such trade. The suggested citizen
compact previously described may appropriately require that all
citizens agree to refrain from such trade.
Even if individuals were bound to withhold trade
from socialist governments, they could still trade with individual
citizens of that government as long as such trade would not aid the
offending government. There is no reason to penalize the very
people who are being oppressed by the socialist regime by denying
them trade, which may even include the means to resist their
oppressors.
In the case of a nation which is Marxist,
operating under the doctrines of class warfare and world
enslavement, any trade with such a government would constitute a
threat to security. As such, it would justify an absolute
prohibition of trade, though not necessarily to specific citizens
of that nation who need assistance in overthrowing
tyranny.
Additionally, both defensive and offensive
military measures against such a government would be justified. We
must never relinquish the right to launch out against any known
aggressor who has stated his intention to "bury us" at any time and
at any place, as long as another innocent party's rights are not
infringed. In this regard, it is my philosophy that most of the
populace and most of the young people pressed into military service
in a Marxist regime are innocent, oppressed people. Our defensive
measures (which includes offensive measures) should be aimed at the
leadership responsible for the oppression as much as possible.
There is no principle of good government which justifies giving
criminal political leaders any diplomatic immunity or any other
special protection from the consequences of the evils they have
perpetrated.
However, that does not mean that it is
necessarily proper or wise to fight every battle in every place in
the world. Such decisions are the proper realm of representatives
at the national level. Good men may differ about strategy, tactics,
and the severity of the threat. The original American
constitutional separations of power are appropriate here. The
President is the Commander in Chief of all military forces but only
has the power to action defensively to repel an imminent threat to
the nation's actual territory. Military use for any other reason,
including declarations of war must reside in the legislative branch
of government. This system allows to enemy to attack a nation
during legislative indecisions, and yet it keeps any single
individual from sending men to war or as "peace keepers" or any
other offensive activity.
In none of these cases would the national
government be justified in doling out tax funds as foreign aid to
other countries. Remember that the basic underlying principle is
that general tax revenues can only be used for the unanimous
benefit of all those providing the taxes--not for special
interests. International welfare is just as much a violation of the
property rights of taxpayers as coercive welfare is within the
nation. The decision to give assets to another person or nation
must stay strictly within the bounds of voluntary giving, in the
absence of unanimous consent. I do believe that if the cause were
just, many Americans would voluntarily give foreign aid in defense
of liberty (assuming they had a much lower level of
taxation).
Long term basing of troops in foreign countries
for protection would also be improper. If a threat exists, it
should be eliminated rapidly and swiftly, and the troops should be
brought home and be released to civilian occupations.
In summary, this is not a isolationist or
pacifist doctrine, but rather, a restrictive one that requires
every act of government be justifiable as a defense of our
liberties--all other government actions must be through the
exercise of leadership and voluntary measures.
- PRINCIPLE #9: CITIZENS SHOULD BE
PRIVATELY ARMED NOT ONLY FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION AGAINST CRIME, BUT
TO ACT AS THE ULTIMATE FORCE AGAINST POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT TYRANNY
AND AGGRESSION AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS DETAILED IN THE
CITIZEN COVENANT.
- PRINCIPLE #10: GOVERNMENT MUST BE
STRICTLY LIMITED IN ITS POWERS, ESPECIALLY IN THE FOLLOWING THREE
AREAS OF UNLIMITED INTRUSION:
- PROVIDING ANY SPECIFIC BENEFIT TO ANY PERSON OR
GROUP, FINANCED BY ANY FORM OF TAXATION, NOT CONSTITUTING A USER
FEE.
- PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM NATURAL DISASTER, SAFETY
HAZARDS, RISK TAKING OR ANY OTHER DIFFICULTY NOT CONSTITUTING A
THREAT TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
- PROSECUTION OR MAKING ANY ACT A CRIME IN THE
ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC COMPLAINANT OR VICTIM, EXCEPT IN CASES
INVOLVING IMMINENT THREAT TO LIFE. dedication to a renewal of
liberty and justice for all.
Back
to Philosophy of Law & Government
