WHERE THE FABULOUS FOUNDING FATHERS WENT WRONG

The title should reveal to you how I feel about our Founding Fathers, who conceived the most wonderful of societies based on the most enlightened of ideas.  History testifies to how right they were.

But, alas, alack, they were not omniscient nor free of  error.  They were human, and in the writing of our glorious Constitution, they made errors.

Herein is my list of those errors…ideas incorporated in the Constitution that are flat out wrong, some that are arguably wrong, and those that are wrong because they are lacking in clarity:

Article 1, SECS. 1, 2...
Setting minimum ages to serve as Representatives and Senators is inappropriate.  Free people ought be free to choose any adult of any age to serve.


Article I, Sec. 2
“Representatives…shall be apportioned among the several states…according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons…three-fifths of all other persons.”

“All other persons”, I guess, was a euphemism for “slaves”.  The FF could not say “all other men” because then it would clash head-on with the principle tenet of the Constitution they spelled out in the Declaration of Independence:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are…liberty.”

The FF should have rejected slavery as an abhorrent denigration of the luminous concept of liberty, which they extolled.  Instead, they confirmed it.  ERROR

Article I, Sec. 8

        “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises”

All taxes of any kind, shape or manner, are violations of a taxpayer’s freedom.  They are the forceful taking of my property without my consent…property to which I have an unalienable right, as a product of my life, to retain and/or dispose of as I, and I alone, see fit.   No matter the uses, benevolent or otherwise, to which taxes may be put, each and every tax is contradictory to, and a repudiation of, the concept of freedom.  If the government needs funds, in a freedom-based country like America, it must do so without denying that base on which it rests.  ERROR

      “The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce …among the several states”

This so-called interstate commerce clause is one of the most egregious errors made by the FF. Virtually every good and service has been deemed to be in interstate commerce.  If a single nail used in the construction of a building located in state A was made in state B, the building and all activities therein are considered to be in and affecting interstate commerce and subject to government regulation.  Under this interpretation, the federal government has the power to regulate just about whatever it wishes…and it has been upheld by the Supreme Court in doing so.

The government’s intrusion into, and its issuance of regulations, in one of the most significant of human activities…commerce, the making of money…is antithetical to the fundamental concept of the sovereignty of the individual,  America’s unique foundation.  ERROR

       “The Congress shall have power to establish…a uniform rule on the subject of bankruptcies”

See prior analysis on the government’s intrusion into commerce.  ERROR

       “The Congress shall have power to establish post offices”

The sole proper responsibility of government is to maintain an environment in which we are free to live our lives as we choose, provided we do not initiate force against others and thereby deny them their comparable freedom.   Ayn Rand has pointed out the three ways in which the government fulfills that responsibility, to wit: maintaining police forces, military forces, and law courts to peacefully resolve disputes.  It is certainly not a proper government function to be in the mail delivery business.  The fact that a national postal service was “needed” in the time of the FF is not a valid reason for the government to unilaterally extend its Constitutionally enumerated powers.  The fact that, today, the government is in the postal business in competition with private firms, and is financed in part by taxes collected from those private firms, is doubly onerous.  ERROR

       “The Congress shall have power to raise and support armies”

Certainly, a function of the government is to maintain a military force (see above).  The question is: Did the FF envision the manning of that force solely by voluntary enlistments, or by a military draft, or both? If a military draft was meant to be permitted, then the FF failed to see the contradiction of forcing someone to fight for his freedom.  If a military draft was not intended, then the FF failed to make that clear.

Article 1, Sec. 2

Setting minimum ages for Representatives, Senators and the President is inappropriate.  Free people ought be free to elect adults of any age.  Thomas Jefferson could not have been elected President in 1776 because of the minimum age requirement.  ERROR

Article 2, Sec. 2

Giving the President power to appoint justices of the Supreme Court and other courts is a violation of  separation of powers.  ERROR

“The president…shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States”

The granting of reprieves and pardons for criminal offenses is properly done by an independent judiciary.  Giving the power to grant them to the President made them political in nature, and we have historically seen the not unexpected abuse of that power.  ERROR

Article 4, Sec. 2

            “No person held to service or labour in one states…escaping into another, shall…be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due”

Reinforces the legitimacy of slavery and the immoral premise on which it rests: the treatment of  humans as chattel.  ERROR

Amendment I

                    “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble”

The listing of specific rights suggests they are the only rights, or the only ones protected from government interference.  In fact, freedom is an individual’s right to do an endless array of peaceful choices , all unalienable at all times.  ERROR

Amendment II

              “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear and keep arms, shall not be infringed”

The awkward wording of that Amendment does not make clear whether the FF intended to recognize the right to private gun ownership.  ERROR

Amendment V

               “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”

This, the eminent domain clause, gives the government the right to seize privately owned property, if paid for.  It is a clear violation of the unalienable right to one’s property and implicitly sanctions the use of force against  innocent property owners.  If the government needs a particular piece of property for government, it must seek to acquire it within the framework of individual property rights and freedom.     ERROR

In addition to the above overt errors, the FF made a significant error of omission.    They failed to acknowledge that women had co-equal rights with men, including the right to vote, and that when they had referred to “all men are created equal” in the Declaration, they meant both men and women.  By such failure, they supported and continued an irrational and discriminatory practice toward half the population.

The Founding Fathers were indeed men of outstanding virtue and vision.  Their invention of a society rooted in the sovereignty of each individual ranks as the greatest of human achievements, despite the errors I have noted.   I applaud and revere them for the grandeur of the country they fashioned for us all.  

THE NEW EMIGRATION LAW

OK, we who are American citizens do not own the country.  Other people from other countries may migrate here, as most of us or our ancestors did.

In a way, we are caretakers of American territory and, as such, we have the right to screen those who wish to come here and refuse entry to those who have contagious diseases, those with criminal records, those who are terrorists, and all those others who pose a threat to our well-being.  And we have a right to limit how many may enter in any particular period (say, two million per year) so as not to overload our hospitals, our schools and our roadways, and make them inadequate.

When the President refuses to enforce our existing immigration law, which contains those provisions, he is endangering our health, our access to education and, possibly, our employment opportunities.  Those are violations of his sworn pledge to uphold the law of the land and potentially criminal acts.
Impeachment proceedings should be started immediately by any group professing to protect our interests.

The granting of amnesty to those who are here illegally is`the wrong message to send to foreigners who wish to migrate here...and the wrong message  to send to our country's youngsters.  The message:  The law doesn't matter!  Further, the mass forgiveness of illegal acts is not within the Constitutional powers of the President or of Congress.

We know that the reason the Democratic party wants to grant amnesty to illegals is because`a high percentage of them will likely vote Democratic.  So the amnesty immigration law being proposed is a`law not intended to benefit us all, but to benefit a handful of Democratic officials.  Another ground for impeachment.

The cost of building a wall along our southern border?  Less than one day's federal deficit spending!  Less than half as much as the $7 billion the President just gave African countries for their electrical power systems.  Hey, we're only 17 trillion in debt!  Who cares about our security system?  What provision of the Constitution authorizes the President to give away money to foreign countries?


I propose we pass a new type of law:  an emigration law.  Short and sweet:  "Any public official who fails to perform his or her duty as spelled out in the Constitution, or who acts unConstitutionally, shall be forthwith kicked out of the country on his or her butt".



 

THE PROOF OF FREEDOM

You are home and the doorbell rings.  You open the front door and there is a deliveryman there holding an African Lily plant.  A card attached to the plant indicates that it is a gift from a friend.  You take the plant inside the house, admire it for a while, and then, in all likelihood, you ask yourself the following two questions:

          

                How much water does it need?

                How much sunlight should it get?

You have never owned an African Lily plant, you do not have a book on plants in the house, so you call the local florist.

"An African Lily plant?" the florist asks rhetorically.  "Water it generously every other day and expose it to natural light."

Now that simple tale about a plant may be the most important story you will ever hear.  It is the key to personal fulfillment, a rewarding life and happiness.  It is the proof of freedom.

The two questions you asked yourself about the plant, regarding the amount of water and sunlight it ought get, reflect your awareness (consciously or subconsciously) that if the plant is to be healthy and survive, it must be treated in a certain way.  That there is a proper course of action to take with regard to it.  Too little, or too much, water or sunlight will harm the plant, perhaps kill it.

And when the florist answered your questions about caring for the plant, without examining it, he was expressing, implicitly, a fundamental aspect of our world:  every species in the Universe is something special, something unique.  Every species has its own identity, its own nature, and if it is to survive, it must be treated in accordance with its nature.  In philosophy, that is sometimes referred to as "The Law of Identity."  A is A: things are what they are.  You know that.  A friend gets a certain type of dog and you say something like, "Be sure to let it run around outdoors a lot, they like that."  That is you espousing The Law of Identity.

One thing further about the plant.  What you or I or anyone else, even the florist, subjectively thinks about how much water and sunlight are good for the African Lily, is irrelevant.  Completely.  The only determining factor, the one and only decider of what is or is not good for the plant, is the plant itself.  The nature of the plant itself.  Our personal opinions about how to treat the plant are correct only if...only if...they coincide with, if they reflect, the nature of the plant itself.

Do you know that the very same points, the very same ideas, apply equally well to me and to you?  To all human beings?  Are you aware that even though we have different personalities, characters and temperaments, we all have the same nature? That we are members of a particular species of life and, like the African Lily plant, and every other living entity, we must be treated (and that includes the way we treat ourselves) and act in accordance with our nature if we are to survive and to bloom...that is, to be happy.

To act contrary to our nature, to deny The Law of Identity as it applies to us, is self-destructive. Literally. In every way...mentally, physically, psychologically, emotionally...we harm ourselves when we do not recognize our fundamental nature and/or fail to act in harmony with it.  We restrain our potential, we inflict unnecessary pain and anguish upon ourselves, we miss fulfilling opportunities of life.  

The failure to act in harmony with our nature kills us.  Or induces us to kill ourselves.

A key, critical aspect of our nature is that we are each a composite of mind and body.  The function of the mind is to collect data about the world in which we live, process it, evaluate it, judge it, and then decide what action, if any, should be taken. The function of the body is to implement that chosen course of action.

Every action you take every moment of every day of your life (other than certain internal involuntary actions, such as breathing and heart beating) should properly follow that very natural sequence:  the mind, consciously or otherwise, choosing the course of action, and the body acting it out. 

Human action is the physicalization of human thought.  It is the bringing of the thought, the idea, into being.  When you follow that sequence of "thought-action," you are functioning as your nature requires.  You are whole and complete, an active, viable, intellectually independent, human being.  You are you, all of you, roaring ahead on all cylinders.

Freedom is a status, an ability to live, without interference, in harmony with your nature, including living in accordance with the decisions of your own mind.  Worth repeating:  your own mind.

The human mind needs to, and likes to, feel functional, competent, efficacious.  It needs to, and likes to, feel that its decisions are meaningful and that they will be carried out.  Since that is the its primary function, it experiences an enormous sense of frustration when the link between it and the body has been cut and its control over the body lost. 

Freedom is the key to happiness because it is natural.  Reflect for a moment on your own life.  Think about the times when you are happy, fulfillingly happy.  When you truly feel vital and alive.  When life seems sweeter than sweet.  Are those not times when you are enjoying freedom?  When you are doing what you deep down wish to be doing?  When you are uncompromisingly acting out your mind's wishes?  

Freedom provides the opportunity for unity, a sense of wholeness, within you because it brings together your two facets as a human being.  When your mind is doing what it is designed by nature to do and your body is doing what your mind is directing it to do, then you are functioning at your optimum, your ideal.  The stage is then set for you to accomplish more, to enjoy more, to be more.

Because freedom permits you to function at your optimum, you will likely accomplish more.  Which, in turn, will motivate you to work harder and to seek even greater goals. That, in turn, will likely result in greater successes, engendering further motivation. You will establish a reinforcing success/motivation cycle with virtually limitless potential.

When your mind and body are in harmony, your life moves ahead on a straighter line.  And thus further.  Into areas you haven't been to before, pleasures you have not previously known, passions theretofore muted or unexpressed.

Today, many (most?) people see themselves not as individuals but as links in a social chain, concerned more with living up to the mores and preferences of the group than those of their own choosing.  Few men consistently think for themselves or consistently act in accordance with their own independently chosen judgments.  The consequence is a half-hearted, burdened life, lacking conviction, devoid of direction, uncertain and despairing...with none of the passion that only a free-spirited, confident, imaginative, independent, mind can spark.

Freedom is what our nature requires, and anyone, any government, that does not recognize and respect that fact, without restriction or limitation, is our deadly enemy and should be treated as`such.

Those who argue that freedom is not an absolute are arguing that some death is better than life.

Not in my world
 .

THE CRUELEST HOAX

From the time a child is old enough to understand, and often long before that, society begins its assault.

He is taught to conform to the rules, the mores, the standards of society, to get along, in exchange for acceptance and security, and this induces him to suppress his own thoughts, his own feelings, his own self.  He befriends the unworthy, he agrees not to disagree, he is told not to stand out and he doesn’t.  He discovers, too late, that the security he seeks leaves him insecure within himself.

He is told not to “think that way,” not to “say those things,” not to “be like that,” when that is the way he wishes to think, to speak, to be.  In other words, he is told not to be himself, or herself, which is a contradiction, an impossibility.

He is told to gauge his success, to measure his worth, by the approval of others and he courts that approval at the cost of his own soul.  He is taught not to be proud of his achievements, which means not to be proud of himself, which places happiness outside his reach.

He is told to do his duty to family, to country, to society, which means to act not in accordance with the judgments of his own mind but with the judgments of others, which means to live without his mind, which means to live a living death.

He is told that it is moral to sacrifice his life to others, and so he does, and he becomes yet another lamb on the altar of death.

He is told that life’s rewards come in another life so he stops expecting them here on Earth.  Many destroy themselves to escape the anguish of an unrewarding life.

He is told that money is the root of all evil but he wants some and so he feels evil, sinful, unworthy.

He is told not to judge others, that we are all the same, but he does judge, as he must, and he discovers we are not all the same and he feels bewildered and guilty.

He is taught to fear failure, to fear rejection, so he runs from the enriching challenges and involvements of life.

He is taught that ideas do not matter, that they are but mental games that have no important meaning in his life...and so they don’t.

He is told that being born into a society has automatically made him a signatory to a social contract that decrees what he must do to satisfy his obligations to society.  He is advised that from time to time, society will define and clarify for him the duties he owes to society and the financial obligations he owes to other, less endowed, less industrious, members of society.  He is told that failure to do such duties and to pay such financial obligations (via taxes and other assessments) is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment, in amounts and duration set from time to time by society.

He is advised not to question, criticize nor contest either society’s authority under this social contract or his obligations hereunder under penalty of being labeled a radical, a rebel, an iconoclast, an idealist, a troublemaker,  each of whom is punishable by social banishment.

He is promised that in return for his obedience and fulfillment of the terms of this social contract, he will be permitted to be an accepted member of society.

Now, of course, such a contract could have no legal efficacy, could it?  After all, it was imposed upon you without your consent and if you do not agree with the terms of the contract, you are still forcefully bound by them. It is a contract that our courts would not enforce, would they?

But they do, every day, with respect to virtually every aspect of our lives.  (Remember, the judges and prosecuting attorneys are members of society.)  

If I choose to obey the social contract, I become a pawn to be used in the “public interest.”  If I choose not to obey, I am punished.  Clever!  Either way, I am being coerced to live my life, to some extent, in accordance with the wishes of the minds of others. 

Society, the alleged benefactor, is in fact an assassin.

The frontiersman opted for social banishment.

WANTED: STRAIGHT TALK

Conservatives generally hold the right positions on the issues but their arguments are not persuasive because they are missing two essential ingredients:  Precision and Proof.

PRECISION

Conservatives summarize their political position by saying they are for "less" government.

What does that mean.  Except for absolute dictatorships, all governments are "less" than they otherwise could be.  How much less?  We have 50 million people receiving food stamps.  How much less should that number be?  35 million?  25 million?  10 million?

And "less" Where has it overstepped its proper and Constitutional authority?  Exactly which programs should be eliminated entirely?

PROOF

Virtually always, no objective, logical proof is offered as to why a particular position is correct.  The two most common "proofs" offered about the correctness or incorrectness of what the government is doing are (1) it is supported by or violates the Constitution, and (2) the country was "better off" when that position was in effect.  Both "proofs" fail.

The fact that something is or is not in the Constitution is not logically convincing one way or the other.  As much as I admire and respect the Founding Fathers, I know they were neither omniscient nor infallible.  There were errors in the original Constitution (slavery was recognized and slaves did not fall under the provision that "all men are created equal"; women were not permitted to vote, etc.), and there are errors still.  The fact that something can be found in a document or book is not a shred of proof it is correct.

The argument that we were better off when the conservative position was in effect, is unspecific as to what "better off" means (see above), and also offers no proof that the standard being used to support "better off" (e.g., lower unemployment rate, lower crime rate, higher stock indexes) is, in fact, the right standard to use (which is maximum freedom for all).

Without proof, the position taken is merely a subjective opinion and as such has no...no...persuasive power.  I have no interest in your preferring vanilla ice cream, nor does it prove it is the healthiest and best flavor to eat...any more than you should care that I prefer chocolate.

There is a third error that all political pundits and commentators make and it is to speak of opposing political views as being monolithic.  Conservatives talk about what the Left wants as if every member of that political persuasion feels the same way.  Tell me the Left wants to transform our country into a socialist state and I might think, "I  have a good friend who is a Democrat and he doesn't want to do that.  The Conservatives don't know what they are talking about".  (The Democrats and Republicans do the same.)

So...we have to get back to basics on the road paved with logic and reason.

NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS, GOV

In 5-4 split decisions, the Supreme Court threw out the ban on same-sex marriage in California, effectively allowing those marriages in the 13 states that now recognize them, and, on very technical legal grounds, left in effect the ban on unisex marriage in the states that do not now permit them. While its decisions were half right, the Court’s reasoning was all wrong.

What the Court should have said is that marriage is a private relationship over which the government (federal, state, city or otherwise) has no jurisdiction, no authority, no power.  And it should have said so very simply, clearly and loudly:

“In America, every man and woman is free…free to live his or her life as he or she alone chooses…that freedom can only be denied, limited or restrained through acts of force…and that the sole function of all governments, therefore, is to provide the people with a force-free environment.”

In other words, you and I are free to enter into a marriage relationship with any one or more consenting adults…or with one or more goats, if we wish.

Our Constitution states that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the people and the state.  The Founders were wrong here.  Powers not granted to the federal government to provide us with a non-coercive environment are properly retained by the people, individually.

So what ought those seeking to marry in a state that does not permit same sex marriage do?  Marry…and sign an agreement which sets forth the personal responsibilities, financial obligations and authority which the parties choose to have.  In the unlikely event that no religious minister will perform the ceremony, have a mutual friend say the appropriate mumbo jumbo words, sign the agreement, and have a great marriage!

Oh, yes.  One further thing:  laugh, long and loud.

(The issue that a same sex couple in those non-permitting states will not be entitled to government benefits accorded other couples will be dealt with in a future post.)

The AMERICAN FRONTIER

The American frontier was first and foremost an idea. A unique idea on which no country in the history of the world had ever been founded:  the idea that each and every one of us had total control and was totally sovereign over his or her own life.  There was to be no royalty, no government, to which man was subservient.  It was the idea expressed by the Founders as our “unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of (our) happiness”.  it was the idea to which they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

It is the idea which has virtually disappeared in our country.  Government has moved with little resistance into virtually every aspect of our lives, setting demands on what we must do and limitations on what we must not do.  Big Brother is bigger and more onerous than Orwell ever imagined.  The magnificent Constitution, intended to preserve and protect our rights, is disregarded/violated, by those of all major parties with political power…and their unlawful actions approved by our highest courts.

And perhaps worst of all has been the destruction of the American spirit, manifested so beautifully by the early American frontiersman.  He courageously forged new paths into uncharted wilderness, into areas in which there was no government, relying solely on his own abilities, recognizing no authority over his life, prepared to defend it with the rifle he always had at hand, asking for and giving no quarter.  His philosophy of life was simple and heartfelt:

“What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is yours”

“Don’t push me around”

With those who abided  his philosophy, whether native Americans, pilgrims or others,he was at  peace.  With those who didn’t, he was at war.

If we are to regain our glorious heritage, we must do more…much more…than simply fixing a particular social or political issue.  That will not do it, nor will compromising the exquisite idea on which our country was founded, as so many urge.  I recently heard a political commentator on the radio asked by a listener: “What can we do to stop the decline of America and restore it to greatness?”  His answer: “Nothing now.  We have to wait until the next election and try to put better people into office”.

He is wrong.  Totally wrong.  There is much we can do.  We must again become frontiersmen, and women.  We must emulate the Founders’ commitment to the glorious American idea of individual freedom, and be willing to fight for it without hesitation or  reservation.  We must not sanction, and become accomplices to, the destruction of our great country by doing nothing.

Are you a frontiersman?