America the Great

The history of the United States of America has it share of unsightly stains. I categorize a "stain" on our history as things which run counter to the ideals and principles espoused in The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Bill of Rights.

The most enduring and noteworthy stains have been slavery, racism, and elitism, which both run directly counter to the foundational principle that "all men are created equal." An emerging stain is the intolerant, and anti-democratic movements of 'social justice', critical race theory (CRT), and 'wokeness.'

In spite of very real stains, the United States of America is unequaled in the history of the world for enabling the political liberty and economic prosperity of people all over the world.

Part 1 - Slavery

In fairness to the Founding Fathers, many of them recognized the hypocrisy of their egalitarian principles and the institution of slavery. They made some concessions in their principles to keep the states united as one nation. At the same time, they took steps to minimize the political leverage that might accrue to slave owners by discounting the value of their human chattel with regards to apportioning legislative seats. 

I believe the Founding Fathers also trusted that, over time, the principle of 'forming a more perfect union' would continue to erode slavery until it could be abolished entirely. Which is exactly what happened. 

The Three-Fifths Compromise

The so-called three-fifths compromise, alluded to above, is actually a racist statement, but it may surprise some to realize that it isn't racist towards blacks. It is racist toward Native Americans (Indians):

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons

Note that the words 'slave' and 'black' are not used anywhere is the Constitution. Rather the terms used are "free Persons," persons "bound to service for a term of years" (i.e., indentured servants), and "all other Persons." Only the "Indians" (all Native Americans) who were undeniably free persons, were called out and excluded by race from either category.

As a matter of Constitutional law, slavery was not a racial matter. Slavery was a legal status.

US Civil War Ended Slavery

The US Civil War was the slave owners' last ditch effort to preserve the institution of slavery which was, then, cornerstone to their economic livelihood. They had no way to know that less than thirty years after the Civil War (about 1894), Eli Whitney would invent the cotton gin, which would effectively eliminate a significant reliance on manual labor for the production of cotton.

Regardless of arguments over states' rights versus slavery as the proximate cause of the Civil War, it is incontrovertible that the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution is directly linked to the Civil War. It was passed in January of 1865 and ratified in December of that same year. The amendment ensured that the debate over the legality of slavery would be ended when the Union prevailed over the Confederate States of America. The amendment converted the Emancipation Proclamation, a potentially temporary executive order using the wartime powers of President Abraham Lincoln, into the overarching law for all states in the United States of America.

Separating Racism and Slavery

The 13th Amendment does not address racism, at all. It further perfects the Union by eliminating slavery. It also eliminates the portion of the US Constitution which discounted the voting power of slaves, because it eliminated the legal status of slavery.

AMENDMENT XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Source: National Archives 

Slavery is a legal status, not a racial one. 

There is ample evidence in the historical record to support this assertion. If we accept the terms 'black' and 'white' as racial identifiers, then the fact that blacks in America owned slaves substantially destroys the argument that slavery is a racial issue. Further, the historical evidence supporting the involuntary servitude (i.e., slavery) of Irish prisoners brought to the American colonies by the English destroys the remaining foundation of any argument that slavery in the Americas was purely a racist institution.

Part 2 Racism

Racism Defined

Racism has existed from time-immemorial. It is based on prejudice.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines racism as:

• Belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
• Behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice
• Systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
• A political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles

Prejudice

Webster defines prejudice as: 

• injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights
• preconceived judgment or opinion
• an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
• an instance of such judgment or opinion
• an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

Notice that prejudice is characterized by being based on lack of knowledge and irrationality.

Prejudice and racism are nothing new. Throughout history, nearly every distinct tribe, people, and nation have fostered prejudice against others.  

Among the Native American tribes of the USA most nations referred to themselves as some variant of "the human beings." This implied that other nations were less than human.

The peoples of the USA believed they had a "manifest destiny" to conquer and control all of North America (and at times beyond those limits).

Romans considered themselves superior to the barbarian nations on their borders.

Germans are better than the French. The French are better than the Germans.

Before World War II, the racial prejudice of the Japanese led them declare themselves the "master race" and justify their conquest of Korea, China, and everywhere else as a logical outcome of their racial superiority and natural right to rule.

Nearly everyone is aware of the Aryan master race theory promoted by Adolf Hitler as the rationalization for the subjugation of all "inferior" races and even the extermination of specific races. His delusion led to the death of more than six million Jews as well as contributing to the deaths of 75 to 80 million soldiers and civilians in World War II.

Racial Slavery Justified

Regardless of the legal nicety distinguishing the issues of slavery and racism, it is irrefutable that, in the years leading up to the Civil War, most slaves in the United States of America were of African descent. The ethnic characteristics of the Africans were often very different than the European ethnic characteristics of those in power. This facilitated the mental gymnastics of Bible-toting slave owners to justify their enslavement, even in the face of Christian mores condemning slavery.

They reasoned that the ethnic differences between Africans and Europeans were outward manifestations of fundamental differences in the intellectual and spiritual capacities of Africans and Europeans.

This ethnicity-driven attitude toward slavery contrasts sharply with the historical justification of slavery as the merciful fate of the weak at the hands of the strong. Throughout human history, those who survived the violent conquest of their people were enslaved.

The Root of Raced-Based Slavery

Slave owners in the USA did not have the pretext of conquest to provide any moral justification for slavery, so they had to invent a moral pretext. If Africans were inherently inferior to Europeans, then enslaving Africans was an act of service, lifting them above their brute existence and into the lowest rungs of civilization. 

At best, this was a specious argument. At worst it was simply a lie and blatant rationalization to quell a guilty conscience. The suppression of teaching slaves to read and write was a necessary measure to prevent the refutation of this ethnic rationalization of slavery. Blacks who could read, write, and reason as well as any European would put the lie to the argument that they were inherently inhuman brutes, barely better than savage beasts, or other domesticated livestock.

To support slavery in the USA, the ethnic differences of Africans and Europeans had to be portrayed as more than ethnic variations. Instead the Africans had to be transformed into a species that was similar to humans, but something slightly less. They had to be portrayed as a separate race of humans-like creatures with capabilities and potentials distinctly different, and less than European humans.

Part 3 - Modern Stains

Critical Race Theory (CRT)

CRT is nothing more or less than racism. Its foundational concept is that individual and collective behavior is predestined based on skin color. But, CRT is not color-blind. It is specifically and particularly anti-white.

Under the notions of CRT, white people are evil oppressors and black people are oppressed victims.

A key premise is that any institution (such as the government of the United States of America) which has been created and supported by white people is inherently designed to promote white-supremacy. Further, such institutions are irredeemably corrupted by this racist purpose and cannot be corrected. Instead, they must be dismantled and replaced by institutions built by black people. The assumption inherent in the is either that black people will inherently create untainted institutions, or that building institutions which are anti-white is definitively "good" because white people are defined as "evil."

It doesn't take a revelation from God to see that such vituperative views will inevitably lead to genocidal violence. Violent, genocide is the logical end of advocacy of any philosophy based on irrational hatred of others because of their inherent traits.

Racial violence deriving from CRT will come from any or all of three sources:

1. As a natural extension of CRT as its advocates embrace their own version of Hitler's "Final Solution" and seek to exterminate whites.
2. White supremacists winning adherents and supporters to aggressively "protect" whites from  increasingly threatening and militant CRT supporters.
3. Ordinary people who reject racism, embrace Constitutional principles, and band together to defend themselves against militant CRT black supremacists and militant white supremacists.

When that happens, it will be another stain on the history of the USA.

Wokeness

While the dictionary definition of wokeness sounds like a good thing, its practice is pretty vile. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines wokeness as:

Aa state of being aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality

Being aware of social problems such as racism and inequality is a good thing. If we are unaware of problems, we are nearly incapable of resolving them. Unfortunately, in practice, wokeness is particularly centered in the notion of intersectionality. 

The way in which different types of discrimination (= unfair treatment because of a person's sex, race, etc.) are connected to and affect each other

Intersectionality, in practice, is a game of one-upmanship where each person tries to show how much more (potentially) they are oppressed than others because of their unique behaviors or characteristics. The underlying motive is to secure preferential treatment for some intersections more than for others. The reasoning is that the greater preference is required to offset the greater degree of oppression or discrimination. The reality is that practitioners of intersectionality want to derive financial benefits based wholly on their characteristics (inherent or otherwise) without any effort or value-add to society. The narcissistic foundation of intersectionality is that society should pay for the enrichment is supposedly receives from the presence of such intersections.

The Irony of Wokeness

The consummate irony of intersectionality is that when you carry it to its logical end point, you inevitably arrive at a doctrine which determines that the individual, is the ultimate expression of intersectionality and thus merits the greatest degree of societal protection and support. 

Individual worth and protection, regardless of other characteristics, is the cornerstone of the principles of Constitutional law and liberty. That is why the Constitution begins with the words, "We the People..." 

Social Justice

The Cambridge Dictionary defines social justice as:

"The idea that all people should have the same rights and opportunities and that a country's wealth and resources should benefit everyone in that country"

Like wokeness, this is another movement that sounds right in its definition, but is totally wrong in its execution.

Let's unpack this definition to find out where it goes wrong.

 "all people should have the same rights"

That statement is totally in agreement with the founding principles of the USA. 

 "all people should have the same ... opportunities"

Life Isn't Fair

Here, we begin to skate on thin ice. Opportunities are often closely linked with circumstances and personal characteristics. Suggesting that everyone should be given the same opportunities is based on the false assumption that life is fair and evenhanded in the distribution of our circumstances and characteristics. 

Some of us have greater intellectual capacity than others. The person with an IQ of 60 is unlikely to have the opportunity to attend MIT because that low IQ indicates the inability of that person to succeed at the level of intellectual endeavors needed to matriculate and succeed in studies at MIT.

Although there is not equivalent of and IQ for artistic talent, someone with my mediocre level of artistic skill is not going to benefit from, and hence not receive, an opportunity to attend Julliard. My abilities simply aren't sufficient to qualify me for attendance. 

Legislating such "fairness" of opportunities without regard to abilities will have the end result of destroying excellence, and all the benefits that come from excellence. Excellent inventions such as smart phones, excellent art such as a Warhol (even mediocre art such as a Bob Rossi), and many other marvelous and beautiful enhancements to our lives will cease to occur.

Outcomes

"a country's wealth and resources should benefit everyone in that country"

This component of social justice is focused on individual outcomes. Everyone, means every individual. The premise here is that we should all get the same outcomes. The assumption is that these outcomes are universally good, hence the word "benefit."

The bitter reality is that the only way you can ensure that everyone gets the same benefit is by denying all but the most rudimentary benefits to everyone. Worse, such enforced egalitarian poverty is at odds with basic human nature and thus is doomed to failure. Enforced poverty will inevitably lead to corruption as people seeks ways to manipulate the system to provide themselves with what levels of comfort they want (regardless of what they may, or may not, deserve).

Capitalism

Worst of all, this phrase is totally anti-capitalist. 

The beating heart of capitalism is sustained by two things:

1. the free and uncoerced exchange of goods and services
2. the natural principle of supply and demand

While governments and individuals may strive, or succeed, to exert coercion in exchanges, the natural principles of supply and demand cannot be subverted. They are inexorable.

Scarcity and utility are the natural drivers of value. People are willing to exchange more goods and services for those goods and services which are more scarce or of greater utility. They unwilling to exchange goods and services which are scarce or very useful and will do so only if the exchange is of equal or greater value to them.

Because of this natural principle, those who provide the most scarce or most useful goods and services will inevitably accrue a greater abundance of other goods and services than others.

Socialism

This is true even (or especially) in the halls of socialist governments, where valuable information or access is clandestinely and routinely traded for such goods and services as the holder of information or access desires. Political and economic power are commodities which are scarce and very useful. Thus, such egalitarian utopias almost immediately upon inception descend into corruption as illegal exchanges become the only means whereby anyone can rise above the enforced poverty dictated by the state.

Even if equality of outcomes were possible, it would be undesirable. The behavior of slaves is especially instructive in this point.

Social Justice is Economic Slavery

All slaves enjoy an equality of outcome from their labors. From their masters they get food, clothing, and shelter. The rewards do not increase in proportion to the success of the master's enterprise. As a result, when the master is not overseeing their work, slaves do only the minimal amount of work they are not forced to do.

No one will exert themselves to excellent inventions, art, innovations, or anything else, unless it will directly increase the rewards they receive for their efforts. You may argue that this should not be how people behave. However, you can just as effectively argue that the sun should rise in the West as many days as it rises in the East, and have just as much success at changing things.

Equality of Outcomes Equals Destitution

Equality of outcomes is both unattainable and undesirable. Equality of outcomes destroys initiative, innovation, excellence, and abundance. It leads only to universal poverty and destitution.

Part 4 - The Greatness of America

As I mentioned at the start of this essay, the United States of America is unequaled in the history of the world for enabling the political liberty and economic prosperity of people all over the world.

The USA is the first nation in the history of the world which was founded on the principles of individual liberty. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is the first government expressly designed to protect the rights of the people and preserve them from oppression by the state.

The success of the American Revolution, and its founding principles, led directly to democratic revolutions all over the world, beginning first with France. It is arguable that if the American Revolution had failed, most of what we currently know as "the free world" would still be governed by powerful monarchies. Instead, they are republics, governed by leaders who are elected by the people to serve for a time while representing the best interests of the people. 

The USA has fought and won two world wars to defend the political liberty of people in other countries. Unlike conquering powers throughout history, the USA did not require political or economic subservience or servitude of its defeated foes. Rather, it expended its treasure to rebuild its former foes and encouraged their self-determination.

In the wake of the successful imperial efforts of the USA (a stain in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) instead of colonizing and retaining the servitude of countries such as the Philippines, Cuba, Mexico, and most of the Pacific Islands, in the twentieth century the USA relinquished control of these countries to self-governance.

Through most of the twentieth century and now in the twenty-first century, the USA consistently eschews colonialism and imperialism. Preferring instead to encourage self-governance, the rule of law, and universal recognition and protection of the inalienable rights of humanity.

The Decline of America

Nation Building

Sadly, our national good intentions have been abused as politicians have been seduced into "nation building."  We try to impose our economic and political values and structures of governance on other nations which have not reached a point of maturity where they have a majority of people who desire these. 

Most recently we see this failure in Afghanistan. Instead of using our military might to teach the Taliban that it is not in their best interests to support those who attack the people of the USA, we took over their country for a time. While there, we tried to encourage democratic government. We failed because democracy is never something that can be imposed upon a people. They must win it for themselves. True, they may need outside help, but it is worth noting that no French armies took the field with American revolutionaries against the British. The greatest share of bleeding for freedom was done by Americans.

Previously, we saw this same lesson explained to us in Vietnam. Before that, it was taught to us in the jungles of Central America during the so-called wars of the Banana republics. In all those cases, after we removed our military, the governments of those countries collapsed and re-emerged in forms that the people of that country were willing to support.

Moral Decadence

At the same time as we are seeking to build other nations, our national public persona has come to be widely portrayed by media and popular culture as dissolute, licentious, and pleasure seeking. Our movies, societal trends, and many of our laws seem to disregard the importance of the nuclear family, religion, and the sanctity of life. 

All these destructive societal trends were manifested preceding the destruction of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. They are clearly critical performance indicators for the survival of any nation. Many of our current trends, are repugnant to wholesome people of all nations. It isn't hard to understand how Muslim extremists can gain credibility with more mainstream people by calling the USA "the Great Satan." Our society is becoming increasingly devilish and degenerate.

Conclusions

We have many old, and some new, stains on our history. Slavery, racism, CRT, wokeness, social justice, and even some imperialism are all stains on our history. Many of our old stains have been removed. Some persist and are made worse by new stains. Although the old stains of slavery and imperialism have been vanquished, racism persists and is being exacerbated by things like CRT and wokeness. Before the rise of CRT, racism in the USA was on the wane and nearly extinct.

 

Despite these stains on its robes, the USA is still the best place on earth to live. We enjoy a level of economic abundance, mobility, and liberty which is the envy of the world. Our political freedom (though rapidly eroding) is still substantially greater than anywhere else. The USA is still a shining city on a hill and a beacon of freedom. Those who say otherwise are either ignorant of the facts, or jealous and conniving for our downfall.

We will solve our social ills by ensuring that the law applies equally to everyone, without any regard to their immutable characteristics, or their choice of religion.

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM).

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

(c) Copyright 2023 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God

The Roots of Liberty

Creation of Adam (C) Sergey Nivens licensed through DepositPhotos.com

Most of my career has been focused on solving problems. First as a computer programmer, then as a systems analyst and later as a project and program manager my job was to solve problems for my clients. Early on I learned that if you can correctly define the problem you are about half way to solving it. However, correctly defining a problem is not as easy at is sounds. Problems are often so distracting, urgent, messy, volatile, or all of the above that it is difficult to separate the symptoms from the actual problem.

To illustrate this concept consider a situation where fires are springing up all around you. What do you do first?  Do you call the Fire Department, start throwing water, or, do you stop the arsonist from starting more fires? Good sense demands the latter. However, when you are distracted by all the smoke, flames, noise, panic, and confusion it is often easier to try to extinguish one fire and then another. Unfortunately, when you treat the symptoms (in this case the fire) your efforts are in vain because the real root of the problem keeps causing more symptoms.

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.

Henry David Thoreau

Thoreau's statement (above) illustrates the fact that, most of us are more than ready and willing to address symptoms while those who address the root of an issue are much more rare.

As a professional problem solver I was trained in techniques of root cause analysis. I have used those tools and techniques many times to ensure that the time, energy, and money provided to me was used to resolve root causes instead of being wasted treating symptoms. Metaphorically, instead of simply putting out fires I made sure the arsonist was dealt with first, then we could move on to putting out the fires and repairing the damage.

On July 4, 1776 The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America was published. Among the words of the Declaration it stated "... we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights..."

Allow me, please, to unpack this a bit and in my own order and hopefully I can explain the connection between the elements in this phrase, symptoms, and roots.

Unalienable Rights

Unalienable rights are rights ingrained into humanity. When governments seek to deprive people of these inherent, ingrained, and unalienable rights, they cannot rule in peace. They can only deprive people of these rights through the constant, consistent application of force and violence. Efforts to deprive people of these rights inevitably provoke strong resistance from people. Depending on the conditioning of the people this resistance can range from editorials in the press, petitions, peaceful protests in the streets, violent protests, assassinations, insurrections, and armed rebellions.  

If you look at the arc of events leading up to the American Revolution you see that same progression. The American Colonists first resorted to opinion pieces in the papers. From there to petitions sent to the government. When these seemed to be ignored, or worse used as pretext to attack them, they escalated to peaceful protests, then violent protests. Finally, finding their efforts only resulted in greater violence against them they came out in open rebellion against their government.

When their rebellion prevailed and they were able to establish their own government, instead of embracing a monarchy where an elite few made and enforced the laws, they opted to form a constitutional republic. A government "... of the People, by the People, and for the People." Through the power of elections, Americans are given the power of rebellion. Every election we can throw off those leaders who fail to represent our interests over their own, or those of others. This electoral system balances the power of the majority against the rights of the minority, and is based on the foundational principle that either the rights of every individual are important, or none are important. 

Endow

To endow is to equip. An endowment, often associated with large contributions to charitable institutions, is to provide a financial source of income which keeps providing benefits in perpetuity, forever. Their value typically exceeds anything we could give in return for them. Endowments are gifts, not purchases. 

These unalienable rights are a gift that equips us to live our lives in a manner that makes us responsible for our own outcomes, rather than allowing us to be victims of others' actions.

The most fundamental of our unalienable rights is freedom of conscience. The right to embrace and act on our own beliefs. This is only restrained if our actions have the effect of depriving others of their unalienable rights.

The unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, mentioned specifically in the Declaration, all rest upon our freedom of conscience.

By the Creator

Monarchies prevailed across the world at the time of the American Revolution. Under a monarchy (and other forms of dictatorship) all rights flow from the monarch (the King or Queen). If the ruler grants a right, s/he can subsequently revoke that right. History shows monarchs and dictators have rescinded rights and privileges from their people almost as often as they granted them.

In blatant defiance of all forms of dictatorship (monarchies or otherwise) the Declaration of Independence states that the Creator gifted these rights to humanity and no government has the authority to revoke them.  

Here we arrive at the root.

The implications of acknowledging a "Creator" are significant and affect everything that comes after that acknowledgement.

Many today embrace the notion that there is no Creator. They argue that against all the mathematical odds the extremely complex creatures and ecosystems which surround us came into being spontaneously and over eons of time have self-modified to result in the current state.  If one of these advocates of wholly natural evolution were somehow transported to a distant, uninhabited planet and there, amid the sands of a desert came upon a digital camera their reason would conclude that the camera was the product of a creator, an intelligent designer. They would never accept the argument that the cosmos had shaken the sand of that desert so long that the minerals and crystals there had spontaneously formed to make this camera. And yet, they can look at the human optic system, which is much more complicated than that of a camera and assert that it was not created, it evolved.

The root reason why many people today reject the notion of an intelligent Creator is not through lack of evidence. Rather they reject the Creator out of fear. What people fear the most is the unknown.

A mind which can create the cosmos we see is infinitely more capable than us. If we cannot comprehend the cosmos, its origins, its rules, its destination, its purpose, then we certainly cannot comprehend the intelligence which set it all up. Living in the shadow of such an unfathomable and powerful intelligence is naturally very frightening. 

If you acknowledge the existence of a Creator, what choices does that lead to?

A) You can choose to pretend that the Creator doesn't exist. Because you cannot fathom the mind of the Creator you can imagine that you are of no consequence. The Creator takes no notice of you, so you are free to do as you please.

B) You can choose to cower in fear of unwittingly offending such a being and finding yourself on the wrong end of the wrath of a cosmic power. Down this road lies a life of superstition. Like the ancient Greeks, you erect altars to all aspects of the Creator you can imagine. To cover your bases you even set up an altar to "the Unknown God" mentioned by Paul in Acts 17:23.

C) You can seek to find the Creator in order to either align your life with the Creator's purposes or defy that power, seeking to thwart it. This course is quite challenging because there is nothing you can do which will uncover the existence of the Creator. You cannot force the Creator into the light of day under a microscope or a telescope. You can only find the Creator if the Creator chooses to reveal himself to you, and the very concept of revelation really scares most people and is easily faked by someone seeking power.

For now, allow me to set aside the issue of revelation. Instead, let's focus on the implications from our being endowed by our Creator with these inalienable rights.

If the Creator thought it worthwhile to give us these rights, then it stands to reason the Creator will hold us accountable for what we do with these rights. It is logical that it is especially important whether or not we seek to preserve them, or seek to deprive others of them.

It seems clear to me that the Declaration of Independence makes clear that the Creator is the root of our rights and the associated duty to preserve those rights. We may ignore the many witnesses in nature, history, and word which bear witness to the intelligent hand of a Creator but our willful ignorance does not alleviate us one whit from our accountability to honor and defend these unalienable rights.

Divisiveness

Today we are in the midst of what is still a largely civil conflict over these rights. At the root of this conflict is the belief in a Creator. If you acknowledge a Creator then you must deliberately defy that Creator or seek to align with that Creator. It becomes an important, conscious choice with significant consequences.

Those who seek to deprive us of our rights almost unanimously also seek to deny us the rights of conscience, particularly when it comes to religion. If our religion will adapt to not oppose their views then it is marginally acceptable. However, if our religion doesn't admit of compromise on fundamental issues, then we are to be redefined as dangerous extremists and turned into enemies of the state. Once that latter indictment sticks, then the full power of government can be unleashed to exterminate us and eradicate our views.

Our best defense against being destroyed (spiritually and physically) by this escalating conflict is to speak up in defense of our rights. Silence is acceptance. Show your gratitude to the Creator by speaking up in defense of the rights endowed to us. Use your voice. Use your vote. Use your time and money to support people and organizations who are trying to defend our rights.

When you speak up in defense of our rights you will definitely offend some people and incur the anger of others. Speak up and defend rights politely, but firmly. Don't resort to demonization and name calling. If they are offended when you are not being offensive it is their choice, not yours. 

When you remain silent and inactive in the defense of our rights you will offend your Creator and may incur that divine wrath.

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM).

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God

Unalienable Rights. Unavoidable Responsiblities.

Photo used with permission (C) DepositPhotos.com

Tom Sheppard

11/18/2021

Unalienable Rights

The Declaration of Independence declares that all people are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  Please note, although The Declaration of Independence lists some specific rights, it expressly states that this list is not exhaustive.

What does unalienable mean?  Dictionary.com gives one definition for inalienable as: “not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied.”[1]

The Declaration of Independence goes on to assert that legitimate governments exist only to preserve these rights.  When a government becomes “destructive of these ends” it is the right of the people to abolish that government and form a new one.  This latter point is effectively calling out another inalienable right, the right to rebel against any government that is seeking to deprive the people of their inalienable rights.  This has been called “the right of revolution.”  Jefferson actually list this as a responsibility.  One author pointed out that citizens of the United States of America exercise this right of revolution every time they vote.

The earliest reference I could find to unalienable rights comes from John Locke.  In 1689, Locke argued in Two Treatises of Government that political society existed for the sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's "life, liberty, and estate".[2] In A Letter Concerning Toleration, he wrote that the magistrate's power was limited to preserving a person's "civil interest", which he described as "life, liberty, health, and indolency[3] of body; and the possession of outward things".[4] He declared in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding that "the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness".[5]

In Section 134 of The Doctrine and Covenants[6], Joseph Smith, Jr. sets forth the lawful purposes of governments and what they must do to retain the loyalty of the governed. 

He begins by asserting that governments are not an invention of humanity, rather they are instituted by God for the benefit of humanity.  He further states that God holds us accountable for our actions relating to both making and administering laws.  This places a solemn and eternal responsibility on those in government to use their offices “for the good and safety of society.”[7]

In the second verse of this section, Joseph, speaking on behalf of the Saints and according to the will of God goes on to define what governments must do to merit the allegiance of the governed.

“We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.”[8]

Joseph lists as inviolate, the rights to free exercise of conscience, control of property, and protection of life.  These are entirely consistent with the views expressed in The Declaration of Independence and by John Locke.  We further see these rights explicitly defended in The Bill of Rights which amended the US Constitution for the express purpose of clarifying exactly what the people were expecting from the government defined by the US Constitution.

The First Amendment directly addresses the importance of the free exercise of conscience:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”[9]

The Founders of our nation encapsulated this right in the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petitioning the government over grievances.  Their language is clear in prohibiting the government from making any laws in these areas.

Joseph Smith elaborated and clarified the freedom of religion.

“We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.”[10]

Some key points are worthy of call outs.

1.       Men are accountable only to God for their exercise of religion.
2.       Government can only interfere with religion when religion is infringing on the rights and liberties of others.

This latter point helps to clarify further the proper relationship between religions and government. 

It also serves to highlight the fact that government exists to protect the rights and liberties of each individual against all forces seeking to deprive them of their rights and liberties. These forces may be foreign governments, corporations, individuals, or even domestic governments.  This latter point is one of the rare instances where the Federal Government, usually after a ruling from the US Supreme Court, is authorized to interfere with actions or ordinances enacted by the sovereign governments of our state and local governments.

An additional right:

·        The right to self-defense: “…all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.”[11]

The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights speaks directly to this point.  It reads:

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”[12]

Many people have gotten themselves so wrapped up in the word “militia” in this amendment that they often ignore the mandate that this right “shall not be infringed.”  The facts are that a posse which consisted of deputized citizens acting under the leadership and authority of law enforcement, have often been referred to a militia.  A militia is simply a group of citizens organized to defend their rights against one or more individuals threatening to deprive them of their unalienable rights.

The Second Amendment asserts that the right of the people to defend their inalienable rights by the use of deadly force, if necessary, is not negotiable.  No sane person doubts the right of one nation to defend itself against the unlawful aggression of another nation.  This sovereign right to self-defense is not one of the rights ceded by the sovereign people of the United States of America as part of our social compact.

Joseph’s teachings curtail this right to “…times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.”[13]

Unavoidable Responsibilities

Unavoidable means: “unable to be avoided; inevitable.”

In verse 5 of Section 133 Joseph notes responsibilities that people have whose rights are protected by their government.

“We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.”[14]

He notes that we are “bound to sustain and uphold” our governments.  What binds us is often referred to as a social compact.  In our case the social compact is our Constitution.  It is a bilateral contract.  The sovereign individuals cede specific portions of their individual sovereignty to the government in exchange for the commitment that the government will protect and preserve the rights of the individuals against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  To make the bilateral nature of this contract clear, Joseph notes that the individuals are bound to support the government “while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights.”

He goes on to point out that sedition and rebellion, seeking to destroy the government, is a violation of this contract as long as the government is doing its part.

In verse 6 he addresses an issue which is currently rocking our nation.  Today, many are calling for the defunding of police departments and the abolition of them.  Many people vilify the police and the courts, regardless of their diligence while enforcing the law equally on all.

“We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty;”[15]

Can any rational person deny that our police departments fall within the broad category of “magistrates?”  While they are not judges, without police to investigate crimes and apprehend criminals, magistrates would be a title without function.

Joseph goes on to explain why we need civil laws and civil governments.

“…human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man;”[16]

Our civil laws, rightfully regulate interests and actions between people, one to another, and nations one to another.  He goes on to note that religious laws govern our interests and actions between us and God, and that God holds us accountable for our obedience to both civil and religious laws.  However, he notes that religion has no right to deprive people of their property, opinions, or lives and their lawful punishments extend only to withdraw their fellowship and excommunicate them from their society.[17]

In verse 9 the issue of the appropriate separation of church and state is plainly addressed.

“We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.”[18]

This is clarified by a portion of verse 4:

“…we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion;”[19]

This makes clear that religion is not to be banished from the public square.  Rather, government means should not be used to curtail the rights of one religion versus another.  All have equal right to be heard and to influence, as long as they are not preaching sedition or infringing on the rights of individuals.

I note that these principles stand in sharp contrast to Sharia Law promulgated by Islam.  Sharia asserts that religious government is the only legitimate government and that the ruler has the obligation to kill those who do not believe in Islam. 

Likewise what Joseph is teaching is sharply contrasting to the current “Cancel Culture” which seeks to deprive people of their rights because their views are not acceptable to a certain segment of society.  They seek to force individual and collective conformance with their views by threatening to deprive those who dissent of the safety of their homes and their ability to provide for themselves and their family.

A few other responsibilities called out in Section 133 are:

•         All men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.[20]
•         Vigilantism is condemned, “…men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same;”[21]

Invented Rights

Today, the words rights and entitlements are often used interchangeably, and perhaps incorrectly.  Too often our political leaders speak only of entitlements and not of responsibilities.  We are told today that we have a right to affordable health care.  We have a right to a dignified retirement.  We have a right to choose our gender.  These are invented rights, not inalienable ones.  As evidence, note how many governments have existed in relative peace when these so-called rights didn’t exist.  Regardless, if these invented rights done come with commensurate responsibilities, they are not real rights. Instead, they are issues used by power-mongers to enhance their power and wealth at the expense of others.

Rights are wonderful things.  A right bespeaks of an entitlement.  Something which should not be abridged or denied.  It is also an often-misused word today.  Rights or entitlements are used to justify massive transfers of wealth from the hands of those who worked to earn the wealth into the hands of those who want to administer these entitlements.

Throughout history healthcare has often been unavailable no matter how much you were willing to pay for it.  Sometimes, what passed for healthcare, bought by the wealthy, was horrible and counterproductive.  Hospitals in the USA are not allowed to refuse basic, emergency health care to anyone, without regard to their ability to pay for it.  In the past, these treatments were often paid for by charitable organizations or reserve funds of the hospitals set up specifically for this purpose.

Affordable healthcare is a mantra designed to disguise forcing doctors and medical institutions to give up their compensation for the services they provide.

Retirement, dignified or otherwise, has never been a right.  Throughout history, most people were compelled by necessity to work for their food and shelter until death claimed them.  Retirement was a term used to refer to one force leaving a battlefield, usually in defeat.  Pensions from industry or for military service were typically more of a token payment than anything that could keep people housed and fed.  Personal retirement required prudent and successful financial management throughout life.  In most cases retirement plans consisted of having many children who would continue to work the land or business and support their infirm parents and their own children.

During The Great Depression images of aged and infirm people unable to support themselves were used to motivate lawmakers in the USA to shift the responsibility of planning for retirement from individuals to the government.  Wise individuals can look at the Social Security system of the USA and see through the words “Trust Fund” to realize it for the Ponzi Scheme it is.  At some point, such a system will inevitably collapse because it is not built on honest and sustainable financial principles or practices.

Individuals have a responsibility to take measures to provide for their own retirement.  While it is arguable that their children may owe them support in their retirement, their neighbors certainly have no such legal obligation to impoverish themselves to any degree for the benefit of others.  Only the laws of God can, and should, drive us to sacrifice our own means to assist the poor among us, so that they can have the food, shelter, and clothing they need.  Government exists to protect our inalienable rights from predators, not to provide for our shelter and feeding.

The right to choose your gender is something very recent and utterly unscientific.  This notion, concocted for the sole purpose of destroying the nuclear family and societies built on that family, purports that the genetic dictates of biology can somehow be obviated simply by an act of will.  While we all have our rights of conscience, those who believe in things which are demonstrably and invariably false have always been considered irrational and insane.  To believe we can choose our gender, in the face of biological facts to the contrary, is akin to believing we can choose for the world around us to be dark at mid-day simply because we believe it should be nighttime.

These invented rights all have the commonality that they are presented devoid of any responsibilities.  Affordable healthcare is presented as a right without the responsibility to pay for it.  Dignified retirement is presented as a right without the responsibility to manage your own resources and appetites to provide for it.  Gender-preference is presented as a right without the responsibility to acknowledge and accommodate biological reality.

Another current trend is the notion that the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few, or the one.  Progressives today are touting a social doctrine call intersectionality to identify new minorities.  Proponents of Intersectionality push the notion that the rights of those within the categories which overlap must be protected even if it destroys the rights of the individual.  They posit that these group rights are more important than individual rights.

The dictionary defines intersectionality as “the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.”

As noted in the definition, each category is assumed to carry with it some elements of discrimination or disadvantage. Advantages which may come from any category, or categories, are discounted, except when attempting to broadly paint another categorical intersection as inherently and uniformly oppressive to others.  Oppression is another way of expressing the notion that someone is interfering with the inalienable rights of another.

The irony of intersectionality is that if you apply enough categories, you eventually will reduce the size of the minority down to a group of one individual[22].  Carrying through their logic to its inevitable conclusion brings us full circle to the notion that government exists to protect the rights of the individual.  In fact, the only meaningful protection of our inalienable rights must be carried out at the individual level, because within any group there are some individuals who suffer from oppression and other individuals who oppress.

Conclusions

An examination of the rights enumerated in this category as unalienable will reveal that they support the underlying, eternal principle of the sacrosanct moral agency of every individual.

The Atoning Sacrifice of Jesus Christ was done for the sole purpose of preserving our agency and making it both real and worthwhile.  When Adam fell, he and all his descendants were forever cut off from the ability to return to God because the justice of God says that no unclean thing can dwell in His presence. There is nothing any of us can do to subvert the justice of that law.  Uncleanliness would be burnt up in the presence of God.  It would be a never-ending torment to be unclean in the presence of God.

The Atonement of Jesus Christ opened an avenue whereby, if we heed the Savior, he will make us clean before we are presented to the Father.  In that cleaned condition, we can dwell with Him forever in happiness and joy.

Every truly inalienable right inevitably brings with it unavoidable responsibilities.

Our unalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness bring with them the unavoidable responsibilities.  Our rights may be gifted to us by God, but as with any gift they bring with them a responsibility to preserve and defend them.  To preserve and protect our rights we must:

•        Not infringe the rights of other individuals
•         Protect, assert, and practice the exercise of our own rights both in private and public
•         Protect the rights of all others both in private and public
•         Support governments which are protecting our rights
•         Abide by the laws of man which are designed to protect individual inalienable rights
•         Do our part to enact and support laws which protect the inalienable rights of all individuals

·       Honor those who are acting in roles expressly needed to protect our rights such as elected officials, judges, magistrates, police, and military

Joseph Smith, and the Founding Fathers both spoke of unalienable rights which come to us from God, meaning we own them and are responsible for our use and preservation of them.  They do not come to us from other men, or from our governments.  Therefore, we cannot utterly delegate our responsibilities for these rights either to our neighbors or our government.  If we accept the rights, we must also own the ultimate responsibility to maintain them.

 

Endnotes

[1] Dictionary.com, Unalienable, as seen 18 November 2021

[2] Locke, John (1988) [1689]. Laslett, Peter (ed.). Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. Sec. 87, 123, 209, 222. ISBN 052135448X.

[3] As near as I can equate, indolency is referring to leisurely pursuits, which could be considered equivalent with happiness.

[4] Locke, John (1983) [1689]. Tully, James H. (ed.). A Letter Concerning Toleration. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing. p. 26. ISBN 091514560X.

[5] Locke, John (1975) [1689]. Nidditch, Peter H. (ed.). Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Book 2, Chapter 21, Section 51. ISBN 0198245955.

[6] The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981.

[7] Ibid, Section 134, Verse 1

[8] Ibid, Verse 2

[9] US Bill of Rights

[10] Doctrine and Covenants, 134, verse 4

[11] Ibid, verse 11

[12] US Bill of Rights

[13] Ibid, verse 11

[14] Doctrine and Covenants, Section 134, verse 5

[15] Ibid verse 6

[16] Ibid

[17] Ibid, verse 10

[18] Ibid, verse 9

[19] Ibid, verse 4

[20] Ibid, verse 8

[21] Ibid, verse 11

[22] Consider the following intersectionality’s and their effects. If you identify all white males born in a specific year, month, and day, whose grandfather is a naturalized citizen, living in a certain county and town in north-central Montana where the failure of the family business forced them to move to another specific neighborhood, town, and county in western-central Montana during the middle of the second year of elementary school you will find the author stands alone at that intersection as a minority of one.  A minority whose rights should be protected by the government.  A similar intersectional analysis can be performed to identify every individual as a minority group with a membership of exactly one person, except perhaps for identical twins, triplets, etc.

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM).

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God