Left vs Right Politics and Libertarians

Tom Sheppard

1/16/2017

I am sure you won't be shocked to know that recently I have been exchanging some ideas online about politics with a variety of people.  During one of these exchanges, while we were discussing what is politically left and right, I found and posted the chart above showing politics as a spectrum from left to right with the axis reflecting the degree of power given to government versus individuals.

A friend countered with a diagram created by the founder of Libertarianism showing politics on two axes.  I have spent some time considering both and this post reveals the results of both my research and my thoughts on these two diagrams.

The Nolan Chart is named after David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party.  When looking at the Nolan Chart, you should first realize that it is a propaganda piece, devised by Nolan to attract people to Libertarianism.  It is not necessarily an accurate, unbiased view of the political spectra.  If it were unbiased, just above the image of the Statue of Liberty, at the apex of Personal Freedom and Economic Freedom would be the word “Anarchists” or their symbol.

For clarity about why I say this should be positioned there, here it the Wikipedia dissertation on Anarchism.

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.  Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful. While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of all human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism 1/11/17

As you can see from this definition, Anarchism advocates a stateless society where each individual is sovereign and self-governing.  

So, the true apex of this diagram should rest on Anarchism, not Libertarianism.

Self-governance is a key tenet of Libertarianism.  The notion being that any "crime" which only harms the individual is not something the state should govern or limit.  Hence, the Libertarian push to end the "War on Drugs" and legalize drugs as well as a host of other "victimless" crimes. Under Libertarianism, the legitimate role of government exists, but is limited to protecting society from predations, be those from other states or from individual or groups within the state.  Libertarianism expects everyone to be on their best behavior.  As do the Anarchists.

I suppose it is the issue of the need for the state that becomes a primary differentiating point between Libertarianism and Anarchism.  From the Nolan Chart it is inferred that the state continues to exist.  

I had to study the Nolan Chart for quite a while before it finally hit me what was really bothering me about the chart.  At the bottom of the chart you see two, diverging statements about freedom.

Going from the bottom toward the Left it reads "more personal freedom".  Going from the bottom toward the Right it reads, "more economic freedom."

I recalled having read that economic freedom has been found to precede personal freedom, so it seemed to me that this divergence of personal versus economic freedom was totally wrong.  Not trusting 100% to my memory, I did some research.  I found this very interesting treatise on economic freedom called "Freedom and Prosperity" by Jake Dubuque and "The Benefits of Economic Freedom A Survey" by Niclas Berggren.

Berggren provides some useful definitions.  He defines economic freedom as "a composite that attempts to characterize the degree to which an economy is a market economy—that is, the degree to which it entails the possibility of entering into voluntary contracts within the framework of a stable and predictable rule of law that upholds contracts and protects private property, with a limited degree of interventionism in the form of government ownership, regulations, and taxes. This is a negative concept of freedom: freedom to do something without being hindered, as opposed to freedom in the sense of having access to actual opportunities to do something ."

Key pieces of this are the "predictable rule of law that upholds contracts and protects private property" and "a limited degree of ... government ... regulations and taxes." [my emphasis]

He also defines political freedom as "participation in the political process on equal conditions, actual competition for political power, and free and fair elections" and adds the dimension of civil freedom, which he defines as "protection against unreasonable visitations, access to fair trials, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech." 

His definition of civil freedom seems to align somewhat with concept of personal freedom on the Nolan Chart.  However none of this addresses the incongruity of having personal freedom diverging from economic freedom.

Milton Friedman in his book Capitalism and Freedom explained that “the fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority.  The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated."

Logically, this is as true for personal freedom as it is for economic freedom.

Dubuque, notes that, "Freedom House’s Freedom in the World index is used to measure political freedom, while The Index of Economic Freedom, produced by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal measure the second variety of freedom.  These indices are compared to the GDP per capita of each country.  The results indicate that there is a significant correlation between each variety of freedom and wealth."[my emphasis]

The two indices of freedom, seem to buttress each other in every instance.

In addition to these contemporary studies which are conducted each year, many have looked at history and noted the direct correlation between economic freedom as a significant prerequisite to personal freedom.  In a Readers Digest article in July 1941 Max Eastman noted that “[Marx] is the one who informed us, looking backwards, that the evolution of private capitalism with its free market had been a precondition for the evolution of all our democratic freedoms.  It never occurred to him, looking forward, that if this was so, these other freedoms might disappear with the abolition of the free market."

Any student of western history can note how the rise of the merchant class preceded and led to the ultimate destruction of the system of serfdom which was the hallmark of the Dark Ages of Europe. The wealth of the merchants eventually put them on equal footing with the nobility and the increasing dependency of the nobility on the wealthy merchants forced them to concede the protection of law and receipt of freedoms which eventually trickled down to the commoners and liberated the serfs.

From history and from research it becomes clear that personal freedom and economic freedom do not diverge as shown in the Nolan Chart.  Rather they travel in the same direction. 

We now have uncovered two fundamental lies in the Nolan Chart.  The first is that the chart omits its true apex as Anarchy and the second is that the Left is not a protector of personal freedom.

Dubuque shows how this view that the Left is a champion of personal freedom arises from a contradictory reading of the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights, which was adopted 1948 by the General Assembly of the newly formed United Nations.  He notes that the rights noted can be summed up into three categories:

1. Everyone is entitled to the rights set forth in the declaration and that discrimination before the law is unacceptable.
2. Everyone has personal rights, including the rights “to life, liberty and security of person,” in addition to the rights to privacy, education, religious freedom, freedom of expression, and the right to own property.
3. Everyone is entitled to participate in government, either directly or through elections.

Modern Progressivism/Socialism embraced by the political left asserts that none of these freedoms noted above can be truly enjoyed if the individual lacks the basic necessities of life.  They take Maslow's Hierarchy Needs and hold society responsible through the power of government coercion to see that the foundational needs are met so that the self-actualization needs at the top of the hierarchy can be met for everyone.

While this is helpful to understand why the Left manages to appeal to many people it doesn't directly rebut the lie shown at the bottom of the Nolan Chart.

Dubuque speaks to that directly: 

If the socialist ideal of economic security for all is realized through a centrally administered economy, then freedom from necessity does not create freedom in any real sense of the term.  While socialists can argue that physical depravation severely constrains individual freedom, the material security that their philosophy provides does not liberate the individual.  Instead they are made dependent on the state.  Even though the state’s motives might be altruistic, it still must have the power to enforce the regulations or central plan of the economy.  With such a concentration of power in government and the state of dependency it creates, the individual cannot be described as politically or economically free.  It doesn’t matter whether the government is a dictatorship or democratically elected by the majority; the state is totalitarian. As Milton Friedman writes, “fundamentally, there are only two ways of co-ordinating the economic activities of millions.  One is central direction involving the use of coercion – the technique of the army and of the modern totalitarian state.  The other is voluntary co-operation of individuals – the technique of the marketplace.”This simple characterization pointedly distinguishes between the two philosophies of economic organization available to governments.

[my emphasis]

This makes it clear to me that the coercive level of the state is the correct axis to apply to the political spectrum, rather than the double axes portrayed in the Nolan Chart.  The coercive power of the state must decrease to allow both personal and economic freedom and is an inverse of those two factors.

Note that the very first chart shows that our Constitutional Republic is actually to the right of Democracy.  This is because democracy, as was recognized by the Founding Fathers, quickly devolves into the tyranny of the majority and destroys the rule of law.

Our Constitutional Republic is the only form of government which is stable enough and strong enough to protect the rights of the individuals with the rule of law by limiting the coercive power of government.  W. Cleon Skousen had it right when he called the establishment of the United States Constitution a 5000 Year Leap in political freedom and government.

Finally, my research led me to the chart below.

This chart explains why so many people today are laboring under the mistaken assertion that Fascism is an artifact of the political right instead of the left.  Their teacher in school said it was that way and they never bothered to examine the premise for themselves and learn the truth.

Some might wonder that I would so indict our educational institutions.  Consider for a moment the significant influence that began to appear in our colleges and universities in the 60's and 70's.  The students who protested against the establishment of those days were heavily influenced by Marxism.  For decades now, they have been running our colleges and universities and educating the teachers who educate our children in public schools.  Considering that, is it really a surprise that we find our educational curriculum today is not only ignorant of many historical facts, but teaches not only falsehoods and has established a system which punishes independent thought and rewards the adoption of what the teachers promote as societal norms.

Conclusions:

1. The Nolan Chart is deceptive
1. it omits its true apex of Anarchy
2. it falsely portrays a divergence of personal and economic freedom
3. the introduction of two political axes is useless and is an artifact solely to convey the incorrect notion that Libertarianism is a "centrist" approach to political positions.
2. The "True Political Spectrum" is a more accurate and useful depiction of the political spectrum
1. the coercive power of government is the central issue of both political and economic freedom
2. the protections afforded to our economic and person freedoms are far to the right of the predatory policies of democracy, corporatism, fascism, socialism, progressivism, communism and all other forms of totalitarian political positions.

There are other conclusions you may draw, but I am highlighting these as central to my discussion with my friends.

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 2017 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.

The Legislative Branch of Government is DEAD, And State Governments Too

Four Things You Can Do to Magnify the Power of One to Preserve Your Freedom

Saturday, I published an article that raised a warning about the devastating effects recent legislation will have on our Constitutional Rights.  This article continues that warning and provides both the wording from the legislation that is the root of this problem and shows how it conflicts with the Constitution.  As well as how it sets us up to lose our Constitutional Rights. And I provide specific things you can do as an individual to try to thwart this oppressive power play.

I hereby call on all our elected officials at State and Federal levels and all citizens of this country to immediately take legal action to enjoin against the enforcement of as well as repeal and annul The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 - and this call has nothing to do with Iran and everything to do with the destruction of our Constitutional Rights.

The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 threatens to totally destroy our Constitutional Rights and protections and indeed, our very Republic.

This is not about Iran.  It is about Congress passing an Act that establishes a precedent which will destroy the very fabric of checks and balances which protects the freedom of individuals of the minority and the majority, regardless of their party affiliation or politics.  

This will destroy the rights of Conservatives, Liberals, Progressives, LGBT, straight, gay, transgender, Christians, atheists, Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, independents, Greens, Communists, Tea Party, 99%ers, anti-gunners, NRA, … in short ALL AMERICANS will lose their freedom if this one Act is allowed to stand.

While aimed specifically at Iran and the treaty that President Obama has signed with them, that is irrelevant because it establishes a precedent.  And under the English Common Law system which prevails in this country, a precedent is extremely important.

The bill was written with good intentions.  It appears to be aimed at blunting some of the most offensive and dangerous parts of the treaty with Iran.  Unfortunately, it allows the President of the United States (POTUS) to implement this treaty without requiring that the Senate first ratify the treaty, as required by the US Constitution.

"The President may not waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of statutory sanctions with respect to Iran or refrain from applying sanctions pursuant to an agreement for:

12 days after the date of passage of a congressional joint resolution of disapproval, and

10 days after the date of a presidential veto of a congressional joint resolution of disapproval.

Specified deferrals, waivers, or other suspensions of statutory sanctions are excepted from such prohibitions."

Senate Bill 615: Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, Emphasis Added

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/615

Unfortunately, that last line gives away the farm.  It means that POTUS can make a million specific suspension of sanctions, individually, and they take effect regardless of what Congress says.  He just has to do it individually instead of making a blanket ending of sanctions.  So, even the good intentions of the Act are destroyed by the wording of the Act.

Remember, the word “agreement” here is being used in place of the word “treaty.”  That is because if they had used the word treaty, it would have caught everyone’s attention and folks would have clued into what exactly was happening here.

And what is happening here?

Three things are happening here, and the second is far, far worse than the first, and the third may be even worse than the first two.

ONE Really Bad Thing Happening Here

“[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; …”

US Constitution, Article II Section 2, emphasis added

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

1)  This act overturns how the US Constitution requires the handling of treaties. 

Under the Constitution, the President has sole power to enter into treaties for the United States.  Individual States cannot enter into treaties, and Congress cannot enter into treaties. 

However, no treaty entered into by the President is valid and binding until it is ratified by the Senate.  And then, it becomes the law of the land, even overriding the Constitution.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Article VI, US Constitution, emphasis added

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

This required ratification is a significant check on the power of the President.  It prevents him from entering into treaties such as the one proposed last year in the UN, and endorsed by then Secretary of State (and current Presidential hopeful) Hilary Clinton,  that would have required all of us to turn in our handguns under an international standard designed to disarm individuals all over the world which would have had the effect of leaving firearms only in the hands of outlaws and governments.

Or if the President should sign a treaty allowing the practice of Sharia Law inside the US, it would make it lawful inside the US for Islamic Councils to order the death of people who decide to leave Islam because they convert to another religion, such as Christianity.  And it would allow them to burn homosexuals alive, as ISIS has been doing under Sharia Law in the Middle East.

As you can see, treaties can be very powerful and dangerous things.  That is why the Founding Fathers established this significant check on the power of the President in making treaties. 

What is more, is because the Constitution requires the Congress ratifies a treaty before it can take effect, it means that if Congress simply ignores a treaty and does not vote on it, then it never takes effect.  And there is nothing the POTUS can do about that.

And, if the Congress brings a treaty up for a vote and the Senate votes against it by a simple majority, POTUS cannot override that vote and here is where we begin to enter the second, and worst area of precedent and problem created by this Act.

TWO - Really, Really Bad Things Happening Here

2) Under the Constitution, the POTUS cannot enact legislation.  He cannot write a bill and submit it to Congress.  All legislation must originate in Congress.  And, under the Constitution, once Congress has enacted a bill, it does not become law until the POTUS signs it, or if he ignores it for a time, then it becomes law automatically.

However, if the POTUS really doesn’t want a bill to become law, all he has to do is veto it.  When he vetoes it, it goes back to Congress and it is not a law.  If Congress feels really strongly that this should be a law, they vote on it again.  And, if they get a 2/3rds majority in favor of the bill, then the bill will become law, because the Presidential Veto cannot override the force of a 2/3rds majority vote.

In allowing the POTUS to enter into a treaty (agreement) and allowing it to take effect unless Congress votes against it, the POTUS can now craft laws (agreements) and they will take effect unless 2/3rds of the Congress votes against the law.

Effectively, this Act eliminates the Legislative Branch of the Government at a stroke.  Oh sure, they can keep passing laws and doing their thing.  But if the President wants something different than Congress, all he has to do is have the State Department create a treaty with some other country and then POTUS signs it and it automatically becomes the law of the land unless Congress can muster a 2/3rds majority to create a veto-proof rejection of the President’s latest law.  And POTUS can always find at least one foreign head of state out there who will agree to sign a treaty that destroys the Constitutional Rights of Americans.  I can think of a half-dozen right off the top of my head, with Iran being right there with them.

THREE - As if ONE and TWO Weren't Bad Enough

3) In addition to eliminating the Legislative Branch of our Federal Government, this Act will have the effect of overriding all the State Governments of each of our individual states.  They will become puppets at best, or utterly irrelevant at worst.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Article VI, US Constitution, emphasis added

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

There is very little we can do about this, but there is something we can do.  If you are as alarmed about this destruction of our Constitutional protections as I am there are four things you can do, each of which will magnify the voice of The One (you) and turn it into many.  The Power of One is more than you realize.

"I am only one; but still I am one. I cannot do everything; but still I can do

 something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the

 something that I can do."

Edward Everett Hale

1) Share this information with everyone you can.

• Send emails about it to everyone in your email Address Book.
• Post about it on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and all other social media accounts that you have.
• Tell anyone who will listen to you (one-on-one or in groups)

2) Contact each member of the Congressional delegation from your state that is currently serving in Congress.  This site http://www.contactingthecongress.org/ seemed to have the quickest and easiest access to contact information for all 50 states.  Urge them to repeal this Act immediately and to immediately take an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court so that this Act can be declared unconstitutional - which it is.

     A.    Write them letters.

     B.     Send them emails.

     C.     Send them faxes.

     D.    Phone their offices.

     E.     Do all of the above if you want them to realize how important this really is.

3) Contact the office of your state Governor and let him or her know what is going on and that the sovereignty of the state is about to be permanently and completely overridden and destroyed by one thoughtless Act of Congress.  Urge him or her to immediately order the State Attorney General to file suit in Federal District Court asking to have this Act declared unconstitutional.

     A.    Write them letters.

     B.     Send them emails.

     C.     Send them faxes.

     D.    Phone their offices.

     E.     Do all of the above if you want them to realize how important this really is.

4) Contact all your in-state legislators and let them know that their authority is being wiped out by a single act of the Federal Government.  Urge them to immediately pass resolutions condemning this usurpation of states’ rights and urging their governor to immediately file suit against the US Government in this matter.
     A.    Write them letters.

     B.     Send them emails.

     C.     Send them faxes.

     D.    Phone their offices.

     E.     Do all of the above if you want them to realize how important this really is.

I am sure that if you have read any of my previous articles in this blog, you know that there are many points of disagreement I have with different groups in our country today.  And this issue transcends all those disagreements we may have between us.  Because, if this Act stands, then we will all be oppressed together and our government will truly become the “jack-booted” regime that radicals have called it for many years.  And that boot will land firmly on the neck of everyone who doesn’t agree with what our POTUS wants to 

Related Link to this Article:

• Senate Bill 615: Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/615
• US Constitution, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
• Contact each member of the Congressional delegation from your state that is currently serving in Congress. http://www.contactingthecongress.org/ 
• Edward Everett Hale - the source of the quote, "I am one..."
• The Citizen's Constitution: An Annotated Guide by Seth Lipsky

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. 

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

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2015 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.

Rightful Role of Government Part 2

This is Part 2 of a two-part article on what I believe is the rightful role of government.

I wrote this in response to a couple of different groups that have been agitating for the scrapping of the US Constitution.

Before you go throwing the Constitution under the bus because of how it is being subverted today by an immoral people in favor of an anarchist view that has NEVER operated successfully, you should consider that our foundation is built on the notion that "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 Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  To me, that sounds a lot like the rallying cry of Libertarians and anarchists.  So what are they fighting against except the notion "that  to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

Libertarians and anarchists seem to want to throw out the baby along with the bath water.  The bath water is dirty (our government has become corrupted) so get rid of the baby since it made the water dirty (abolish the Constitution because it frame the government which others have corrupted).  This is a foolhardy approach to solving the problem, and one which, if followed will result in much less individual freedom, not more.

For more than 100 years, the US Constitution stood as a bulwark, generally doing a good job of protecting the majority of people from the predations of a minority (the minority being those who want to exercise unrestricted power over others - call them "king-men" (and women) if you will).
And protecting the minorities (minorities of race, religion or creed) from the predations of a majority.  There are notable big exceptions such as slavery and when the US Government declared war on the Mormons before the Civil War.  And there are notable smaller exceptions such as when local governments were corrupted and turned a blind eye to the operations of groups like the KKK who operated according to their own views of right and wrong (lawful and unlawful).

The Rule of Law has ushered in an unprecedented era in world history.  Today, the rule of law is being supplanted by the rule of regulatory fiat (monarchy or Executive Orders) posing as the rule of law.  Regulatory fiat (monarchy) allowed both the creation of the Ma Bell Monopoly and its later dissolution.  Regulatory fiat allowed the creation and later dissolution of the railroad monopolies.  Regulatory fiat (monarchy) has allowed the creation of the postal service monopoly and allowed the partial dissolution of that monopoly into its present pathetic state.  In this country the supplanting of the Rule of Law began when the ideas of Marx and Engels were embraced by powerful and weak Americans who wanted power and embraced the notion that the State should embody the will of the people instead of serving as a bulwark against the usurpation of their individual freedoms.  Inasmuch as people adopt the view that the state is to embody the will of the people, rather than serving the people to protect their individual freedoms, then they are embracing the notion that the state and the strengthening of the government of the state is the starting point for the solution to all of society's ills. 

The obverse view, that the state exists solely to preserve individual freedom, puts the burden for righting societal injustices or inequities on the shoulders of each individual and requires them to act on their own or to persuade others to join their cause with their time, energy and money given freely to act to improve the lot of the poor or other downcast or disadvantaged peoples. 

Too many people would rather abdicate their individual responsibility, along with their individual freedom, to government, thereby giving the government the ability to coerce folks who are not like-minded to support the "noble" causes adopted by the masses (or presented by demagogues to attract the attention and pity, or concupiscence of the masses).

I believe that government has no business getting into the business of charity.  And the federal government and Supreme Court have no business trying to legislate or adjudicate moral issues.

When government gets into the business of charity - providing economic help to disadvantage sectors of society, several bad things happen:

1. Government robs individuals of the responsibility to account to God for their treatment of the poor and needy by making the individual contributions both compulsory and utterly without connection to the individual contributor.
2. Government sets up programs which always have the unintended consequence of increasing the number of people in disadvantaged group.
3. Government always put most of the money (consistently around 80%) devoted to the issue into the hands of facilitators and government employees and a fraction (consistently around 20%) into form of actual benefits delivered to the needy.

When the Federal Government and the Supreme Court get into the business of legislating or adjudicating moral issues, several bad things invariably happen:

1. The democratic process is short circuited.  Instead of allowing for lively public debate to be held in each state and locality and allow local people to decide with their votes or vote with their feet by moving to localities that favor their views, a decision is forced upon major sectors of the society which is in direct conflict with their moral views.  This does not settle the matter, rather it drives lasting wedges between different segments of society.
2. When the Federal Government or Supreme Court try to settle a moral issue with laws or rulings, they ride roughshod over the right of every citizen to the free exercise of conscience.  They make it illegal to be on the "wrong/losing" side of a moral decision. 
3. This trampling of rights of conscience can only lead to what is, by definition, subversive behavior as people will violate the law, seek to thwart the enforcement of the law, or even violently oppose the government that is seeking to impose the law which they find morally reprehensible.

The decision of the Supreme Court to create a right to abortion, the decision of the Supreme Court to create a right to gay-marriage are high profile examples of situations where the imposition of a decision, instead of settling the matter, has provided a club for one group to attempt to rob the opposition of their rights to dissent on grounds of freedom of conscience.

What is needed today is not an abandonment of the US Constitution.  Rather what is needed is individual and mass commitment to adherence to the principles of individual responsibility and individual rights.  Along with acknowledgement that the exercise of individual rights requires the acceptance of the consequences of those exercises, including failure, unhappiness, ill-health, poverty, incarceration, disability, or even death.

The Constitution was designed to give us the opportunity to succeed and the opportunity to fail.  And, as every successful person knows, failure is always a necessary precursor to success.  What those who seek to cast aside the principles of our Constitution want is a framework that prohibits success and protects us from failure and from the negative consequences of our own choices.  That kind of institutionalized irresponsibility is what is largely wrong with our society today.

I believe that 90% of our current statutes and at least 50% of our Federal and State government infrastructures would evaporate if every regulation and every law passed or currently existing were forced to show 1) origination in the rights enumerated in the US Constitution and 2) adherence to the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

The problem is not the baby in the bath, the problem is the bathwater getting dirtier every minute  because mom and dad are using dirt for soap.  The problem is being compounded by the fact that some are deliberately throwing dirt on the baby because they want the baby to be thrown out so they can install their own child and rule the roost.

The solution is to find and elect individuals who are willing to adhere to and support a return to the foundational principles of individual responsibility AND individual freedom, protected by limited government restrained within the boundaries of enumerated powers consciously, deliberately and thoughtfully yielded by the people and preserved by the individual rather than collective energies of the people.

It took 100 years of misguided statism to get where we are today.  It will take many years, decades or perhaps even a century of unremitting, unceasing, individual vigilance and individual effort to regain the individual freedoms and responsibilities which have been usurped by those who I called statists (variously known as progressives, liberals, communists, socialists, marxist, maoists, etc.).

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. 

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

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2015 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.

Rightful Role of Government - Part 1

This is Part 1 of a two-part article on what I believe is the rightful role of government.

I wrote this in response to a couple of different groups that have been agitating for the scrapping of the US Constitution.

One of those groups, the Libertarians and Anarchists want to scrap it because they believe that any government other than self-government is too much government.  Based on FaceBook (FB) posts adherents to these views have made, they view the Constitution simply as a vehicle to usurp their personal sovereignty. They also tend to embrace the decadent cultural stance that all forms of external government are equally wrong from a moral standpoint.  This stance utterly ignores the reality that under various forms of despotism like Socialism and dictatorships, their very ability to voice such opinions would likely be ended with a bullet to the head.  Which stands in sharp contrast to how the US Constitution protects their rights to free speech.

The other group that wants to scrap the US Constitution are the Progressives / Socialists / Communists / Liberals.  This second group wants to scrap it because it expressly thwarts their efforts to eliminate personal property rights, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.  They use a variety of arguments against the Constitution and they have successfully implemented a vast array of laws, regulations and court rulings that fly in the face of the express authorities granted and reserved by the wording of the Constitution.  One of their chief arguments, not being able to truly contest the principles in the document, is that it was written by dead white farmers whose ideas are totally out of touch with the events of our day.  This argument ignores the facts that the principles embodied in the Constitution are derived from millenia of human experience and thought and that the "farmers" were actually among the best educated people in the world at the time and were experienced farmers, business owners, clergy, soldiers, philosophers and public servants.

There is no question (at least among serious students of history) that the US Constitution was an expansion of Federal power.  The problem at the time was that the Articles of Confederation left the union open to being picked apart by large European powers, mostly through connivance - since force would likely have been met with a united response from the American states.  And the Articles of Confederation had already proven inadequate for managing the financial obligations incurred in the war as well as the commercial and legal issues that were raised in the course of the Revolutionary War. 

In spite of what flaws there may be in the US Constitution, it was as Cleon Skousen calls it "a 5,000 year leap" forward in the governments of men.  And, it still stands as the best form of government in existence today, even after some significant dismantling and perversion by forces (legislatures as well as courts) over the past 100 years. 

In fact, most of the flaws cited today are those created in the past 100 years by those who are seeking to destroy the Constitution.  The beauty of the US Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) as originally framed and interpreted is that it created a strictly limited Federal government while explicitly recognizing that the powers of government derive solely from the governed.  Prior to this time, nearly every government in the world assumed that the powers of government derived solely from God onto the shoulders of the monarch, and that the citizens were not citizens, they were subjects (a person who is under the dominion or rule of a sovereign) and they had NO inherent rights, the king being accountable only to God for the use of his power.

The Magna Charta was a huge leap forward in that it made the king accountable to the nobles and the people through the powers given to the parliament.  Previously the only accountability of the king was to those who could wield sufficient military or financial power to bring him to heel.  And financial power without the military might to back it was simply an invitation to have debts cancelled and wealth transferred at the point of bloody sword.

Anarchy or total self-government is not a realistic model for sustainable society in today's world.  In fact, the anarchist movement is largely a tool of the statists.  If the model of the anarchists were accepted, and every man became a law unto himself, human nature (essentially unchanged through 6,000 years of recorded human history) would soon find the strong preying on the weak.  The victims would band together and seek the protection of the strongest, or strength in numbers.  Either way, they would immediately have to trade some or all of their personal sovereignty for increased security.   The strongest would protect them and demand obedience and we would have feudalism and monarchy in short order.  Again, the stronger would "eat the sovereignty" the weaker until Empires were rebuilt and the monarch (the state) would again be the source of all authority and individuals would have surrendered all their individual sovereignty so that they would be prey only to one predator (their monarch) rather than be prey to a hundred different bullies.

The only time self-government (total individual sovereignty) will work is when the individuals will also agree to relinquish their sovereignty promptly (in a minute - e.g., minutemen militia) for self defense and the apprehension of predators (of the 2-legged variety), and agree to a common set of public standards for interaction (e.g.,  thou shalt not steal...).

Realistically speaking, the US Constitution has worked out very well for us so far.  It's bedrock is under unremitting attack right now and if it falls, the end result will be despotism, not freedom.  The US Constitution has successfully limited government and assured individual freedom for more than 200 years and helped create the most prosperous and powerful  nation on earth - powered by the will of individuals who believe that these freedoms are worth defending and that the principles underlying this structure are eternal beacons for the happiness of both individuals and society.

Coming Up - The Rightful Role of Government - Part 2, including...

• Predation by the minority
• Predation by the majority
• The Rule of Law

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. 

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

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2015 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.