The Change From Political to Philosophical

constitution_quill_penAs we approach 2014, and the gear up for the never-ending battle of campaigns, I wanted to reflect on how the change from the simple political parties to the philosophical, the ideologies, the line in the sand.

The American Liberal, has subverted the original Liberalism of the 18th and 19th century. It is no longer on Individual Liberty, but on the Group Equality. While in Classical Liberalism, Equality was a core value, it was never intended to be what it has been twisted into today. Locke had it perfect: it was the “Equality of Authority“. As he writes, “state . . . of equality” as one “wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another, there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection . . . .”. It was intended not for all people to be equal materially, fiscally, but in Authority.

No longer seen that way.

With the ever-growing state, of the dependency on  the government for housing, food, college funds, clothing funds, we are developing a society that values fiscal equality over liberty, that wishes to reduce from those that have more, because “It’s not fair”

How do we change that mindset? How do we, as Conservative Constitutionalists show the light to others that Liberty gives birth and grows Equality, whereas Equality over Liberty, will strangle the individuality and ability to be prosperous? How can we show that being Fiscally Responsible is common sense?

Stay tuned, folks, I’ll be discussing that in the coming weeks.

The Police are NOT Required to Protect You

The constabulary does not have a legal requirement to protect the citizenry. Their mandate is simply to prosecute crime in progress or in post. There’s quite a bit of propaganda behind the phrase “To Protect and Serve”, but neither is actually part of the actual mission of local and state law enforcement, if the Left’s drivel is to be believed. This is why the gun control debate is so important. The Left wants to remove the very weapons law abiding citizens would use to protect themselves absent a constabulary that would provide that service for us. It is because this service cannot be provided for us in any meaningful way by any government agency that the citizen’s right to protect themselves was affirmed in the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

The other, less clear reason for the very clear affirmation of the unalienable right to bear arms by the citizenry in the Constitution, was as a last defense against tyranny at any level in the Government. This is directly implied in the Amendment, and was clearly expounded upon by the Founders at the time of the Constitutional Convention. The very idea that the constabulary should protect the citizenry at all times should frighten every citizen to their very core. What cost does that protect extract from the citizen? What measures would be deemed acceptable by the Government in pursuit of this protective service’s execution? Over time, what liberties would the citizenry be compelled to surrender in return for the protection the Government would be mandated to provide, should this have been the case throughout history? Further still, how long until the cost once thought to be sufficient is then found lacking, as was found after the passage of the Patriot Act and NDAA and other forms of liberty constricting legislation foisted upon the citizenry by lawmakers under the guise of protection of National Security interests?

The citizens of the United States were positively affirmed in the Constitution to have the unalienable right to bear arms because they were also positively identified as their own last defense against tyrannical threats against their own lives, in singular or multiple forms, be it from assailants or governmental infringements upon one’s person and/or property. There is no reasonable way, under the restrictions the Constitution places on the government in its interaction with the individual, for the government at any level to provide the protection a citizen would need in the event their life was threatened. The Left would have you believe that any means is justifiable in pursuit of the seemingly noble ends of protecting you from harm, both from assailants and from yourself. It is because of their belief that any means are justified that the ends are not to be considered noble, and because of this, any time the Left suggests surrendering the smallest measure of your liberty in return for the smallest measure of protection that they should be seen as tyrants.

Of Mice, Men and Firearms Legislation – Part One

     The issue of firearms regulation and to a more onerous degree, confiscation, is front and center once again in the litany of conversations in our Nation. It’s not a Democrat vs. Republican issue, really, it’s not, though one could make a case for framing it as a Liberal vs. Conservative argument. There are many more factors and personality propensity elements to this debate than simple polemics. I’ve had numerous conversations over the years with those who wish to tighten restrictions on firearms and their components or wish to prohibit ownership outright by the citizenry, and there are a few common threads that fall far outside of the realm of political affiliation that I have noticed in these conversations.

  Emotionalism

     Many times in these conversations the firearm adverse have been close to someone who has died at the end of a gun. Be it self inflicted, hunting accident, homicide or accidental, someone that they know has been shot and killed or severely crippled. Doesn’t mater the circumstance of the shooting, the result is instantaneous and immediate blame placed on the weapon and not the operator of the weapon or the circumstance of the shooting. Emotion overrides all and sears the aversion to firearms into that person’s psyche forevermore.

  Upbringing

      Many people are simply raised to believe that firearms are bad. The person could have been raised by Pacifists, raised by someone who fits the emotionalism description above, someone who has simply never been around firearms, raised with a religious conviction against firearm ownership, whatever. They were just raised that way.

  Simple Ignorance

      When my wife and I first started living together I was not allowed to keep firearms in the house. She just didn’t want to be anywhere around them for any reason. I placed them in the care of a friend and started to ask questions as to why she didn’t want firearms in the house. As it turns out, she was simply ignorant of their operation and was intimidated by this ignorance. After some time and persuasion I was able to get her down to the firing range and give her a primer. (We made it a double date scenario with another couple. Sneaky, I know…) A little education and a little hands-on experience changed her mind and feelings on firearms. This leads me to a whole other set of influence or category, the most maddening of the categories…

  Indignantly Ignorant

      The indignantly ignorant are completely unreasonable, usually politically motivated and/or control motivated in their aversion to firearms. They will use relativist arguments, will display a great amount of ignorance both mechanically and philosophically of firearms and are zealous, vocal advocates of either regulation or outright confiscation of any and all firearms. They will draw others into their cause by co-opting the emotional, religious and ignorant into it. They are soft tyrants, they are cowards that wish to use the force of the State to satisfy their desire to control others to comply with their desires. In a conversation just yesterday, the words, “Your rights end where mine begin,” coupled with the statement that, “I am no gun expert. I don’t need to be, I don’t want to be, it’s fine for other people, I have other hobbies. If it’s a machine gun sub-machine gun, you don’t have to have one.” This is the definition of Indignant Ignorance. I don’t know, I don’t want to know, I don’t need to know, but what I do know is what you do and do not need, based on my willful ignorance of the subject.

 Wow. Just. WOW

We Hold These Truths to be Self Evident…Part II

James Madison frequently remarked that “all just and free government derives from social compact.” Indeed, this is the basis of government in the Declaration of Independence, which specifies that the “just powers” of government derive from the “consent of the governed.” Because “all men are created equal”—because, that is, no one by nature has the right to rule anyone else—the only legitimate source of rule is the consent of those who are to be ruled, and the only legitimate reason for consent is for the “safety and happiness” of those who agree to be ruled. In agreeing to join civil society, each individual freely accepts the obligation to protect the rights of fellow citizens in return for the protection of his own rights. The “just powers” of government are thus directed to the equal protection of the equal rights of those who consent to be governed. Equal rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—derive from “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” Equal protection of those rights is the very definition of the rule of law. Equal protection of the laws is thus intrinsic both to the social compact and to the Constitution.

The Constitution states that “We the people . . . do ordain and establish . . . this Constitution,” not that the Constitution creates the people. The people were created by the Declaration of Independence, which mentions the people both in their political capacity—“one people”—and in their moral capacity—a “good people.” Once the people are established, Madison says, a second contract is necessary, this time between the people in its political capacity and the government. By this second contract, the people consent to be governed under the forms of the Constitution and those who occupy the constitutional offices of government pledge to use their powers exclusively to “promote the general welfare” and “secure the blessings of liberty” to the people. However, should the government act in a settled way to disfranchise the people of their rights, the people always reserve the right to alter or abolish the government in order to secure new forms that are better calculated to promote their “safety and happiness.” This is what has come to be known as the right of revolution, a necessary attribute of the people’s sovereignty which serves as the ultimate guarantee of every other right. The right to alter or abolish government is the only obligation mentioned in the Declaration because it is the ultimate expression of the people’s sovereignty.

The Constitution was intended by the Framers to put the principles of the Declaration into practice. But as in all things political, it is never possible to translate theory directly into practice. Insofar as the Constitution allowed the continued existence of slavery, it was only an incomplete expression of the Declaration’s principles. Madison argued that the compromises with slavery were necessary to secure the adoption of the Constitution—otherwise the slave-holding states would have bolted the Constitutional Convention. And as the most thoughtful of the Federalists understood, without a strong national government the prospects of ever ending slavery—of ever bringing the Constitution into complete harmony with the Declaration—were remote. Thus the prudential compromises regarding slavery in the Constitution were actually in the service of eventual emancipation. Adoption of the Declaration made the abolition of slavery a moral imperative.

The Fallacy Of “You Didn’t Build That”

While being old news, the statement (and more so the agreement with the statement) of “You Didn’t Build That” sticks in my craw to this day. The statement (and don’t even start with me about the taking in or out of context sham) demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of the roles of production and consumption in our economy. As a builder, the sentiment is more aggravating than stepping on a Lego and tripping over the cat at midnight on the way to the bathroom, and not nearly as comical in hindsight.

Let’s lay out a little demonstration. A client approaches me for a project. The initial concept first must be drawn out. That in and of itself is an act of creation, billable creation, even before physical work begins money is changing hands. Materials must now be procured. The gas tank must be filled, the taxes built into the price of that fuel to get the materials from the supplier(s) and bring them back are used for the roads. The sales tax is dispersed out to “the common good” (pfft) and the cost of the materials has helped pay the employees of the supplier as well as the supplier himself and back through the supply chain to the initial harvest of the lumber or mining of the ore to make steel. Now the material is on site. There is no governmentally provided workforce to manufacture this product for me, therefore I make said product myself or hire on X number of hands to achieve the project/product. I get to pay taxes on the wages that I disperse to the employee AND the employee gets to pay taxes on the wages received, not to mention the taxes that the employee gets to pay for living their life and consuming all the things that they consume because I was oh so kind enough to provide him currency in exchange for labor. (That I hired, not the State or the Fed) I deliver the goods to the client, using more fuel, the client pays a sales tax on what I just manufactured for them and the cycle goes on and on and on. Production and consumption, BAM!

Now where exactly is the contribution of the asshole that rode his bicycle down to the coffee shop to suck on a cup of fair trade mud and bitch about Capitalism on his laptop on the free WIFI that the owner of the coffee shop is providing him?