Jonathan Hoenig Calls for Individual Sovereignty

TOS Blog: Daily Commentary from an Objectivist Perspective

Jonathan Hoenig Calls for Return to Americanism

 I had to point out that I am not the only one who uses the phrase "individual sovereignty" in today's world. 

© Curtis Edward Clark 2013

On the 20 Year Anniversary of Ruby Ridge

Ruby Ridge energized the radical militarized part of the right wing in a way it had not been energized for years. Ruby Ridge was the event in which the U.S. government set out to determine whether a man who had bought land and moved his family there to get away from what he called a corrupt world, was "connected to" white supremacist or anti-government groups.

What libertarian--and even we Objectivists--are not opposed to the government? It seems that some of our 21st century objections come right from this wrongful use of government power that then turned to the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, where it killed 76 people, after a 51-day standoff, by accidentally starting their building on fire. These two events were cited by Timothy McVeigh as one reason for his part in the Oklahoma City bombing.

But no right wing sentiment is justification for taking the lives of other innocent people, as McVeigh did. Whether it is justification for killing certain guilty officers of the government in an act of revolution is yet another question. During the American Revolution there were patriotic Americans who detested the acts of the British government, but rationally set forth their reasons to say it wasn't enough for a revolution.

Yet, short of killing specific government officers guilty of acting with disregard toward the Constitution, what other means do the American people actually have for unseating an evil government? How can America have its own 'Arab Spring'?        

Sara Weaver, one of the survivors of Ruby Ridge, said she is devastated each time someone commits a violent act in the name of Ruby Ridge. "It killed me inside," she said of the Oklahoma City bombing. "I knew what it was like to lose a family member in violence. I wouldn't wish that on anyone."

Ms. Weaver, who's older brother was killed by officers in an ambush, and who's mother was killed as she opened her front door while holding one of her babies, by a bullet to the head by one of the government snipers, did not say it was wrong to kill innocent people, as McVeigh had done. Weaver only talked about losing family members in violence. One is not the same as the other. McVeigh was clearly wrong; but was the government? A wrongful death settlement left Ms. Weaver and her sister each $1million. Today the survivors would ask for more, much more.

The Whiskey Rebellion was the first instance of the government using its force against Americans opposed to its use of power. During President Washington's first term Alexander Hamilton needed to raise money to pay federal debts, and persuaded Congress to pass an excise tax on the manufacture of whiskey. The tax was resisted, as it appeared that the eastern "big business" whiskey producers were being favored. When a taxman went to one area of western Pennsylvania, more than 500 armed men resisted. This should have been a wake up call to the new government that it was doing something wrong, but it didn't work. President Washington told the States to call out their militia to quell the resistance, and then he rode at the head of those forces, 15,000 strong. What better demonstration of government force than to have the President lead the army against you?

This use of federal armed power against Americans was one of the reasons for the formation of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party, which later repealed the tax. And now we have the spectacle of President Obama's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed into law Dec. 31, 2011. "President Obama [ ] will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. The President can put you or I into jail indefinitely, without a cause presented to us and without an attorney--if he alone says so.

There is currently a preliminary federal injunction blocking its enforcement. Truth-Out.org said, "US District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York Katherine B. Forrest agreed [that a part of the NDAA would prevent journalists from talking to the enemy]. In a 68-page opinion, she wrote [that journalist Chris] Hedges' and his co-plaintiffs fears that section 1021 could impact their First Amendment rights are 'chilling,' 'reasonable' and 'real'."

But it could be used against you, me, our neighbors, our family members as well, if the President--and the President alone has the authority--decides that an American citizen, anywhere in the world including in our own home, was:

"a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces,"

These fears are 'chilling,' 'reasonable' and 'real' because neither Congress nor the president defined the terms 'substantial support,' 'associated forces' or 'directly supported', not to mention that neither al-Qaeda nor the Taliban can always be easily identified, and that a 'belligerent act' could be anything, including spitting on the sidewalk in a display of your disdain.

President Obama is energizing most of the right wing, both of the sort that has religious sensibilities, and the sort that says their guns will have to be taken from their cold, dead fingers. But he's not where the trouble began; he's only the trouble we elected.

We must stand for our state's sovereignty, our unalienable rights, above all for our individualism against the behemoth that is flying drones in our skies above us, and that is listening to our every phone and internet conversation for the secret words that trigger an investigation to determine whether we are 'connected to' this, that, or the other thing, or whatever it wants to call a 'belligerent act'.

'Like' Curtisedwardclark.com on Facebook
© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

'Network Society' Seems Anti-Individualistic

It would seem natural to think that a phrase like the 'network society', even capitalized, would merely refer to a world connected by the links of computerized networks. To some extent that is true. Ericcson, the Swedish technology company, says on its website that the network "will fundamentally change the way we innovate, collaborate, produce, govern and sustain." 

But something called the Centre for Personal Sovereignty claims that this network society "resembles laissez-faire capitalism combined with the better promise of Marxism."

First I would ask what the 'better promise' could possibly be if it is not the individual existing free of government interference in the market-workings of his enterprises. The term 'free market'...means free of government's aggressive force, said Reason Magazine. 'Regulation' of industry is often necessary, such as in labeling, where we don't want two products called 'aspirin', one of which is not acetylsalicylic acid; where we want to be assured that our meat is properly handled before packaging; where a Doctor has the necessary knowledge and competence to practice what we believe he says he can. But regulation of the market place, ala Marx, helps no one and hurts all.

This "network society" in general is not an economic system: "The impact of this revolutionary political system," the Centre says, "though today existing only in theory, can already be calculated."

Of course it can. I can calculate that because it is a political system that it will contain government interference, legal plunder and legally aggressive force. After all, it "maximizes market efficiencies" instead of letting the market finds its own way of doing that.

"Unlike capitalist systems," the Centre says, "in a Network Society the 'people' as individuals fully own their personal means of production. One's compensation is directly proportionate to one's value as we all become economic and political 'free agents'." 

They also say "it also represents control over your own means of production - that is, you will learn to reap the full economic value derived from what you do, rather than giving that value to your boss. A business owner that earns a profit from the efforts of her employees will be reaping the excess rewards derived from the synergistic efforts of the entire group (1 + 1 = 3). This excess value represents the value of the owner's ability to orchestrate the efforts of independent parts towards a productive end."

This gobbeldy-gook of twisted language leave me with questions:

• If you can still have a boss who "reaps the excess rewards", how is it different from capitalism?
• If you still have a boss, how do you "fully own your personal means of production", and if you do, why pay anything to a boss, let alone have a boss?
• How is the "synergistic" efforts of "the entire group" (what group?) any different from a normal workplace today?
• If an employer is the one who knows how to "orchestrate the efforts of independent parts towards a productive end," why is s/he reaping "excess rewards"? How can they be "excess" when s/he is doing essentially what the owner of his "personal means of production" will be doing; is that person not also reaping "excess rewards"? In excess of what? In excess of who's rewards? Why can't someone keep all his own rewards?

It all reminds me of Ayn Rand's criticism of Kant, when she said he "originated the technique required to sell irrational notions to the men of a skeptical, cynical age." We are living in such an age, and the technique keeps going and going.

After all, it would seem that my blogging and authoring a book to be sold only on line for E-readers would be the very thing Ericcson and the Centre and others are discussing. But it scares me to think that they want to include what I do in their crazy scheme of "the better promise of Marxism."

'Like' Curtisedwardclark.com on Facebook  
© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

Individuals Are Not Sovereign, Obama Implies

Individualism is the recognition that sovereignty, meaning one's ownership of one's self, is inherent from birth. These are the so-designated "self-evident truths". The purpose and legitimacy of a government, then, resides in its protection of individualism's opposition to both restraint by government, and by assistance from from it. Restraint violates the sovereignty of the restrained; assistance violates a person's sovereignty indirectly by violating the sovereignty of others for his or her sake. In today's political climate that is called variously 'social justice' or 'social equality', or more honestly 'distributive justice.'

"What [Obama] means by his slogan, 'You’re not on your own, we’re in this together,'", wrote The Objectivist Standard, "is that individuals are not sovereign and that government must dictate the means and terms of their lives."

The first hint that most of America got in regard to the President's disregard of sovereignty, was his now-infamous talk with 'Joe the Plumber'. This was when Obama told the man, who had asked him a question about his business plans, that his taxes might go up if he reached the $250K mark. "It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama was telling America. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too." 

We ought to have taken that presciently. Many did, including myself, but the left said 'pooh pooh, that isn't what Obama meant'. Now we know it is precisely what he meant. If more Americans had had their eyes and ears open in 2008, we could have seen that he has no idea how how business works, how individualism works, or how the Tenth Amendment works, all of which which the last four years have borne out. 

"For the president of the United States to say that you didn’t do that, [that] you didn’t build your business, was a ‘Joe the Plumber’ moment of 2012," said Rep. Greg Walden, deputy chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee and former small business owner.

"Those persons and groups who oppose the devolution of authority from the central government to the states in the United States," wrote James Buchanan, "[place] other values above those of the liberty and sovereignty of individuals." Does Obama not do everything to show that he appreciates the evolution of authority from the individual to the central government? "[In] a large economy, characterized by liberty of resource flows and trade throughout the territory," Mr. Buchanan continued, the problem becomes how "to maximize the protected sphere of individual sovereignty."

Individual sovereignty involves every sphere of human activity, even such things as trade policy with other nations:
"US trade policy is almost always debated in terms of economic utility: Does free trade raise or lower incomes? Does it help or hurt U.S. industry? Does it create or destroy jobs? But behind the statistics and anecdotes lie moral assumptions about human nature, [and] the sovereignty of the individual." source

'Protecting the sphere of individual sovereignty' is certainly not what our President is about.

'Like' Curtisedwardclark.com on Facebook
© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

Intension and Extension, Part 2

The 'intension' of any idea consists in the qualities or properties that are the substance[1] of the idea. See the first part in this series. For example, the Constitution, Article. I.Section. 1. states that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Taken in its entirety, the 'substance' of the Section is legislative powers, and what they shall be vested in.

Any 'extension' of an idea is dependent on the 'intension' for its substance. Section 2. states, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States," and in the substance of that there is no 'extension' of any idea that those elected cannot be women or blacks--nor, for that matter, Catholics or Muslims or "Hindoos", as Thomas Jefferson spelled it.

So for all practical purposes, 'intension' is the same as someone's 'intentions'; it merely has a semantic difference in the way philosophers of law use the word. The intension is necessarily in the words and syntax, if you are a textualist (also called a constructionist, from the 'construction' of the clauses and sentences.)

If you are an originalist, the intension is more likely to be in the meaning of those words and that syntax as they were meant when the text was written. That is called original expected application. If on the other hand you are of the belief that the intension should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have said was the meaning, that is called original public meaning. The problem between these forms of originalism is that the writers of the Constitution, and those who took part in the debates, wrote extensively both before and after it was written. If you read what they wrote and you abide by what they wrote, you might be adopting original application, or you might be following the original public meaning. Reasonable persons living at the time were very well versed in what their intellectuals had to say. And many of those intellectuals said the intension was in the text, so that textualism and both forms of originalism melt into one when we try to interpret the Constitution.

"Originalism tends to favor a narrower definition of civil liberties than modernism does, so it generally permits more authoritarian laws," states a popular website. Obviously this is wrong, because the entire purpose of the Constitution was the promotion of the 'general Welfare' without infringing upon what all 'reasonable persons at the time' believed was the individual sovereignty of the individual. But it may be a common belief because since the time of at least the New Deal, Americans have been taught by their leaders that our Constitution was meant to guarantee 'positive' rights, that is grants, the creation of what does not exist under natural law; in other words, entitlements, not just of money, but of 'social justice'.

The belief in individual sovereignty was not a 'peculiar conceit' of Thomas Jefferson; rather, it was "the common assumption of the day." Jefferson himself has often been described as a strict constructionist, yet his thoughts on the proposed and real extensions of his time are used by originalists of both types, and by textualists.

It is true that individual sovereignty was commonly acknowledged. Sam Adams wrote that he feared misinterpretation of the Constitution would grow the power of the Federal government at the expense of the States and "sink both in despotism." "Those Virginians, such as Patrick Henry and George Mason," wrote Dr. Roger M. Firestone, "who argued most strongly for the Bill of Rights, knew that the individual would require defenses against the authority of the state."

Positive rights are extensions of the Constitution if you interpret it as a 'living document', meant to be read in the context of a modern world. Even then, you must ignore what those who lived during that period knew was the intent of the Framers--because the Framers told them their intent.

The only 'modern' part of the extensions since the New Deal (and some before that) is the loss of individualism in favor of authoritarianism, not the reverse as the quote above states.
 
[1] that by virtue of which a thing has its determinate nature source


© Curtis Edward Clark 2012
 'Like' Curtisedwardclark.com on Facebook

Social Justice

 'Social justice' is also called 'distributive justice' by those who don't mind the word association problem. At least they are intellectually more honest than those who hide behind the word 'social'. The Washington University Law Review is one of the honest, posing the question, "What should be redistributed?"

The National Association of Social Workers proudly says: "Peace is not possible where there are gross inequalities of money and power, whether between workers and managers, nations and nations or men and women." I would say peace between them and sovereign individuals is not possible when they must use the force of their political power to 'distribute' money and power.

"Let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you – and why?"  Walter Williams 

Amen. Just tell me how much of what I have is yours to 'distribute', for the purpose of your 'justice'--a justice which is unnatural by the laws of nature which oblige everyone who consults reason to the proposition that no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, property, or health. (See John Locke)

A 'socially just' website, Buzzle.com, clearly states that "In a socially just society, there is equal distribution of wealth and property." By whom, and through the use of what force of power, is this to be achieved; and who gave the right to those who will effect the distribution?

The progressive position does not believe in individual sovereignty (IS). IS is not a road to total anarchy; the progressives don't like anarchy either because it leaves them with no power at all. But IS is Locke's idea of the individual being the source from which all governmental power is derived. I as an individual do not have the power to tax my neighbor for the 'general welfare' of paving the street so that we don't all get stuck in the mud. But government must have the power of building infrastructure.

When in a complete state of nature, I have the right to seek retribution upon anyone who does harm to my life, liberty, property (which metaphysically only is also my family members) or my health. But individuals are often cruel, literally taking an eye for an eye when that is not the right solution. Governments are formed to deal with this also.

Governments are not formed to take part of my wages or part of my home, as was demonstrated in Soviet Russia and depicted in the movie 'Dr. Zhivago'. That solution to homelessness is the logical extreme of progressive socialism--but so is the health care act. That is what Americans said about it when they rejected it in its first form--Hillary care. The dialectics of President Obama's speech patterns and the use of taqiyya to get what he wants led us to where we now stand, in all roads political and economic.

'Justice' cannot be separated by economics, because the distribution of economic elements from one individual or class to another class (never to another individual) is totally foreign to a Constitution that was written to protect the smallest minority, the individual.

See my local newspaper opinion on this subject.

© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

The Extension and Intension of the Constitution

We must begin this discussion with the definition of the words in the title:
"The intension of a concept consists of the qualities or properties which go to make up the concept. The extension of a concept consists of the things which fall under the concept; or, according to another definition, the extension of a concept consists of the concepts which are subsumed under it (determine subclasses)" source 

The intension of the Constitution is, therefore, the qualities or properties which go to make up the concept. What is the concept? It is supremely simple, and in two parts: the first quality is that of a government more able to deal with national problems than the Articles of Confederation allowed for; and the second property was to make a government less able to violate the rights of minorities. The second quality was the biggest intensional concern of James Madison, Patrick Henry and others, and it is the one that has seen its extensions go awry, since the era of the New Deal.

The extensional parts are the subclasses of the intensions; they are the things which 'fall under' the concept(s). Article 1, Section 2 explaining the composition of the Congress, is therefore an extension of Section 1, explaining that there shall be a Senate and a House.

"The Constitution does not give you rights," explains the Constitutionality Crisis. "The founders considered your rights to be 'God-given' or 'natural rights' — you are born with all your rights. The constitution does, however, protect your rights by:

• Limiting the powers of government by granting to it only those specific powers that are listed in the Constitution; (This has not proven to be effective of late.)
• Enumerating certain, specific rights which you retain. These are listed in the Bill of Rights." [emphasis in original]

The Constitution, in turn, is an extension of John Locke's famous intensional statement about the state of nature specifically, that it "has a Law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one: And Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions. [John Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government, §6] [emphasis in original]

But more than that, our coveted Bill of Rights are the extensions of the entire concept for the limitation of the powers of government, and the empowerment of the individual. "The whole of the Bill is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has the right to deprive them of." –Albert Gallatin, 1789, New York Historical Society

The original statements of the Founders give us their intent for ratifying the words they used. Why did they say this, and say it that way instead of the other way or another way? But epistemological intension is like a definition of a genus, whereas extension is like the definition of a species. The genus of the Constitution is that of a document never seen before then, one that had two part, the way 'man' is defined as 'rational animal'. The two parts are to be an enabler of individualism, and a limiter of government.

Madison warned us of wrongful extensions of the limited powers given to government, and named many that we see today. Congress might, he said, "establish teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union, they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads; in short, every thing from the highest object of state legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress [ ] and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare."

These things are so commonplace that we do not even think about some of them as being usurpations by the nation upon the powers of the States; or worse, usurpations on your individual sovereignty, which was a commonly held extension of the purpose of the limitation on government.

Next Friday I will examine some others in detail.

© Curtis Edward Clark 2012

Tea Party language calls for 'smaller government'. Smaller government means nothing, because theoretically it could still include Medicare, Social Security, income taxes, death taxes, and other forms of government power over the individual that was never 'originally intended.'

    In my recent posts, I have stuck-like-glue to the comment in made in the very first entry of this blog:

Tea Party language calls for 'smaller government'. Smaller government means nothing, because theoretically it could still include Medicare, Social Security, income taxes, death taxes, and other forms of government power over the individual that was never 'originally intended.'

   As I've been saying, it is the issues that are being ignored, except occasionally by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), sponsors of the Energy Tax Prevention Act. Other instances are in cases of state-rights:

   The following states are challenging the constitutionality of the health care law in federal court: Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, South Dakota, Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Alaska, Ohio, Wisconsin, Maine, Iowa, Wyoming, Kansas and Virginia. On January 18, 2011, six additional states–Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, Wisconsin and Wyoming–petitioned in federal court to join Florida’s law suit.

    That list was copied from the website American Conservative Values, which promotes itself as 'limited government' and 'Constitutional rights', but not specifically laws which strictly adhere to Constitutionality. It could be argued that 'Constitutional rights' are those guaranteed in the first nine Amendments.

    The Tenth applies to the relationship of the States to the Federal government, but just as much as that, in its original meaning was the intention that the Federal government was extremely limited in its contact with the People of the Several States. "The reservation to the States respectively," says the Supreme Court,[1] "can only mean the reservation of the Sovereignty which they respectively possessed before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and which they had not parted from by that instrument."

    That sovereignty of which they had not parted was the sovereignty of the State government over the citizens; whereas the Federal government, having been created by and for the purpose of the States, was responsible for dealing with the States--but not directly except where expressly provided for in the Constitution--for dealing with the Citizens of the several States. 

[1] My thanks to Barefoot Bob for his invaluable work installing the HTML version on the web (especially the links to the references, as in 'says the Supreme Court', above), of my own favorite reference to the Constitution, about which he said:

"Published before the beginning of the 'Socializing of America' in 1933, it is the best and most edifying rendition of our Foundation Document that I have found to clarify the intent of the Founders and the understanding of 'We the People', the Sovereign Citizens of the United States of America." 

I have owned my own copy since the 1980s, and I'm surprised the pages are not falling out of it. BB's link makes my own use of the book more valuable--to all of us.

© Curtis Edward Clark 2011
Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

The Unenumerated Rights in the Ninth Amendment

    After writing last week on the Big Government and the Ninth Amendment I was looking at other blogs and articles on the Ninth, and discovered this article:
    "Unfortunately, the 9th Amendment is hated by many conservatives as well as progressives. While being grilled by the Senate, Robert Bork said that the 9th Amendment had no more legal significance than an inkblot on the Constitution. There are two kinds of conservatives, those who want to return to Constitutional principles of a limited government that protects individual rights and those that want to establish an American Empire."
   I also found this, from my good email friend Tibor Machan (whom I met only once in 1979):
   "Many politicians are afraid of the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Many of their intellectual cheerleaders in the academy and media show equal disdain for this portion of that legal document. Why?" He goes on:

   "Why should the Constitution make this point anyway? Because, actually, people have innumerable rights, and to list them all is impossible -- whereas, listing the powers of government, which in the American system are taken to be limited and restricted, can be listed without having to produce a mammoth document."

   The progressive nature of modern American politics infects both sides of the isles in Congress, as Bork's statement makes clear in the ugliest of terms. It is in the nature of 'listing the powers of government' that limits it, and it's the nature of the Ninth Amendment to prevent limits on the behavior of Americans.
   But when Progressives are stupid enough to state aloud that "the difficulty of getting the Constitution amended" is reason enough for not only ignoring such provisions as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, but for tromping on them with judicial activism and with legislation so complicated that former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said with a smile, and without a hint of irony, that "We must pass this legislation so that you can see what is in it," it is clear that the Tea Party is far from getting the message that Originalism isn't about "smaller government"; it is about Constitutional government.
   But what Tea Partier have you ever heard speak of the Ninth Amendment? One of the "innumerable rights" preserved by the Ninth is the right to be free of mandates such as the requirement to purchase something from the market place--or be fined.
   This mandate of Obama-care takes "demand-based economics" to a new level. Fortunately, if this situation is handled correctly, it can be used to unravel the demand economics being forced on us by a "green" government, such as the unwanted production of bio-gas and the eventual "phasing out" (by government fiat) of incandescent light bulbs.
   Unfortunately, if the Ninth Amendment is nothing but an inkblot to the Tea Party, the party will only mire itself deeper into the meaningless conversation about which of the lesser-of-two-evils of progressive argument to accept when those arguments are presented to them. (They apparently don't see that there is no "unprogressive" argument being made.) And that is what will happen if the party doesn't begin to understand this ideological war isn't about "smaller" government, but about Constitutional government.




© Curtis Edward Clark 2011 Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

Big Government and the Ninth Amendment

   The Tea Party lacks for a lot of things. Number 1 is the intellectual basis for arguing why government should be smaller. "Government should be smaller!" the T-Partiers chant, but their argument is that we can not afford it any longer, as if to say, "If we had all the money in the world, we'd be ok with 'big' government".
   Big government ought to be big, if the big problems of the big world call for it. There is nothing wrong with big government so long as it is Constitutionally doing what it ought to be doing, not doing what it ought not be doing, and that what it does that it 'ought to' can be paid for.
   Therein lies the problem. More than 100 years of Progressivism have given rise to the idea of "positive liberty", e.g., entitlements. These are not simply things like food stamps and health care, but also government mandates on hair dryers--which save about 12 lives a year at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars; the mandated demise of the incandescent light bulb so that America doesn't have to build any new nuclear reactors--which are very safe and extremely cheap when the they are allowed to be pebble bed modular reactors; but nooooo, those are not allowed, even while the start-up of such companies as could build them would instantly put tens of thousands of people to work.
   Government mandates are costing the people of this nation hundreds of billions of dollars a year in subsidies, including those for bio-fuels, which as we all know by now are pushing up the cost of fuels, the cost of our food, and are not popular, not to mention that the price of biogas must be something like 24¢ less than regular before it actually becomes more fuel-efficient, because you get fewer miles-per-gallon with it.

   Negative liberty, on the other hand, is the absence of political obstacles and constraints against individual sovereignty, which the Founders sought to guarantee with the Ninth Amendment.

   The Ninth Amendment says that just because the Founders failed to name and to number all the specific rights you have, doesn't mean you don't still have them. The right to a hairdryer that won't kill you if you are stupid enough to use it near water isn't one of them.
   The Tea Party has turned out to be a very vocal group of fiscal and ethical conservatives, which could be good for America's wallets and America's disdain for corrupt politicians, who until now have mostly gotten away with their indiscretions.
   But the Tea Partiers are no more Originalist readers of the Declaration than are their Republican or Democratic counterparts, and therein lies the problem: we need Constitutional Originalists to separate the unConstitutional government from the Constitutional government, not the "big" from the "small" government, because in the end those who call for smaller, or for less, government still fail to remember the reason that a government that governs less governs best: isn't because it's fiscally smaller, it because it is further toward being unable to destroy what is so callously forgotten about the Ninth Amendment.

Originalism vs. Cultural Relativity

Cultural relativism is the view that all beliefs, customs, and ethics are relative to the individual within his own social context. In other words, “right” and “wrong” are culture-specific; what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another, and, since no universal standard of morality exists, no one has the right to judge another society’s customs. http://www.gotquestions.org/cultural-rel…

This has led to the Progressive idea of the Constitution as a "living document" that can be "interpreted" to include the current morally relativist positions of our political leaders and/or those who's political action committees support the campaigns of our leaders.

As a denial of "universal" human rights as protected specifically by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and by the Constitutional provision that Amendments must be enacted to change what is concretized in the Constitution, it is a denial that men have "unalienable" rights. Those unalienable rights are defined in natural law, and they vary somewhat between philosophers, but essentially they are a refutation of relativism.

President Obama's ideal of six years of national service to the United States government in return for school loans, which were made forbidden by lending institutions specifically so that this six year committment could be instituted, is one such case of relativism.

The first known case of relativism was the statement by Protagoras: "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not".

But if you believe that governments are constituted by the consent of the people, rather than coming from the blunt force of powerful people or from one faction or tribe being bigger and more terrifying than another, than you must believe relativism is wrong.

Consent of the governed is terminology of "popular sovereignty" as defined by Locke and Rousseau, whereby each individual gives up a bit of his freedom to a common government. Jefferson deduced that before any individual could give up such freedom to the "common sovereignty" that he himself must have "individual sovereignty". One cannot give up what one does not have to give.

"Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/indivi…

That statement is the direct denial of cultural relativism. So is the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Cultural relativism taken to an extreme means a tribe still has the right to throw virgins into volcanoes, or to eat other men who happen to be in the way when the tribe is hunting for food, or to rape virgins in order to prevent getting HIV/AIDS when screwing other women who already have it. (This is a true scenario in some parts of Africa.)

"Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.

"An individualist is a man who says: “I will not run anyone’s life—nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone—nor sacrifice anyone to myself.” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/indivi…

Do not make the mistake of believing that I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense, as a statement of moral relativism by a person, tribe, city, or nation, is superior to objective standards of ethics.

© 2010 FAMN LLC (MI)

What is "Individual Sovereignty"?

A couple of times I have been verbally assaulted in emails by people who claimed that only nations had "sovereignty". Apparently they have never heard of "popular sovereignty", a concept dating back to the middle of the 17th century, formulated as part of social contracts. "Popular" sovereignty is no more of a nation than "individual" sovereignty is.

John Locke, as Hobbes before him, claimed that social contracts were unbreakable. He stipulated however that if the legislatures did not work for the good of the citizens, they could replace the legislature.

"Popular sovereignty," therefore, becomes "the notion that no law or rule is legitimate unless it rests directly or indirectly on the consent of the individuals concerned."
http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Popular%20sovereignty.htm

Thomas Jefferson and others wondered how individuals could consent to give to a social contract powers they themselves did not have to begin with. We cannot give bread to a food bank if we don't have bread; how can we give consent to others to make rules for us if we don't have the original power to make rules for ourselves? They therefore concluded that individuals did, indeed, have such natural rights that only individual sovereignty could morally defend.

""Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, 1791

But, "Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." Joseph J. Ellis

"And thus, [ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity,] every man is sole lord and arbiter of his own private actions and property--a character of which no man living can divest him but by usurpation, or his own consent. -John Trenchard, January 20,1721 The Freeman 

"The relationships between federalist political structure and the sovereignty of the individual must be carefully examined..." James M. Buchanan

In contrast to the Articles of Confederation, in which the sovereignty of the States, not all of which followed the rule of "natural rights", formed the United States, it was the sovereign people who created the United States under the Constitution. And the people were sovereign in their individual, not collective, capacities. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments saw to that.

"Legislation for communities, as contradistinguished from individuals," Hamilton wrote with Madison in Federalist No. 20, "is subversive of the order and ends of civil polity."

It even comes to us from the Czeck Republic's first President, Václav Havel: ""The sovereignty of the community, the region, the nation, the state--any higher sovereignty, in fact--makes sense only if it is derived from the one genuine sovereignty, that is, from human sovereignty, which finds its political expression in civic sovereignty." Cato Journal

Elizabeth Price Foley, wrote that the U.S. was created on two “foundational principles”, limited government and individual sovereignty.

No individual can willingly give to the "common sovereignty" what he himself does not already possess. This brings many questions to mind concerning taxation, the use of military and police force, etc. But those belong in another debate, and they can be rectified where they are wrong, to respect common or popular sovereignty, and often individual sovereignty.

© FAMN LLC (MI)

The Mount Vernon Statement

On February 17, 2010, a number of well-known and influential people met at President Washington's home, Mount Vernon, to sign The Mount Vernon Statement, billed as Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century.

Liberal groups, said the Vancouver Sun, dismissed the Mount Vernon Statement as a rehash of right-wing ideas better suited to the 18th century than the 21st.

"The Mount Vernon Statement," reported the Sun, "appears to be yet another recitation of the same tired dogma we've seen for decades," said Michael Keegan, president of People For the American Way.

No explanation was given for why the U.S. Constitution is "better suited to the 18th century than the 21st". But it appears clear that the signers have comitted themselves to one error. Throughout the Statement they refer to the Constitution as a "conservative" document.

"At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution," reads the Statement. "The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers...A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives...It reminds economic conservatives [and] social conservatives [and] national security conservatives [that] Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda."

The error is in the attempt to label and to categorize the U.S. Constitution as a conservative document. It was not a conservative document in 1787. It was not debated nor established in a conservative atmosphere.
A "radical act occurred when 55 representatives of the 13 colonies gathered to improve on the Articles of Confederation and instead locked the doors, posted sentries, and proceeded to discuss, debate, and develop the most unprecedented document ever created as a blueprint for governing a nation.

"This radical document we know today as The Constitution for the United States of America. Never before in the history of mankind had such an approach been suggested, and then ratified....This was truly revolutionary, radical, bold in vision, and bolder in application." Gary Wood

So, "why does the New York Times label Ron Paul as the most radical congressman in America for calling for a return back to our constitutionalist ideals?" Through the Magnifying Glass

Because the American people have no idea what freedoms they would once again own as individual, sovereign entities under Federalist principles governed by the ideal of a republic. To roll back the clock to such a moment when men were again "Citizens of their several States" instead of "citizens of the United States" under the 14th Amendment; to go back to a time when the Interstate Commerce Clause did not give the Federal government the power to control nearly every aspect of industry and commerce, would be radical in and of itself. It would require legislators in every State and in Congress who understood Originalism. It might require a Constitutional Convention, because to right some wrongs would require Amendments. We cannot simply "go back" without unintended consequences. Laws that put legitimate criminals in prisons are sometimes not legitimately "laws" according to Originalist interpretations of the Constitution, and yet we cannot let dangerous people out of prison.

President GeorgeW. Bush was not the first to declare certain captured enemy soldiers by the title of "enemy combatants"; Lincoln did so during the Civil War, and there are those who would perhaps be correct to say that both Presidents were wrong to do so. Yet there are men detained at Gitmo who would kill another 3000 Americans (or Spaniards or Malays or French or British or Germans) if they were released.

The Constitution is not the "conservative" document the Republicans would like us to believe. It is more important than that, more primary, more principled, more limited than most Conservatives would want to see.

We got into this messy situation of ignoring and going around the Constitution because Republicans as much as Democrats and Progressives wanted the power to control the forces of law.

We don't need "conservatives", Tea Party or otherwise, controlling our nation. We need the radicals who will state without equivocation, "I swear to abide by the Constitution as it was given to us, not as I would have it through subversion."

© FAMN LLC (MI)

Tea Parties vs. Originalism

Tea Party language calls for "smaller government". Smaller government means nothing, because theoretically it could still include Medicare, Social Security, income taxes, death taxes, and other forms of government power over the individual that was never "originally intended."

Indeed, if the Founders had known then what they could not have known without omniscience, they would have crafted a Constitution that would not allow for the idea of a "living document."

Taken as a "living document" progressives and liberals have been allowed to abrogate the provisions of the Constitution that otherwise would cause the necessity for Amendments. A "living document" needs no Amendments. It can be twisted to meet the needs of whatever political party has power.

"Originalism is the view that the Constitution has a fixed and knowable meaning established at the time of its enactment." U. of San Diego School of Law The Tenth Amendment tells us that the powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States themselves are either reserved to the States, or to the people. In theory this means each individual ought to have the freedom to do whatever he or she pleases so long as it does not abrogate the sovereignty of any other individual within the definition of such sovereignty. 

Unfortunately, there is little in the Ten Amendments to guarantee such sovereignty.

"Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." wrote Joseph J. Ellis.

The separation of church and state came to be part of our law, not by being written in the Constitution, but by being a part of the national debate during the writing of the Constitution, by being accepted as a "common assumption of the day."

This is Originalism and that is how it operates; the Jurist behind the bench reaches back into the history of our Founding, discovers what the Founders wanted even if they failed as men to include it in the Constitution, and then he incorporates that Original thinking into his decision.

We cannot blame the Founders for their lack of omniscience. We must look to what their intentions were and accept them as the guiding principle behind the document being judged.

If the decision of the Jurist does not match the needs of the people or of society as it exists today, it is then up to our Legislative branches to write the laws that will meet our needs--but those laws must also meet the Original Intent of the Founders, or we must create an Amendment to meet the current need. 

© FAMN LLC (MI)