The Liberty Legation

Monday, November 19, 2012

Usurpation

Charlie Earl

According to Webster usurpation is the act of taking power by force. The definition explicitly assumes that one party gains power by wresting it from another unwilling participant. Additionally….usurpation is not legitimate, it is seizure by force. Typically “usurpation” is associated with revolution, coups and other types of activity that replaces a legitimate government with one of questionable authenticity. There is a more ominous aspect of usurpation that involves the inhibition or denial of inherent rights….either by one individual such as a kidnapper, by a group that tramples the rights of neighbors or uninvolved observers, or by a government that denies or limits individuals’ rights for self determination.

Inherent rights cannot be morally or legitimately seized or surrendered. George Mason, author of the Virginia declaration of Rights in 1776…predating the Declaration of Independence, wrote:

That all men are by nature equally free and independent,

and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter

into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive

or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty,

with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

As individuals, Mason recognized, we have inherent, inborn rights simply because of our sentient capacities. We cannot nor should we attempt to abdicate those rights when we become a member of a society…. of any size or composition. Those rights are personal and permanent. Obviously there times and instances when we voluntarily suspend our exercise of them or insistence on our inherent inheritance. Subordinating one’s individual interests for the temporary needs of a family, community or nation is a frequent occurrence, but it should never be implied or assumed that the voluntary forfeiture is irrevocable. Our rights are inherent and, as such, are not transferable or deniable.

So…when our inherent rights are violated or suppressed by others or by government, what remedies are available to us? What are the means for overcoming the usurpers? In the early pages of his great work The Law, Frederic Bastiat notes:

Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us

the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property,

since these are the three constituent or preserving elements

of life; elements, each of which is rendered complete by the

others, and that cannot be understood without them. (1850)

The key aspect of Bastiast’s insightful work is “defense.” Usurpation is aggressive violence and must be repelled for the sake of individual liberty. Freedom and liberty must be defended from aggressors… whether persons or institutions. It is a just and moral position for anyone to defend liberty and the accompanying inherent rights. It is a just and moral obligation because if one fails to protect one’s own freedom, by extension one jeopardizes the liberty of everyone.

The great tragedy of these times (and perhaps of all times) is that our inherent rights, while under assault from all quarters, are firmly and resolutely embedded in our law (redundantly). They are, however, routinely and cavalierly abused and usurped by our “law makers.” In doing so … they violate us, our God and their own humanity. Pompous pronouncements that proclaim the necessity for restraining the rights of some to give advantage for others are in the final analysis both inhuman and inhumane.

Charlie Earl

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Happy Fails to You

Charlie Earl

Growing up as I did in the 1950’s I was a fan of the western heroes: Gene Autry, the Cisco Kid, Hopalong Cassidy and Roy Rogers. It made me sad when the show would come to an end, and Dale and Roy would sing the “Happy Trails” song. The key line for a young buckaroo like me was “until we meet again.” It gave me hope and encouragement that Pat, Dale, Bullet, Trigger and Roy (+NellieBell) would be back to thrill me in another long, long week. Recently….during one of my fits of fruitless pondering, I thought about my western heroes and how they compared to my current big government. Pass the Tums, please.

Although my heroes often found themselves in difficult situations, their commitment to justice and their strong characters drove them to prevail. To the contrary our big over-bloated government routinely discovers tragic circumstances and injustice then systematically goes about making the situations much worse. Take poverty, for example, our nation has been conducting a “War on Poverty” since the mid-1960’s, and here we are nearly 50 years later (a half century) only to observe that 2012 has the highest level of poverty since The Great Depression. Another glaring example of the incompetence of big government is the ineffective “War on Drugs.” Drug use in the United States has not diminished in the period since the ill-advised policy was enacted, but crime syndicates, particularly Mexican cartels, have thrived. In addition, the prison population in the United States has soared beyond those of despotic nations across the globe because of our imprisoning drug offenders. Costs to the taxpayer have risen to astronomical heights and the “problem” has not been curtailed. Bad policy with fruitless outcomes and wasted lives.

One of the very few enumerated powers for the federal government is cited in the Preamble to The Constitution of the United States of America. The federal government is charged with providing for the common defense of the nation. Yet, time and again, over and over, the federal government distorts and aborts this vital mandate. Our brave and highly efficient volunteer forces are deployed across the globe while our borders have become porous. Our agencies which have been designed for internal security consistently harass and abuse solid citizens while refusing to use technology and common sense to limit the potential for terrorist mischief. Sieve-like borders are welcome mats to those who would harm us, and the over-emphasis on our own people allows the evil-doers to hide among the clutter of information collected by the various federal agencies. Government is too big and too inefficient to protect us, and indeed, has itself become a threat to our liberty.

The late former President Ronald Reagan was fond of reminding us that if you want more of something, subsidize it. If you desire less of something, tax it. Our massive government apparatus has illustrated The Gipper’s wisdom in spades. Too many subsidies and too many, too high taxes have distorted the free market beyond all recognition. This twisted focus is not only a problem in the corporate world but in the arts, education and other areas of human endeavor. Many people were justifiably outraged by Andres Serrano’s infamous “Piss Christ.” If government were not subsidizing art of any type, such controversial and blasphemous pieces might never see the light of day….or be relegated to an alley shop in Chelsea.

Subsidies are wrong because the power of government force is used to transfer wealth from your earnings into the hands of others….without your specific permission. Tax codes or user fees should be designed to finance a constitutionally limited and compliant government. Taxes and their collection should never be instruments for social engineering and behavior modification. It is immoral to use taxes for that purpose because a worker’s labor is forfeited for “the greater good.” That is a collectivist ideal and is inconsistent with the concept of a republic of free people. The government is nothing more than a collection of human beings who are commanded by a few or are entangled in red tape and paperwork. It is inefficient, ineffective and, at best, amoral. It is the beast with no brain. The smaller the beast, the more easily it can be controlled.

Charlie Earl

Monday, October 22, 2012

Closed Shop

Charlie Earl

The income tax is immoral because it involves the government (your master) stealing the product of your labor. Closed union shops are immoral because in some cases they deny you an equal opportunity to trade your labor for wages. The two major political parties are immoral because they collude to deny alternative voices access to the political process in the various states and on the national stage. Liberty is definitive. You either have it, or you do not. Liberty is tempered by responsibility and accountability wherein you cannot suppress or deny someone else’s liberty to advance your own. Therefore, license (unfettered anarchy) cannot be defined as liberty. It is license.

A “closed” shop in any context is a denial of an INDIVIDUAL’S liberty. While it may advance the goals of a defined collective, individual choice is overrun and shattered. There is another type of closed shop that has destructive consequences for our nation. It is the Eastern University Cabal…(EUC) ..pronounced “yuk.” It is a human tendency to associate with others with whom we are most comfortable. We often share similar values and beliefs, so it is logical that government and the east coast power centers are dominated by graduates from Yale, Harvard, Georgetown and other institutions like them. It becomes a “closed shop” of elites many of whom assume they have divine rights to micromanage the lives of their fellow citizens.

The term “closed shop” may not be precise enough to describe the various forms of exclusion in our culture and our nation. “Tribalism” may be a more accurate term although it is weighted by ethnic and racial distinctions that may not be present in the examples I cited above.

Obviously there is some tension between the concept of the closed shop and the freedom of association that is inherent in liberty. The contradiction is solved by citing one word: government. In those instances where government mandates, endorses, subsidizes or encourages barriers to openness and opportunity, the immoral closed shop will exist. If government is not the motivator or enforcer, then the path of exclusive voluntary association has been chosen. While the idea that any group may chose to exclude some while including others may seem distasteful, it is the power and force of government involvement that tips the balance from undesirable to immoral. When one is forced to join or prevented from affiliating with any group because of government action, the concept of free choice is violated. Admittedly … some groups under both public and private auspices require an identifiable level of special knowledge and expertise (e.g. physicians, engineers, attorneys). The criteria for membership to those closed shops should be as simple and basic as possible. Too often government entities have conspired with professional practitioners to construct barriers and hurdles to limit the opportunities for others to “join the club.”

Liberty is often characterized as a lonely pursuit. One person following her or his dreams and ideals without harming others or damaging their property describes the usual concept of personal freedom. It’s more than the lonely traveler blazing a path. It can include working with others or forming voluntary associations to handle difficulties that may face a community. But….true liberty should not and cannot deny others the opportunity to join if they are moral and willing to abide by the rules of the voluntary association (e.g. company workplace rules, Lions Club regs.). On the other hand forcing someone to join or support an association that does not conform to her or his ideals or is viewed as too restrictive is an immoral use of force. Closed shops of any kind that are under the wing of a too-powerful government are wrong.

Charlie Earl