I’m not a big Reality TV fan, in fact I don’t watch much regularly broadcast TV at all, but there is one show which seems to be quite popular among those who do; that being Survivor. The underlying premise of the show is that a group of people, and sometimes an individual, are taken to a remote location and forced to live off the land for a period of time; eliminating the other players until one ‘sole survivor’ remains to claim the prize.
Since I don’t watch much TV I don’t know what the attraction to this show is, but I am guessing that people like to either watch how others survive on their own wits, or picture themselves in a similar situation where they are forced to survive on their own wits.
The problem with that show is that the contestants are not really left to their own wits; there is the safety net of the film crew that films them during their ordeals. By that I mean, if one of the contestants becomes seriously ill, or injured, there is no way they would film them as they died; they would transport them to a hospital somewhere to obtain the necessary treatment so that they could recover. Yet, for the most part, the survival of the contestants depends upon their ability to provide food and shelter for themselves.
Now imagine, if you will, that the scenario for Survivor is not the premise for some Reality TV show, it is your reality without the safety net of a film crew to rush you to a hospital should you become seriously injured or ill; how well do you think you could ‘survive’, especially if the conditions were harsh?
You say, “That could never happen in America.” You’re right; at least nowadays it couldn’t; but it was reality for many throughout our country’s history. Research the history of the earliest settlements in America and you will find that many died due to starvation or illness while they struggled to erect shelter and plant crops; especially during the harsh winter months in New England.
Research the stories of the settlers who moved westward; expanding our country by settling in the vast Midwest; how they struggled to make ends meet; and often did not survive. Research the Donner Party who became stranded in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and ended up resorting to cannibalism to survive.
The will to survive, or self-preservation, is strong in people; and when they are left to their own wits people will often do anything to sustain their lives. The thing about that is, in such a situation people are truly free; relying solely upon themselves for ALL their needs.
Although my respect and admiration for James Madison has diminished as I learned more about the man, and his role in drafting our Constitution, he did, from time to time, ‘get it right.’ One such instance came in 1792 when he wrote, “The class of citizens who provide at once their own food and their own raiment, may be viewed as the most truly independent and happy. They are more: they are the best basis of public liberty, and the strongest bulwark of public safety. It follows, that the greater the proportion of this class to the whole society, the more free, the more independent, and the more happy must be the society itself.” Think about that would you; the people who provide for their own needs are the basis of the public liberty. It would stand to reason then that those who do not provide for their own needs, those who live off others like parasites, are the destroyers of the public liberty.
The Declaration of Independence, the cornerstone upon which America was built, states, “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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...”
People mistakenly believe that it is the duty and function of government to ‘provide‘ those rights to people. That simply isn’t so; and would be apparent if people just understood what the word secure means. Secure DOES NOT mean provide, it means to make safe; be well guarded.
I am not one to force anything upon anyone else, but I would highly recommend that people read Frederic Bastiat’s book The Law; for in it they might find a bit of wisdom as to why governments are created, and the evils that make government unjust; or unfit to exist. Let’s see how well you can follow Bastiat’s train of thought:
– Life, faculties, production–in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
– Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, itslawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
– Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.
But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others.
– Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain—and since labor is pain in itself—it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
– But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case—is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.
The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.
Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system.
Now tell me, and be honest, how much plunder do you see going on in America today? When those who work can have their wages taxed to fund things, or others who did not earn them, is that not plunder? When a person’s rights or liberty can be restricted or denied because others find them offensive, or frightening, is that not also a form of plunder in that it denies the very purpose for which governments are instituted among men?
Hasn’t plunder supplanted the preservation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the reason for which our government exists today; has not plunder become the primary purpose the system serves? Does it really matter who is plundering who in this system? The Democrats seek to impose their will upon the Republicans and the Republicans seek to impose their will upon the Democrats; but in the end it all boils down to the fact that there are two belief systems that seek control of this system of plunder to benefit those who support them.
Those who neither need or want their government to do anything for them are those who understand what liberty is all about; and for the most part they are denounced as enemies to the system, or the public, because they only want to be left alone.
In 1801 Thomas Jefferson wrote of this schism between those who sought liberty and those who sought a government to ‘do things’ for them, “Those of firm health and spirits are unwilling to cede more of their liberty than is necessary to preserve order; those of feeble constitutions will wish to see one strong arm able to protect them from the many.” (Source: Thomas Jefferson: Misc. Notes, 1801)
It is my belief today, regardless of which political party people belong to, that ‘those of feeble constitution‘ comprise the vast majority of the people inhabiting this country, while those ‘of firm health and spirits‘ make up the minority.
The Democrats complain when the Republicans gain control of government, and the Republicans complain when the Democrats gain control of it. Yet at least they stand a 50-50 chance of having a party in charge that represents them. What about those who care only whether their rights and liberty are secured; what choice do we have when both parties enact laws that restrict them?
How can we retain, or defend our liberty when the system has become one in which two warring factions seek to control it so that they can plunder the other? When we do not vote in an election we are told that we are helping one of the two sides. There are but two sides for us; those who seek to defend liberty and those who seek to abolish it; and it does not matter by what name the latter go by…Republicans or Democrats. We don’t vote because we see that regardless of which side controls government, our rights and our liberty continues to be encroached upon.
For those who love liberty the scariest words in the political lexicon are bipartisan effort; for they indicate that both sides have ganged up against us to do something the further infringes upon our rights and our liberty. Most people say something like, “Finally, the parties are working together to get something accomplished.” We say, “Oh shit, this must be something really bad if both sides are working together to enact this law.”
If people actually knew what liberty was, and if they cherished it to the extent their ancestors did in 1776, they would not take political sides when both of those sides are equally guilty of infringing upon the individual liberty of the people. If people truly understood the nature of their rights they would not push for measures that seek to deprive those they disagreed with of their rights. If people understood the principles this country was founded upon they would work to protect and defend the rights and liberty of all people; regardless of whether they disagreed with them over the issues.
Not only that, if people understood those things they would not comply with any law that infringed upon a single right, or sought to limit the exercise of their rightful liberty. If people understood these things they would also understand the following legal principle, “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.” (Source: Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256 137, 180)
In 1934 Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes held, “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved.” Yet look at how emergencies and crises have been used to justify all manner of increased power and curtailment of our rights and liberty.
All the laws, programs and agencies established in response to the events of 9/11 are a perfect example of this. The people, fueled by fear, anger, and a constant stream of patriotic propaganda, forsook their freedom for the promise of security and revenge against the perpetrators. Yet the ‘official’ story is riddled with holes; leaving one to ask, “Could there be more to it than what they are telling us; could our government had something to do with the events that happened that day?“
But most people can’t face those questions, for to do so would mean they would have to accept that their government was not the benevolent entity they thought it was; that it was evil and corrupt. So they accept the ‘official’ story, and all the infringements upon their freedom as the price they must pay to be kept safe. In short, post 9/11 became the people’s new normal.
Hmm, now where have I heard that saying before? That’s right, I’m hearing it almost daily on the news in response to the measures taken, (once again), to keep people safe; this time against this virus that is causing such widespread panic and fear amongst the people.
Once again people are allowing fear, rather than fact, to determine how much freedom they will surrender if their elected officials will just keep them safe. To quote from Jefferson again, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” If you knew what liberty was, and if you cherished it as much as I do, that would be your mantra, your creed, not “Yes massa, I be a good lil slave and follow whatever orders you give me.”
Listen, I’m not saying you can’t wear a face mask if you want to, or practice social distancing; it’s your choice. Just don’t force me to do so because of your ridiculous fears over this virus; fears that are unfounded in fact. Yes this virus is real; yes this virus has hit some places extremely hard; but the fact remains that the survival rate is over 98%, and that these masks they are making us wear are ineffective at stopping its spread. But if you think wearing one makes you safe; they by all means, go for it. Just leave me free to NOT wear one!
The sad thing about all this is that some of those complying with these guidelines also say that they love freedom; that they are, in fact, free. A free people do not comply with laws that restrict their freedom. Sorry, that’s a painful truth that you are going to have to accept if you ever want to be truly free. As my friend Mike Gaddy recently posted on Facebook, “No people have ever defeated tyranny and despotism by agreeing to its mandates and honoring its enforcers.”
Yet not only are some people complying with these limitations to their freedom, they are imposing those limitations upon those who do not fear this virus; going so far as to turn them in to the authorities for their failure to comply.
A perfect example of that happened at work last Friday. The company I work for had removed 50% of the chairs from the lunchroom and taped huge X’s on the floor indicating where you must sit, or stand while waiting to use the microwave ovens.
On Friday I went to lunch and my wife was sitting at a table with a friend and fellow co-worker. They were practicing the proper social distancing guidelines by sitting on opposite sides of the table. I went and sat down next to my wife; which placed me no closer to our friend than my wife was.
Yet, one of the women that works in the cafeteria began scolding me; saying I had to move to another table; that the rules state that only two people could sit at each table. She said that they, (meaning management I suppose), were watching the cameras and were starting to write people up for violating social distancing guidelines.
That is when I lost my cool.
I stood up, and almost yelled, “And that right there is why I’m fucking retiring!” But I didn’t quit there, I also said, “Are the people watching the cameras going to follow me home and make sure I keep my social distance when I sleep with my wife?” As soon as I said that all conversation in the cafeteria stopped and every eye turned to me to see what I’d say next.
I probably would have left it at that had she not tried to sound condescending by saying something like, “I know it’s a pain in the ass, but rules are rules and we gotta follow them.” I can’t recall the exact words I spoke, but I said something about how that is why we have lost all our freedom in this country, because people just bend over and let the government force all these rules upon us.
Again, I would probably have ended my tirade there had she not said something else. She then said that she was free; that she didn’t know what I was talking about when I said we don’t have any freedom left in this country. I then ran down a long laundry list of things we are required to obtain a permit or a license for before the government would allow us to do those things; but at this point I think she got tired of listening to me and went back into the kitchen area of the cafeteria.
The people sitting in the cafeteria sat there in stunned silence while I stormed outside to get some fresh air and calm down. As I was outside cooling my heels the following quote from Thomas Paine kept repeating itself in my head, “When I contemplate the natural dignity of man, when I feel (for Nature has not been kind enough to me to blunt my feelings) for the honour and happiness of its character, I become irritated at the attempt to govern mankind by force and fraud, as if they were all knaves and fools, and can scarcely avoid disgust at those who are thus imposed upon.”
I’m weary to the bone from fighting against ignorance and abject stupidity; not to mention the fact that government, and its enforcers in the law enforcement community, could give a shit about preserving my liberty. Believe me, there have been times when I’ve considered saying “fuck it” and just sitting back and watching the country go to hell. But that’s not in my nature, no matter how depressed and saddened I get.
When I feel that way I often think of what Thomas Paine wrote during the Revolution for Independence, “THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”
I will not give up, nor give in; it is my duty as one who loves liberty to preserve till the end; whether the end sees liberty once again flourish, or if it sees it completely obliterated. If that makes me a pariah; one to be hated by his countrymen, so be it. As Patrick Henry so famously said, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!“
May 26, 2020
~ The Author ~
Neal Ross, Student of history, politics, patriot and staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Send all comments to: [email protected].
If you liked Neal’s latest column, maybe you’ll like his latest booklet: The Civil War: (The Truth You Have Not Been Told). Life continues to expand for this prolific writer and guardian of TRUE American history.