“In times of tyranny and injustice, when law oppresses the people, the outlaw takes his place in history.” ~ Robin Hood (Ridley Scott version)

If you want my honest opinion on the matter, nothing in the world would be more ridiculous than to believe that a people who had just fought a long and costly war for their freedom would then turn around and establish a system of government which was designed to take that freedom right back from them.

Yet then again, some criminals often gain their freedom after serving time for their crime, only to turn around and get caught committing another crime, which lands them right back to prison; which proves that maybe, just maybe, people become accustomed to a way of life, and when offered a chance at something different, something better, they reject it and go back to what they’ve become comfortable with.

What is it in human nature that causes man to abandon liberty for bondage; to forsake the blessings of being able to live their lives according to the dictates of their hearts, for the cold comfort of being told what others think is in their best interests?

People will tell you that slavery is evil, yet the slave has no say in his condition he was placed into bondage against his will. People today rally behind, and vote for, their own slave masters; their only concern being that those masters are of their own choosing. So who is worse off, a slave who was placed into bondage against their will, or an entire people who submit to slavery when, to regain their freedom, all they would have to do is stop supporting the system that enslaves them.

So what is it that causes men to submit to their own subjugation and oppression willingly? Is it ignorance? Is it cowardice; the fear of having to accept responsibility for your own wants and needs? Or, is it a little of both?

I hear from some that they think I’m a danger to society, a threat to them and they system they seem to worship. The truth is, I’m no threat to anyone who leaves me free to live my life according to the dictates of my own heart. I may not agree with the life choices others may make, but so long as they don’t force their views upon me, it doesn’t affect me how they live their lives. I live by the mantra, “Live and let live.” All I truly want is to be left alone; not having your, or someone else’s opinions forced upon me; shoved down my throat against my will. Is that honestly too much to ask?

I would like for you to read something before I continue, written by Alexander Hamilton and published under the pseudonym of Publius in 1788, “Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation.”

I can almost picture people reading that, and then shaking their heads, saying, “That makes sense.” I’d be willing to bet that people never stopped to think about the fact that government derives its authority by their consent; that it was established by them to serve certain purposes; and that for it to be just the laws it passes must serve the purpose for which governments are established.

Has anyone ever asked you, “Which came first; the chicken or the egg?” This paradox, or causality dilemma, stems from the fact that chickens come from eggs, yet eggs come from chickens; or more specifically, hens. That question could be considered one of life’s great mysteries. Yet it is no mystery if you apply that line of reasoning to man and governments; man clearly came first; therefore government must be a creation of man; which brings me right back to my opening comments, “Why would a people who just fought a war for their freedom turn around and establish a system of government designed to take that freedom away from them?”

That same line of thinking could also be applied when it comes to history. For instance, I might ask, “Which came first, the Declaration of Independence, or the constitution?” To answer that all one would have to do is look at the date each document was written; meaning the Declaration of Independence was written before the constitution. Therefore, for our system of government to be in accordance to the principles outlined by the Declaration of Independence it should exist to secure to the governed their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If, on the other hand, our system of government does not serve that purpose, we have forsaken the principles so many risked their lives for during the American Revolution.

Getting back to Hamilton’s quote for a minute, he said that the idea of a law is that it be accompanied by a sanction; a penalty or punishment for disobedience. That is all well and good if the law itself serves the function of preserving our rights and liberty. However, if it doesn’t, then what would you call such laws? Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “Law is often but the tyrants will, and always so when it violates the rights of an individual.” So if the law, in any way, shape, or form, violates our rights, it can only be described as tyrannical; having been enacted by tyrants.

Yet today we have ‘law enforcers’ who, due to the fact that they wear a uniform with a badge on it, and carry a gun, are vested with the power of forcing us to obey ‘the law’ with the threat of fines, jail time, and even death if we disobey. Yet if the laws they are enforcing are unjust, if they deprive us of our rights, does that not make them tyrants as well; no better than the Redcoats who were simply following the orders of King George III?

I find it disturbing that people seem to look upon their government, and those who enforce the laws it enacts, as good people who serve the overall public good. If that were the case, if they were truly serving the public good, they would only be passing, and enforcing, laws that better secured our rights; not stripped them from us.

Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of our Declaration of Independence, once wrote, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” If that is what liberty means, and if the preservation of that liberty is the purpose government is supposed to serve, than what justifies the multitude of laws that government has enacted which tell me what I can and cannot do; can and cannot own; can and cannot put into my body; and now, what I MUST put into my body, or wear on my face; all against my will?

All I want is my liberty back; yet the whole country, or at least the vast majority of it, seems intent upon enslaving me to their will. It wasn’t always this bad in America. I can remember growing up in an era when busybodies did not stick their noses into people’s business, telling them they can’t do this, they can’t do that. All that has come about was made possible, not because of government, but because of the fact that the document that created this system of government did not include better safeguards for our rights and liberty, AND it does not provide a means for us to punish government when it violates them.

Now if you’ll remember, Hamilton said that the idea of a law is that it be attended with a sanction; a punishment or penalty for those who violate it. Yet is not the constitution a law; written to establish a system of government for us? Does not Article 6, Clause 2 state that it is, in fact, the supreme law of the land? Then why does that document not provide us any means of punishing those in government when they violate our most sacred rights and liberty; riddle me that Batman!

There were some, who at the time the constitution was being debated by the people, who had the foresight to see its flaws, and tried to warn us as to how it would end up depriving us of our rights and liberty. Unfortunately, their words fell upon deaf ears and the constitution was adopted regardless of their dire warnings. Yet one of them, Patrick Henry, stated, “Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man, may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old fashioned: If so, I am contented to be so: I say, the time has been when every pore of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American.”

I could very well say the same, for as I said, I grew up in a time when liberty was still of value to people. I am almost certain that if my parents, or yours, my grandparents, or yours, were alive today to see the conditions under which we live, they would grab us by the shoulders and shake us, screaming, “What the hell is wrong with you?” Imagine what Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, and all the others who fought for their liberty would have to say.

I’ve had people tell me it is our patriotic duty to obey that law; that there would be chaos if we did not. Tell that to those who dumped the Tea in Boston Harbor, or who tarred and feathered tax collectors for trying to enforce the Kings Law upon them! If the law was just, if it sought to preserve and protect our rights and liberty, then most would willingly obey it. But when the law seeks to deprive us of those rights, it becomes tyrannical, and those who only seek what is rightfully theirs become criminals.

So what purpose should the law serve? Well, in 1850 a Frenchman by the name of Frederic Bastiat wrote something that might provide us with an answer:

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

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, its lawfulness—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.

Using that as your definition, am I to be considered a criminal for merely defending my rights, my liberty against those who would deprive me of them; regardless of whether they operate under the authority of ‘government’?

Government is my enemy; it is the enemy of every freedom loving person that draws breath. Government is never content with the power it has been given; it always seeks more. In 1576 Etienne de la Boetie wrote something that you should seek to understand, before it’s too late, “Similarly, the more tyrants pillage, the more they crave, the more they ruin and destroy — the more one yields to them, and obeys them — by that much do they become mightier and more formidable, the readier to annihilate and destroy. But if not one thing is yielded to them, if, without any violence they are simply not obeyed, they become naked and undone and as nothing, just as, when the root receives no nourishment, the branch withers and dies.”

Therein lies the answer if liberty is your primary pursuit in life. If enough people would simply stand up and say, “WE WILL NOT COMPLY“ then government would lose its power. You see, there is a little secret that government does not want you to know…IT NEEDS YOU MORE THAN YOU NEED IT.

If enough people took away their consent, if enough people refused to comply, then government would wither and die. What could it do, arrest/kill us all? Who would it govern if it did; who would it plunder of their wealth via taxation if everyone was in jail or dead? Government needs you, and the fact that you submit to it, support it by voting, is the only thing keeping it alive.

Still, I can almost see people shaking their heads, saying that if we abolished government then there would be chaos. I’m not saying we have to abolish it; although that certainly wouldn’t bother me in the slightest. What I am saying is that those laws that restrict or deny us our rights and liberty should be disregarded; as if they had never been written.

If enough people would exercise their individual right of self-defense, there would soon be a shortage of those who sought to deprive us of our lives, our property, AND our liberty; and people would think twice before attempting to do so. I believe it was John Heinlein who once said, “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

But that takes courage; courage on the part of those defending what is rightfully theirs. That kind of courage is almost non-existent today; people want the comfort and security of having others take care of them, provide for their wants and needs. So few today could stand up and say, “Give me liberty or give me death” and actually mean it. Yet it was people like that who founded this country, and this country is circling the drain because of people who submit to authority and worship the system that enslaves them.

America will never be great again until the number of those who love and are willing to defend liberty to the death, vastly outnumber those who submit to tyrants and the jack booted thugs who enforce their unjust laws upon the people. All one has to do is to go out into public and count the number of those wearing masks, and compare it to those who aren’t. You’ll quickly see that those who submit to tyranny far outnumber those who stand up for their liberty.

In closing I would like to leave you with one final quote that I believe accurately describes most people these days, “Poor, wretched, and stupid peoples, nations determined on your own misfortune and blind to your own good! You let yourselves be deprived before your own eyes of the best part of your revenues; your fields are plundered, your homes robbed, your family heirlooms taken away. You live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your own; and it would seem that you consider yourselves lucky to be loaned your property, your families, and your very lives.”

If that touches your pride, hurts your feelings, or offends you in any way, don’t look at me; look into the mirror and ask yourself what it truly is you stand for – Liberty or bondage. Liberty is an individual attribute, and it will only be when enough ‘individuals’ love liberty enough to shake off the yoke of tyranny that binds them, that we will ever be free; and America will become great again.

February 10, 2021

~ The Author ~
Neal Ross, Student of history, politics, patriot and staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Send all comments to: bonsai@syix.com.

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.