So, y’all think that this is the land of the free, and that you enjoy freedom. Hmm, let’s see about that. First of all, let’s provide a working definition for the word freedom: “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.” As human beings, there are certain things that are necessary if we wish to survive. We must eat, we must drink water, and we must sleep; those are the 3 basic requirements for life, and if we do not do them, we will die.

Unfortunately, there seems to be some confusion as to who is responsible for providing us with those 3 basic elements needed for our survival. To put it in the simplest of terms possible, I am responsible for me, and you are responsible for you. It is not my responsibility to hunt game, or grow vegetables to feed you, nor is it your responsibility to do it for me. Each of us is responsible for providing for our own wants and needs.

Aside from those 3 basic requirements for sustaining our lives, freedom is the ability to do, or not do, only what we want; without constraint or coercion. That state of existence is known as a State of Nature, and John Locke describes it as being: “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.”

The problem with man is that, even with just those 3 basic requirements for life, if he can, he would rather take from those who have provided for themselves rather than expend the energy required to grow vegetables, or hunt game. Even building a home falls under this, as those who are too lazy to build a home of their own will seek to take that which belongs to others and use it for themselves.

Frederic Bastiat explained this phenomenon in his book, The Law: “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.”

I have been told that this is the very reason we ‘need’ government; for this fatal tendency in man to plunder; to expect others to provide for their own wants and needs. People say, that is why we need laws; to protect us from that type behavior. I will not disagree with that; if that is the ONLY thing the law does. Unfortunately, that is not all ‘the law’ confines itself to.

But there is something that people refuse to think about in all this. This belief that we need government, is it because government is a necessity for our survival, or is it because mankind is apt to take from others that which does not belong to them? If government is a necessity, it should be so only long enough for mankind to improve themselves to the point where they respect the rights of life, property, and liberty of others; which is what the Law of Nature demands of all men.

People think that without government there would be chaos; and they may be right. But that does not make government good, it makes mankind bad for not obeying natures laws, or Christian Laws if you look at it from that perspective. In Locke’s Second Treatise, we read: “The state of nature 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.” If people would follow that simple law, do you think we would have any need for government; unless you sought to use it as a tool to plunder and oppress others, that is.

I do not want to make this into a religious dissertation; however, the Bible also provides us with laws to govern our actions amongst our fellow men. What about the Ten Commandments; wherein we are told not to murder, not to steal, not to covet. How necessary would government be if we obeyed those simple laws? In 1787, John Adams wrote, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” (Source: A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America)

People will argue that, since man is unable to control himself, government becomes a necessity; providing a means by which those who violate/threaten the lives, liberty and property of others can be punished. Those who espouse this would have you believe that, without government, you are totally defenseless. That simply is not true either; we all have the unalienable right to defend what is rightfully ours.

Samuel Adams said so in 1772, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can – Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.”

John Locke said so in 1690, “And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man’s hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation.”

Frederic Bastiat said so in 1850, “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?”

The reason government becomes a necessity is twofold. First, man is apt to disregard the law of nature and threaten the lives, property, and liberty of others. Even with the law of nature on our side, and our right to defend what is rightfully ours, the weak often fall victim to the strong, and the few often fall victim to the many. Therefore, the reason men quit this state of nature, this state of absolute freedom, is best explained by something else Locke said, “The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property. To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.”

However, for that commonwealth, or system of government, to be just, it must serve the purpose for which it acts as a substitute; which is the individual right to defend our lives, our property, and our liberty. Bastiat also explains that in his book, The Law: “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.”

I find it both ironic, and sad, that what took me nearly 1,400 words to explain, is explained in 55 words in our Declaration of Independence: “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, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

That is the function our government should serve, and whether our system be good or bad is only in regards to how effectively it carries out that function. Taking that one step further, if the law is the function of government carried out by legislative act, a law is either good or bad based upon how well it secures our freedom, or how much it prevents us from enjoying that freedom. Taking that even further, a government, and those who enforce the laws it passes, are worthy of our support/respect only to the extent that the laws they enact/enforce, carry out the function government is supposed to serve.

Today, people tell me I’m unpatriotic because I say we should not obey certain laws, or that we should not blindly support either government, or law enforcement. I’m of the belief that Mark Twain was right: “Patriotism is supporting your country all of the time, and your government when it deserves it.” And, to be honest, government hasn’t deserved our support for quite some time; since before I was born, in fact.

People today expect/ask for all manner of things from government; except the one thing it is actually supposed to give them – liberty. Look at all the things that people ask their government to do for them and you’ll see that they end up taking the property from some, and giving it to others, or they deny us the ability to freely exercise our rights and enjoy our rightful liberty. Even those who only want government to create jobs, boost the economy, are wrong in asking government to do these things. As Patrick Henry so eloquently said, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

Therefore, if government is not providing you with liberty, if it is hindering you in the full exercise of your rights, then government is not serving the function it is supposed to, and if it is not serving that function, it does not deserve your support, nor your obedience to its laws.

That is the primary belief of those who fought for this country’s independence; that when government no longer served the function for which it was instituted, it was the right of the governed to rise up and shake off the chains that bound them to it. In 1785, James Madison wrote about that belief, stating: “Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.”

Let me tell you a little bit about those ‘free men of America’; those who we supposedly honor and pay tribute to every July 4th. If they were alive today, and acted the way they did back then, you would not want to have anything to do with them, and the network news would label them as domestic terrorists and insurgents. You think what happened two January’s ago, when the electoral votes were being counted, was an insurgency? What would you say if an angry mob drug a tax collector out of their office and tarred and feathered them? What would you say if an angry, and drunken mob, marched to the mansion of your State’s governor; forcing them to flee in fear for their lives, while they ransacked and looted his home? What would you say if supporters of our right to keep and bear arms formed up, and fired upon federal and local law enforcement who were intent upon enforcing laws that restricted a persons right to keep and bear arms?

Read that quote by Madison again, he does not say it is our option to deny the principle that government has the authority to deny us our rights and liberty, he says it is our DUTY to do so. The Declaration of Independence says basically the same thing, “…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

My entire life has borne witness to a long train of abuses and usurpations against my rights and my liberty; how much more must we submit to before the people say ENOUGH ALREADY??? It’s sad that people believe themselves to be patriots, but when it comes time to act like a patriot, they run away and hide. Take this whole Covid scandemic as an example. How easy would it have been for the people; meaning workers and employers, to simply say, “Fuck you, we will not comply with your mandates?” Instead, they did what people always seem to do, they submitted; while bitching about how much it violated their rights.

The same goes for something as simple as requiring a permit to carry a firearm. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about requiring a permit to exercise that right, yet people submit to it and say we have to pass a law repealing the requirement for a permit. Pass a law? A right is unalienable; which means it is something that cannot be surrendered or taken from us. We don’t need a law to exercise it, we need to grow a spine and stand up to those who would deprive us of that right.

People tell me that I sure bitch a lot about how bad our system is, yet I don’t offer any solutions; provide an alternative system to replace it with. Hmm, do you think those who fought on the battlefields of the Revolution were concerned with what system of government they would establish after they defeated the British? I think their primary concern was gaining their independence, and restoring their liberty; let the system of government they would adopt come after they had gained that independence.

If you want my honest opinion, those who ask me for an alternative for our current system use that as an excuse to hide their own cowardice; their own unwillingness to stand up to tyrants. To me, they may as well be saying, “I’m not going to fight for my rights and liberty until you can provide me with an alternative to the current tyranny we live under.”

I wonder what Patrick Henry would say about people like that; after all, he said, “Give me liberty or give me death!”

I wonder what Samuel Adams would say about people like that; after all, he said, “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

Most Americans today prefer comfort and security over liberty; it shows in the people they elect to office, and in the laws that they demand be passed to provide those things to them. Liberty is of little, to no concern to most people; which is why it has all but vanished in this country. All it would take is for the people to rise up and defend it, and its flame would burn brightly once again. Unfortunately, since people don’t care about it, its flame is barely visible amidst the tyranny imposed upon us under the color of law.

What is the color of law you ask? I’m glad you did, the color of law denotes something that has the appearance of law, but is not right; something that is not just, or provides justice for all. I want to share something my friend Travis Woolums posted on Facebook earlier today; something Martin Luther King Jr. said, “There are two kinds of laws: man’s and God’s. A man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God, is a just law. But a man-made code that is inharmonious with the moral law is an unjust law. And an unjust law, as St. Augustine said, is no law at all.”

I may catch some flack for this, as the Constitution is the instrument which gave men the power to enact these unjust laws; nevertheless, the basic principle behind this quote stands the test of time: “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.” (Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256 137, 180)

The fact that people obey these unjust laws willingly, and continue to support the entities that write and enforce them, goes a long way towards explaining why we’ll never see freedom again in this country. Freedom is our birthright, it is rightfully ours, but as Thomas Paine said, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”

If your concern is geared towards getting something from government; creating more jobs; combatting a viral infection; defeating terrorism across the globe; or any of the other, so-called, issues that dominate American politics, then freedom and liberty will never be the standard by which this country is judged.

Yes, we may be freer than those living in other countries. However, that is not the question we should be asking ourselves. The question we should be asking ourselves is, are we freer today than our ancestors were, 50…100…200 years ago. If the answer is not, then it is up to us, as free men, to rise up and set this country back on course to where the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence guide us in our beliefs, and our actions.

If not, then two quotes from Einstein are sufficient to explain my thoughts on the matter:

– Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

– We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking that created them.

Before I close I’d like to leave you with the words of Thomas Paine, who accurately describes my current emotional state: “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.”

If you want freedom, then stop asking others to lead you to it; it is yours and it is your responsibility to stand up and fight for it. As Patrick Henry’s complete quote states: “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Henry did not care whether others sought liberty, he would fight and die for it regardless of whether or not he was joined by his fellow countrymen. It is your duty, your obligation, your responsibility to do no less. So, stop asking me what we would replace our current system with; no system would be better than this one. Let’s get our freedom back, then we can worry about what kind of system we’ll establish to secure it!

THE END…

January 27, 2022

~ 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.