Strong speech!

Very interesting article by Charley Reese on guns and freedom.

——————————-

Niccolò Machiavelli, who was a sort of Karl Rove of his day, though with more integrity, said of the Swiss that they were “the most free and most armed people” of Europe. Get it? The connection between arms and freedom?

That statement is still true of the Swiss. Many people know that they practice neutrality, but not many know that they practice armed neutrality. If the gun controllers’ claim that the mere presence of arms leads to mayhem were true, the Swiss would have wiped themselves out years ago. There are guns and gun ranges all over the place. You would be hard-pressed to find a Swiss home without a firearm and ammunition. Yet, the Swiss have a very low crime rate.

If you were a robber or a rapist, who would you rather have as a victim? Someone who is armed, or someone who is defenseless? Even a stupid criminal knows the answer to that question.

If the police can protect us – which is another claim the gun-control people make – then why are so many people murdered, raped and robbed? Even the television fictional stories tell you the answer to that. The cops get there after the crime has been committed. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a crime scene. Nearly all the cop shows open with the police looking at a dead, unarmed body.

Do you really believe that the men who had just fought a long and bloody war against the British and were writing what we call the Bill of Rights had this conversation:

“Well, let’s see. We’ve guaranteed freedom of assembly, of religion, of speech and of the press. Oh, my gosh, we’ve forgotten the duck hunters. They’ll raise heck if we leave them out, so we’d better write an amendment for them.”

The Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting. It states: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The men who wrote these amendments were pretty darn fluent in English. If they had intended the right to keep and bear arms to apply only to the militia, they would have said so. They would have written “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the states to arm their respective militias shall not be infringed.”

They didn’t say that. The main sentence says “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” “People” means everybody, not just the members of the militia. The subordinate clause, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” just gives one, but not the only, reason why all the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The militia, after all, was drawn from the people. It was not the Army. The first meaning of “bear,” by the way, is to carry, bring or take. Americans have the right to keep arms and to carry them.

The word “regulate” in those days meant trained, and do you notice again the connection between arms and freedom? The subordinate clause refers to a “free state.” Obviously, an unfree state would not allow the people to be armed.

The Founding Fathers were not urban neurotics like so many of today’s politicians. They were almost all outdoor people. Guns were to them just tools, like their axes or plows. You couldn’t survive in the wilderness without firearms, and at the time of our Revolution, there were only about 3 million people from Maine to Georgia.

Nor were there any police forces. There was no Secret Service, FBI or any of the other alphabet law-enforcement agencies. If you decided to travel, you traveled at your own risk, and you can bet people traveled armed. When I was last at Williamsburg, Va., they had a room in one of the historical houses arranged as if a traveler had just arrived and unpacked. There on top of a dresser was a pistol.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese463.html

“Know your rights!” That is an order.

I am a very selfish man. The reason that I would like for everyone to know his or her rights and know how to assume the powers to exercise those rights, is because that is the only way my rights can be protected.

We must be able to exercise our rights. If a thug with a gun enters your home, and you are unarmed, you do not have the power to exercise your right to protect your property and to defend yourself and loved ones, if you have any. It makes no difference if the thug is wearing a uniform of some kind and is committing the atrocity at the behest of, and under the auspices of, a government – your absolute right to self defense cannot be exercised. You have that right, but it cannot be exercised.

The One, the Is, the All, the Power, the Author of the Universe, the Creator, by whatever name your Creator is known to you, makes little difference unless you, through the use of force, intimidation, or coercion insist that I call my Creator by the same name you have given your Creator. If you insist on that, you are interfering with my power to exercise my natural and inherent right.

You have the natural right to call your God by whatever name you choose. You may call your Creator Vishnu or Krishna, Jehovah or Allah, Henry or Georgie-Boy, it makes absolutely no difference to me as long as you do not attempt to kill me or do some other damage, because I want to name my Creator something different than the name you have given yours.

We have the right to breathe. We have the responsibility to keep on breathing.

We have the right to food. We have the responsibility to earn that food.

We have the right to shelter and clothing. We have the responsibility to provide that shelter and clothing for ourselves.

Do we have the obligation to provide for those who refuse to provide for themselves? I think not.

We have the right to decide how to dispose of our property. If we choose to help a neighbor or loved one, that is our right. We should choose. The choice should not be made by some faceless bureaucrat in Liechtenstein who thinks that he or she knows what is best for every human being on this ball of mud.

That bureaucrat has quite possibly never calloused his hands by using a shovel, or an axe. He has quite likely never been a sanitation engineer on a dairy farm, though he has learned how to sling the brown stuff. He has no concept of how the food that is served to him got to his table. He does not stand in line at the grocery store, nor wait at an airport. Boiling water would surpass his ability. Yet, he deems himself so all-knowing that he will dictate to all and sundry how to live.

If we assume the powers given to each of us to exercise our natural and inherent rights, we will be better off.

If we assume the power to exercise our natural right to travel without any licensure by any government, to our house of worship, by whatever means available, we will be better off. If we purchase a car and choose to use it, providing we harmed no one in the purchase and the use, to travel to the grocery store, and buy the week’s victuals, who rightly has the power to interfere? I say, “No one”.

By what right does a government, instituted by men, take money from one’s income to distribute to those who will not earn any income? There is no such right as that. There is power, though, Power from the threat of fines and imprisonment, and such threats are carried out daily in this nation of free men and women. The power of sending a missile from the end of a tube of steel through the air to knock one’s life out of one’s body, is an awesome power. The threat of using that power is intimidating. It could be called a terror.

However awesome that power might be, though, it cannot be compared to the awesome power of the Creator, by whatever name you might address him.

Assume the power. Exercise your rights.

“What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they can subject to their power.  It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service.  It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be.  It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place.  All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed.”  – Lysander Spooner

What, then, is freedom? It is an assumption by some members of the human race of absolute responsible dominion over themselves and their property.  It is an assumption by some members of the human race, that each individual is responsible for his own condition; his/her own prosperity, or lack thereof; his/her own education; his/her own health and care of health.  It is an assumption by some members of the human race to take care of oneself; what he/she may and may not do; what he/she may, or may not, be.  It is, in short, the assumption by some members of the human race to protect, cherish, and preserve the freedoms and rights granted by the Creator as granted at conception.  It is the assumption by some members of the human race to protect the principle of human rights, the principle of justice, so that it never perishes from the face of the earth.  All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea of freedom.

An old Japanese adage advises us that the other side of a coin has another side.  Lysander Spooner was an anarchist that started his own Post Office in New York around 1850, but the Federal Government put him out of business.

Let us not always look at the negative side of the government’s intervention in our lives; let us look at what we can do to prevent such intervention.  We do have natural and inherent rights.  They are ours and they are absolutely perfect.  The power to exercise those rights is, however, imperfect.  That imperfection gives the government and other criminals the opportunity to interfere in our daily lives to the extent that we cannot spend the money we earn in the manner in which we see fit.

Do you know, then, what your rights are?  They are many and valuable.  The only way to protect those rights is to use the power to exercise those rights.  Use that power in the face of all that is evil.  My life is not worth preserving at any cost.  My power to exercise my rights is worth protecting at any and all costs.  What say you?

Was it the “free market” that exploited Japanese Americans in World War II? Was it “capitalism” that drafted thousands of young men to be sent off to Vietnam, with many to return in body bags? Is it the free market that implements mandatory wage and price controls, takes a third of each American’s income, and leeches money to politically connected corporations? Who is the true exploiter, free markets or government? All things involuntary and compulsory are not compatible with freedom, yet it is constantly government using its monopolized force to accomplish its various goals, not the market. In a free society and market your greed, anger, and any other such negative qualities are purely limited to free and voluntary exchange. You cannot work like government using coercion to sell your products, force to maintain your position, and threats of imprisonment as your insurance.

There are many social injustices, uneven economic scenarios, and plenty of misery in the world today. Saying these miseries come from the free market is a gross misunderstanding of where the free market itself is born: freedom. Freedom has its root in the individual, not in an all-powerful group of people such as government. If some people choose to live in a socialist system with limited property, redistributed wealth, and controlled production, there is nothing standing in their way. But the line is drawn when they feel they have the right to force others into the system. Freedom does not mandate how you live, it simply prevents you from coercing others (either an individual or a group) into a certain lifestyle. No one can force you to buy their product, live the way they think is best for you, and no sensible person can use force with bogus reasoning such as “protecting you from yourself.”
(more…)

What is the free market? What is capitalism? The short answer is they are both freedom. They are not a system of strings meant to be pulled by a select group of powerful individuals, they are simply the keys to a life of freedom and an individual pursuit of happiness. One of the greatest misunderstandings about capitalism and free markets is that they are locked into a certain setting. The “Invisible Hand,” supply and demand, or any other explanations given for capitalism make it sound like a man-made system or some mystical network mysteriously established in ways that only economists can understand.

Free markets are not rooted in the creation of man; they are not the creation of people or an act of government. Free markets are rooted in freedom and exist only due to freedom itself. Freedom is the natural state of mankind, it is the neutral being that governs existence. Freedom comes naturally, any other government or economic system must come forcefully. The beauty is that freedom not only “allows” but encourages creative solutions to common problems, it does not suggest or mandate that we only look for the “Invisible Hand” or supply and demand to solve an issue that might arise.

A free market is not a system set in stone: it’s not as if the success of the free market hinges on the success of a certain product or business. A free market is merely an extension of the gifts of freedom; everything, whether it be exchange, living styles, or those who you involve with, is based on voluntary action. Freedom thrives on non-coerced and voluntary decisions. When one person or a group of people use force to push forward one objective or another, freedom is assaulted.
(more…)

James Cameron’s Avatar has shaken the entertainment industry in the past couple months, raking in more than $2.3 billion so far in the box office worldwide. I first saw the film in January and was blown away by the incredible visuals, a detailed exploration of the Na’vi culture, and what I thought was a masterfully told story (as common or predictable as it may be to some). Unfortunately, some conservative and libertarian writers condemn the movie as a wackjob combination of pro-Green, anti-military, and anti-capitalist thinking wrapped into a movie. However, when I saw the movie I thought it strongly reinforced the importance of private property, individual rights, and protection against central force.

Consider the planet Pandora, where the “savage” Na’vi tribes have made their residence for generations. Their planet is their property. When a human corporation backed by hired mercenaries (hardly a constitutional military used for national defense) establishes itself on the planet to further the exploration and mining of a valuable mineral called Unobtanium, they face severe blowback from the tribes. One of the first scenes in the movie shows a massive vehicle returning to base with several arrows stuck in the tires. The tribes understandably felt threatened and saw the human tactics as an invasion of their property. Is this really an attack on the principles of peaceful exchange common in a free market?

The Omiticaya tribe that is prominent in the film does not need anything the humans offer in return for the mineral whether it be roads, education, medicine, etc. Is this really unreasonable? Does an owner of a product not have the right to negotiate the terms of a transaction? The Na’vi are not being selfish, the humans simply do not have a product or service that is more valuable than the land itself is already worth to the Na’vi. It is the same as if someone was offering $10 for a family heirloom that you will never give up. Just because you refuse their offer doesn’t mean they can take that item by force, as the mercenaries in Avatar did.  Once again, this reinforces peaceful and voluntary exchange in a free market.
(more…)

No past, present, or future document can grant rights to humanity, nor can any government or collective. The rights and freedoms of an individual person are a priori, have been, are, and will be so long as a single person draws breath. Whenever in the course of history a governing body infringes upon the rights, life and property of the individual, that individual may bring it upon himself/herself to rise up against his/her oppressor in order to take back what was rightfully his/hers from the beginning of time. While in the past the will of the majority has served to oppress those in the minority, no greater example of this can be found than in the formation of nation-state governments. Government should have one purpose and one purpose only: to protect the people and their property from plunder. Instead, our government like so many that went before has passed laws allowing for legal plunder, and has systematically stolen our lives by taking the fruits of our labor, which no government can ever earn or deserve.

The crimes of our government are indeed too numerous to list them all, but some of the more egregious offenses include restriction of liberty through excessive taxation for the purpose of redistributing wealth, maintaining a monopolistic control over the means of money and credit, propagating inflation and the subsequent devaluation of the only legal tender allowed by law, subsidization of the immoral behavior of banks and bankers, the jailing of criminals who have committed victimless crimes, the sending of our men and women to fight unnecessary wars as well as unlawfully occupying other countries for the benefit of those in power while simultaneously spying on its own citizens without first obtaining the proper warrants.

It is because of the above mentioned policies that if any man, woman, or child should choose to fight back peacefully either by not paying taxes or impeaching the whole of the government he/she would be entirely justified in their actions.

The Constitution of Freedom

An individual owns his/her life, labor, and the product of his/her labor. People are free and no government, law or collective action of any kind shall infringe upon their freedoms, namely those of life, choice, belief, action, and property. A person’s freedom is infinite so long as it does not infringe upon the freedoms of another, cause bodily harm to another, or damage another’s property.

No person can be the property of another person, government or collective.

No ruling body is necessary for a functioning society. No government can make law restricting rights or freedoms.

People have the right to individual defense of their own life, liberty, and property. No army is permitted during times of peace; this does not include security forces for the purposes of personal protection of life, liberty, and property. No military war shall be waged for the purpose of conquest. If an army is formed it shall be for defense only. No army nor the government or collective it represents has a right to the land or property of any other individual or collective.

The will of the people can never take precedent over the rights and freedoms of the individual.

Law is justice. A law shall be invalid if it stands in violation of the rights or freedoms of an individual except in cases of reparations for payment of damages to another person or their property. Any law that promotes injustice in any form is invalid. Any law which would plunder a person’s life or property for the benefit of another person or group is invalid.

No tax shall be levied upon any individual or group of individuals. No tariffs shall be levied upon foreigners as this is a hidden tax upon the people. No inflation of any money supply is allowed without the consent of all the holders of that money.

No government can determine what is or is not money. No person must accept any form of payment that he/she determines to be unfit as proper payment for his/her goods or services.

Morality can not be imposed upon a person. No law shall be made in an attempt to impose morality on anyone. No crime can occur without a victim. If the rights or property of a person are infringed upon he/she make seek just compensation by bringing a complaint against the offender to be tried before a jury of peers presided over by an arbitror agreed upon by both parties.

The only public property is of that necessary to travel; this is to protect the freedom of movement. No one may prevent someone from traversing his/her land if their means are peaceful and nondestructive; this does not apply to a person’s or people’s private residence, only to pathways essential to commerce. If destruction does occur from such travel, just compensation for damages may be sought.

No restrictions of any kind shall be placed upon what may be owned by an individual. No restrictions or regulations may be put upon any business as no person may be forced to purchase the goods or services of another against his/her will.

No person shall commit fraud or in any way deceive another person in a voluntary exchange of goods or services. All contracts whether verbal or written are binding. In cases of fraud a person may seek just compensation by bringing a complaint against the offender to be tried before a jury of peers presided over by an arbitrator agreed upon by both parties.

The signer(s) of this document believe(s) that the government which governs least governs best, and that people should not be accountable to the government but the government accountable to the people. I ask nothing which I can not rightfully earn of my own accord, and demand only to be allowed to keep that which I earn. I ask no assistance from any government as anything the government has is not theirs to give. I hold all governments to the same standards expected of all people, namely not to plunder one person or group to profit another, to respect life, liberty, choice and property and deem any government which does not act in accordance with these laws as unlawful, unjust, invalid, and an atrocity in the history free acting people.

The swine flu, or H1N1 virus, has been declared a “pandemic” by the World Health Organization. In response to fears of the flu spreading, many government health agencies have stepped up to the plate and are now rushing vaccines into the marketplace. European health officials have declared that lives potentially lost through largely untested vaccines are worth the gamble in order to save lives. The Greek government recently announced its intentions to vaccinate all 12 million of its citizens, “without any exception.”

The swine flu outbreak of 1976 is not often brought up in the current H1N1 discussion. In February 1976 one soldier, Private David Lewis, died from and several of his peers fell ill to the swine flu in Fort Nix, New Jersey. Due to the strength and the quickness with which the flu could potentially spread, President Gerald Ford ordered nationwide vaccinations, which started up in October 1976. However, soon after receiving the vaccinations, roughly 500 people were developing a disease paralyzing the nerves, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Private Lewis ended up being the only individual to die directly from the swine flu itself, while more than 25 people died because of the vaccinations. After more than 40 million people received vaccinations, the $137 million program was canceled on December 16.

The reasoning behind massive mandatory vaccinations, particularly today (as well as 30 years ago) with the swine flu, is to avoid another disaster such as the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic which killed millions of individuals around the world. This despite recent research suggests that the swine and Spanish flu may not be as connected as previously thought, primarily because the swine flu is spread through pigs, while the Spanish flu is passed from birds to humans.

I am not downplaying the positive effects that some vaccines have had on humanity. I am simply questioning the principle of compulsory vaccinations, coerced medical care, and forceful quarantines supposedly justified by government-declared health emergencies. These have been the topics of increased discussion of the WHO and many government health agencies around the world, and certainly are not to be dismissed as mere crackpot theories.

Mandatory vaccinations limit the soundness and viability of vaccinations. If a certain vaccination is proven to prevent disease, increase strength of health, and protect the body, clearly it would not require force to be implemented in society. The very idea of mandatory vaccinations implies that you must impose on someone’s beliefs, preferences, and reasoning.

If an individual decides to reject a vaccination that the majority of people are receiving, how does his decision impact others? If the vaccinations are effective and voluntarily received by many people, the individual is only placing himself at risk. If people feel they are exposing themselves to too great of a risk by not taking a vaccine, they are free by all means to get a vaccine. Individuals receive or decline vaccinations at their own risk.

As far as the swine flu situation goes, people will not need a government mandate or forceful coercion to take a vaccine if they feel a major potential risk is looming. In the case of 1976 it was government officials who determined that the swine flu might turn into a disastrous situation, and in turn imposed their frights on millions of Americans. The actions the government carried out were primarily based on the information and beliefs of unelected officials who felt it was worth the risk to potentially sacrifice lives in the name of protecting people against a potential disaster.

The idea that if someone doesn’t take a vaccine they are therefore a potential risk to other individuals makes no sense whatsoever. If one group of people chooses to get vaccinated while another group declines the opportunity, the vaccinated group is supposed to be protected against that particular disease. They are not put in danger by those who decided to opt out of the vaccine. They are also taking the chance that they could possibly grow more ill from the injection. In the event of a true pandemic you can bet that if proven vaccines are available, the majority of people will choose to get vaccinated; you do not need government officials determining the weight of different risks. It is the responsibility and free choice of the individual, plain and simple.

The Merriam-Webster definition of freedom is “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.” Can anyone seriously defend the potential policies of mandatory vaccinations and still make the argument that we live in a free country? Freedom does not suddenly become a doormat to new and abusive government powers in times of potential health problems as declared by government; last I checked the Constitution, anyway.

It is illogical to expect government to constitutionally take on the job of keeping people healthy. It is the responsibility of the individual, not government, to decide what food to eat, which medications are most helpful, and whether or not to receive vaccines. The federal government has already attempted to regulate and control substances in this way through the Drug War, and it has not lessened drug use or violence. Whenever government has tried to protect individuals from themselves it has always failed and led to far worse consequences.

The reality is that it cannot be up to government officials and politicians to decide when or if a vaccination will truly protect the individual. Who can push away the possibility that politicians aren’t trying to score a victory for the pharmaceutical companies providing the vaccines? The potential for deadly abuse of mandatory vaccinations alone proves the insanity of giving the president, Congress, or a government agency the power to mandate medications and vaccinations.

No person or group, no matter how powerful, has the moral or legal authority to force or deny substances like vaccines and drugs. The 5th Amendment mandates that no one is to “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” while the 4th Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Whether it’s an individual or government holding a gun to your head, mandatory vaccinations are an unequivocal infringement on free will, choice, and individual discretion.

Mandatory vaccinations destroy individual liberty, individual sovereignty, and any concept of freedom. If the vaccinations the government feels must be forced on the entire country are as fantastic as officials claim, force and coercion certainly would not be necessary to convince people of their benefits.

Vaccinations must treated and managed like any other good or service: through individual choice, discretion, responsibility, and freedom. It is the only method that guarantees the absolute control is where it belongs: with the individual.