“Even supposing economic regulation to be a good idea, the suggestion that the present regime ought to be given still more power, or that such power would not certainly be abused (might campaign supporters find their businesses mysteriously immune from prosecution?), really requires much greater justification than it has thus far been given. Say what you will about Home Depot, but it is not responsible for confiscating 40 percent of my income for purposes I find morally repugnant; neither does it wage aggressive war on Third World nations or oversee an educational system that produces dumbed-down “multicultural” idiots. That anyone would want to give this creature still more power, for any reason, suggests a profound lack of prudence, judgment, and good sense.” — Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

I like to think of freedom as a natural river. It creates and develops its own course while adjusting to storms and other barriers that may present themselves over time. The river may choose to run off into countless tributaries, just as various human civilizations throughout history have chosen to pursue different goals. However, all those tributaries come from the same source somewhere high in the mountains no matter how far they may stray during their journey to the sea. The many smaller streams cover wide portions of land and make their own paths, but they are all part of that initial head river.

Think of the government as a dam in this scenario. A group of enlightened, flawless, and selfless people (kidding) with the greatest of intentions decide the river is best served by molding it into a lake by creating a dam. The freedom of the river is impeded, but the source and flow of the river remains the same (however minor and ignored it may be). This is a key concept to grasp when trying to understand freedom and the free market. No matter how much government intervenes in the marketplace and civil liberties of individuals, the natural forces of freedom are always at work. A dam may hinder the river’s progress, but no matter how big the dam the natural river will always maintain its usual flow. In other words, no matter how grand and daunting the government may appear, the natural flows of freedom will always be in the background chipping away at the inevitable flaws of a nanny state.

This is exactly why every communist, socialist, and any other big government society built on coercion either has or always will fail. These governments are built and survive purely on force and coercion. You’d be hard pressed to find a government that could remain intact were people allowed to choose whether or not to support it with their lives and labor. People naturally choose freedom and liberty, and collective government force is the dam to that natural course.

Freedom is the only “system” built on the assumption of human change and creativity. Government programs lock people unnaturally into one way of thinking; governments do their best to convince us that they just need a little more power over the people to end some sort of misery in the world. Governments also attempt to plant the idea that without them the whole world would enter sheer and utter chaos, as if governments haven’t already been able to achieve that with countless wars, displacement and slaughter of millions of people, and now the buildup of trillions of dollars of debt and worthless paper money to pay for bankrupt and corrupt systems.

Regardless of your political or economic views, true sustainable change will only come through freedom on an individual level. Change will not come from these central geniuses who somehow are qualified to solve all of humanities problems; change will come from individuals on a local scale utilizing their unique creative expressions. Top down movements never last because they are not built by the people for whom they are intended. Freedom’s beauty is that it unleashes individual creativity in ways that a government bureaucrat could not begin to comprehend. Freedom gives people the chance to create the life and world they want to live in; it doesn’t force them into a Utopian society as imagined by a few politicians and bureaucrats. One of the odd things that crosses my mind as a 17 year old is: why am I forced to pay taxes (when I haven’t even been able to vote yet) for programs created before my grandparents were born, by some politicians I never would have supported, all of which will probably be bankrupt within the next 20 years? At least I can look forward to voting on the next crook who will manage my own money even though he didn’t do a thing to earn it.

As farmer, lecturer, and author Joel Salatin explains in his book Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal, government laws currently discourage local cooperative farms, sustainable living techniques, and even prevent people from building a house less than 900 square feet. Both national and local government laws, regulations, and codes prevent individual creativity and actual change from being unleashed as it would in a true free market situation. The primary side effect of all government intervention is that the state essentially mandates that things be done a certain way, no questions asked. You either farm this way or it’s illegal. You either build the house this way or it’s illegal. You want to grow hemp and use it for ethanol, plastics, and clothing? Sorry, it’s illegal. What kind of a boring, confining, pitiful setup is this? Such a system is guaranteed to put a damper on the creativity and ingenuity of individuals, and that is exactly what it does.

Remember that each individual in this world is unique in some way, shape, or form. You can try to put the perfect system on paper, who will manage it, how you will enforce it, how you’re going to have everyone else pay for your perfect system, and what you’ll do to people who don’t accept your line of thinking. Now consider; is the most successful social system or principle going to be the one that uses a top down, bureaucratic, centralized power approach? Or is it going to be the one that encourages individual creativity, responsibility, and initiative? Most likely the latter will appear more attractive. In reality, all you need to achieve these honorable goals is one simple but very powerful tool: freedom. A society built from the ground up on the daily voluntary interactions of free individuals. That is where real change will begin.

This clip from Jon Stewart summarizes my thoughts on the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. This is not an issue for government and in the process brings up the issue of individual rights vs. collective rights. The mosque property was legitimately purchased and it is up to owners alone to decide how to develop that property. For some it is a negative reminder of 9/11, while for others it is a holy place of worship. The test of liberty comes when someone wants to do something that goes against your ethics or beliefs. As Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, and others heading the freedom movement today have said; it is not popular ideas that need protection, but rather unpopular ideas. One of the major challenges of freedom is knowing you are not going to get your way every time, as any rational human being would know after living in this world for a day. Freedom lets us do what we like but at the same time we must tolerate actions and ideas we might not necessarily connect with. Voluntary exchange in a free market joins ideas and cultures together in a cooperative way that governments couldn’t dream to achieve.

As a vegetarian I don’t necessarily “appreciate” the display of meat on nearly every fast food outlet’s windows, but it doesn’t give me or the government the right to physically prevent the restaurant owner from operating and developing his property as he sees fit. My personal preferences, ethics, and morals are not used as an excuse to take away an owner’s right of using, developing, and advertising his restaurant. Every individual has different morals and beliefs, and it is not up to government to choose one way or another. Ideas must flow free, they cannot be compartmentalized and narrowed as the state often manages to accomplish with its endeavors. If I don’t eat meat, I don’t buy meat. The store still has every right to advertise as it sees fit, and I can choose for myself whether they have a product worth buying or not. Freedom is choice, you have to be responsible and understand that not everyone sees the world as you do.

Those passionately protesting the mosque are essentially asking government to interfere in private property in order to better serve the morals and values of the people of New York City. Government is the last entity you want organizing taste, morals, and ethics. If so many people are downright opposed to the mosque, the last thing that would be necessary is government intervention to block development of the land. Obviously the only way the mosque could productively survive is if people choose to worship there. As with any business or private organization in a free society, the final regulation is up to individuals. The fate of a project lies the hands of individuals, not central bureaucrats disconnected from society and reality. If the mosque is really being put up as an “in-your-face” to America by radical Muslims and no one actually wants to worship there, it’s going to take a substantial amount of money to maintain. An organization cannot survive without support, yet these protesters believe that once the mosque is built it will be there for good. It may be there for awhile, but only if it has legitimate support and consistent worshipers. Without support, it will be a financial burden to maintain. Such is the natural process of rewarding productivity in a free market.

This is no different than if a Christian church branch opened up exclusively for one-legged peach farmers. Such a church will likely fail because there aren’t many one-legged peach farmers to go around in the first place. If there is demand for a mosque in New York City, so be it. Obviously they feel there are enough Muslims in the area to make it a worthwhile endeavor. Are you really going to get so incensed because a group of people want to worship in a particular way? Such a misguided view of intolerance and discrimination is exactly what leads to the disintegration of freedom and liberty.

With our time, labor, and money we are “voting.” We support certain businesses and groups and withhold our money from other organizations. I choose not to support meat producers and instead make the choice to spend my money on vegetarian and meatless products. In a free market voluntary exchange based on individual needs and preferences keeps regulatory power in the hands of individuals. Government regulation uses collective force to take away individual power and choice and instead give it to a select few bureaucrats who are appointed to make certain decisions for the rest of the people. Whether it be the ability to confiscate income or make the final decision on the mosque at Ground Zero, the issue at hand is one of principle. Do we really want to entrust our power as individuals to bureaucrats who haven’t even been elected by the people? In a new age of creativity how does a powerful central government help the people more than it destroys their creativity, productivity, and natural organization? Government hinders freedom. Government blocks creativity. Government survives only through coercion, and that coercion comes at the expense of our lives, liberty, and property.

It is time that we choose liberty over government. It is time that we stop treating ourselves like children and acknowledge the risk and responsibility that inevitably comes with freedom, but it is a small price to pay to be free. Without this understanding in principle, the mosque protesters cannot expect to achieve anything worthwhile. Avoid the uncreative and coercive trap of government and choose tolerance, responsibility, and freedom!

If you are a member of the Lions Club, there is a constitution that empowers the leaders to act for and in the name of the members. The members, by joining, empower the elected leadership to act in that manner. The members agree to the constitution. No one is forced to join such a club, and indeed, one must be selected by a current member to join, I believe. It is a privileged status. The same goes for many other clubs. One is invited to join such clubs as the Knights of Columbus, Rotary International, etc. They are exclusive clubs. Members of those clubs promise to conduct themselves outside the club in a manner that is acceptable to most of Society. I say most of Society, because the Society of murderers, rapists, muggers, thugs, and many members of Congress are a small percentage of the general Society, and their actions are not acceptable to the rest of us.

The constitutions of those various clubs give the members the right to admit to the fact that they are members. The sons of the members are not automatically members, they must be selected, and accept the invitation prior to joining. Nor are the sons forced to join. It is voluntary. They choose. It is an option that may or may not be exercised. A fine point is wanted here, in my opinion. Joining almost any club is a free choice by the pospective member. It is an elective or discretionary action. With the exception of a club with approximately 300 million members.

The sons and daughters of the members are automatically members of this club and are duped to admit to the membership. It accepts members of both sexes, and provides special privileges to those who think they are neither male nor female, or both at once. It will even accept members who don’t know if they are male or female. The leadership of the club brag and boast of the diversity of the members, while other clubs of the same nature deny membership to many who are not the same as the original members.

The offspring of the members are registered in the rolls of this club, and are assigned a number at birth to help the club keep track of them. Some outsiders are admitted to the club, if they know the birthdays of some of its past presidents and some other meaningless trivia. Also, some outsiders are considered members just by being within the physical boundaries of any of the geopraphical areas controlled by this club. Of course, some members do not agree with that premise.

The financiers of the club imported a man reportedly from Indonesia, but could possibly be from Kenya and even Canada was once mentioned as the country where it was born, to be the elected King of the club. And now he wants to be the King of Clubs.

His history is a mystery.

The leadership of the club has been populated for more than a century now by scoundrels and scalawags who operate in a manner that is not conducive to peaceful co-existence by its diverse membership. Indeed, it seems that the leaders are bent on the complete destruction of the very fabric of the club. These leaders pay no attention to the constitution that brought the club into existence, and they ignore the very important declaration that gave the very reasonable explanation for the formation of the Club. These ostensible leaders pay out many dollars for the leadership roles. And if they don’t have enough of their own, they make promises to certain individuals and members of sub groups within the larger club for special remembrances when new rules are suggested for the membership to be exempted from the rules and some rules are promulgated to favor some of those who give the candidate money. The club members are given a special name. That name is “U.S. Citizen”.

As a small child, my parents enrolled me in an indoctrination center operated by the Club. There I learned that the leadership of the Club was omnipotent. I learned that civil rights and privileges were given to me just for being a member. Other clubs, called houses of worship, completed the darkness with which I was surrounded from morning to night. The brainwashing to which I was exposed by accounts reported by men and women who were thought to be experts, completed, almost, my enslavement.

I was asked to swear an oath, vow before my God, that I would uphold and defend the Constitution of the Club. But the actual constitution had been withheld. I had never read the document. I swore anyway, and have been swearing about it since.

When finally I had the opportunity to read the declarative that separated the united States of America from England, and the document that formed the compact among the autonomous States, I was glad that I had taken the oath. It was good.

In most clubs, a member is allowed to resign. Not so, with the members called “U.S. Citizens”. If we do not acquiesce to the rules of the club, contrary to its original Constitution, we can be put in a gulag. Currently, as a matter of fact, one only needs to be accused of some perceived wrong to be put in a cage and held like a wild animal.

How did this come about? What can we do to change it? Does seeking redress from the elected leaders of the club resolve the dilemma? Do lawsuits for righting the wrong perpetrated upon the members get results? I think not.

The people granted some very limited powers which we were granted by Nature and Nature’s God, to a governing body for the good of the governed. Let’s take it back. Let’s take the power back!

Contact Robert at darightsman@gmail.com or join his group at www.meetup.com/conservativecoalition

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?

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.”

Yet again we see that it is government coercing individuals to subsidize corporations such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, General Motors, AIG, and a host of others, in effect forcing individuals to contribute funds to corporations against their will with nothing in return. Where is the free market exploitation we hear so much about? Freedom cannot coexist with aggressive force, which is why both establishing government and maintaining freedom has been especially tricky business throughout American and worldwide history. In a free, non-coerced society hair-brained schemes would die out as quickly as they were created. However, when government is in the picture those schemes become the law and survive solely through force. For instance, no free people would see the benefit in bailing out corporations (because there is none), because people would instantly recognize that any corporations seeking money must offer people a product or service worth paying for, not the pathetic excuse that the entire economy hinges on their existence.

History has shown that the great majority of people do not voluntarily drift toward a powerful centralized government if given the ability to choose for themselves. A splendid example is that of the Native Americans, who migrated to the Americas many thousands of years ago. There was no preexisting government, no bureaucracy or group controlling where they go or how they live, interact, or trade; people were generally free to establish and spread as they pleased in the new land. What we saw was the creation of a vast amount of local tribes and communities, each with a mix of similar and unique customs to the tribes around them. There were no wars or coercive threats that compared to the destruction in the highly centralized and “governmentized” nations of Europe.

In fact, according to Encyclopedia, ideas (such as hunting methods or other helpful techniques) spread through developing trade routes among the various tribes on the North American continent. Spirituality and religious ideas were developed by each tribe and spread through these trade routes, as opposed to much of European history where governments and churches collided over religion and its place among the people. The tribes “did not centralize power into the hands of dominant political leaders.” After all, who in their right mind would voluntarily give their individual power to one all-powerful central leader or group? This is an excellent demonstration of how a free society leaves power with the individual where it rightly belongs. As the pre-Columbus years of Native American history are explored, it shows a period of many different tribes cooperatively living and spreading goods and ideas with tribes across a massive continent. Government was decentralized and it appears that political decisions were commonly made through “consultation and consensus” from the entire adult community of a tribe. While Europe was suffering through poverty, government and Church corruption, and horrendous injustices in the Middle Ages, Native Americans were experiencing a world of peaceful living and voluntary interaction and trade, within vast amounts of local tribes who resisted central empowerment that plagued much of the world.

The Native Americans are one of the few examples of a truly free society unbounded by central force, and the result was hardly a corrupt and exploitative age. Creativity flourished, voluntary trade and diplomacy abounded, and ideas were not punished or restrained. European “civilized” governments existed through force, rather than the decentralized governments of Native American tribes that were created and maintained by the entire adult community. When force is not in the picture, people have naturally chosen local “systems” to that of a powerful centralized government. Local governmental structures are naturally created when freedom is “free” to flourish and provide the groundwork for a society of individuals who are empowered with responsibility of their life, liberty, and well-being.

Modern politics has become a win or loss type of deal. Issues are seen as black and white, jailed into sides with no room for compromise. The beauty of freedom is that it is precisely the basis needed for voluntary actions, diplomacy, exchange, and compromise. Freedom encourages education, involvement, and creativity; it is the only sustainable “system” precisely because it allows all individuals to adjust as necessary. Freedom and liberty are the building blocks of a prosperous society built on the luxury of choice, wisdom of nonaggression, and sustainability of voluntary actions.

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 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.

You will notice that at every election the talk is always about how government will improve or stimulate the economy. Government is seen as the answer from both parties to build the economy to their liking. As government has worked itself into the economic affairs of people it is increasingly looked upon as the ideal way to stimulate the economy or “save and create” jobs.

The most crucial thing that we cannot ignore is the Constitution. The document that is supposed to restrain government gives absolutely no mention that its purpose is to create or maintain jobs, “strengthen” the economy, or get involved in any economic planning whatsoever. The Founders originally recognized that the federal government was to have very little control over the economy, in order to secure the freedoms and liberties of the people to make and control their own decisions.

Gradually over the past century, those in government have ignored the essential economic freedoms that were strongly protected in the Constitution. The passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913 and the ability of the government to tax citizens marked a beginning of the government’s economic entrenchment. How does giving the government the power to control how much of your own labor is actually yours even come close to fitting in with economic freedom? The ludicrous idea that we work several months every year for the government tramples the laws of freedom. It is central planning in one of its worst forms.

The expression (included in the Constitution) “regulation of commerce” was suddenly taken as an excuse to regulate the production, manufacturing, distribution, and sale of any product or item that the government felt it needed to. In the Founders time, regulation simply meant “to make regular.” Today government uses the word to influence or control next to anything it likes. This includes absurd regulations such as how much water a toilet bowl can hold and the size of holes in Swiss Cheese. The Constitution does not give the federal government near the authority to get this involved in affairs that would easily be solved by the people, market, and if necessary, the states.

Government has gradually shoved itself into the economy and individual affairs of the people. The Constitution’s protection of these basic rights seems irrelevant to the bureaucrats who can’t find anything that they won’t tax, regulate, or control in some manner. As the government takes more control from the people and adds to its own unconstitutional power, people become more reliant on the services of government. Individual initiative and responsibility slowly go out the door.

I cringe when I hear that the government needs to stimulate the economy or create jobs. Many people are so ignorant to believe that if we give government just a little bit more power, a little more control, that things will improve. It is a dangerous trend when people trust government more than their own judgment and choice.

Economic sustainability cannot come from government. It is impossible for government bureaucrats, regulators, and planners to calculate rewards and corresponding risks than the people who are actually putting their time, money, and labor on the line. As we have seen largely in the past decade, these public officials have absolutely no connection to fiscal sanity and the concepts of living within your means and suffering the consequences of reckless behavior.

Many politicians won’t stop preaching that the free market brought us into this economic mess. They say that capitalism and freedom breed greed and corruption. We can be sure that these statements are full of hot air when you consider that we haven’t had a “free market” for quite some time. Government has gotten itself so entrenched in individual lives, businesses, industries, and the whole economy that it isn’t humanely possible for us to have or have had a “free market” in recent history. The effects we are seeing today are the direct results of central planning, a government with little regard for the rule of law, and the consequential disregard for individual responsibility, personal freedom, and local governance.

I would hope that people can see the failures of central planning just by looking at the events of the past couple years. It is grossly unconstitutional, intrudes on the most basic traits of human nature, and does nothing but transfer the power of the people to the government. It is not sustainable, efficient, or productive. On another level it is not moral, sensible, or legal.

In short, government is not here to create, save, or guarantee jobs. Government is not here to stimulate the economy. Government’s primary purpose, as the Founders and the Constitution recognize, is to protect and defend individual liberty and freedom (including economic liberty). Government in its best role, which the Founders tirelessly pursued and fought for, is one that stays out of the affairs of the people, allows them to make their own decisions and choices, so long as they don’t intrude on the freedom or liberty of another individual.

Liberty is one and the same; it is not meant to be separated by government into groups, economic liberties, or civil liberties. Constitutionally (and I would think morally) the government does not have the authority to decide which liberties we can and cannot manage on our own, whether it be financial liberties, economic liberties, or civil liberties. One natural liberty without another is like a tree without its roots or branches. All-inclusive individual liberty is the only true liberty.