My response was a reserved "yes."

      I told him that, although I myself would have omitted a number of things and included a few others, I accepted the philosophy of consent which forms, or at least  ought  to form, the philosophical basis of that document. Carried to it's logical conclusion, the principle of government by consent would mean self-government, individual self-government, which, although I didn't clarify this point with the investigating officer at the time, would mean  no  government as the term is commonly understood today.

      My purpose here is to elaborate on the comments I made during those interviews.

      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 whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Point 1. "When, in the course of human events,..."

      As opposed to inhuman events? Non-human events? Sub-human events?

      I don't know what this "in the course of human events" is supposed to mean.

      "When, in the course of human events,..."

Point 2. "...it becomes necessary..."

      Saying, "it has become necessary," implies that you have no other alternatives.

      Imagine you live in the American colonies in 1776. The so-called King of England and his cronies have been making a royal mess of the economy for their own benefit for years now. You and a significant number of your neighbors are dissatisfied with the situation. What do you do? What can you do?

      You could leave, go back to England, move into the wilderness, move to the Spanish or French colonies, move to some other part of the world.

      If you stay in the colonies, what can you do, I mean, besides doing nothing, which is yet another valid alternative? You could "work within the system to change the system." Continue petitioning the king for change. Work with the local authorities to get them to pass good laws or rescind bad ones. You could engage in some civil disobedience. The point is, you have alternatives. It hasn't "become necessary."

      In 1776, it hadn't "become necessary." They lied. But it was just a little lie. No big deal, right?

      Not only had it not "become necessary," it never had to "become necessary" in the first place. It never has to "become necessary" ever. If you feel like asserting your own independence,... when you feel like asserting your independence,... you're free to do so.

      The founders wanted their independence from England. They must have felt it was right for them to declare and assert their independence from England. They knew that it was right in principle, meaning it was not just right for them at that point in time and under those specific conditions, but right for anyone at any time under similar conditions.

      Why did they include this little white lie?

      "Language creates spooks that get into our heads and hypnotize us."

-- Robert Anton Wilson, Introduction to The Tree of Lies (by Christopher S. Hyatt. Ph.D.)

      Even after obfuscating the truth with this "it becomes necessary" crap, some of the people rebelled against them in Shay's Rebellion and then the Whiskey Rebellion. Imagine how many more rebellions they'd have had if the Declaration of Independence had started with, "When we feel like assuming a separate and equal station, we're free to do so."

      If the founders worded it this way intentionally, it was a stroke of tyrannical genius, although it's possible they were infected with the meme themselves and couldn't think of any other way to word it at the time. Either way, it hadn't "become necessary" then, it hasn't "become necessary" today, and it doesn't have to "become necessary" ever. It's just one of many options that are available to you at any time.

      "When it becomes necessary [desirable]..."

Point 3. "...for one people..."

      The whole meaning of independence is lost if an individual is not free to act independently.

      "If [it] was a sound principle in favor of three millions of men, it was an equally sound one in favor of three men, or of one man. If the principle was a sound one on behalf of men living on a separate continent, it was an equally sound one on behalf of a man living on a separate farm, or in a separate house." -- Lysander Spooner, No Treason No. I. 1867.

      "When it becomes desirable for one people [me]..."

      In other words,...

      "When I desire..."    or    "When I choose..."

Point 4. "...to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and..."

      These so-called "political bands," if any such thing ever existed, were either formed completely voluntarily or they were not. If they were formed voluntarily and without a signed contract or witnessed oath, that would mean they could be "dissolved" unilaterally and at any time, right? Voluntary association followed by voluntary DIS-association. If they were NOT formed voluntarily, that would mean they were actually "political chains," (a much more accurate metaphor in my opinion,) and "political chains" ought to be "dissolved" as soon as they manifest themselves as chains. Slavery is wrong. Escape from slavery is right.

      But what about the "social contract"? Can you be bound to a contract that is neither signed nor witnessed? The founders evidently didn't think so. They actually signed a piece of paper purportedly dissolving an alleged contract between them and the English king. It seems they thought an actual signature on a piece of paper was pretty important. If they felt it necessary to sign a piece of paper dissolving an alleged contract, wouldn't you expect to see a signed piece of paper forming that contract?

      And if they thought it was necessary for them to actually sign a piece of paper forming and dissolving contracts, wouldn't it be necessary for the people to have signed something when they entered into this alleged contract? At the very least, if these so-called founders where acting as representatives of the people so that only their signatures were required, wouldn't you expect to see other documents actually signed by the people indicating that these founders were, in fact, representing them? Where are all those signatures?

      No such papers exist. None ever existed. It was all smoke and mirrors.

      Statists, of course, would say such a thing would simply be impractical. It would just be practically impossible to keep track of millions and millions of pieces of paper with millions and millions of signatures. That's the whole reason you need representatives, and that's why we have the vote.

      Voting can be a sort of contract. You raise your hand and your vote is witnessed and counted, or you say "aye" or "nay" or you check a box on a piece of paper. To be bound by such a vote, there has to be some evidence that you voted, and some evidence how you voted. Either a piece of paper signed by you indicating how you voted could be shown, or witnesses could be called to testify they say you raise your hand or heard you say "aye" or "nay." The secret ballot is a practice that originated with criminal organizations to escape culpability. If there's no proof that a person voted, and no proof how that person voted, that person can't be held accountable for the actions of those for whom he allegedly voted. A secret vote forms no contract.

      At any rate, we can just leave all of this crap out.

      "When I choose to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and,..."

Point 5. "...to assume, among the powers of the earth,..."

      What are these "powers of the earth"? Geothermal? Tectonic? Gravitational? Meteorological? Electromagnetic?

      Or were the founders using "powers or the earth" in the same sense that we use "powers that be" today? Were the founders saying something to the effect that "when we choose to become 'powers that be' ourselves among the other 'powers that be' on earth,..."?

      Whatever. It's mumbo jumbo.

      "When, I choose to assume among the powers of the earth,..."

Point 6. "...the separate and equal station..."

      Finally, something we can leave in virtually unchanged.

      "When, I choose to assume the [a] separate and equal station..."

Point 7. "...to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitles them,..."

      The "Laws of Nature" require some explaining, but I'll get to that in the next paragraph. We can leave it out of this first paragraph. The notion of "Nature's God" entitling anyone to do anything is,... just more mumbo jumbo. This is supposed to be a political document, not a religious one, so we can leave it out.

      "When, I choose to assume a separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitles them..."

Point 8. "...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind..."

      As opposed to an indecent respect?

      And anyway, why should I respect the opinion of someone who thinks I should be a slave or who wants to harm me without just cause? Why should I respect anyone's opinion if they don't have any respect for mine?

      "When I choose to assume a separate and equal station, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind..."

Point 9. "...requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

      REQUIRES?!!!!

      Imagine you just became the dictator of your own country overnight. You get to make all the laws and everyone has to obey them or else. Some people are going to disagree, some will complain, some will disobey, but for the most part, everyone will do what they're told, and you have a powerful enforcement gang to keep everyone in line. But there are some troublemakers who really could threaten to topple your regime. Who are they? Where do they live? How do you silence them? Can you trust your spies to root them out? And how can you make them look like the bad guys?

      Here's a neat trick. Get everyone to think that, before they mount any kind of serious revolt, they are required to explain themselves. That brings them out in the open so you can use your propaganda machine to paint them as fanatics and cooks, to turn the people against them.

      In the end, if you want to assume a "separate and equal station," what are you really required to do? And more pointedly, who requires it of you if you are equals?

      "When, I choose to assume a separate and equal station a decent respect... requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation [I am free to do so]."

      So, that pretty much sums up the first paragraph.

      "When I choose to assume a separate and equal station, I am free to do so."

Point 10. "We..."

      We? Who's we? Does that really mean "you and me"? Or does it mean "you and me and an indeterminate number of other people"? Or does it mean "me and a bunch of other people, but NOT you"? As in, "this is what we want, so you're going to have to play along." Or does it mean, "neither you nor I but somebody somehow related to us"? As in, "we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima." Who actually dropped that bomb, and who was actually involved in deciding to drop it? I sure wasn't. Let's see, that was in 1945 and it's not 2009. That makes it 64 years ago. the legal age of consent was 18, so, that puts the decision makers at, at the very least, 82 years old today. Do I look over 82 to you? Are you over 82? But I'm getting side-tracked.

      In any case, use We, I, you, he, she, they,... whatever the appropriate pronoun is for your situation.

      "We [I]..."

Point 11. "...hold these truths..."

      "Truths"? I don't know. I prefer to use the term "principles" instead.

      "I hold these truths [principles]..."

Point 12. "...to be self-evident,..."

      I wouldn't say the principles of natural law are self-evident.

      If I were to say, "gravity makes things fall down," you couldn't reasonably argue with it, right? Gravity is a pretty self-evident concept. If you were holding something in your hand a second ago and you felt it slip from your fingers, you'd look... up or down? It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. There are a few things in this world that are pretty self-evident, the fundamental principles of natural law isn't one of them.

      Try this experiment. Go up to anyone, hold a ball in your hand, palm facing left or right, and ask, "if I let go of this ball, is it going to fall up or down?" Unless you're name is David Blaine, most people will say, "down." Some will probably look at you strangely, shake their heads and walk away. I doubt seriously if anyone would say, "up," and if anyone does, you should tell them to have their head examined. Once the person answers, let go of the ball, and sure enough, it falls down. Then, ask them one more question. "Is equal freedom a fundamental principle of natural law?" What kind of responses do you think you're going to get? Agreement? Disagreement? "I don't know"? Requests for clarification? Blank stares?

      The fundamental principles of natural law MAY be easy to understand once they're explained clearly, and it's even possible that if you explain them clearly, you'll get almost universal agreement, but they certainly aren't self-evident.

      "I hold these principles to be self-evident [fundamental],..."

Point 13. "...that all men..."

      And women,... and male and female children,... let's just say all human beings.

      "I hold these principles to be fundamental, that all men [every human being]..."

Point 14. "...are created equal,..."

      "Creation" is a religious concept that can be left out. Understand, by the way, I have nothing against religious people or their silly beliefs. Many religious people are decent and respectable human beings, and their religious stories, morality plays, and other fantasies can be both entertaining and useful. But natural law ought to apply to believers and non-believers alike, it ought to apply to every individual human being. There is no reason to include religious concepts in a Resolution of Independence.

      "...that every human being is equal"? They certainly are not. Everyone is different. Every human being is unique. But we do have this notion that every human being is equal in the eyes of the law. That's what makes human society different from other animals. Or at least, that's what ought to make human society different from nature.

      In nature, the "law of the jungle" prevails. In human society, the "law of nature" is supposed to prevail.

      The "law of nature" is not something you can observe in the real world. When you observe the real world scientifically, the only "law" of animal behavior you see is the "law of the jungle," or "survival of the fittest." The "law of nature" is a notion, a concept, an idea. It's the notion that human society is supposed to be different from nature. It's the idea that human beings are supposed to behave differently from animals living in nature. It would have cleared up some confusion if the first person who coined the term had called it "the law of human society," but it looks like we're stuck with a confusing term.

      We have these two laws: "the Law of Nature," AKA the law of human society, the way humans are supposed to behave (but often don't) in human society, and "the Law of the Jungle," AKA the law we actually observe in nature (and sometimes within human society.) You see how it could be a bit confusing.

      The difference between these two laws, (and this is very very important if you want to understand the notion of natural law,) where the law of the jungle prevails, all individuals are potentially "subject to the will" of an aggressor, that is to say, potentially controlled by another, by force, threat or deception, while, where the law of nature prevails, NO individuals are EVER "subject to the will" of ANY aggressor. In other words, everyone is equal, nobody controls another by force, threat or deception. Where the law of nature prevails, nobody victimizes anybody.

      (NB. I'm not saying that there is a utopia where the strong don't victimize the weak. I'm just saying that where the strong don't victimize the weak, the law of nature prevails. And where the strong DO victimize the weak, the law of the jungle prevails, which, unfortunately, accurately describes much of human society. And I'm just saying that human society isn't supposed to be that way.)

      Equality under the law is what makes human society different from the brutality and arbitrariness of nature. Where the law of the jungle prevails, in nature, there is no right and no wrong. Nature is amoral. Where the law of nature prevails, as it ought to in human sociey, it is wrong for one individual to initiate force, threat of force or fraud against another individual.

      In human society, initiatory control of the will of another human being is wrong, immoral, evil.

      So, in human society, while no human being can be physically equal to another, every human being ought to be equally free, that is, equally free from aggression, equally free from the initiation of force or fraud, equally free in matters of conscience, equally free to choose right or wrong conduct. Every human being ought to be morally equal and equally free.

      That is THE fundamental principle of natural law. Moral equality and equal freedom. Equal freedom of conscience and equal freedom of subsequent conduct. Anything less would make human society indistinguishable from the brutality and arbitrariness of amoral nature.

      "I hold these principles to be fundamental, that every human being are [ought to be] created [morally] equal [and equally free]..."

Point 15. "...that they are endowed by their creator...

      Leave out the mumbo jumbo.

      "I hold these principles to be fundamental, that every human being ought to be morally equal and equally free, that they are endowed by their creator..."

Point 16. "...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--"

      What is a right? And what are some specific rights?

      Right is a moral concept. Without wrongs, rights are meaningless. Morality is a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct. To say that you have a right to behave a certain way is to say that it is right for you to behave that way and wrong for anyone to prevent you from behaving that way. To say you have a right to brush your teeth is to say it is right for you to brush your teeth and wrong for anyone to prevent you from brushing your teeth. To say that you have a right NOT to brush your teeth is to say that it is right for you NOT to brush your teeth and wrong for anyone to force you to brush your teeth.

      To say that you have a right to life is to say that it is right for you to live and wrong for any aggressor to deprive you of life. To say that you have a right to liberty is to say that it is right for you to act freely and wrong for any aggressor to deprive you of your freedom to act. To say that you have a right to the pursuit of happiness is to say that it is right for you to pursue happiness and wrong for any aggressor to deprive you of your efforts to obtain happiness. To say that you have a right to property is to say that it is right for you to obtain and use things and wrong for any aggressor to deprive you of the control of these things. All of this, of course, is provided that you are not an aggressor yourself, provided you have not initiated force, threat of force or fraud against any other human being.

      "The conception of Right is a negative one,... It is the conception of Wrong which is positive; Wrong has the same significance as injury -laesio- in the widest sense of the term.... and accordingly a man's rights are easy to define: every one has a right to do anything that injures no one else."

-- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Human Nature, "Government." 1850.

      Why is "property" such an important concept? The term isn't even used in the Declaration of Independence, although it was used in a few documents that preceded it.

      "That the inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following RIGHTS:
      "Resolved, N.C.D. (nemine contra dicente "no one dissenting") 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty and property: and they have never ceded to any foreign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent."

(The Declaration of Resolves of the First Continental Congress, 1774)

      "That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

(The Virginia Declaration of Rights, May 1776)

      But let's get back to property. What is it? Why is it such an important concept?

      Property, or the piece of property itself, could be just about anything, a table, a house, a tree, a dog, a plot of land,... you? But for a thing to be more than just a thing, that is, for the thing to be "property," we have to associate the thing with three additional notions, owner, control and right. Look up the term "property" in any dictionary and you'll see all of these notions referenced, own or possess, control or use, and right or title.

           1. PROPERTY: The thing itself.
           2. OWNER: The person who controls the thing. If there is no owner, a piece of "unowned property" is just a thing.
           3. CONTROL: The control the owner exercises over the thing
                      (even if that means merely that no one else may use it, the owner simple stores, hordes or preserves the thing.)
           4. RIGHT: The notion that it is right for the owner to use the thing in that particular way.

      That last condition is essential. It must be right for you to behave in that particular way. If we don't take into account the rightness or wrongness of a particular act, there is no way to distinguish human society from "the jungle" and the notion of property becomes meaningless.

      In nature, a squirrel gathers nuts and hordes them in a cache. Another squirrel discovers the first squirrel's cache and takes some or all of them away. In nature, it is neither right nor wrong for the second squirrel to do this. The idea that the nuts are the first squirrel's property and not the second squirrel's property, or visa versa, is meaningless.

      In human society, one man pans for gold and hides his dust in a safe place. Another man discovers the first man's dust and takes some or all of it away. That's wrong, we say, because human beings are not simply animals. If we didn't say it was wrong for people do behave this way, human society would be indistinguishable from nature, natural law would be indistinguishable from the law of the jungle. So, it is wrong. It must be wrong.

      It's wrong to take what belongs to someone else, if it RIGHTFULLY belongs to someone else. It's wrong because it is saying, "your things are mine, but my things are not yours." Such inequality violates the law of nature which states that every human being ought to be morally EQUAL and EQUALLY free.

      Let's see what self-ownership looks like. You are property of yourself.

           1. PROPERTY: YOU.
           2. OWNER: ALSO you.
           3. CONTROL: What you do with or to yourself, in other words, how you behave.
           4. RIGHT: The notion that it is right for you to behave in that particular way.

      If it is right for you to behave in this particular way, then you have a right to behave in this particular way, and you belong to yourself. You are property of yourself.

      And how can we know that any particular behavior is right? If it initiates force, threat of force or fraud against the person or propety of any other human being, it is wrong. If not, it is right, at least according to the law of nature.

      If it is wrong for you to behave in this particular way, then you do not have a right to behave in this particular way, and it follows that if you behave wrongfully, you do not belong to yourself. You are NOT property of yourself because that last condition of "property" is not met. This is what justifies punishment and imprisonment for crimes under natural law.

      In human society, an individual rightfully owns himself or herself, and anything he or she rightfully acquires from others or obtains from nature. All of that, the self and things rightfully acquired, is a person's property. And in human society, to initiate control over another person's property is wrong. And if you behave wrongfully in human society, that last condition of "property," that is "right," is not met, which means you cease to be property of yourself, you can rightfully be controlled by someone else. So, if you aggress against another human being, if you initiate control not only over yourself but over the property of someone else (including the "person" of someone else,) it is right for that other person to control you (retaliatory control.) In fact, it is right for any member of human society to exercise retaliatory control over you, to punish you for committing your crime, and to compel you to make reparations to your victim.

      If someone can rightfully decide what you may or may not do with the things you possess, you don't really own those things. They are someone else's property. By the same token, if someone can rightfully decide what conduct you may or may not engage in, you don't really own yourself. You are someone else's property.

      On the other hand, if someone wrongfully decides what you may or may not do with the things you possess, and if someone wrongfully decides what conduct you may or may not engage in, those things are still rightfully your property, and you are still rightfully property of yourself. You're just being victimized.

      When it comes to deciding whether any particular conduct is right or wrong, the order of your questions is important.

      FIRST QUESTION: Does this conduct initiate force, threat of force or fraud against the person or peroperty of any other human being?

      If it does, it's wrong according to the law of nature. If it doesn't, it's NOT wrong according to the law of nature, but it may be right or wrong for you.

      SECOND QUESTION: Will this conduct more likely increase my happiness?

      If you think it will increase your happiness, then it may be right for you. If you think it won't increase your happiness, then it may be wrong for you.

      The problem with human society is that most people ask a version of the second question first, and the first question not at all. For example: Is it right or wrong to drink alcohol?

      FIRST QUESTION: Does drinking alcohol initiate force, threat of force or fraud against the person or property of any other human being? If yes, then it's wrong for anybody to drink alcohol. No more questions are necesssary. If no, then it is NOT wrong for anybody to drink alcohol, and you have to ask yourself another question.

      SECOND QUESTION: Will drinking alcohol tend to increase your personal happiness? If yes, then it may be right for you. Give it a try. If no, then it may be wrong for you, and you might want to think twice before you try it.

      But here is what happens when people ask the questions in the wrong order.

      VERSION OF THE SECOND QUESTION: Will drinking alcohol tend to increase the happiness of society as a whole? If no, then it is wrong for anyone to drink alcohol. No more questions are necessary. If not sure, then maybe there's a gray area, it might be right for some people to drink some forms of alcohol some of the time, but wrong for other people to drink other forms of alcohol on other occassions. We're going to need some intelligent people in control in order to determine when people may and may not drink alcohol to ensure that it tends to increase and not decrease the happiness of society as a whole.

      The important question is never really asked. Does the mere drinking of alcohol violate the law of nature, that is, does it initiate force, threat of force or fraud against the person or property of any other human being? The answer is obviously "no, it doesn't." Therefore it's not wrong according to the law of nature.

      But by the time this question and answer is pointed out to the statists, they've already decided that it's wrong or it's wrong at least some of the time, and they're not likely to second guess themselves. "If it's not wrong according to the law of nature, it must be right, but I've already answered that it's wrong at least some of the time, so it CAN'T be right. It MUST be wrong according to the law of nature because,... it just MUST be." So now, the statist is ready to perform verbal gymnastics to make a right a wrong and a wrong a right. "There must be something wrong with the formulation of natural law, or there must be something about the mere drinking of alcohol that DOES initiate force, threat of force or fraud against the person or property of another human being."

      But let's look at another example: Forcing everyone to pay taxes. (asking the questions in the wrong order)

      VERSION OF THE SECOND QUESTION: Will forcing everyone to pay taxes tend to increase the happiness of society as a whole? If yes, then it is right to force everyone to pay taxes. If no, it is wrong to force anyone to pay taxes.

      FIRST QUESTION: (which may never be asked) Does forcing everyone to pay taxes initiate force, threat of force or fraud against the person or property of another human being? Obviously, it's impossible to answer this question in the negative. Does forcing initiate force? Duh. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Yes, according to the law of nature, and according to everything that gives meaning to the terms "right" and "wrong," it is wrong to force everyone to pay taxes. It's wrong to force anyone to pay taxes. (I'd rather not even call them "taxes.")

      But if your first answer was "yes, it is right to force everyone to pay taxes," you've got a dilemma on your hands. "It seems obviously wrong according to the law of nature to force everyone to pay taxes, but it can't be wrong because it tends to increase the happiness of society as a whole. There must be something wrong with how you define the law of nature, or there must be something wrong with how you asked the question. Maybe refusing to pay taxes is what initiates force, threat of force or fraud on others." Now get ready for the verbal gymnastics show.

      You have to ask your questions in the right order. Because human society is supposed to be qualitatively different from nature, you must ask first whether any particular conduct violates or is in accordance with the law of nature. If it is not, if it violates the law of nature, then it is in accordance with the law of the jungle, and it is absolutely wrong to engage in that conduct within human society.

      If you can answer that this particular conduct is in accordance with the law of nature, that it does not initiate control over the person or property of any other human being, then you may ask whether it is right or wrong conduct FOR YOU. It may or may not be right for you, no one else can rightfully make that decision for you.

      "A man is under no obligation to take anybody's word, or yield to anybody's authority, on a matter so vital to himself,... He cannot,... because he finds that the opinions of other men do not agree. Certain actions, or courses of action, have been practised by many millions of men, through successive generations, and have been held by them to be, on the whole, conducive to happiness, and therefore virtuous. Other men, in other ages or countries, or under other condition, have held, as the result of their experience and observation, that these actions tended, on the whole, to unhappiness, and were therefore vicious. And the experience of ages has left an infinite number of these questions unsettled. In fact, it can scarcely be said to have settled any of them.

      "In the midst of this endless variety of opinion, what man, or what body of men, has the right to say, in regard to any particular action, or course of action, "We have tried this experiment, and determined every question involved in it? We have determined it, not only for ourselves, but for all others? And, as to all those who are weaker than we, we will coerce them to act in obedience to our conclusion? We will suffer no further experiment or inquiry by any one, and, consequently, no further acquisition of knowledge by anybody?"

      "Who are the men who have the right to say this? Certainly there are none such. The men who really do say it, are either shameless impostors and tyrants, who would stop the progress of knowledge, and usurp absolute control over the minds and bodies of their fellow men; and are therefore to be resisted instantly, and to the last extent; or they are themselves too ignorant of their own weaknesses, and of their true relations to other men, to be entitled to any other consideration than sheer pity or contempt." [my own comments added]

--Lysander Spooner, Vices Are Not Crimes, 1875.

      In a moral system, such as what human society ought to be, it is NOT right to predicate one's behavior of the law of the jungle, which is what these "shameless impostors and tyrants" do. Might cannot make Right, for it if did, the moral system would be indistinguishable from an amoral system, morality would cease to exist, and Right would cease to exist.

      You have a right to pursue happiness as you see fit, and every other human being has an EQUAL right to pursue happiness as he or she sees fit. The ONLY principle that makes morality possible, that gives absolute meaning to the notions of "right" and "wrong," is that every human being ought to be morally equal and equally free, that no human being ought to initiate control over the person or property of another.

      (whiny voice) But what if somebody believes it's right to kill somebody? If everyone can determine right and wrong for themselves, what's to prevent someone from determining that it's right to kill somebody? How can you say that they ought to be free to act in accordance with their conscinece if their conscience tells them to kill somebody?

      FIRST QUESTION: Does killing somebody initiate force, threat of force or fraud on another human being?

      Obviously, yes, it does. Therefore, it is wrong to kill somebody. End of discussion. No need to ask the second question.

      But wait! What if the person you want to kill is a murderer?

      FIRST QUESTION: Does killing a murderer initiate force, threat of force or fraud against the person or property of another human being? No. Obviously not, it RETALIATES. Therefore, it is not wrong to kill a murderer.

      SECOND QUESTION: Will killing a murderer more likely tend to increase happiness? That's for you to decide for yourself.

      Everyone has a right to do anything that does not initiate control over the person or property others, interfering with their equal freedom. Initiatory government of others - wrong. Retaliatory government of others - not wrong. Self-government - right. That pretty much sums up the notion of natural law. There's no need to list any specific rights as long as you clarify the underlying principle.

      "I hold these principles to be fundamental, that every human being ought to be morally equal and equally free, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

Point 17. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men,..."

      That sounds really good to statists, to secure rights, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and to essentially do all those things that people just wouldn't be able to do for themselves on their own. To an anarchist, the exact opposite seems true. Governments were instituted among men to deprive them of their freedoms. Neither view is completely correct.

      Governments are instituted among men to control things and people. Period. That's what "government" means, to govern, to control.

      When you wake up in the morning, you begin to think consciously. You think about opening your eyes, stumbling out of bed, staggering to the bathroom, or the liquor cabinet. Billions of minute electrical impulses originating in your brain travel through your nervous system to the various muscles of your body and you perform all these actions. You control your actions. You govern yourself. That's what "government" means. Of course, you don't institute a government to control yourself, you just do it.

      Without self-government, without your brain initiating control over the property of your "self," you'd starve, die and rot in bed. An anarchist, someone "without + a ruler," in the strictest sense of the word, would exclude even your own brain ruling over your own body. A true anarchist would be a anyone with no head.

      Autarchists, "self + ruler," have at least their feet to stand on, but their self-rule falls apart as soon as they try to brush their teeth.

      You wake up, get out of bed, stumble to the bathroom, look at yourself in the mirror and you think about brushing your teeth. Minute electrical impulses originating in your brain travel through your nervous system to,... to the toothbrush?

      To rule only your self, "auto + ruler," in the strictest sense of the word, would exclude controlling that toothbrush, or anything other than your own body, the self. To brush your teeth, you have to initiate control over that toothbrush. In fact, to do anything other than walk around till you fall over, starve, die and rot, you have to initiate control over things other than the self. If you want to live, you have to gather food, hunt animals, make clothing, build shelter. You can do all of these things individually or you can institute government, that is, combine with others and organize yourselves to systematically gather food, hunt animals, make clothing, build shelters and roads, etc., etc.

      That's all that governments are. Institutions, or organizations that people institute to combine their efforts and systematically control things other than themselves. And in most cases, that's actually a good thing. People combining their efforts to systematically obtain property and initiate control over the things they own is what has created almost all the wealth that has ever existed in the world. It's only bad or wrong in human society when people combine their efforts to systematically initiate control over the persons and property of others. When people initiate force, threat of force or fraud against the persons or property of others, whether individually or in combination with other people, it is wrong, it is immoral, it is evil.

      Using the term "government" without any adjectives fails to distinguish between the good organizations that facilitate the exercise of rightful control, and criminal organizations that facilitate the exercise of wrongful control over others. To avoid the confusion, it's easier to replace the word "government" with "private organization" or "private security organization."

      A private organization could be either a legitimate institution or a criminal organization. But for some reason, when people use the word "government" they think of it only in terms of a legitimate organization, not a criminal one, even though there have been many governments that people admit were criminal organizations. The same thing happens when people use the word "public" to describe an organization.

      Anyway, let's say you want to obtain a yacht. The RIGHT way to obtain it, if you're not going to build it yourself, is to pay a company to build it for you. The yacht building company has been instituted "among men" to secure the RIGHT of obtaining yachts. That's one example of why people institute government.

      Let's say you want to obtain some diamonds. The WRONG way to obtain them, if you're not going to work individually, is to get a bunch of thieves together and go rob a jewelry store. Such criminal organizations have been instituted "among men" to deprive others of their freedom. That's another example of why people institute government.

      But what most people think of when they use the word "government" is an organization designed, at least in part, to punish criminals, imprison them and compel them to make reparations. So let's say you wake up in the "wild west." There are criminals out there who need to be brought to justice, dangerous people who need to be restrained, reparations that need to be made. You can't do all that on your own, so you combine with others. You organize all the good townspeople into a private security organization designed to exercise retaliatory control over criminals.

      FIRST QUESTION: Does bringing criminals to justice initiate force, threat of force or fraud against the person or property of any other human being? No. It only RETALIATES. It is not wrong according to the law of nature and human society to impose your will on those who have committed crimes.

      SECOND QUESTION: Will bringing criminals to justice, punishing them for their wrongs, imprisoning them if they are a danger to others and compelling them to make reparations increase happiness? You bet! And there's no reason why there couldn't be many such private security organizations competing for business, no reason why, if YOU had been victimized, you couldn't employ the services of many, all or none of them.

      In fact, having competing organizations is an excellent way to set up checks and balances, to prevent any one of these organizations from becoming too big, too corrupt and initiating control over others instead of functioning in a purely retaliatory manner. Allowing one organization to have a monopoly will almost certainly guarantee that, in time, it will initiate force, threat of force and fraud against otherwise peaceful individuals. Many such monopolistic organizations (modern governments and law enforcement agencies) are so corrupt that they make admittedly criminal organizations seem benevolent by comparison.

      "I hold these principles to be fundamental, that every human being ought to be morally equal and equally free,--That to secure these [their] rights, Governments are instituted among men, [people may institute private organizations]..."

Point 18. "...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--"

      Hooey.

      Just power is when you bring a criminal to justice. You don't derive just power from the consent of the criminal you're bringing to justice.

      "The above named document [The Declaration of Independence] declares that 'governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.' It therefore follows that, when any individual is governed by a government without his or her consent, that the government is exercising unjust powers."

-- Benjamin Tucker, "Anarchism and Consent," Liberty, December 9, 1882 (II:5, #31), p. 2. (emphasis added)

      There are criminals out there who associate for the purpose of initiating force, threat of force or fraud against other human beings. They certainly do govern others, but they do so unjustly. They don't derive any power from the consent of their victims.

      A private security organizatiosn could be instituted for the purpose of imposing retaliatory control over criminals, punishing them for their crimes, imprisoning them if they appear to be a danger to others and compelling them to make reparation to their victims. This is JUST power, but the thought that they derive that just power from the criminals they govern, arrest and imprison is ridiculous.

      Just power is derived from your natural right to defend yourself against the initiation of control, or your natural right to redress wrongs and compel reparation from wrongdoers. Nothing is derived from consent except cooperation.

      "I hold these principles to be fundamental, that every human being ought to be morally equal and equally free,--That to secure their rights, people may institute private organizations deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [designed to protect them from the initiation of force and to assist them in redressing wrongs]..."

Point 19. "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,..."

      That whenever any criminal organization becomes destructive to your freedoms by initiating force or fraud against you, it is your right to... why would you want to alter a criminal organization? And what good would it do to try to abolish the mafia? That seems a bit too dangerous to me.

      What happens when one of your private security organizations exceeds it's authority and initiates force against others instead of merely exercising retaliatory force? By doing so, the individuals responsible for the initiation of force are criminals. What happens when your monopolistic retaliatory organizations starts to commit crimes? This is why you want to institute many such organizations.

      So, no. I couldn't advocate altering, abolishing or overthrowing any criminal organization, whether you call it "the mafia" or "the government." And I don't think altering the prevailing governmental organization is really an option at this point. I'm reluctant even to advocate the violent overthrow of any common criminal, whether you call him a "gang member" or a "government agent." It's too dangerous.

      But how does one abolish a mafia if not by violent means? By peaceful means, of course. Just withdraw support.

      Study and embrace the principle of equal freedom, the non-aggression principle. Apply those principles in all your dealings with others.

      Stop supporting corrupt politicians. Stop lobbying the mafia. Start shaming those who continue to support it. They OUGHT to be ashamed. Get a camcorder and expose their crimes. If you work in "law enforcement," quit your job and find some honest work in the free market.

      Stop supporting the mafia financially. This step is probably the most difficult.

      "All political power, so called, rests practically upon this matter of money. Any number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a 'government'; because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will. It is with government, as Caesar said it was in war, that money and soldiers mutually supported each other; that with money he could hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. So these villains, who call themselves governments, well understand that their power rests primarily upon money. With money they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. And, when their authority is denied, the first use they always make of money, is to hire soldiers to kill or subdue all who refuse them more money.
      "For this reason, whoever desires liberty, should understand these vital facts, viz.: 1. That every man who puts money into the hands of a 'government' (so called), puts into its hands a sword which will be used against him, to extort more money from him, and also to keep him in subjection to its arbitrary will. 2. That those who will take his money, without his consent, in the first place, will use it for his further robbery and enslavement, if he presumes to resist their demands in the future. 3. That it is a perfect absurdity to suppose that any body of men would ever take a man's money without his consent, for any such object as they profess to take it for, viz., that of protecting him; for why should they wish to protect him, if he does not wish them to do so? To suppose that they would do so, is just as absurd as it would be to suppose that they would take his money without his consent, for the purpose of buying food or clothing for him, when he did not want it. 4. If a man wants 'protection,' he is competent to make his own bargains for it; and nobody has any occasion to rob him, in order to 'protect' him against his will. 5. That the only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in their keeping their money in their own pockets, until they have assurances, perfectly satisfactory to themselves, that it will be used as they wish it to be used, for their benefit, and not for their injury. 6. That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support."

-- Lysander Spooner, No Treason VI, The Constitution of No Authority, 1870.

      "I hold these principles to be fundamental, that every human being ought to be morally equal and equally free,--That to secure their rights, people may institute private organizations designed to protect them from the initiation of force and to assist them in redressing wrongs,--That whenever any Form of Government [such organization] [violates the principle of equal freedom], it is the Right of [wrong for] the People to alter or to abolish it, [support it]..."

Point 20. "...and to institute new Government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

      And to institute new private security organizations based on the fundamental principles of natural law, or abiding by the fundamental principles of natural law, remain separate, equal and free.

      "I hold these principles to be fundamental, that every human being ought to be morally equal and equally free,--That to secure their rights, people may institute private organizations designed to protect them from the initiation of force and to assist them in redressing wrongs,--That whenever any Form of Government [such organization] [violates the principle of equal freedom], it is the Right of the People [wrong] to alter or to abolish it, [support it], and [it is the right of the people either] to institute new [security organizations], laying its their foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [the principle of equal freedom, or, abiding by that principle, to remain separate, equal and free from any such organization.]"

     

     

     

     

     

The Resolution of Independence

"When I choose to assume a separate and equal station I am free to do so."       "I hold these principles to be fundamental, that every human being ought to be morally equal and equally free,--That to secure their rights, people may institute private organizations designed to protect them from the initiation of force and to assist them in redressing wrongs--That whenever such organization violates the principle of equal freedom, it is wrong to support it, and it is the right of the people either to institute new security organizations, laying their foundations on the principle of equal freedom, or abiding by that principle, to remain separate, equal and free from any such organization."

     

     

     

     

     

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page

© 1996 golwis@yahoo.com