Tag Archives: Laws

FDR’s Four Freedoms

Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1941 said, that there are four fundamental freedoms that people everywhere in the world ought to enjoy: Freedom of speech, Freedom of worship, Freedom from want, and Freedom from fear. Was he right?

The first two are fundamental freedoms that everyone, everywhere in the world, ought to enjoy just as Roosevelt said. However, the last two are not fundamental freedoms, rather they are entitlements that people want at the expense of others. Before we go on we have to define freedom. Freedom is a state of being exempt from the power or control of another. Every person is endowed by God with certain unalienable rights. The definition of rights is a legal immunity (protection) from other people or from the state. Freedom allows us to exercise these rights as we choose.

The freedom of speech allows us to communicate ideas and beliefs without interference from the government or anyone and without punitive action. We can express our ideas and beliefs in person, with a pen and paper, a film, an audio recording, and so on. All of these ways are protected under the freedom of speech. These are a few of the reasons why the freedom of speech is a fundamental freedom.

 

The freedom of worship allows everyone to worship God as they believe is right. If we did not have this freedom all of our God-given rights and freedoms would be in jeopardy from the First Amendment all the way to the Tenth Amendment. John Adams said,”Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  Samuel Adams said,”Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness.” They both knew that liberty is impossible without a moral and religious people. The Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of Worship depend on each other. If you do not have one you do not have the other.

Freedom from want or the right to an adequate standard of living is not a freedom nor a right. Sure, this sounds like a moral principle, but it’s not. Rights are very limited on what they do. This pseudo freedom allows the government to take wealth and property from the rich to give to the poor, thus infringing on someone else’s freedoms.  This action is totally opposite to the definition of freedom. Don’t get me wrong I am not opposed to charity. I encourage it, but what the government is doing is plunder, plain and simple. It decreases charity and productivity and in the end no one is better off.  This is the danger of this pseudo freedom or right. 

 

Lastly but not least is the freedom from fear. The same thing applies to this fake freedom as it did for the freedom from want. President Roosevelt said the following in his Four Freedoms speech concerning the “freedom” from fear. “The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.” First, the problem with this statement is that it contradicts our Second Amendment. Secondly, this will not stop wars nor will it make a world void of fear. For example, alliances can be made with other nations to overpower weaker ones, thus starting wars.

 

Laws are only obeyed by law abiding citizens. When laws are passed to reduce the amount of guns law-abiding citizens can own the end result will not be a nation without fear. Crime and fear will increase because the criminals know that there are fewer citizens armed to defend themselves. Remember, gun reduction laws do not disarm criminals. They only disarm the law-abiding citizens.

 

Freedom is very valuable but if it is tainted with so-called freedoms it can become worthless and meaningless.

Oath Keepers

Constitution of the United States, page 1

Constitution of the United States, page 1 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Police take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of their state. We as Americans have the Bill of Rights (Bills of limitations on the government) to protect our God given rights. The First Amendment includes freedom of religion, speech, and the press. For example the police should never obey and enforce a politician’s verbal restrictions against making a video of him at a public meeting. This would violate our freedom of the press. Legislative bodies, state or federal, are the only branches of government that can make laws. Of the laws they can make they all have to follow the Constitution of the Unites States. The politician has no authority to tell a police officer to violate our first amendment rights. Police personnel should never follow an unconstitutional command. It’s against the law to follow any unconstitutional command. Police should keep their oath of office, they should never ever break it.

State Subsidies and State Control

Is it possible to have state subsidies without state control? Subsidies are a sum of money granted by the government to an industry in other to keep prices low. Government doesn’t have any money so in order to have state subsidies the government must plunder (tax) it’s citizens. Like all other grants there are strings attached. The United States Supreme Court in 1942, in the case of Wickard vs. Filburn, opined: “It is hardly lack of due process for the government to regulate that which it subsidizes.” In other words the court ruled that if you accept states subsidies you should also expect state control. There is no way to have one without the other. The state hands out subsidies in order to legally control those who receive them. The answer to the question is simple, If you do not like state control, then you should not accept state subsidies.

Plunder Made Legal

The origin of plunder is the desire to live at another’s expense. Bastiat defined plunder as follows;”When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it-without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud- to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed.” There are two kinds of plunder: the first is illegal plunder and the second is legal plunder.

English: Cover of the 2007 edition of The Law ...

English: Cover of the 2007 edition of The Law by Frédéric Bastiat (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Illegal plunder is robbery and is punishable by law. Legal plunder is when the law takes from one person to give to another, it benefits one citizen at the expense of another. Legal plunder comes in many ways and names. Tariffs, benefits, subsidies, public schools, minimum wages, free credit, and so on, these are all legal plunder. Legal plunder is socialism. Legal plunder is a great evil because it erases the conscience of a nation to clearly see the difference between justice and injustice. The result of legal plunder is the loss of moral sense and of respect for the law. No society can prosper without a respect for the law. To regain moral  sense and the respect for the law we have only one option and that is”nobody plunders anybody.” Frederic Bastiat proclaimed,”No legal plunder. This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic.” Our laws should protect and defend our rights to life, liberty and property and not to condone legal plunder as is the case with our government. We have to go back to our Constitution or our nation will destroy itself.

The Family Government

Sovereignty, hierarchy, laws, sanctions, and succession characterize all forms of government including the family. We will look at how these five characteristics apply to the family government which is established through the binding vows the parents take when they get married. These vows become the source of the family’s sovereignty.

Sovereignty: “Who’s in charge?”

When it comes to family government the husband and wife are in charge of the family, they are the final court of appeal, they settle the children’s disputes. The parents also have the right to exclude other governments from interfering with their children.

Hierarchy:”To whom do I report?”

In a family the children are under the authority of the parents, they must obey their parents. There is also authority among the children. The younger children must obey the older children, unless the older children are contradicting the parents. The family hierarchy is parents, older children and younger children.

Laws:”What are the rules?”

The rules in the family are set by the parents, their word is law. If they say you have to clean your room every day than that becomes a rule and so on.

Sanctions:”What do I get if I obey or disobey?”

The right to impose sanctions in the family belong to the parents. If a child does clean his room everyday at the end of the week the parents can reward the child for his obedience. However if a child does not clean his room, the parents discipline the child for disobeying the rule they set down.

Succession:”Does this outfit have a future?”

In the family, when the children become adults they get married thus starting their own family. Family government is the longest lasting form of government from the beginning of the world to the present day. The family has always had a future.

Having looked at the five characteristics of government, we see how these apply perfectly to the family, the longest and most ancient form of government.