Open Letter to America22 June 2015 by Rob John
There has been a war of ideas ever since man could think and as all ideas do, they have consequences. Ideas come from experience, knowledge, reason and education. Some result in good; others result in bad. Since that day, two and only two, political views have sprung from mankind.
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable — whatever its political form might be.
It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.
The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.
How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy.
- Francis Bastiat
One believes in individual freedom and the other believes the government must be free to control and shape us.
"WE ALL DECLARE FOR LIBERTY; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name----liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names----liberty and tyranny."
-----Abraham Lincoln, 1864
The one believes our human rights existed before governments were created by mankind. The other believes our human rights come from government and those we elect to protect those rights.
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. - James Madison
One believes too much government causes problems; the other believes that government can solve all problems.
One of them collects facts first, considering the options, weighing their feelings and deciding. The other one, first considers their feelings, and perverts facts to support those feelings.
One of them thinks people are incapable of living their lives freely. The other encourages and respects each person's freedom.
Both believe in government, but see different purposes for it.
One believes the purpose of government is solely to protect our rights; so we may live as freely as possible. But the other believes government is a tool, for their use, to create a utopian world of their design.
The one believes utopia is when everyone is free; the other when only they are free.
One believes in persuasion to change society, the other believes in using force to bend society to conform with their ideas of utopia.
The one has a closed-system of thought, where nothing contrary to their beliefs is allowed to be considered and history has no value. Anything contrary to their beliefs is treated as though it were evil. The other studies history and human nature, to learn what works, what doesn't and continually adjusts their ideas based on experience.
One has denied and suppressed freedom throughout all of human history; which resulted in the worst atrocities imaginable, such as hunger, torture, war, genocide, slavery and mass murder. Mankind was denied its human rights until relatively recent times.
One believes governments are created to protect us from others; the other says government must protect us from ourselves.
One judges appearances, while the other judges character.
The one seeks short-term gains, while the other seeks long-term gains.
One seeks division, the other seeks harmony.
One believes in good results; the other believes in good intentions.
Both believe in equality, but have different meanings.
The one believes "all men are created equal" and inherent to being human each has the same rights, to do as they please, as long as they do not harm another's human rights. The other believes they are superior and must decide for others how they should live their lives.
One believes rights are what you can do in society without action from others. The other believes they have a right to something from others.
The one says these men who formed this Constitution were corrupt, while the other admires and honors these men for their contributions to mankind, in spite of the times they lived in. They were not perfect, as no one is, but they risked EVERYTHING for everyone.
The one judges these men personally; the other judges their ideas and contributions to society.
One presumes these men could solve all that ails mankind; the other understands we all have limitations and short-comings.
This is a real war. America is an idea. When looked through the lens of history, America has been an experiment of new ideas, in a new world, to inspire a new world order.
Although freedom is not a new idea; America came about after a particularly intense period of renewed thinking about man's liberty and society and the proper role of government. These very ideas were coalesced into our Constitution, to safeguard our life, liberty and property, in others words our human rights as men and women.
The ideas of this other, is as old as mankind, it is of the old world, and the old world order they are desperately trying to resurrect. I began this letter talking of two world views. The two views are not political, they are philosophical.
The one is individualism, this is the new world order of freedom for all. The other is the collectivism of the old world order, where only the few, the elite are free.
Many will disagree with what I am about to write, but one should never be shy about expressing their honest beliefs. There are many names for political views. You've heard of the left and right, the conservatives and liberals, libertarians, democrats and republicans, socialists, fascists and communists. I do not believe in the left and right theory, as neither did President Ronald Reagan. He believed mankind has reached upwards, since the beginning, toward freedom; from the tyranny of collectivism.
One party, the Libertarians are particularly devoted to the principles of individual freedom, whereas the Republican party believed in individual freedom as well, but to a lesser extent. Sadly the same cannot be said today of the Republicans.
All that can be said of the others is that they seek to harm your human rights. They are the collectivists, composed of Democrats, Socialists, Progressives, Fascist and Communists and others The current infestation of old world ideas came to America around the turn of the twentieth century, in particular from followers of Karl Marx. The idea of communal-ism has been around since at least the beginnings of written history, which is about 5,000 years. Communal-ism arrived with the first Europeans to settle North America. They nearly died of starvation. They survived by freeing the people of communal-ism and adopted capitalism, which merely means free people interacting freely with each other for mutual benefit. Many other attempts at communal-ism were tried throughout American history and all have failed.
The Individualist believe peace is achieved when no ones rights are being harmed. The Collectivists believe peace will be achieved when there is but one world government. a communist government, with an iron grip on your human rights.
Do not be deceived if this seems outlandish. This is an old war, a war of ideas, and its very real.
On the battlefield of ideas, winning requires moving towards the sound of the guns.
- Nathan Hale
Today, America is losing this war of ideas, because too many good men and women have been silent and we have forgotten what freedom is.
It's time to wake up, its nearly too late.