The right to life is the right to resist tyranny by Larry Warrick
(libertarian)
Saturday, January 16, 2010
What timescale in the future do you care about? If you were to worry about it, how far ahead would you look: 30, 50, 100 years? There are those who are forced to think only in short terms, a month or less. Paycheck to paycheck. What if you were looking for asteroids or maybe running a Ponzi scheme? Would you care about what happened long after you have become 'dearly departed'? What about a counterfeit money scam? What if you found out that you could enrich your children and grandchildren and probably their children in the sure knowledge that somewhere down the road your heirs would have to face the fact that their great-great grandfather was a crook, a charatan, a scoundrel? Would you do it? Would you even think about it?
As you probably know, history is written in the short term and interpreted in the long term. If you could gain prominence and fame in your lifetime at the expense of future generations that you will never meet; if you knew for sure that your name would be honored as that of a great statesman or entrepreneur amongst your successors, at least during the lifetime of those who know you..... Tempting, eh?
What if you could make rules that were binding on future generations? What if you were to use the right to property as a vehicle to bind your heirs in a legal framework, like the feudal systems of entail or primogeniture? A framework that is woven into the fabric of their daily lives, and their children's lives, and so on. What if those whose lives they touched were also bound by your words in posterity? Naturally, no-one can predict the future with any degree of certainty. I can assert that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning at a specified time; based on historical evidence such a prediction would be credible. But what if I tried to predict the winner of the next Derby, or the Super bowl? Would there not be more detractors? Of course. How then, could one assume the authority and moral rectitude to make rules that are binding on future generations without proffering the ability to make changes or alterations through peaceful means as time or events showed prudent? If the authority is sound, what rules would you make to ensure the continuance of your heirs' fortune, and their ability to enjoy it? How would you provide for their well-being? Would you care?
I guess the topic boils down to a question of how many of your successors you attempt to provide for. Given our penchant for legislating beyond the limits of our constitution, is this not a violation of the rights of those not yet born or even conceived? Have we taken our obsession with our own comfort and security beyond even paying lip service to the most basic considerations; the interests of generations yet to come? Who will pay our debts as a nation when we as individuals are no longer around to be held accountable?
I imagine these were the kinds of questions our founders asked of themselves when drafting our constitution. For them, enforcing limitations on the future structure of the union and how it would be governed was foremost. Our constitution is more a commentary on what is wrong with oligarchy than what is right with republicanism, just as the Ten Commandments are more a commentary on what is wrong with paganism than what is right with Judeo-Christianity. Of the Ten Commandments, 8 begin with "Thou shall not" and two are reminders to have respect for your elders and betters. I find our constitution has similar characteristics. Is it not ultimately a question of rights? Do we have the right to burden those who will walk in our footsteps long after our passing?
Our founding fathers saw fit to declare that when government becomes tyrannical, it is the right of free men to abolish it, and institute a government that is more to their liking. Is it possible that they had no right to legislate the moral lives of future generations? It is said that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Equally importantly, it was founded on the understanding that government exists through the consent of the governed. What if we, as heirs to our constitution, were to withdraw our consent to be governed?
To deny another human being the right to life and property is an offense against the law of God (Unfortunately for those in our legal and political professions, God does not require a trial by jury nor does he set minimum or maximum sentencing guidelines, so it applies to you, too, especially that part about false witness and theft). As asserted by our founders in the declaration of independence and the constitution, among the most basic rights of all is the right to life. If violated, there will be no Miranda reading, no trip to jail for photos and fingerprints, no right to representation; just you and your sin with no case to plead and an inevitable accounting with the Almighty. An unalienable right is God-given. Break God's law and you face God's justice.
The first ten amendments enshrined in our constitution as the 'Bill of Rights' are easily seen as extrapolations of the single right to life. The right to speak; the right to property; the right to freedom of movement; the right to deny tyranny; all are based on the unalienable right, as passed down to Moses, our leader from slavery, our God-given right to life. What is life without the right to live that life, the freedom to choose, for good or evil? The founders understood this and tried in their way to codify God's law without mandating God's deification. One may suppose they understood that religious doctrine, too, may one day be found lacking and in need of abolition or modification. In case they missed anything or got it wrong, they gave us, their successors and heirs, the ability to change, add to or completely scrap any part, or all of their recommendations, should we see fit.
Our government is writing checks our grandchildren will not be able to cash. Our government is laying the groundwork for further erosion of our constitutional rights and freedoms, laws of tyranny for our progeny to obey. Our parents and grandparents tolerated the most egregious affronts to our heritage. Do we not have a duty to our heirs to say 'enough'? Let's abolish government, as a free people may, and after a period of reflection, consider if we really need this greedy parasite after all.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 20
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Larry Warrick only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Larry Warrick is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2010-01-17 16:56:26
Hi Larry,
I agree individuals should say "enough" but not out of some assumed sense of duty. It should be done because it is necessary in order to create the kind of community we want to live in. No one wants to live in the kind of hell we are sliding towards. Yet, the lure of the slide is too much for most folks to bother opposing it. The problem is that we are all in this together. We'll all suffer the consequences whether we deserve them or not.
I don't know what your plan for abolishing government might be so I can't comment on that. It makes more sense to me to promote good, limited government rather than to pursue an freedom from government.
I really don't think the continental congress would be a good start toward abolishing externally imposed coercion. For all that I like Michael Badnarik and admire his work for liberty and his idealism in teaching about the constitution, the fact is that classical liberalism failed. It failed utterly to live up to its assertions.
Governments are not instituted among men with the consent of the governed. In fact, governments are instituted by those who seek to run the government entirely for their benefit.
Governments are not in fact instituted to protect life, liberty, and property. That is a pretty idea, but has proven to be a lie. Rather, governments are in fact instituted to separate the unwary from their property for the benefit of those who run the government. They don't care whether you consent or not. They are quite willing to kill you if you get in their way.
Since 1945 the government of the USA has used nuclear weapons on civilian targets not only in Japan but also in the USA. That government lied about the missile gap (there were 6 nuclear tipped Russian rockets, not 500) and the Gulf of Tonkin incident (LBJ said those sailors were shooting at flying fish) and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They lie and people die. They have tested LSD on civilians without their permission and they have tested other chemical weapons on Americans. They used chemical weapons aggressively against the Branch Davidians who were slaughtered by the government.
You can believe whatever you wish to believe about the continental congress. But I don't believe there is any point in forming another failed union after having left the one that oppresses me.
My suggestion has been and continues to be agorism, a word that derives from the Greek word agora referring to the market place. I use this back-ronym to convey the concept: avoiding government and operating realistic individualistic sensible markets. Voltaire's advice was to tend to your own garden, and I concur.
How can you say classical liberalism has failed and in the next breath point out a lot of reasons why we have never lived in a classical liberal society? Can't fail if it ain't tried.......
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
