Most Americans favor living by liberty over totalitarianism. Most Americans want to live within their own sphere of activity in which the law is content to leave them alone. Most Americans would much rather live this way than live by having government in every aspect of their lives, which we know as totalitarianism.
The Libertarian Party is a tiny political party in the USA having been around for decades. The members of this party claim to be for liberty rather than totalitarianism. To most Americans that should sound pretty good since the Democrats and the Republicans seem to pass ever more laws, which looks ever more like American-branded totalitarianism.
Yet it is little wonder why most Americans ignore the Libertarian Party? Big "L" LPers seem quite confused about liberty — the absence of law in the presence of government — and right — diminished liberty of others on one's behalf.
Libertarians pride themselves on what they call the non-aggression principle (the NAP) though some call it the zero aggression principle (the ZAP). To them, the initiation of force against persons or property is illegitimate. Who could disagree?
A review of official Libertarian Party platform reveals a muddled mess and incoherency. Early on in the platform one can read this bit of Libertarian Party comedy gold:
We believe ... that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships...
How do they propose to banish? Banishing requires force, that which is against the NAP / ZAP! To banish means to proclaim as outlaw, to forbid. It's late 1300s Old French into English.
What good anyone can find in the Libertarian Party platform is merely a re-wording of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, but a re-wording that lacks clarity. A deeper reading of the platform reveals troubling Libertarian Party thought.
Under the heading titled 3.5 Rights and Discrimination, the Libertarian Party reveals contradiction. In the second sentence, the party platform is:
"We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that "right.""
which follows the first sentence:
"Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights."
There can be no right without duty. That is the reality of more than 799 years of Anglo-Norman and American jurisprudence.
Obligation means duty. One must fulfill duty by either doing X or not doing X so that another can exercise one's right. That is jurisprudence.
The right to life is a natural right. The right to life imposes the duty on everyone else to not violate that right of anyone. The natural right to one's life imposes a duty upon all others to not murder.
Doing one's duty of not violating another's right fulfills one's duty. One can only enjoy the right of living, of not being murdered if everyone does his or her duty, fulfills his or her duty of not killing.
If a right is inherent, it is natural. That which is natural is by birth. That which is inherent is closely connected as with those qualities arising from being born and alive.
Claiming that a natural right cannot ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that right and then claiming that people have inherent (natural) rights is contradiction. There can not be right without duty. It's impossibility.
If one supports the LP belief that a natural right cannot ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that right, then one must support the the idea of murdering anyone on a whim for any reason, any time in the absence of government and criminal law. From the LPs own manifesto, they reject natural rights because they reject natural duties.
If one supports 3.5 of the LP manifesto, that no one has duty to fulfill the natural right of another, then one supports anarchy. In anarchy, no one has duty not to kill another. Thus, no one has a natural right to life. Only under anarchy, does anyone not have any rights as no one has duties.
Before there is government, there is society and before society, only individuals. If there were but one individual on earth, that one would be free to go and roam wherever, live wherever, eat whatever. He would be free even to kill himself. He would be right to do all of those acts.
Anyone can conceive of there being the best land on earth, the most productive, yielding the best food and the best climate.
As soon as two exist, there can be contention for that best land. As both have equal rights in themselves as described in the foregoing, both can not occupy the same land at the same time and derive the same benefit.
One fix for this is for one to murder the other. As both have the right to live, with the advent of both, both have the duty to not murder the other. So while murder would solve one guy's problem, he could not do so without failing in his duty while at the same time violating the right of another in an egregious manner.
The only failing of this, of course, is that if only two existed, there would be no one left to punish the murderer, in any manner including banishment (ostracism) from those in society of property.
So rather than resort to murder, they could agree that one would take the next best land and the one taking the best land would compensate the one taking the second best.
Now we can see this scenario happening as more individuals arise on the earth. As each cannot occupy the same land at the same time and derive the same benefit, each succeeding one could agree with all others occupying better land to be compensated. The alternative is murder and the more who exist, the greater the scale of that murder.
However, if one murders another with better land, rejecting compensation, the rest who are in this society of property, where property means right of ownership and never the thing owned, could impose upon the one disrupting harmony, banishment at minimum or death at maximum.
It seems that some libertarians reject the belief that fulfilling duty means not doing an act as well as doing an act. One can fulfill a duty by not doing X.
You have a duty to not trespass on my land. You fulfill that duty every day you refrain from trespassing. You have a duty to not steal the fruit growing upon my trees. You fulfill that duty every day you refrain from stealing my fruit.
I have the right to have my land free from trespassers. I have the right to have my fruit not stolen by others.
My property, that is my right of ownership in my land and my fruit, makes it so, whether I live with others in society of property under customary law or in conjunction with others in society, also with government, which establishes civil law and criminal law.
Civil law requires court in administration of justice. It is a creature of legislators. Customary law, or law of society, that which proceeds government is a creature of agreed upon custom of persons. Where there is law, whether civil law or customary law, and where there are rights, there must be duties.
It's impossible to support natural rights and then reject natural duties. To do so is to be muddled in mind, to live illogically, to live absurdly.
LPers are free to reject reality and jurisprudence. Who should stop them? Who should violate their NAP/ZAP?
It's no wonder why they can't make headway in America. Stupid is as stupid does or so said Forrest Gump.
Read more ...
The American way of life is the way of liberty. Said another way, it is the way of self-rule, of autonomy. At least it used to be.
There were Americans long ago who had it right. Government is a creature of men and women living in society of property, a creature that must be controlled and contained. The creature never should never grow bigger and stronger than its creators.
That is why those Americans gave us the Bill of Rights. All of the Bill of Rights deals with the duties the then newly formed federal government had with respect to any individual.
However, since World War 1, successive Congresses have stripped Americans of the American way, little-by-little. Many Americans have been content to let this happen as long as they have gained income through subsidy, welfare or monopoly.
The biggest failing in discourse over the Bill of Rights is the lack of talk emphasizing the duties of Congress and agents of government has to any American.
The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with the states in compact, which is what the rest of the Constitution details. The only mention of states within the Bill of Rights is in the 10th.
A reading of the Bill of Rights with the words of then-prevailing English explained reveals how far many Congresses have gone against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What most fail to see is how the U.S. Supreme Court works in favor of its employer, Congress.
Acts in the 20th Century and even more so in the 21st Century have been disastrous to Americans and our Bill of Rights.
There isn't a United States without full adherence to the Bill of Rights. The Constitution becomes null and void without full compliance by Congress and its executive in their duties to our rights and their prohibition from our liberties.
1st Amendment
Congress can't make laws and thus diminish liberty (autonomy, or self-rule) regarding religion, public speaking, public congregation, public petition.
2nd Amendment
Congress and its executive have a duty not to interfere in anyone's expressly stated right both to possess (keep) weapons of any kind (arms) — guns, knives, spears, axes, shields — and to bring forth (bear) those weapons whenever.
3rd Amendment
Congress is denied the right and thus any individual lacks the duty to house any soldier during peace — when Congress has not declared war. Only owners of houses have the duty to house soldiers during times when Congress has declared war, but Congress can only exercise this right if describing the exact manner of such housing with law.
4th Amendment
Congress and its executive have a duty not to interfere in anyone's expressly stated right of possession (secure) over themselves, their houses and contents thereof, their documents and everything they have produced (effects). Only when an agent of the Federal Government has a warrant that specifically and in detail describes exactly where should be searched, exactly what should be taken in possession (seized), and exactly who should be taken in possession (seized), can such an agent act.
5th Amendment
Congress and its executive have a right to assemble a Grand Jury but have a duty to present legal document containing a charge (indictment) against anyone for a capital crime.
Anyone has the right to ignore any claims of having committed a capital crime, unless Congress exercises its right to assemble a Grand Jury and perform its duty of indictment.
Congress and its executive have the right to ignore the foregoing involving military personnel during times when Congress has formally declared war or when there has been decree of public danger.
Anyone has the right not to be tried twice for the same crime. Anyone has the right to not testify against himself.
Thus, government has the duty to not attempt to try anyone twice. Anyone of government has the duty to not try to force someone to testify against himself.
Therefore, government lacks authority for torture. Anyone of government has the duty not to try to trick anyone into testifying against himself.
Congress and its executive have the duty to establish law and then perform in adherence to that law before taking anyone's life or right of ownership (property) in anything or before restricting anyone's liberty (autonomy, self-rule).
When Congress and its executive have fulfilled their duty to establish law to take away anyone's right of ownership (property) in something so that all Americans can use it (public), Congress must pay that one the prevailing market price (just compensation; equitable weighing of one thing against another) and not merely any sum they feel like paying.
6th Amendment
Congress and its executive have the duty to prosecute anyone (liability) in open court (public) and to do so swiftly (speedy; without delay). Thus, anyone has the right to be prosecuted only in open court and in short time from when being charged with a crime.
Anyone accused has the right to be judged by an impartial jury. Congress and its executive have the duty to assemble an impartial jury.
Congress and its executive have the duty to define legal districts and prosecute anyone only in that district.
Anyone accused has the right to be judged only within the court district where the alleged crime has been committed.
Anyone accused has the right to be told the reason for action (cause) and what supposedly happen (nature; course of things).
Congress and its executive have the duty to present witnesses.
Congress and its executive have the duty to create law which establishes the means for anyone accused to have supporting witnesses (witnesses in his favor).
Congress and its executive have the duty to create law which establishes the means for anyone accused to have a lawyer (Assistance of Counsel for his defence).
Anyone has the right to have supporting witnesses (witnesses in his favor). Anyone has the right to have lawyer.
7th Amendment
Anyone has the right to a jury at trial when facing a loss of more than twenty dollars as the outcome.
Anyone has the right to not face twice in subsequent court the same facts presented in a case when that one faces a loss of more than twenty dollars as the outcome.
8th Amendment
Congress and its executive have the duty to not impose oppressive (excessive) bail.
Congress and its executive have the duty to not impose oppressive (excessive) fines.
Congress and its executive have the duty to not impose neither rude, unfeeling, bloody (cruel) punishment nor not ordinary, not custom (unusual) punishment.
9th Amendment
Merely listing the foregoing rights does not give Congress the right to later define duty upon anyone in other matters not contained in the Constitution, stripping anyone of liberty and imposing duty upon them.
10th Amendment
Unless expressly stated in the Constitution, Congress and its executive lack the authority (power) to override the capacity (power) anyone has in liberty (autonomy, self-rule).
As well, when the Constitution prohibits the States' legislatures and their executives from having authority (power), anyone keeps his capacity (power) in liberty (autonomy, self-rule).
Only when the Constitution fails to prohibit the States' legislatures and their executives from having authority (power), can the States' legislatures and their executives take it upon themselves to establish law and thus imposing duty and conferring right.
For a crash course in jurisprudence, read here:
LAW VS LIBERTY AND THE AMERICAN WAY.
Read more ...
