When this country was founded, the perspective of
government was different from what is now claimed to be correct. The Founding Fathers perceived that the
political spectrum was lineal. At one
end was the total rule of a single sovereign, either a king or dictator, in
other words tyranny. On the other end
was the total lack of a governing body or anarchy. Today the political spectrum places communism
at one end and fascism at the other. The
reality of today’s view is that communism and fascism are almost two peas in a
pod. The only distinction between the
two is that under communism, there is no ownership of private property. Fascism allows for private ownership but the
government tells you what you can and can’t do with that property. Both are bent on government control of all
assets.
With the Founders perspective,
tyranny may or may not allow private ownership of property, either way the
ruler tells his subjects what to do with his land and theirs. However, with anarchy there is no ruler or
rules so the result is chaos.
The Founders sought to establish a
government that was half way between tyranny and anarchy, which they called “People’s
Law. It established a government in
which the people were the sovereign and the rules established applied equally
to all. There was to be neither royalty
nor serfdom. Each faired according to his
efforts and ingenuity, however, each was also to allow others right to do the
same.
To illustrate the difference
between ruler’s law and people’s law, let’s look at the fundamental principles
of each. First, ruler’s law:
Ruler’s Law
1.
Authority nearly always established by force,
violence, and conquest.
2.
All sovereign power is considered to be in the
conqueror or his descendants.
3.
The people are not equal, but are divided into
classes and are all looked upon as “subjects” of the king.
4.
The entire country is considered the property of
the ruler. He speaks of it as his “realm”.
5.
The thrust of governmental power is from the top
down, not from the people upward.
6.
The people have no unalienable rights. The “king giveth and the king taketh away”.
7.
Government is by the whims of men, not by the
fixed rule of law that the people need in order to govern their affairs with
confidence.
8.
The ruler issues edicts that are called “the law”. He then interprets the law and enforces it,
thus maintaining tyrannical control over the people.
9.
Under Ruler’s Law, problems are always solved by
issuing more edicts or laws, setting up more bureaus, harassing the people with
more regulators, and charging the people for these “services” by continually
adding to their tax burden.
10. Freedom
is never looked upon as a viable solution to anything.
11. The
long history of Ruler’s Law is one of blood and terror, both anciently and in
modern times. Under it, the people are
stratified into an aristocracy of the ruler’s retinue while the lot of the
common people is one of perpetual poverty, excessive taxation, stringent
regulations, and a continuous existence of misery.
People’s Law
1.
They considered themselves a commonwealth of
freemen.
2.
All decisions and the selection of leaders had
to be with the consent of the people, preferably by full consensus, not just a
majority.
3.
The laws by which they were governed were
considered natural laws given by divine dispensation, and were so well known by
the people they did not have to be written down.
4.
Power was dispersed among the people and never
allowed to concentrate in any one person or group. Even in time of war, the authority granted to
the leaders was temporary and the power of the people to remove them was direct
and simple.
5.
Primary responsibility for resolving problems
rested first with the individual, then the family, then the tribe or community,
then the region, and finally the nation.
6.
They were organized into small, manageable
groups where every adult had a voice and a vote. They divided the people into units of ten
families who elected a leader; then fifty families who elected a leader; then a
hundred families who elected a leader; and then a thousand families who elected
a leader.
7.
They believed the rights of the individual were
considered unalienable and could not be violated without risking the wrath of
Divine justice as well as civil retribution by the people’s judges.
8.
The system of justice structure was based on
severe punishment unless there was complete reparation to the person who had
been wronged. There were only four
“crimes” or offenses against the whole people.
These were treason, cowardice, desertion, and homosexuality. These were considered capital offenses.
9.
They always attempted to solve problems on the
level where the problem originated. If
this was impossible, they went no higher than was absolutely necessary to get a
remedy. Usually only the most complex
problems involving the welfare of the whole people ever went to the leaders for
solution.
(All of these points came from “The
5000 Year Leap” by Cleon Skousen.)
With some thought, we can easily see which set of
rules this country was founded on and which ones we have migrated to over
time. Today, the power has been removed
from those governed and placed on those that govern. Even the checks and balances placed in the
Constitution by the Founders have been undermined until they are practically
non-existent.
Let me provide you with a scenario
to demonstrate how this has happened. We
start with a community of several families of different sizes. Ralph is single. He owns a car that carries him to and from
work. John and Rachael have no children
but have two cars, but they generally only use one of them because they ride to
work together. Daniel and Emily have two
children but no car. Either Daniel goes
to work on a bicycle or on the bus and Emily does all her shopping by riding
the bus to and from the stores.
Ralph doesn’t think it is right
that John and Rachael have two cars, one of which is seldom used, and Daniel
and Emily don’t have any but have children so they need transportation that is
more independent. So one night he decides
that he will do Daniel and Emily a favor and get them a car. He goes to John and Rachael’s house, takes
their “spare” car, and delivers it to Daniel and Emily.
The next morning, John calls the
police because he sees his car in Daniel’s driveway. The police come and investigate. They find out that Ralph had taken the car
and arrest him.
Ralph spends the next three years
in jail for grand theft auto. He spends
his time in jail learning how to manipulate the law. He learns how to use it to accomplish his goal
of getting Daniel and his family a car.
When he comes home, he starts a
petition to get the law changed so that no family in the town can have two cars
until every family in town has at least one.
He passes the petition around and gets enough signatures to get the
initiative on the ballot. When it comes
time to vote, no one pays very close attention to the initiative and votes for
it because it has a very convincing title on the ballot.
Now the law has to take
effect. John and Rachael have to give
one of their cars up so it is given to Daniel and Emily. Finally, Ralph has attained his desired goal.
He has obtained “social equality” and
feels that “social justice” has been served.
This scenario more or less follows
what has been happening in our society. Originally,
the laws the government followed prohibited it from doing anything an
individual could not do for himself. Now,
the government has usurped, by deception in many cases, tasks that the
individual is not authorized to do for himself.
The government should perform the
following:
1.
Police the streets
2.
Provide infrastructure for the area governed,
(streets, sewer, water, etc. for the city, county, state, federal).
3.
Collect taxes and disburse those funds to pay
for the infrastructure.
4.
Provide Fire Protection
5.
Zoning and building codes
6.
In essence, to do those things that need to be
done but it would be impractical for the individual to do for himself.
The question, now, is how do we
return to the proper role of government?
How do we return the responsibility for self, back to the individual? How do we rein in an out-of-control bureaucracy
that controls the law-making process that was specifically delegated to
Congress? The only way given to us by
the Founders is to use Article V of the Constitution to call for a Convention
of States to amend it and clarify areas that have been interpreted in such a
manner as to give more power to the Federal Government than was intended by the
Founders.
Amending the Constitution won’t be
an easy task. Even if it is amended to
return responsibility back to the citizens, it will be an uphill battle to get
those who are used to being supported by the government to take responsibility
for themselves and their families. Those
individuals will fight tooth and nail to keep receiving the “entitlements” that
they have been receiving from the government.
They have become so used to taking from the “haves” that they will take
to the streets to keep it coming. Their
desire for the “dole” to continue comes from the philosophy of those in government. They have been teaching the poor that they
ARE entitled to what they receive because the rich have stolen it from
them. They have been steeped in the
ideology that they are entitled to government support. Those who have worked hard to attain their
wealth “owe” it to them because they have been less fortunate. That is what “social equality” is all about.
So, if it were up to you, which
would you prefer “social justice” or individual freedom? Do you prefer “ruler’s law” or “people’s law”?
