It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong Page 5

  11

  America’s military is currently spread over 130 countries in the world and has more than 900 permanent military bases. The maintenance of this foreign empire is costing approximately one trillion dollars per year, as well as countless numbers of American and foreign military and civilian lives. Not only does this make America’s homeland defense extremely weaker (and, as we have seen before, it actually creates more enemies), it is also making America’s economy extremely weaker, and will inevitably lead to a collapse in the U.S. dollar. Will this scenario not bring about a “deteriorated” United States like Paine had worried about in Common Sense?

  How Special Is Your Interest?

  Paine’s urgency was his understanding of the long-term effects British mercantilist policies would have on the economy of the colonies. The passage of the Navigation Acts in 1650 permitted the colonists to trade only with Britain, and if they wished to trade with other nations, the goods traded must first be shipped to British ports. Through this system, Britain was able to force the colonies to focus on the production of raw materials, which were shipped to Britain where they were changed into higher-priced manufactured goods that were shipped back and sold to the colonies. This mercantilist system created large and successful business elites in Britain during this period. As explained in the Library of Economics and Liberty, “the mercantile system served the interests of merchants and producers such as the British East India Company, whose activities were protected or encouraged by the state.” It was Paine’s belief that the British government would just parcel out unused land and resources in the colonies to the same British elites, who were the beneficiaries of the British government’s mercantilist policies.

  12

  Paine believed this land would be used much more productively by the colonists to do such things as pay down their debts and build a better society. What happens when the United States federal government pursues policies that favor and strengthen certain economic elites, and then parcels out lands and resources to these groups? Everyone certainly remembers the disaster that ensued in the summer of 2010 when the U.S. government gave oil giant British Petroleum (BP) the rights to drill into the sea bed on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. After the Exxon Valdez disaster off Alaska in 1989 had been cleaned up and nearly paid for by Exxon, the oil companies lobbied the Congress for liability limits—maximum amounts that they could be held to pay in the event of a disaster. A Republican Congress and President Clinton together made it the law that oil companies would be limited to pay seventy-five million dollars for cleanups, and the taxpayers—that would be you—would pay the rest. In return, the feds would be able to tell the oil companies where to drill, and how to transport their oil.

  In the case of BP, it asked the State of Louisiana if it could drill in five hundred feet of water, and Louisiana said it could. The federal government vetoed that and told BP it could only drill in five thousand feet of water. Never mind that no oil company had ever cleaned up a broken well at that depth and never mind that the feds had never monitored a broken well at that depth and never mind that BP only needed to set aside seventy-five million dollars in case something went wrong. The feds trumped BP’s engineers, and the feds trumped the wishes of the folks who live along the Gulf Coast, and the feds decided where this oil well would be drilled.

  Disaster struck. The feds did nothing. Oil gushed out in an amount that is so great as to be immeasurable. Political pressure grew. President Obama eventually panicked because he believes that his federal government can right every wrong, regulate every activity, and protect us from every catastrophe (“Daddy, did you plug the hole?”). He is wrong. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was ready to build barriers to protect his State’s coastline, and the feds said no. The President even invoked powers that allowed him to supervise the cleanup using BP personnel and equipment. And the oil still gushed. Then, the President stopped all oil drilling in the Gulf, putting thousands out of work. Then, he demanded billions from BP so his team could decide who gets it, and a terrified BP gave him all the cash he asked for.

  13

  So, the government that foolishly limited BP’s maximum liability, the government that claimed it knew where best to drill, the government that actually stopped locals from protecting their own shoreline—that would be the same government that bankrupted Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the post office, Amtrak, and virtually everything it has managed—now wants to decide who gets BP’s cash.

  The last time this government had this much private cash to give away, during the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, it disregarded well-settled law and gave it to the labor unions. To whom will it give this cash—the innocent injured or its political friends?

  The government cannot protect us from every catastrophe, especially ones its rules have facilitated. How about this: That government is best which governs least. The people have a right to a government that obeys the laws of economics, the laws of physics, and the Constitution. Let private enterprise do what it does best, and keep politics out of the way. If the Constitution was written to keep the government off the people’s backs, it is time for the feds to get off.

  I Revoke My Consent to the Government’s Declaration of Dependence

  Some important and influential American colonists recognized Paine’s criticisms, and consequently exercised their positive moral duty to disobey an unjust government, a duty to which we will return in the last chapter of this book. These colonists, who were all delegates of the thirteen colonies, gathered together to form the first Continental Congress of the United States of America. Their first job was to form a committee of delegates to draft the first law of the United States, which was the Declaration of Independence. On June 11th 1776, the Congress appointed Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston to a committee in charge of drafting the declaration.

  14

  Thomas Jefferson’s Movin’ On Up on the Free Side

  This committee then voted to delegate the responsibility of drafting the declaration to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. John Adams subsequently passed the sole responsibility to Jefferson because of Jefferson’s education in the classical liberal philosophy espoused by John Locke on which the Declaration was to be based. Also, Adams gave three other reasons for why Jefferson should draft the document: “Reason first, you are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second, I am obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third, you can write ten times better than I can.”

  Most Americans are aware of the existence of the Declaration of Independence, but when was the last time you read it? Or better yet, when was the last time you heard someone quote, speak, or teach about the Declaration of Independence? Many times when I quote this document in conversations I have with many Americans, highly educated people nonetheless, they have not the slightest clue of where the quotes I speak of originate. Some even maintain that it was something written by Karl Marx!

  Let us now look at the text of the Declaration of Independence. The most important section is the second paragraph, because it is where all of the meat is found of the colonists’ moral and political philosophies on which they were basing the need for independence:

  We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.6

  As we have seen, a self-evident truth is a statement of fact that proves itself; one that needs no explanation. As we have also seen, one of those self-evident truths is that all men are created equal. An important distinction must be made here. The meaning of equal is not meant to be construed as the equality of ability, brain power, wealth, or that all men are equal in every conceivable sense. However, it restated Locke and Paine’s position, which was that no man has a mandate from God to rule over other men. What this moral position sets up is a governmenta
l system or a society where the king, even if his name is George, or Abraham, or George W., is not a superior moral instrument with power over the natural rights of the people whom he attempts to govern.

  15

  Put differently, no man is endowed with rights superior to anyone else; and this is the absolute fundamental principle on which Locke and Jefferson wrote and upon which the American government was formed. No scientific study or knowledge should be needed to conclude that it is a self-evident truth that the best system of governance is one that recognizes and guarantees equality of rights for all.

  The next part of the Declaration goes on to state “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” In the old days, the king could essentially do no wrong since he was actually regarded as the only person who had the power to create the laws, which power the ancient beliefs held was given to him from God. Since this was the case, then the king was to make all laws and rule all of his subjects, and this was seen as the only means of achieving peace.

  When Jefferson recognized the truism that all men are created equal, he was introducing a government in which the rights of every man were recognized and respected by every other man, even those in the government. When Jefferson stated that all humans are endowed with “certain unalienable Rights,” he meant that not only are we all born fully possessed of our rights, but these rights are unalienable, meaning they can only be surrendered by conscious intentional criminal behavior. As Jefferson wrote, “Everyone would agree that each of us is born without governmental permission or involvement. It is evident our very lives come from nature or God. The government does not breathe life into anyone.” Jefferson certainly was not introducing the system we have today; where Congress gains its powers from a majority vote and then has the ability to right every wrong, and regulate every behavior. Where does a government get its power from? Jefferson answered. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

  The common usage of the word secure has been corrupted over the years to mean “to obtain” as well as “to safeguard.” When this line was penned, however, secure only meant “to protect,” so, just as Locke said men are born with certain rights, to make certain no one can take these rights away from them, men created governments. This sentence also restates the Western premise that governments can only come about, and gain just powers, through a contractual agreement between those who are governed and the government. You must take note that nowhere does Jefferson assert that a government may attain its just powers from the consent of a majority. This means that the consent to be governed must be given by every single person, which also means that if any single person does not give his or her consent to the powers the government exercises over him or her, then they may in fact be unjust powers.

  16

  Conclusion

  Wouldn’t it be in every American’s best safety and economic interests to bring an end to this madness? The stranglehold the federal government has over our everyday lives is almost impossible to escape without a complete abolition of the government. How has the government been able to gain the powers necessary to grow so large?

  Having explored the history and original understanding to the Declaration of Independence, we are now in a position to delve into the Natural Laws which the Declaration sought to secure. And we shall also see that throughout our history, the principles of the Declaration have been trod upon time and time again. If we, as the colonists, continue to live under the yoke of an unjust government, then we must similarly exercise our natural right to disobey the government.

  17

  Chapter 2

  Get Off My Land:

  The Right to Own Property

  In 1985, Henry Weinstein bought a commercial building at 752 Pacific Street in Brooklyn, New York. Never in his wildest dreams did he imagine that twenty years later the government would take it away and hand it over to a private developer. Weinstein said he would have been shocked if his property was taken away for a highway, library, hospital, or bridge; however, seeing it taken to pave the way for Forest City Ratner’s (FCR) Atlantic Yards project was in his own words “the most un-American thing [he has] ever experienced.” FCR, owned by Bruce Ratner and Russian mogul Mikhail Prokhorov, then sold tax-free bonds to finance the development’s keystone venture: An 18,000-seat basketball arena for the New Jersey Nets at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues near downtown Brooklyn. Was America supposed to be a country with a government that can just take away your property against your will and transfer it to a basketball team?

  American history is riddled with stories such as this one of the government either physically taking private property or regulating the usage of the property to the extent where it is rendered useless. Many historians believe that a sovereign state has an inherent right to seize private property. This power originated from tyrannical monarchies in Europe. For example, in 1066, William the Conqueror seized practically all of the land in England. While he maintained absolute power over the land, including the right to repossess it, he granted temporary possessions, called fiefs, to landholders who served as stewards. In return for this favor, the stewards paid fees, pledged allegiance, and provided military services to the king.

  18

  Could you imagine living in a system where you could never own your own property, but instead, you could only possess property while constantly having to pay to use it, and provide your leaders with military service in the event of war? It should not take such a wild imagination to envision this, considering that currently in the United States, we live under such a system. Individuals are forced to pay income taxes for the fruits of their labor. The product of your labor—wages—becomes your property, and when the government taxes it, the government is saying, “We have granted you the right to work. In return you must pay us for the privilege.” As well, we are forced to pay property taxes on our land, and if we do not, the land gets seized by local authorities. At least we are not forced to serve in the military, right? Wrong! When the military draft was instituted in World Wars I and II, and the Vietnam War, refusal to fight was punishable by a penalty of up to five years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

  In the United States, the power of eminent domain is recognized within the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause which states, “Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” Jeffersonians did not believe in granting the government a power of eminent domain. Jefferson, and the soon-to-be anti-Federalists, argued that only by mutual consent, and fair bargain, but never against your will, could the government end up owning your property. Conversely, Alexander Hamilton, and the soon-to-be Federalists, believed the government had an absolute right to take any property it wished, just like the British kings at one time could and did.

  James Madison, the great compromiser and principal author of the Constitution, persuaded the delegates to add the Just Compensation Clause. This was a most unfortunate compromise. While it required the government to pay fair compensation for whatever property it takes, and while—on paper—it required that property could only be taken for “public use,” it also permitted the government to take whatever it wants. Does the government exist to serve individuals, or are we here to provide for the government’s greater wealth?

  19

  First a Basketball Team, then a University

  Norman Siegel represents Tuck-It-Away Associates (Tuck-It-Away), which is fighting the decision of the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) to condemn and seize its land in order to transfer the property to Columbia University, a private entity. Tuck-It-Away is a self-storage business located in the Manhattanville area of Harlem where Columbia University is planning to expand its campus. Since Columbia’s plans could make the property more valuable, the ESDC classifies this as a public benefit, which is one of the justifications for eminent domain. Siegel
has said, “Basically they are saying if there is a Motel 6 and Hilton comes along and says they can make the property more valuable, then it [the Motel 6] can be declared blighted.”1 Siegel also said that many public advocates have begun saying the land in these cases should not be labeled “blighted,” but “coveted.”2

  New York’s highest court upheld Columbia’s expansion plans, which allowed it to go through with its $6.3 billion expansion project. Tuck-It-Away still has a glimmer of hope, as it has petitioned to the United States Supreme Court. Siegel noted, “This is the first time ever that a private education institution can constitute a civic project,” and Nicholas Sprayregen, owner of Tuck-It-Away Inc., said, “It is truly a sad day for anyone who cares about the sanctity of private property rights.”3

  I’m Sorry, but Taking Your Property Will Improve the Economy and Our Campaign Finances

  Before the Weinstein and the Tuck-It-Away cases came before a court, one of the most egregious Supreme Court assaults on private property took place. In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that a group of homeowners could have their property taken from them by the local city council and have it transferred to a private entity. The reasoning was that the new “shopping village” would attract a new corporate headquarters for pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, thus creating many new jobs and added tax revenue, which would in turn benefit the public. The thinking here was that the public is better off having corporate giants take over individual homeowners’ land, because they could use the land better than the homeowners could. Must we now be slaves to our own land, making sure that we are using it in the most productive way for the entire community? Shouldn’t we be able to use our own land however we see fit?