RESTRICTED LIBERTIES
Some things
involve “shades of grey”. “Should we do
this or do that?” But, there is not a
“right vs. wrong” argument in every decision we make. Our days are filled with such choices.
However,
there are other areas where we are dealing with black and white situations; is
it right or wrong, moral or immoral? Is
it okay to steal from your neighbor? No,
it is not! We do not have to debate the
question and weigh the consequences; the clear and obvious answer is “No”. There are some areas where society has turned
morality upside-down. What should be
considered as clearly wrong, is now accepted behavior. Does this make it right or moral, now? No, it makes society wrong and immoral.
How about
“freedom”? Does this subject fall under
the shades of grey or the black and white?
Definition from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary: LIB'ERTY, n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]
1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense… A man enjoys
liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.
2. Natural liberty,
consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.
It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws
and the institutions of social life. This [natural and unlimited] liberty is
abridged by the establishment of government.
3. Civil liberty,
is the liberty of men in a state of society; or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary
and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not
necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. Civil
liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is
secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or
controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil
liberty.
The (civil) liberty of one depends not so much on the removal
of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the (natural) liberty
of others. [Words in parenthesis added
for clarification, bold added for emphasis].
“Freedom” or
“Liberty”, in its truest sense would most line up with the first definition,
which states, “A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to
restrain his actions or volitions.” “Natural liberty” would closely resemble
this concept. It is the state where
someone does as he pleases without anyone to restrict him. As soon as a government is added to this
state; some portion of natural liberties, formerly enjoyed, are taken away. In other words, a man’s actions now face some
form of restrictions due to the government.
People who experience natural liberty, in its fullest sense, would exist
in a society where there are no laws and every man is out for himself – doing
whatever he wants.
Under some
forms of government, “civil liberty”
resides. “…the liberty of men in a state
of society…, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the
safety and interest of the society, state or nation.” [Italics and bold added for emphasis]
America was
founded and the Constitution was written to provide a country falling under the
concept of “civil liberty”. When the
Declaration of Independence was written, they acknowledged that our “rights”
come from God; not from man, not from government and not from the laws of
man.
From the
Declaration of Independence (DOI):
“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.
That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” [Bold added for
emphasis]
When the
Constitution was written, it was still understood that “rights” come from
God. The Constitution did not grant
“rights” to the people. The “Bill of
Rights” was not added to the Constitution to endow the people with the stated
list of rights. These ten amendments
spell out restrictions upon the
government to not trample on the rights of the people. The government could not grant us rights that
we already possessed and which were given to us by God. By “unalienable rights”, is meant that these
rights (given to the people by God) cannot be taken away by others or by
government. As our rights pre-existed
the Constitution, they are clearly not granted by the Constitution or by some
federal court.
The
government of the United States was fashioned to protect the rights of the
people. The Constitution, which was
created by the people, was written to provide clear and precise limits and
restrictions upon the government which would be formed under the
Constitution. The country was formed
under the concept of “civil liberties” (as defined above). The people submitted
to the supreme law of the land and granted a government the power to perform
the specified list of duties contained in the Constitution. For these specific areas, the people would
voluntarily have their liberty restricted for the sake of a civilized society.
With the
liberty enjoyed by the people in America, a new sense of freedom was found on
the Earth. No country in history had
been established by the people and for the people, where the people maintained
the sovereignty over the government.
Hence, “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed…” (DOI).
From the
beginning of our newly formed government, there existed a concern among the
founders, that due to the nature of man (greed and lust for power), that liberty
would be under attack. America and “Our
Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams. Their concerns were well founded as the exact
thing they worried about began to take place, almost immediately. For over 200 years, the leaders in government
have been adding burdens and further restrictions on the people which were not
authorized in the Constitution. We have
expanded well beyond the portion of the definition for “civil liberty”, which
states; “…only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the
safety and interest of the society…”
We no longer
live under the concept of [civil] liberty.
That was abandoned long ago. We
now live under a concept of restricted
liberties, which is not freedom and is not liberty. Our society now resides under a form of
tyranny.
From
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary: TYR'ANNY, n.
Arbitrary or despotic
exercise of power;
the exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or
not requisite for the purposes of government.
[Bold added for emphasis]
America has
passed from unrestricted freedom in a civil society to unrestricted government
operating outside of the limits of the Constitution. We have a government that is out of control. Under this government, we have lost our
liberty. What we now have is a system
where those in power dictate the minutest parts of our lives.
So, what
happened to “individual sovereignty”? It
is a vanishing cloud of vapor. What
about the concept of “individual rights”?
We are guilty of giving them away for one purpose or lie after
another. We have traded our liberty for
a promise of safety or security. Whether
it was for protection against an enemy from abroad or for the supposed security
granted by social programs; either way, we are guilty of falling for the rhetoric
of those who have ulterior designs against us, the ones they are supposed to be
serving. Through our laziness, ignorance
and lack of attention; we now enjoy restricted liberty, which is bondage.
The
Declaration of Independence; which claimed, on our behalf, freedom; also
provided the remedy for when our government has gone too far and will not come
back.
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness.”
Is this the
next step to be taken? I do not believe
we are quite there, yet; though we are speedily heading in that direction. At some point, in the near future, if we
cannot gain the attention of those in Washington; we will have to make a
choice. We can either step up and take
our country back from those who have an agenda to destroy its basic foundation
and form, those whose greed and lust for power are more important to them than
the survival of the United States as a federation of free and independent
states; or we can cower and submit, handing over the last shreds of our
God-given rights.
America is
not in a state of “shades of grey”, we are facing a crossroads of right or
wrong, good or bad, freedom or bondage.
As Patrick Henry took his stand, he made the following statement:
“Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The
war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to
our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field!
Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have?
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains
and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take;
but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
Can we bring
our government back from the brink of our destruction, before it is too late?
