Posts Tagged ‘laws’

Freedom of Choice! Its Roots and Relevance

April 17, 2012

One Man’s Opinion

By:  Gary Hardee
Date:  4/17/2012

On a purely personal level, the evidence that a Supreme Being, Divine Providence, God or whatever one chooses to call it, is hard to miss.

As for me, God makes the most sense. A God that promotes love over hate, choice over force, forgiveness over persecution, truth over lies, principles over situation ethics, personal responsibility over blaming others, laws over do what “feels” right, discipline over aimlessness, order over chaos and justice over wanton violence and suffering,  is consistent with Divine Providence and all major religious schools of thought. A “god” that promotes the later in each case is not a god that is worthy of emulation or following.

Is it wrong to embrace freely all the better values listed above? Put another way, would a wise man seek to embrace and practice such good values on his own?  Criminals surely do not obey or embrace all, some or any of them.  Criminal minds opt for the later in some cases. Twisting these concepts to “fit” their decisions, the criminal justifies their actions even if acted out in the spur of the moment.

A free person must have choice. If his ability to choose is denied – is he truly free? So where does a free man’s choice end? Can he choose to do anything he wants at any time he wants with anyone or anything he wants if no one is forced involuntarily to take part or have their natural rights affected? The basic answer is yes! Now you might disagree, but that’s your choice as well. I seek not to force my views upon anyone but “choose” to use the power of persuasion. Some fundamentalists feel they are justified to use force to impose their “standards” on others; denying others both their choices and the accompanying “price” they naturally “pay” for their choices. This attitude tends to spring from a more “group” or “collectivist” view that should a majority say it should be law (force) then it is a moral law. I totally reject this view!

The funny thing about God is that “force” has NEVER been his weapon. He seeks not to “control” us but to teach us lessons by allowing us to suffer from our bad choices while we prosper and become happier with our good ones.

All religions aside, I believe the “Ten Commandments” were not given to deny us choice but to strongly suggests for us what is good to voluntarily embrace. Perhaps it is a view into the “mind of God” if you will.  For He surely knew mankind needed something to be “brought to their senses”. No better guidance than these exist for man to follow. But will mankind follow each one if they are “legislated” by government and become punishable under “law”? Not a chance! Many are and still yet “violations” occur every second of every day. Take American football or golfing for others – on Sunday. “No other Gods before me…”, “Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy”.  What about the crass commercialization of Jesus’ birthday celebrated as Christmas or even the “Easter Bunny” and hunting eggs when celebrating Jesus’ resurrection? Appropriate? Again, it’s your choice but don’t think it doesn’t come without its subtle, “unintended” consequences.

Violations and perversions of these “Ten” existed before being “published”. And no matter the laws have been passed, they continue today. God’s judgment is immediate in some cases and delayed in others. The results are visible and private, often far-reaching yet in most instances very personal. But it is clear to me that all societies, to the extent their members choose to violate them, experience His judgment as their societies become more corrupt, unprincipled, lawless, unloving, irresponsible, undisciplined, restrictive and regimented and unforgiving.

Virtually every evil that a society suffers can be traced back to one or more violations of these “Ten”.  It is universally accepted that no man is perfect and that indeed “ALL have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God!” In the marketplace of virtues, the least purchased item may well be “Humility”.

Your comments are welcome!

Advertisements

Occupy Demands… Reflection!

February 10, 2012

By: Gary Hardee
Date: 2/10/2012

While there is much to awaken to  within the entangling web of the GSO enterprises, the best cure is complete transparency into the records. The information will reveal the likely corruption which on the surface seems to be motivating at lease a certain segment of the protests known as the “Occupy – whatever” movement.

History has given us ample evidence to be suspicious of such “spontaneous” protests. Many have proven to have been an orchestrated ploy known as “pressure from above and pressure from below”. Other astute meisters of revolutionary parliamentarianism know it as the Pincer Strategy. The goal of this strategy is to give its backers power that they could not otherwise get.  The desired result is usually some form of new or revised law that ostensibly solves the “crisis”. A crisis usually brought on by the very backers of the protesters or movement. Few have the time or inclination to expose the players in the scheme. Ninety percent of such “spontaneous” activities are not that at all! This pattern can be easily confirmed by looking at the results of earlier orchestrations. Collectivism and the growth of power into the hands of government are the usual results, as I said, ninety percent of the time.

The Occupy demands are all over the board! It is the proverbial glass of fresh milk that has been unsuspectingly poisoned with arsenic. Much of it tastes good but the bad part will kill you.

Most of these demands simply build more laws, more rules, more controls, more costs to the taxpayers, more burdens to pay for their enforcement and thus more collectivism. Any person who – in an almost knee-jerk fashion – calls for another law, agency, commission, study, program, entitlement, subsidy or even a tax break are witting or unwitting participants in the growth of collectivism. Pass another law and government grows. Repeal a law and government shrinks. It’s that simple. But I digress…

“Occupy” seems justly concerned over greed and the over-the-top intimacy between lawmakers and influential non-governmental entities – usually big corporations, decrying the intimate game of back-scratching referred to as “corporatism”.  However, no one should confuse “corporatism” with “capitalism”. They are opposites!

The endgame of corporatism on this scale has no objection to achieving Monopoly Capitalism, the cornering of markets by limiting competition. It is a division of collectivism and is used by certain businesses for the benefit of certain businesses and to the detriment of those that are not part of the game.

Real capitalism on the other hand does not have politicians using force to take money from one person and give it to another. Nor does it seek protection from competition in the market place. It is a free exchange, free choice system governed only by the unfettered choices between one who has something that another that might like to buy.

Is it a perfect system, devoid of inherent shortcomings? Of course not, but it beats tyranny hands down every time! With collectivism comes inevitably corporatism just as the so-called War on Poverty of the ’60s has seen its ranks swell way beyond its purported purpose and goal. These are the inevitable outgrowths of collectivism not capitalism!

But it is the private sector that pays the final bill while competing with those on the other end who spend it.

The Supreme Court made a rightly reasoned ruling some time ago that said essentially, “What the government subsidizes, it has a right to control.” In other words, once our money gets in their hands and they decide to “give it out”, strings will understandably come along with it. So, when we subsidize our government with our money, shouldn’t our strings also be attached? Perhaps we should expect, no demand, transparency and openness? Should we the people ever allow our government to go into closed-door “Executive Session”?

It is we, who pay the price of government through our taxes. It is we that fund government operations and it is  we who control their livelihood, not the other way around. Without our money there can be no corruption in government!

George Washington warned us long ago with these invaluable words: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. And like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!”

The U.S. Constitution Explained!

December 14, 2011

Part 1

Intro & The Preamble

By Gary Hardee

Why attempt to explain something that changes from day-to-day or year over year? Seems rather difficult and is temporarily correct at best!  When, for instance, does the word “car” mean one thing one year and something else in another. Advancements and improvements are made as knowledge, technology, manufacturing processes and consumer preferences change. But a car is still a car, isn’t it? Let’s try “apple”.  Not the computer but the fruit. It really never changes and cannot be confused with a banana.

The wonderful thing about the US Constitution is that it is fixed and determined. Absolute, firm and precise! At the same time, its authors provided for ways to change it but under a very strict and precise process. This if used wisely, is a good thing too! But it is not arbitrary or random nor subject to interpretations different from its words and intent.

Limits and predictability are things of virtue and reliance; things upon which we need worry little about. We understand and appreciate anything that serves us well. But when someone twists a washing machine into a lawnmower it would be the height of idiocy to expect it to wash our clothes any longer and cannot be viewed as a washing machine.

The Constitution of the United States has a design and a purpose. What is that purpose? It is to promote the general welfare! Do you doubt that? Have you ever asked yourself: What is a Preamble? Here is the definition followed by the Preamble of the US Constitution itself.

Preamble: “1. a preliminary or introductory statement, esp. attached to a statute or constitution setting forth its purpose(s)”.

The Preamble of the U S Constitution

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

There are six goals of the Constitution. Each of the goals are noble and support the best interests of the general welfare of the people of these United States. It is very important to note the word “general” as opposed to “specific” or ‘targeted”.  It would be totally illogical to say you are for the general welfare of a people and at the same time allow for the specific welfare of one over another.

One thing is for sure; government is force. There are two types of force; justified and unjustified. Any use of force, by a government or individual, needs justification to be considered ethical and moral. The only justification in the use of force by government must be in agreement with the Preamble.

  1. To improve upon the Articles of Confederation. (n/a)
  2. Establish Justice
  3. Insure domestic Tranquility
  4. Provide for the Common Defense
  5. Promote the General Welfare
  6. Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

As they clearly said; it is for these reasons and purposes that it is ordained and established. Is there any remaining doubt about the founders’ intent? Is it proper to take any clause, statement or paragraph, contained within its text, to mean something that is damaging to these stated goals? Is it not also equally logical to conclude that if we abide and adhere to the specific terms within the Constitution itself, that the goals in the preamble will be best attained?

To allow for necessary changes to expand and enhance these goals the founders included the process and provisions to amend the text.  Is it then proper to adopt amendments that hurt or diminish the goals laid out in the Preamble?

Amendments have come and gone. Old amendments revoked or modified while entire new ones have been added. If the voting citizens understand why it is important to stay true to the Constitution, our elected officials would as well and we would once again reap the Blessings of Liberty.

Just Principles and the Discussion of Issues

December 14, 2011

By Gary Hardee

It is impossible to argue that government has not grown larger and more comprehensive in its cost and control over people and businesses. Anyone who has even a modicum of historical knowledge must at least admit that. Debates can be had all day long about why, its purported justifications and whether this growth contributes to the general welfare of its citizens.

News and commentary abound on this subject and with the advent of the internet, the “global human community” with its disparate knowledge serves as the greatest opportunity for mankind to share and converse on the pros and cons of the smallest minutia of government action or inaction, policies or laws.

While emotional, logical and even ugly at times, it should not stop one from participation in these discussions. Failure to participate and learn along the way leaves the outcome to others, as popular opinions on issues are worked out on this grand internet stage.

History has clearly shown also that a majority of humans do not participate in this exercise, but that may be changing as we begin to examine more openly  the connections between our challenges to live in peace and prosper as free human beings on this awesome planet and the always shifting and increasing government controls and costs.

As with any discussion over command and control of our lives and society, some fundamental agreements must be arrived at and serve as the guiding foundation. Failure to agree on the most basic of human principles also ends any possible further agreements wherein we seek to improve the general welfare of all.

With that in mind, the first principle we should agree on is: “You don’t own any part of me and I don’t own any part of you”.

The second principle we should agree on is: “I cannot force my will on you and you cannot force your will on me”.

The third principle we should agree on is: “Each individual is free to make their own choices in life, with or without the advice or permission of any other”.

The fourth principle we should agree on is: “Each individual is free to use their time in any manner they wish to achieve or live according to their own goals and standards”.

The fifth principle we should agree on is: “No human being has the power to compel another through force to be deprived of their time, labor, production, or any other real or imagined skill or byproduct thereof, that was obtained of free will during honest and ethical agreements, contracts, or commerce.”

The last one for now we should agree on is: “These principles will henceforth be referred to as “Just Principles” as they acknowledge the inherent freedoms each human has for their general welfare and therefore society as a whole and that any “laws” or governmental systems that may be considered for implementation must not violate in whole or in part any of these Just Principles and any such additional agreements should have as their direct object the protection, expansion and enhancement of these just principles without compromise.

While you might think of some others on your own, the main point is that we can now begin to look at the larger issues that are debated or that plague our world and the various societies and cultures that have been organized or practiced. This would necessarily include religious doctrine, philosophy, political systems, economics, education, reproduction, health and medical services, drugs, drug usage, the drug industry, corporatism, government-private partnerships and their operations and efficacy and any other issue wherein a person’s Just Principles are involved.

I look forward to a healthy and adult conversation on this subject and welcome your comments and suggestions below.


%d bloggers like this: