What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Classical Liberalism vs. Progressivism

The2ndAmendment

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
13,383
Reaction score
3,613
Points
245
Location
In a dependant and enslaved country.
II.
On the Origin and Design
of the United States Constitution

a. Classical Liberalism vs. Progressivism
b. Capitalism vs. Marxism
c. Libertarianism vs. Authoritarianism
d. John Locke and Role of Government
e. The Abuses of English Crown
f. Weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation
g. The Constitutional Convention and Ratification Debates
h. The Bill of Rights and Ratification Debates
i. A Brief Explanation of many important Supreme Court Cases
j. Authors’ Opinions and Supplementary Readings

Common Sense, 2013,
Aegis of Liberty

II. On the Origin and Design of the United States Constitution, Eratosthenes
a. Classical Liberalism vs Progressivism
Part 1 – Natural Rights
Part 2 – Legal Privileges
Part 3 – Progressivism
Part 4 – Libertarianism
Part 5 – Miscellaneous and Closing Remarks
Part 1, Natural Rights

One of the most ambiguously employed words in the American vernacular is the term liberal. The meaning of this word has evolved over the centuries, an evolution that has produced two separate species, species that are irreconcilable, species that are engaged in a battle for dominance, a battle which will soon force the other into extinction. The history of the word's transformation is fascinating, for the examination of the subject provides the reader with both invaluable and essential knowledge — knowledge that is requisite to understand the very philosophical foundation of our Constitution.

Although the basic concepts of Classical Liberalism have existed since antiquity, it is best to begin this inquiry at the inception of Classical Liberalism during the Age of Enlightenment, founded by the philosopher John Locke. Although, in order to understand John Locke, we must also understand one of those men most responsible for influencing his development of Classical Liberal ideology, John Milton.

Our investigation begins with a man named John Milton and the concept of the Divine Right of Kings. The theory of Divine Right asserts that God divides men by certain distinctions, Kings and Subjects, just as God divides the human species into male and female. The King is Sovereign, exercising supreme authority in all spheres of government, in all places subject to his jurisdiction; therefore, under this doctrine, the King is endowed by the Creator with unlimited rights, for all decisions made by the King are in fact the will of God.

The Subject is inferior to the King, and must accept any edict from the King without question. The Subject only has those rights which the King permits. Those rights may be revoked, denied or disparaged at any time. Some Subjects will enjoy being in a privileged class (so long as they remain in favor with the King), elevating their status in both government and society, for if God can create the Distinction of King and Subject among Men, then the King, who rules by the will of God, can create the Distinction of Nobility and Commoner among the Subjects.

Central to the doctrine of Divine Right, was that no Subject may question the King, for questioning any edict of the King was equivalent to challenging the will of God. The King being Sovereign over his Subjects, both Noble and Common, can only be judged by God, or another King, as other Kings rule by the will of God. Thus the Subjects have no power, on heaven or earth, to depose of their King.

However, during the middle of the 17th Century, a man named John Milton came to challenge the legitimacy of the Divine Right doctrine itself. Milton argued that the King's authority was derived from the people, and thus the King's power is only granted to him by Popular Sovereignty. Most important is that the people derive this sovereignty from God, and that these Sovereigns have both the right and the obligation to overthrow a tyrannical King. Here the roles of King and Subject are reversed, the Subjects are Sovereign over the King; the King only rules as a privilege extended to him by the people, a privilege that can be revoked, denied or disparaged at any time. Overall, the King is a Servant to the Public, hence the term public servant.

The theory presented by John Milton was only rudimentary at best. It was from this idea that great philosophers and other writers would build upon, paving the way towards republican form of government, social contract and natural rights (the most important of the aforementioned). The first of these philosophers to whom we pay homage is John Locke, the most influential of all the Enlightenment thinkers upon the Constitution of the United States.

In the year 1689, John Locke published Two Treatises on Government, in direct response to Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha, a book that declared that all government is absolute monarchy, and that no man is born free. In the very beginning of Filmer's book, he states:

'Mankind is naturally endowed and born with freedom from all subjection, and at liberty to choose what form of government it please, and that the power which any one man hath over others was at first bestowed according to the discretion of the multitude' …

But howsoever this vulgar opinion [above paragraph] hath of late obtained a great reputation, yet it is not to be found in the ancient fathers and doctors of the primitive Church. It contradicts the doctrine and history of the Holy Scriptures, the constant practice of all ancient monarchies, and the very principles of the law of nature. It is hard to say whether it be more erroneous in divinity or dangerous in policy …

This desperate assertion whereby kings are made subject to the censures and deprivations of their subjects follows — as the authors of it conceive — as a necessary consequence of that former position of the supposed natural equality and freedom of mankind, and liberty to choose what form of government it please …

Secondly, I am not to question or quarrel at the rights or liberties of this or any other nation; my task is chiefly to inquire from whom these first came, not to dispute what or how many these are, but whether they were derived from the laws of natural liberty or from the grace and bounty of princes. My desire and hope is that the people of England may and do enjoy as ample privileges as any nation under heaven; the greatest liberty in the world — if it be duly considered — is for a people to live under a monarch. It is the Magna Charta of this kingdom; all other shows or pretexts of liberty are but several degrees of slavery, and a liberty only to destroy liberty.


Notice the text in bold, Sir Robert would have his readers believe that we have no rights, only privileges which are extended by the grace and goodwill of the King. Herein exists the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, where the King is Sovereign, and the Subjects are no more than serfs. In the words of John Locke, from the first chapter of his Treatise:

...that in a book [Patriarcha], which was to provide chains for all mankind, I should find nothing but a rope of sand, useful perhaps to such, whose skill and business it is to raise a dust, and would blind the people, the better to mislead them; but in truth not of any force to draw those into bondage, who have their eyes open, and so much sense about them, as to consider, that chains are but an ill wearing, how much care soever hath been taken to file and polish them.

The ancient strife between Classical Liberalism and Statism had been ever going, and continues to this very day. Either we are born with certain unalienable rights, bestowed upon us by the Creator, or we are born as Subjects, a distinction chosen for us by the Creator, and we exist at the mercy and grace of Kings. For the meantime, we will examine the former, and abandon the latter — until Part 2 of this article.

Our study of John Locke shall consist of three pillars:
I. Natural Rights
II. Social Contract
III. Republicanism

We start with the theory of natural rights, established upon the axiom (quoted from the Declaration of Independence), that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (herein titled the Unalienable Axiom for the remainder of this article). In order to fully comprehend this statement, we must first investigate the meaning of the word unalienable. According to Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, “Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold or transferred.” It is safe to assume that this is the meaning which Thomas Jefferson intended when composing the Declaration of Independence.

There also exists another word of which we must pay heed, which is the word inalienable. Modern authorities would have us believe that there exists no difference between the words unalienable and inalienable, that the word unalienable was abandoned in favor of inalienable, because the 19th Century placed more emphasis on Latin variants of English than the Anglicized variants; the negative prefix in- is derived from Latin, where the negative prefix un- descends from the original Germanic roots of the English language.

However, there exists an acute difference between unalienable and inalienable, a difference which modern authorities wish you to remain ignorant of. In the year 1952, the Kansas City Court of Appeals made the ruling: Inalienable is defined as incapable of being surrendered or transferred; at least without one's consent.

The implications of the ruling are tremendous, but also necessary. There is nothing intrinsically evil in this ruling. For instance, your life is an unalienable right, it cannot be transferred to another; however, your property is an inalienable right, as it can be transferred to another upon your Consent. Unfortunately, the word unalienable has been expunged from American vocabulary, and this was caused neither by coincidence nor the progression of time. This was a calculated effort made by the élite in order to impose Roman Civil Law upon the United States, instead of English Common Law. The former is adjudicated under Admiralty Jurisdiction; the latter falls under the jurisdiction of either Law or Equity. However, this deception by the élite is for another chapter, for now we continue with our study of Natural Rights.

Our Natural Rights are derived from several axioms, one of these axioms is already known to us, namely the Unalienable Axiom. Some of the rights included here are the right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, which are general categorizations of entire subsets of rights. None of the rights which fall under these categories may be sold or transferred to another — yet, our property can be sold and transferred to another, which suggests that there exists rights outside of those bestowed upon us by the Creator at birth, unless one wishes to argue that another entity is Sovereign over our property (e.g. Karl Marx).

It is upon this question that the concepts of Property and Contract arise, and our research into John Locke begins. John Locke had two classifications of Property, intrinsic or extrinsic, both of which must be understood. Intrinsic property are your person and being, all of the rights associated with your person and being are unalienable; extrinsic property are those things naturally or lawfully acquired, all of the rights associated with your acquisitions are inalienable.

In his Second Treatise on Government, 1690, John Locke writes about extrinsic property:

Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.

The above is commonly known as the Labor Theory of Property, upon which lays the foundation of Capitalism. Each man is entitled to the fruits of his own labor, and each man is entitled to trade his property for another man's property through Contract, and Consent is the only means by which a Contract is made valid. The requirement of Consent is paramount, because this makes each man Sovereign over his acquisitions; without the requisition of Consent, the only Sovereign is Force, and he who possesses the most Force is the Sovereign.

Each man has the right to transfer or trade his property, through exchange (barter) or promise (contract). However, the right to exchange, and the right to promise, are unalienable rights, you cannot sell your right to promise! Each of these rights requires the Consent of each person (or party), which allows us to consolidate them under the right to contract. The right to contract is another unalienable right, one cannot transfer this right to another. From this right comes the Inalienable Axiom: That all men are entitled to the fruits of their labor, and through their unalienable right to Contract, are at liberty to confer their fruits to one another.

From the above we see that there exists a hierarchy of natural rights, that the inalienable rights exist as a consequence of an unalienable right (the right to contract), but the existence of the unalienable right does not depend upon any inalienable right. However, one may ask, which rights are inalienable? Which are the rights that we can sell or transfer to another? Perhaps the most simple example of an inalienable right is a deed.

Deed: A written instrument, which has been signed and delivered, by which one individual, the grantor, conveys title to real property to another individual, the grantee; a conveyance of land, tenements, or hereditaments, from one individual to another.

Thus inalienable rights, such as deeds, are contracts that can be sold or transferred to others, their only limitation being those things which are unalienable. It is from these rights that benefits, obligations (liabilities) and privileges arise. It is from this system upon which Commerce depends. However, commercial contracts are not the only types of contracts which exist, for there is also the social contract, which comes in the written form of a Constitution.

So far we have discussed rights and property which are unalienable, and those that are inalienable; however, does there exist other classes of property? Absolutely! Here is a riddle:

There exists something that must be acquired — and once acquired, can never be forfeit. This entity can be transferred to another whilst retained by the owner!

What can this elusive — thing — be? Knowledge! Knowledge is a property that the individual cannot lose — yet he can impart this knowledge to another, who can in turn, impart this same knowledge to yet another person! Knowledge is a property which can be transferred by replication, where the grantor (teacher) retains the original, and the grantee (student) obtains the copy!

What's beautiful about Knowledge is that it can be used forever, without being exhausted; it can be replicated infinitely, without ever consuming resources, for Knowledge is immaterial. Furthermore, Knowledge can be obtained naturally (through discovery), or obtained at little cost or no cost from another (a teacher), or even obtained while being paid (from a master/apprentice relationship)!

Without Knowledge, a man possessing little means, in the form of commodities or other commercial entities, would only be able to increase his worth by the grace of another man bestowing a gift upon him. In other words, without education, a man will never be able to elevate his status on the social ladder, because he will only be able to trade his possessions (including money or currency) for other possessions of equal value, thus if he is born poor, he remains poor forever.

However, with Knowledge, a man can then market his Labor for higher wages or other financial returns. Knowledge, an entity that costs nothing to maintain, and rarely costs anything to obtain, can make even the poorest man wealthy. This is what is beautiful about true Capitalism (which no longer exists in the United States nor anywhere else), every man is born with the same unalienable rights; and although they may not be born with equal commercial value, Education and Knowledge becomes the great equalizer, providing all men with equal opportunity to either succeed or fail. However, we shall digress from the subject of Education, and leave it for another chapter, for now we return to Knowledge.

So, Knowledge is a type of property which must be acquired throughout one's life. No man is born with innate Knowledge; we are born a blank slate, Tabula Rasa, which is the Latin term used by John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Knowledge, once acquired, cannot be lost, but can be transferred to others via replication. So, let us define the general properties of Knowledge:

I. All men are born without Knowledge (Tabula Rasa).
II. It can be discovered naturally, either by experience or reasoning.
III. It can be acquired through replication, either by learning from another man, or any other means of learning.
IV. Once a man acquires Knowledge, it can never be lost.
V. It is Inexhaustible (this is not the same as losable).

So, what types of rights are associated with Knowledge? Our Constitution in Article I, Section 8, makes explicit that Congress may secure the exclusive Right to Authors and Inventors to their respective Writings and Discoveries (and Inventions, etc). The most commonly known types are Copyrights and Patents. Since Knowledge is neither innate nor losable, but it can be acquired and transferred, and is inexhaustible, we shall classify property with these types of characteristics as Immaterial, and the rights associated with them as “Immaterial Rights.” This leads to the Immaterial Axiom: That all men deserve to be recognized of their intellectual contributions, and through their unalienable right to Contract, are at liberty to create Contracts governing the Material Use and Applications of Immaterial Property, so long as that man is the originator of the Immaterial Property in question.

Finally, there exists one more type of Property that we should discuss. It is an innate property, it can be neither acquired nor transferred, it cannot be lost, but it can be exhausted (in fact it is guaranteed to be exhausted). This Property is known as Time. Time cannot be acquired nor transferred. Time cannot be lost, as any elapsed moment of time exists in history forever. However, it can be exhausted, and for each man, will inevitably be exhausted. Any rights pertaining to Time will be known as Temporal Rights. This leads to the Temporal Axiom: That all men are endowed by their Creator with an uncertain amount of Time, in which they may use to pursue their own Happiness; and if they should violate the Happiness of another man, shall forfeit their right to pursue their own Happiness for an Appropriate amount of Time.

So, we have four types of Natural Rights, those that are unalienable, inalienable, immaterial or temporal. We are born with the unalienable rights and the temporal rights, and through our right to contract, we have the ability to create our own rights, either inalienable or immaterial, in order to pursue our own happiness. These rights are the foundation of the philosophy which gave birth to our Constitution, and is clearly expressed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

The Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

However, the precise meaning of these Amendments cannot be fully explained until we have explored John Locke's theory of the Social Contract and the compact theory of the united States (notice that united is not capitalized).

Section 2, Legal Privileges
Now we will return to Sir Robert's Patriarcha, and cast aside the involvement of religion (God) in doctrine of Divine Right. When we have removed religion, we are left with the raw embodiment of Statism, which decrees that the State is Sovereign over the people, and that the people exist at the mercy and grace of the State, thus these people are Subjects, and their rulers are Kings.

People living under this doctrine, willingly or unwillingly, possess no rights, for the State is sovereign over all things, and thus the State has unlimited rights, infinite in its power. The State will usually delegate most of its powers to the Subjects, as it would be both inconvenient and impractical to administer the entirety of its infinite power in finite Time. Thus the State must prioritize which powers it exercises, because it only has limited Time and resources to execute its authority.

The first among these priorities will be to exercise the powers required to preserve its authority. Any time the Subjects of the State use their delegated privileges to challenge the State, the State will hastily disparage that privilege among those who are resisting them, and sometimes deny the privilege completely. In times of great peril to the Kings who administer the State, they will revoke the privilege entirely among all their Subjects. Once revoked, it will never be regained by the Subjects; the State does not forgive, it does not forget, it will never relinquish this privilege again.

In order to make sure that the people no longer continue to exercise that privilege, it will perpetually police its Subjects, for the failure to police the Subjects will result in a challenge to the authority of the State, which must not be questioned. Herein is the guiding principle behind the Police State. A government founded on the doctrine of Statism cannot guarantee its infinite sovereignty by doctrine alone, it must rely upon a compliant police or military, a Privileged class of Subjects, granted innumerable benefits and privileges that no ordinary Subject may possess (in short, a Nobility).

Recalling that the State must prioritize which powers to invoke, because the State is limited by Time, we must pay heed to the innovations of modern technology. Technology is a neutral entity; it can be used for both good and ill. The most important feature of technology, is that it allows a person or party (government) to use its Time more efficiently, allowing the person or party to accomplish more tasks in a given measure of time than previously before. As a consequence, as technology improves, the State is able to exercise additional powers, because it can use its Time more efficiently, and thus can Police its citizens even more than ever before, further reducing any perceived threats. Remember, that any government operating under the Doctrine of Statism only delegates those privileges to its Subjects that it cannot reasonable exercise in respect to its other priorities. However, once the Government has the ability to Police that right without diminishing other priorities, it will immediately revoke that privilege among its Subjects and reserve that right exclusively to itself.

So if we had to define Statism in a nutshell, it would be this: All rights are reserved to the State, and people within the State are Subjects to its Supreme Sovereignty, thus any rights that the Subjects exercise are but mere privileges, either granted by the State directly, or graced upon the Subjects by silent acquiescence. The State, being the Supreme Sovereign, may deny, disparage or revoke those privileges among any or all of its Subjects, for any or no cause. Therefore, the Subjects have no rights, but legal privileges only.

However, this system of thought is founded upon a series of contradictory axioms, and we will explore these contradictions in the essays to follow! One of the largest contradictions in Statist philosophy is that Statists require a compliant police or military force (notice that compliant was put in bold print earlier). If the Kings must rely upon the Consent of individual Subjects in order to enforce their Will, then the Kings are not truly sovereign, they must derive their power, as a privilege, from the rights of some other Sovereign entity (or entities) who Consented to delegate those privileges to the Kings. And if this Sovereign Entity decides that the Kings have become tyrannical, they may withdraw their Consent by ceasing to enforce its laws, in other words, make the edicts of the King void, without force, null.

This is only the beginning of the logical fallacies in the Statist philosophy. As such, Statism leads to Chaos, because it is founded on flawed axioms, expelling the system back into the void; whereas Anarchy is Chaos, because it is not founded on any axiom, being totally devoid of Order. Consequentially, Societies, being a different entity from Government altogether, will quickly find themselves in despair whilst existing within a Statist or Anarchistic form of Government, because the societies themselves will fall victim to Chaos. On the theme of Order and Chaos, we shall conclude Part 2 with two excerpts from Thomas Paine’s Common Sense:

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer!

Here Thomas Paine writes that both despotism and anarchy result in the same miseries!

I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new republican materials.

First.- The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the king. Secondly.- The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers. Thirdly.- The new republican materials, in the persons of the commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.

The two first, by being hereditary, are independent of the people; wherefore in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state.

To say that the constitution of England is a union of three powers reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.

To say that the commons is a check upon the king, presupposes two things.

First.- That the king is not to be trusted without being looked after, or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy. Secondly.- That the commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown.

But as the same constitution which gives the commons a power to check the king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the king a power to check the commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!


The highlighted phrases in bold draw our attention towards the illogical determinations present in doctrines containing axiomatic contradictions. It is these types of arguments that will stand any chance of resisting the crushing grip of the Statist Governments that have enslaved all Nations today; for we must not only be against something, but we must also be for something, otherwise our Will shall lead us back to the same Chaos that which we freed ourselves from, for we would have nothing to offer other than the Void. And whatever Thing we chose to be for, that Thing must be of true form, free of paradox and ambiguity.


Part 3, Progressivism
An object of great interest is the Progressive ideology. What is Progressivism? Is it compatible with Natural Rights? Or is it compatible with Divine Right? Do Progressives believe that the individual is Sovereign, or do they believe the State is the Sovereign?

Progressives will often tell you that they are champion of Natural Rights, and that they intend to use Government to liberate people. Well, that’s it then! They must be Classical Liberals! Except they believe that Government liberates people, in other words the Government grants certain groups Privileges that other citizens cannot have, creating continuous strife and unhappiness for the remaining citizens who are not granted these Privileges.

Now to the dismay of those readers from either the Democratic or Republican Party in America, you are both Progressives! The only difference between the parties being the Priorities of which Progressive agenda you want to impose upon us! Here are some quick examples:

Democrats:
I. Marriage Privileges (for Homosexuals)
II. Gun Denial
III. Drug Privileges (for marijuana)
IV. Healthcare Privileges and Disparagement

Republicans:
I. Marriage Disparagement
II. Gun Privileges
III. Drug Disparagement
IV. Healthcare Privileges and Disparagement

The differences between the parties are not in their Statist philosophies (although they do vary slightly), but simply which powers they Prioritize and which of the few Privileges they wish the people to retain each Election cycle. Let’s take a look at the five bullets above:

I. Ask yourself, why should the Government be involved in the definition of marriage at all? The Government should not recognize any marriages!
II. This is silly, the right to bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution, it is not a privilege to begin with.
III. Who is the Government to decide which substances you can imbibe or consume? Why is it their business?
IV. Who is Government to intervene between you and your doctor, are the Government bureaucrats experts in medicine? If the Government is an expert in medicine, they why waste a visit to the doctor, we should go straight to the bureaucrat. Who is Government to force you to into a Contract (against your Consent) with a Health Insurance Company? The right to contract is unalienable, it could not be delegated (transferred) to the Government even if we wanted to give it them!

In order to answer the question, “Who is the Government to …” you must first ask, “What is the United States?” This is the great question that will be answered in Section G of this article, The Constitutional Convention and the Ratification Debates. We turn to the each of the individual ratifying debates of the State, because it is from these records that we understand how the States the contract that they acceded to known as the Constitution. It is in this Section [G] that we can finally define the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.

Now returning to the topic of Progressivism, we can clearly see that is deeply rooted in Statism, whilst it masquerades as a benign entity desperately trying to protect your Natural Rights. Not only is Progressive ideology founded upon illogical principles, but the chief promoters of this ideology know it’s chaotic! However, like all tyrants, they work their Will through deception, and disguise themselves, fooling the people with temptations, the temptation to be among a Privileged class.

What these people don’t realize is that the same Government that grants or graces them with these Privileges, may also deny, disparage or revoke this Privilege at any time. They have in fact transferred their rights the Progressive Government for absolutely nothing in exchange, and like all Statist Governments, they will never return that right back to the people to whom it rightfully belongs.

To any Progressives still reading this article, you have either realized the error of your ways, or you are dubious and curious of the ideas so far presented. If you are still reading this, you must have realized that something was terribly wrong or amiss with our Government, before you even started reading this article. Realize that the United States has been governed under the Statist doctrine since the 1930’s, the Natural Right’s theory has been long since discarded. Thus, if you believe there is something wrong with this country, it’s because there is something terribly wrong, chaotic and absurd in the philosophies that guide your thoughts.

Part 4, Libertarianism
Some of you may be well acquainted with persons who identify themselves as Libertarians, and perhaps even some politicians who identify themselves in a like manner, such as Ron Paul. Who are Libertarians? Do they believe in Natural Rights? Or do they believe in Divine Right? Which Entity do Libertarians believe is Sovereign?

A Libertarian is in fact a Classical Liberal, they are persons who believe fiercely in Natural Rights, and find any of the various doctrines of Statism to be repugnant to the theory of Natural of Rights. To Libertarians, the individual citizen is Sovereign, and through their right to contract, they delegate some of their rights to Government, while retaining all of those other rights not expressly given to the General Government. When the General Government exercises any powers outside those delegated, then those acts are void, as the collection of individuals never Consented to relinquish those rights to the General Government. This contract is titled a Constitution, and violations of that contract are styled unconstitutional acts. The Sovereign has no obligation to adhere to these infractions, and thus the act is void, without force.

In the United States, Libertarians recognize three types of Sovereigns, Citizens, States and the Federal Government. The citizens of each State delegate certain powers to their State Governments, and the States, upon Consent of their people, further delegated some of those powers to the Federal Government. The Federal Government is only Sovereign over those things specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States, and clauses such as the Necessary and Proper Clause only grant the subsidiary abilities of the Federal Government to carry forth such powers.

For instance, the United States has the right to build and erect forts, but the right to purchase the lumber, stone and metals to build such a fort, cannot be found in the Constitution; however, it is implied that the Federal Government has the Ability to purchase these materials. Notice that the word Ability, instead of power or right or privilege, is being used to express this relationship. The reason this is being called an Ability is because the action of purchasing lumber does not impair or make impossible the actions of other Sovereigns to buy lumber. Thus, this is not a power of any sort, it is simply an action, in some sense it can be viewed as the unalienable right to contract for the State. The State, a fiction that represents its members, cannot function in reality, unless it has the right to contract with other Sovereigns, including individual persons.

Notice that that example of purchasing cannot impair or hinder the ability of others to buy that same thing. That is not actually true, because each purchase of a particular item decreases the supply of that item, and the extreme abuse of purchasing power may lead to monopolies, allowing the Sovereign Entity possessing all or most of the item, to exercise exclusive control over the supply of that item. However, we must realize that any power or ability can be abused, even those delegated or subsidiary to that delegation.

Part 5, Miscellaneous and Closing Remarks
It must be recognized that a person cannot judge who is Right or who is Wrong, until they have first declared the axiomatic philosophy (or doctrine) under which they are to determine what is True (Right) or what is False (Wrong). The idea of tyranny varies between political doctrines, and is often incompatible with the idea of tyranny of another doctrine. To the Classical Liberal, a government infringing upon their natural rights is tyrannical; to a Statist, a Subject assuming a prohibited privilege is tyrannical; yet both are Right, because they are making their determinations from parallel systems of axioms. The only way in which one can deny the validity of the other, is by demonstrating that the other philosophy is founded upon contradictory axioms. This would repudiate the axiopisty of the doctrine itself, making all determinations void!

Colloquially, this [the above paragraph] is what we refer to as perspective, and often why we witness pundits and politicians arguing with great vitriol against the other, unable to comprehend the supposed stupidity of the other, when in fact, it is possible that they are both correct depending upon their perspective.

We will now conclude this introduction into Natural Rights philosophy, Sections b, c and d shall meticulously examine several branches and extensions of the Natural Rights Philosophy.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$270.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top