Truth for Liberals

The following list is too good not to post. I hope Mr DeMar doesn’t mind me sharing this. . . .

To help him and American Vision spread the message of truth, liberty, and the real roots of American liberty, please visit their website, which I've linked on the right side of the page.

What he shares are certainly true, and should make every left-leaning, thinking person take note. I hope (and I’m sure he does, too) that this list will induce change in lives, and therefore change in America.

Five Truths that Liberals Hate

By Gary Demar. Published: June 30, 2010

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.

5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

Liberals don't like to hear these things, but they are as true as the sun rises and sets each day. And don't get too smug, conservatives. You’re next.

Escaping Tyranny

In Nullifying Tyranny the Kennedy brothers spend some time on the idea of “consent of the governed.” I never spent a lot of time thinking about that before. I always pinned it generally to democracy as opposed to monarchy, but the Kennedys go farther, and rightfully so.

They point to John Locke, Patrick Henry, and James Madison, all of whom argued that liberty takes precedence over government. As the Kennedys note, Locke argued that “when faced with a government that has overstepped its legitimately entrusted power, people of a sovereign community have a duty to withdraw from that threatening community.”

Locke feels that “the right of a people to withdraw from a threatening government, i.e., to secede, is a simple act of self-protection and of preservation of unalienable rights” (NT). he wrote, "Men can never be secure from Tyranny, if there be no means to escape it."

Is it not constitutional that, if a sovereign state of states, a republic of republics (a phrase the Kennedys use and one I like for its accuracy) feels threatened, and does not consent to continued governance by a threatening government, the sovereign state has the right to remove consent and remove itself from the threat to liberty?

Do you see why Abraham Lincoln was wrong? Do you see why the south was right?

Even More Government Interference

Content Warning: There's sarcasm in this post. Be warned.

Speaking of the government and seatbelts, here’s a disturbing story. . . .

From the Associated Press on August 16: “New motorcoaches would for the first time be required to have lap-shoulder seat belts under a proposal announced Monday by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.”

What’s the driving force behind that initiative? “‘Seat belts save lives, and putting them in motorcoaches just makes sense,’ LaHood said in a statement.” So it’s safety: “An average of 19 people a year are killed in motorcoach accidents in the U.S.”

19? That’s a lot! We definitely need to do something. . . .

But if you look at the statistics, an important point should be made clear. The writer notes that the motorcoach industry “transports 750 million passengers a year.” So let’s do the math. 19 fatalities out of 750 million. That’s a fatality rate of 0000025% per year (that number seems low to me—is my math right?).

Do you want to know how many people are killed in swimming pool-related incidents per year? Well, from the CDC website, it seems 1.4% of swimmers (in pools only? Does that include lakes? In oceans, too?) drown each year. At least, that’s the best I can figure from the stats I see).

So, 0000025% versus 1.4%.

It’s clear we need to ban swimming, too. or at least make all swimmers weat safety vests. or seatbelts.

And another thing: if it’s so terrible that we need to mandate seatbelts, why are we waiting three years before we start enforcing anything? If we act now we can save, on average, 57 lives between now and then. Don’t we care about those 57 people and their families? Are we so callous?

And yet another thing: why is it the government’s job to fix this?

And another thing: isn't taking a bus (like swimming) ultimately a voluntary act? No one's forcing people onto buses at gunpoint.

I hope you see the skepticism in this post. Of course every death is terrible, and there are 19 families per year who mourn the loss of a loved one. And I can't imagine what it must feel like to face that situation. But does that mean we need to strap every single person into a bus seat? If so, wouldn't it be a good idea to set a “fatality percentage limit,” and regulate every activity that results in fatality rates of 1% or 2% or 3% or 14% or 20%? And I ask that question seriously. Naturally, to do so would be ridiculously difficult, and no one’s going to suggest or implement that sort of regulation.

Liberty versus security. It’s a pretty fair trade. The government needs to get off the bus.

Unlawful Laws

We ended the last post with questions: what is immoral and unlawful? We're supposed to obey God rather than man, yes? So what are some examples of immoral and unlawful decrees we face today?

What about a government that mandates you wear a seatbelt?

What about a government that subsidizes the pensions of those who have served at least five years in Congress? Click here to see what U. S. Representative Ron Paul thinks about this.

What about a government that claims "it is immoral to cling to private property when government needs the property to help the disadvantaged" (Nullifying Tyranny)? Let's let the Kennedy brothers continue: "Using government to acquire another man's property against that man's will is no different than stealing. Government, even when sanctified by a majority vote, cannot turn an otherwise immoral act into a moral act."

Remember, just because something is legal does not mean it is lawful. Just because the government has the power to force compliance doesn't mean they have the authority to do so.

Immoral acts can never be moral, regardless of how many people say so (and how loudly and for how long they say it). And much of our law is immoral. We must obey the law of our God, who defines morality; we must not obey the immoral (though legal) decrees of immoral man.

Teach the Children Well

You gotta love childrens' books.

In Tiny Bear's Bible, we read a perfect example of godly resistance to tyrannical, ungodly government. On the pages which tell the story of Daniel ("God Protects Daniel in the Lion's Den") we read these lines: "The king said to Daniel, 'You'll pray just to ME!' / But Daniel loved God, so he couldn't, you see."

Daniel loved God, so he couldn't obey the king's unbiblical decree. I see. . . . .

So we must love God enough to obey Him rather than man? Sounds a little like Acts 5:29 to me. And how then can Christians argue that Romans 13 means we need to obey the government always, even if we don't like it (say, for example, paying taxes which support the abortion movement)? Why didn't Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego simply bow down and worship Nebuchadnezzar's image? Wasn't it illegal to disobey? And yet they did anyway? I see. . . .

There's a lesson in this story, and it's not just for kids: anyone who says we need to obey the government regardless of its immoral and unlawful decrees isn't paying attention to scripture.

But what is "immoral"? And what is "unlawful"? More tomorrow. . . .

Mr. Fix-It

From Nullifying Tyranny: “there was a time when Americans did not demand that government provide us with economic bailouts, social safety nets, armies of social workers and bureaucrats to manage government programs, innumerable and incomprehensible rules, regulations, and court edicts.”

That demand—that government fix everything—is very irritating. When Katrina hit, when the oil well burst, when the economy tanked—why in the world are we clamoring for the government to “do something”? Where in the constitution does it say the government’s role is to fix everything?

It’s what they call the Nanny State. I was listening to an old Dennis Prager podcast this morning and he talked about liberty versus security. We crave the security of a government that will take care of us, but when we get that security we lose our freedom. That’s the Nanny State. Why not live life free to make mistakes? Why not enjoy the chances you take when you push yourself out of the nest for the first time?

In Gettysburg, PA, this summer I found this quote: “prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child.” That’s liberty versus security.

Don’t demand the government fix everything. Find a way to fix it yourself.

Overreach

From Nullifying Tyranny: “Many may enter politics thinking that they will use their office to ‘do good’ or ‘help the unfortunate,” neither of which is the legitimate role of government.”

Today let’s focus on the second part of that quote—the “legitimate role” part. What is civil government’s role? Is it to force you to pay taxes to pay for programs you find morally reprehensible? Is it to force you to go to city hall and pay for a permit so you can put up a privacy fence ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY? Is it to force you to E-Check your car? Is it to make sure your grass doesn’t get too high, or that you don’t kill too many deer in a season or catch too many fish, or that you don’t evangelize at an Islamic festival? And saints preserve you if you get caught fishing without a license, or if you’re not wearing your seatbelt. The horror!

So what’s the legitimate role of government? Well, there probably are lots of different definitions (especially a vast gulf between the definitions offered by hardcore conservatives and hardcore liberals), but here’s one I really like: “the only legitimate role for the federal government is to protect private property, facilitate free trade between the sovereign states, and protect national borders” (from Nullifying Tyranny).

That’s right: First, the government must keep others from taking your stuff. Put more poetically, the government must “protect private property from those who would live parasitically by stealing from productive people” (NT). Second, the government must make sure people can conduct business freely across state lines (for example, letting me buy insurance for my family from a guy in Montana—if he has the best coverage for the best price). Third, our government must protect the nation from outsiders. One thing that means is that we shouldn’t stick our hands into the middle of foreign tar babies (more on this in a later post). It also means the government has a constitutional responsibility to button up the border and keep illegal immigrants out of our country.

That list includes three things. . . .

Does it include free lunch programs? No.

Does it include the Department of Education? No.

Does it include (thanks for nothing, FDR) the New Deal? Nope.

Does it include implementing the use of full-body scanners for my 90+ year-old grandma when she flies to Albuquerque? Can't say I see that in there.

Does it in some way include funding for abortion-rights groups? Not in the least.

So what’s wrong with this picture? What am I missing? How is it that we got here—to 2010 America, a place so far removed from where our great nation began? And how do we get back to a minimalist, constitutional government?

I guess we’ll figure that out together, yes?

Lost in the Shuffle

I read the following in Nullifying Tyranny: “Many may enter politics thinking that they will use their office to ‘do good’ or ‘help the unfortunate,” neither of which is the legitimate role of government.”

Let’s discuss the first part: the “doing good” part. It seems to have started (unless I missed something somewhere) with the Depression. Amity Shlaes has a great book you should read—it’s called The Forgotten Man. She tells the story of the origin of the “forgotten man.” In the late 1800s a Yale philosopher named William Graham Sumner wrote about how “well-intentioned social progressives often coerced unwitting average citizens into funding dubious social projects. Sumner wrote: ‘As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine. . .what A, B, and C shall do for X.’ But what about C?” Shlaes asks. “There was nothing wrong with A and B helping X. What was wrong was the law, and the indenturing of C to the cause. C was the forgotten man, the man who paid, ‘the man who never is thought of.’”

Remember: C = the Forgotten Man.

Now, fast-forward to 1932, when “a member of Roosevelt’s brain trust, Ray Moley, recalled the phrase, although not its provenance. He inserted it into the candidate’s first great speech. If elected, Roosevelt promised, he would act in the name of ‘the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid.’ Whereas C had been Sumner’s forgotten man, the New deal made X the forgotten man—the poor man, the old man, labor, or any other recipient of government help.”

Do you see it? Now X = the Forgotten Man. In the 1800s the guy who paid for all the unconstitutional social programs was the forgotten man. By the 1930s, however, social progressives had made the guy who received all the unconstitutional social programs the new FM. Do you see why there’s a feeling of powerlessness?

The Kennedy brothers refer to the FM in their book. They define the FM as “‘We the people’ who do not have political power at the Federal level.” Like Shlaes, they argue the Forgotten Men are “the ones who pay taxes that are used to finance a government whose agenda all too often centers on programs and policies that are detrimental to Christian values.” And the Kennedys argue that liberalism itself is immoral. They make the point on page 69: they rightly state that liberal programs, which the government uses to rob the politically unconnected for the sake of the politically connected, are immoral.

Any social program that coerces C to pay for X is immoral. It’s theft, and it’s intimidation, and it threatens punishment for something C should never be forced to do.

That’s why the “I’m just here to do good” argument is weak, and ultimately a danger to our liberty. Ronald Reagan said the nine most terrifying words are these: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” The government’s role is not to help the underprivileged and prop up those who “need” government-granted social benefits.

Which are you: Forgotten Man C or Forgotten Man X? I’m a C, and I’m sick of X.

Nullifying Theft (or, Israel Gives Its Stuff Away)

One thing The Kennedys discuss in Nullifying Tyranny is how a monarchy leads to a loss of property rights, and excuses theft. In their chapter on the inherently evil nature of government, the Kennedys point out how Israel’s new monarchy (1 Sam 8:10-18) sanctioned theft.

First, here’s the passage:

“Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, 'This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.'"

You need to read Nullifying Tyranny for yourself (I hope these posts send you to Amazon, or wherever you buy your books), but here’s a great excerpt from the book: “Notice that the new government under a king would result in the government of Israel taking away the private property of the people of Israel. The king (government) had no resources of its own. The only way the king could pay the cost of government was by “taking” private property away from the productive people. This act of “taking” violates the commandment not to steal, but because the king is doing the stealing, then no one dares to complain—it is hard to stand on principle when the choice is between keeping your private property or keeping your head! It is also instructive for modern readers to understand why the king steals his subjects’ private property. The king steals his subjects’ private property in order to pay for the loyalty of his supporters—those close to the source of power who have a natural interest in maintaining the status quo. The king needs loyal servants (supporters in today’s political jargon) because they will be the ones to enforce the king’s edicts. A loyal court, a loyal police and military, and a loyal religious establishment are all necessary to maintain the king securely in his office. Such things are very costly, but the king does not have to “labor” or earn his keep by the “sweat” of his brow—he merely takes from the productive and gives to those who, thanks to the king’s government, are no longer required to labor. The king, his court, his military, and the religious establishment that supports the king all lead parasitic lives. The cost is paid by the productive who must labor to earn enough for the king—who like all government has first claim on productive labor—and then hopefully have enough left over for the productive individual.”

Do you agree with that? I hope so. Do you agree that civil government allows and encourages theft? I hope you do. Do you want a better system? I know I do.

The Impossibility of Morality

In Nullifying Tyranny, the Kennedy brothers label one section of chapter 9 (“Dictators in a Democracy”) with this question: “Can a Moral Person Win an Election?”

This is an interesting question based on our previous post. The Founding Fathers seemed to think we CAN (and must) have moral men in civil government, but the Kennedys say it is impossible. That is, they say it is impossible for a moral man to win an election. I suppose those are two different things, but of course one thing is necessary to get to the other.

The Kennedys write this: “in order to raise sufficient money to run a winning political campaign in contemporary America a candidate must do three essentially immoral things: (1) promise to take money away from those who honestly earned it (theft even if it is blessed by a majority vote); (2) make promises that most likely will not be kept; and (3) make promises—either actually or implied—to grant certain favors to individuals and groups who provide the financing for the winning campaign.”

The first is a no-brainer: unless you really can eliminate all unbiblical taxation, you’ll be a part of the problem, not the solution.

The second is true, as well, and if you make no promises at all, you won’t get elected. Of course, if you stand up at a campaign rally and say, “I’m not making any promises because I’m not sure I’ll be able to keep any of them,” you might get elected for that statement alone!).

Regarding the third point, if you tell wealthy campaign donors that while you appreciate their generous gifts it’s not going to guarantee them some sort of power position in your administration, they’ll probably be quite happy to give it to your opponent.

The Kennedys end this section with a nice little paragraph: “The answer to the question of whether or not a moral person can win election in America today is—No. Even if he gained victory, which is highly unlikely today, it would take a most unusual person possessed with almost superhuman personality traits to resist the temptations of power inherent in America’s political system. “But where does that leave us?” you may ask. The way to elect moral people to office is to change the current system by removing the possibility of perks and power. How to do that is discussed in a later section of this book.”

So—no, a moral person can’t get elected, and cannot govern virtuously, in the present system. That means there must be a change. More to come on that. . . .

In the meantime, think about all the politicians you know who tout conservatism and “family values” but then choose to veer off course once in office. And when you think of conservative politicians who’ve disappointed you after gaining office, don’t leave out President Bush, a man who eventually drove me to distraction. Yes, President Bush (the younger), who said at the end of his presidency, "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system." Excuse me? Excuse me?

Before I get too wound up, I’ll close. The long and the short of it is this: we live in a fallen world and we are fallen voters who vote for fallen politicians, and our fallen governmental system has grown worse, not better. Until we fix the system, those who God has called out into public service will not be able to effectively serve Him by preserving our freedom.

Today, at least, morality cannot succeed in civil government.

The Third Principle of Liberty: Virtuous Leadership

Naturally, fallen people mean fallen leadership. At the same time, Godly men do exist, and it is from these ranks that the founders called for public servants. There are a few points from this section we need to consider, since they are relevant today.

One is that we should make political office one of honor, not one which is foremost about profit. In the early days of our country officials received little or no compensation for their service. Washington received a $25,000 salary as president, and even though he had terrific debts from the war, he refused his salary. Oh, for men such as him today. This is NOT a “he doesn’t need the money” argument (reference the Joe Haden post earlier) but a call for politicians who see first the value and honor of service and second the opportunity to profit. Today it is the other way around. Or perhaps it is that many politicians see the prestige and glory which come from service, and then the profit. Regardless, too politicians seek office with their own interests at heart. They don’t seem to care too much about Americans—even though they say they do.

So how do we produce men who are less interested in themselves and more interested in true service to their city, state, and country?

The founders themselves, our first politicians, are instructive. They read political philosophy and were students of scripture. They knew their history, and were able to use this knowledge as they crafted and then led our new civil government. They were, on the whole, men of God who viewed the world through the lens of scripture. They were men willing to die for their beliefs. As they signed the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." They had the courage of conviction, and years of training in the ways of God.

Where are these men today?

Be Careful What You Wish For

I’m reading Nullifying Tyranny right now (it’s by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy), and I thought I’d share a few things with you about why we should be careful what we wish for. . . .

Prior to the Fall of Man, God was the sole government on earth. Human government became necessary only when sin entered the garden. Family government was the first human system of government, but human governance eventually outgrew the family, and then people who didn’t care so much about the family stepped into power. Even so, Israel lived well under limited human government, and its people enjoyed self-reliance and a tight-knit sense of community.

When God brought Israel out of (Big Government) Egypt, He gave them 10 basic rules, and based all the other laws around the principles in those rules. When they came into the Promised Land, the people still enjoyed relatively limited government (reference the book of Judges). Soon, however, they began to demand a king. Why? Because they wanted to be like everyone else: “appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations” (1 Sam 8:5). Of course, God had already rejected the idea of a strong centralized government when He brought Israel out of Egypt, and when Israel stupidly clamored for a king, they were advocating a tyrannical government based not on God’s rule, but on the rule of one man.

JRK and WDK argue that on the whole it was the kings (“man-inspired government,” as they call it) who taught Israel to sin. It wasn’t the patriarchy and it wasn’t the judges. JRK / WDK write that “it was government under kings that institutionalized sin.” They note that “the saintly prophet Jeremiah lamented the evil that corrupt kings and corrupt religious leaders of his day had brought upon Judah.”

This is where we find ourselves today. We have sold our souls for security, and the evil our government has laid on us enslaves us all. Why? Because we asked for it. As the old saying goes, “you get the government you deserve.” What a pathetic commentary on our nation.

Deuteronomy 28: The Blessing and the Curse

Benjamin Franklin said that “as nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” He was arguing that only virtuous people can be free. He believed corruption and viciousness lead to our need for masters. Sam Adams said we’d be “the most abject slaves” if we are not virtuous. So why do we “have more need of masters”? Why are we slaves in 2010?

Now, the problem with the previous quotes, and the problem with our last post is the effect of sin. We are a fallen people, and we are not virtuous, except through what God has done in the lives of those who trust Him. I know the Framers knew this (they weren’t fools, after all), and because they knew this they worked safeguards into the system, aligning our young nation’s system of law with God’s law, and working a system of checks and balances into the three branches of government so that no one branch could get away with unlawful activity.

Next, we must consider society as a whole—when Franklin and Adams wrote these words, were there sinners? Surely. But on the whole, was America a more virtuous nation? Absolutely. Please—no one argue that there are no differences between the two.

Consider the Israelites. When they obeyed God they were blessed with life and liberty, but when they sinned they were cast out of God’s gracious care (see Deuteronomy 28). When they were a virtuous people they were free. When they were “universally vicious and debauched in [their] manners,” they were enslaved. It happened time and again and again and again and again. Sin led to slavery.

And that’s where we find ourselves today.

The Second Principle of Freedom: Virtue, Freedom, and Government

A CAVEAT: Before we begin, let me say I believe in the fallen nature of man, and that man cannot be virtuous without God's work in his life. Of course, our ability to be moral depends on God. Therefore our ability to govern ourselves depends on Him. . . .



Are we in this country moral enough to govern ourselves? It’s a question I alluded to in my very first post—the definition of “government” starts with me. If I can’t govern myself, I can’t govern others. The word “govern” implies rules, and rules imply some sort of standard, some sort of right and wrong. And if there is a right and a wrong, then there must be Someone who gets to make those decisions. That Someone is God.

And the Founders believed that; they also believed we cannot govern effectively if we are not a moral people. The second Principle of Freedom Skousen discusses is basically this: Our country won’t survive if we’re not “virtuous and morally strong.”

Ben Franklin said as much: “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” (More on that later. How can we let that go?) George Washington said our Constitution would survive only if we are a virtuous people. James Madison wrote that no “government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people.” Richard Henry Lee (he was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence) said that our independence and freedom “depend on [our] virtue].” Samuel Adams wrote that “we shall in reality be the most abject slaves” if we are “universally vicious and debauched in our manners.”

So we need to have a virtuous nation, for a virtuous nation aligns itself with God’s law. How do we stay a people of virtue? Well, the answer to that is in the third Principle of Freedom, which we’ll cover later. First we have to consider Benjamin Franklin’s quote about our need of masters. . . .

For now, as I say to my daughter when we’re finished reading a story before bedtime, “that’s the end of that chapter!”

The First Principle of Liberty: Natural Law (Part 3)

Today is our wrap-up day for the first Principle of Liberty. Read the previous two posts to familiarize yourself with the first precept W. Cleon Skousen covers in his book The 5000 Year Leap.

As we conclude, I am grateful our Founding Fathers agreed with the principles Cicero laid out. Skousen writes that the Founding Fathers “embraced the obvious necessity of building a highly moral and virtuous society. The Founders wanted to lift mankind from the common depravity and chicanery of past civilizations, and to lay the foundation for a new kind of civilization built on freedom for the individual and prosperity for the whole commonwealth. That is why they built their system on Natural Law.” Unfortunately we continue our daily slide away from that absolute standard.

Skousen ends this section with a list of examples of how the Founding Fathers use the principle of Natural Law in writing the Constitution (and in how they lived). He notes the following ideas are based on Natural Law: Unalienable Rights, Unalienable Duties, Habeas Corpus, Limited Government, Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, Self-Preservation, the right to Contracts, protection of the Family and Marriage, Justice by Reparation, the Right to Bear Arms, and No Taxation Without Representation. He notes (and of course he’s right) that these are only a few examples. . . .

When we understand the baseline for what the Framers of the Constitution wrote (the “why”), we better understand what they wrote. Too few know the Constitution, and that’s something I hope to change along the way. . . .

For now, digest what Cicero and Skousen have written. It’s a lot, but it’s critical. THERE MUST BE A FOUNDATION, A SOLID ROCK—all other ground is sinking sand. Indeed: all other ground is sinking sand.

The First Principle of Liberty: Natural Law (Part 2)

Yesterday we began a discussion of the first Principle of Liberty W. Cleon Skousen covers in his book The 5000 Year Leap. We began our understanding by touching on the first two "major precepts" Cicero investigates, precepts which colored the Founding Fathers' view of the world, especially as it applied to their understanding of crafting the most important document in the history of our nation. They are (1) that Natural Law is eternal and universal, and (2) that we have been given the capacity to reason. Today we will continue with the remaining five precepts.

The third concept Cicero advocates is that we must love and obey God. Skousen points to Cicero’s argument when he writes the following: “when people unite together in a covenant or compact under [Natural Law], they become a true ‘commonwealth,’ and since they intend to administer their affairs under God’s law, they belong to His commonwealth.” Unfortunately, many in civil government today (and even in family and church government) do not acquiesce to God’s law. . . .

Fourth, Cicero claimed that Justice in earthly affairs means the following: we have a “natural inclination to love our fellow-men, and this is the foundation of justice.” Therefore, if you want a just system of government, you must love others. Cicero and the Founding Fathers (and many of us today) would proclaim from the rooftops the fact that few in government have our own true and best interests at heart.

Fifth, Cicero believed we “Can Be Taught God’s Law or Virtue.” He understood the “potential improvement of human beings by teaching them the elements of virtue through education.” Cicero wrote that if one found the right guide, he could “attain to virtue.”

Sixth, Cicero believed (and many people rightly agree) that any legislation which violates God’s law is a “Scourge to Humanity.” Cicero wrote: “the most foolish notion of all is the belief that everything is just which is found in the customs or laws of nations.” He continues by noting that many laws put into place in nations are “pestilential statutes.” Cicero says we can’t claim something is a law (that is, in tune with God’s law) if it’s a rule damaging to a nation’s people.

Seventh, Cicero argued that “All Law Should Be Measured Against God’s Law.” If we want to judge between good and evil laws, we must lay them up against God’s law and see which one aligns itself with God’s ultimate authority. Skousen points out that Cicero felt “justice can never be expected from laws arbitrarily passed in violation of standards set up under the laws of Nature or the laws of the Creator. Is it any wonder the tax code is so vile?

These complete the "major precepts" which colored the views of our Founding Fathers as they crafted the Constitution. Tomorrow we will wrap up the section on Natural Law, which is the first Principle of Liberty.

The First Principle of Liberty: Natural Law (Part 1)

For the next several weeks we will focus on W. Cleon Skousen’s book The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle that Changed the World. In it Skousen lays out 28 Principles of Liberty. I’ll spend some time on each—understanding them and internalizing their truth is critical, now more than ever. I've broken the first principle up into three posts.

The first Principle of Liberty is this: “The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law.”

Skousen tells us few understand Natural Law, and he argues the best way to grasp it is to study Cicero. In his writings Cicero presents the case for “recognizing and identifying the rules of ‘right conduct’ with the laws of the Supreme Creator.” That is, “once the reality of the creator is clearly identified in the mind, the only intelligent approach to government, justice, and human relations is in terms of the laws which the Supreme Creator has already established. The Creator’s order of things is called Natural Law.”

Skousen goes on to discuss the “major precepts of Natural Law which so profoundly impressed the Founding Fathers.”

First, “Natural Law is Eternal and Universal.” Cicero referred to NL as “true law,” and argues that if we try to escape law through disobedience, we fail, because NL “cannot be altered. It cannot be repealed. It cannot be abandoned by legislators or the people themselves, even though they may pretend to do so.” Sound familiar? Think of it this way: Abortion is always wrong, no matter whether our government says it’s right. Something may be legal without being lawful.

Second, we have been given the ability to reason. We enjoy a much more rich “quality of mind” than does the animal kingdom. Both Cicero and our Founding Fathers “viewed this as a special, divine endowment from the Creator.”

Tomorrow we will look at the remaining precepts in the first principle which influenced the men who wrote the Constitution. . . .

Let Joe Haden Make What Joe Haden Makes

DISCLAIMER: My wife thinks that in this post I'm being a tad too confrontational. Maybe I am. But this is important, and timely, since NFL draft picks are negotiating contracts as I write this, and people all over the country are getting worked up over "obscene" contract amounts.

By the way, my wife agrees with everything I wrote. It's just that she's a lady, and a mom, and thus is less prone to poke people in the eye with a stick.



AND NOW. . . .


Joe Haden, the 2010 first-round pick for the Cleveland Browns, recently signed his rookie contract with the Browns. He will get $50 million over five years, and he will receive a $12M signing bonus just for signing his name. Of the $50M, $26M of it is guaranteed.

Sounds like a ton of money, yes? And he hasn't even done anything yet, right?

Now put that aside for a moment, and consider this question: why do I need to know how much Joe Haden makes? Isn’t that between him, his agent, and the Browns? When was Joe Haden’s salary ever my business? Why am I so concerned with what Joe Haden makes? The main reason, of course, is petty jealousy.

Let’s move on: In recent memory I can recall only one person who told me athletes were paid exactly what they deserved.

We’ve all heard some variation of this classic line: “why does a pro athlete make more than a teacher? How is that right?” Well, consider the argument Robert Murphy makes in his recent book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism. Murphy argues a pro athlete should get paid as much as he does because he’s a valuable commodity. Think of it this way: “a worker is worthy of his wages” (Luke 10:7).

Lest anyone get too excited, we must remember that on the whole we value teachers more highly than we do pro athletes (or at least we should). That doesn’t have any bearing on the value of ONE teacher as opposed to the value of ONE pro athlete. Murphy argues this is the same as claiming it is “unjust” that a Bible costs $5 when a Wii game system costs $150-$200. Which is more valuable inherently? The Bible. But how many Bibles are out there versus how many game systems? If I steal your Bible, can you go down to a used book store and get another one for less than $5? Yep. Can you do the same thing for a Wii? Does GameStop sell a used Wii for less than $10? Nope. In his book Murphy argues individual teachers shouldn’t make more than individual pro athletes, since we can more easily replace a teacher in the classroom than we can a pitcher who throws like Orel Hershiser, or a running back who can move like Barry Sanders (remember them?). It would take years of training, but I could eventually step into a Chemistry classroom as an instructor. Even with double the amount of training, I’ll never be able to throw a fast ball right down the middle of the plate in game seven of the World Series, and I’ll never be able to turn on a dime and cut up-field with the vision, quickness, and instinct of Barry Sanders. It stands to reason we need to pay those ridiculously gifted athletes more than we pay our teachers. As Murphy points out, this is called marginal utility (Google "marginal utility water diamonds," if you like).

But let’s leave marginal utility and go back for a moment to the jealousy angle. Most honest people would admit they are jealous of someone who makes a ton more money than they do—especially if that over-paid person simply “chases a little white ball down the fairway” or “throws a little white ball 90 feet.” When I make that argument I’ve set a “fairness line” which is entirely based on my own standard. But the guy in Africa who makes a buck a day would no doubt argue the same thing about me. And the least-paid member of the Browns is probably thinking, “man, Joe Haden gets paid too much money,” when HE makes a ton more than I and all my friends combined. It comes down to me worrying about myself, which is what Jesus taught. When I worry about others I’m not tending my own garden, and that is unscriptural. In the interest of full disclosure—until recently, I’ve felt the same way. . . .

The point is this: I need to worry about and govern myself. I don’t have the right to know what Joe Haden makes, and I don’t have the right to complain about how much Joe Haden makes.

Let the Browns and Joe Haden be at liberty to work their own deal. Joe Haden should make whatever the Browns decide to pay him, and I shouldn’t complain about it. The Browns have the right to pay Joe Haden a billion dollars a year if they want. It’s their money. What’s it to me what Haden makes? What’s it to me how the Browns spend their money? I need to do MY job (and collect my pay) and let Joe Haden do (and collect) his. Most people agree that I should get paid whatever my boss wants to pay me. And you can bet your bottom dollar I’d take a raise if he offered it. Say I make $25,000 a year and am living comfortably, and within my means. Then my boss says, “I’m giving you a $5,000 raise.” Would I decline the raise because I really don’t need it? Would I turn it down because there’s a guy in Africa who only makes a buck a day, and it’s not fair to him?

I need to mind my own business. Maybe I need to re-read Matthew 20.

Freedom Versus Restraint: The Car Seat Debate

Here's a perfect example of how the government has no business telling me how to raise my children. The authors of the Freakonomics blog (they've written two books) argue in their latest book that car seats are less safe for kids than are modified seat belts.

Of course, the outcry from over-concerned mothers is loud and angry. After the "Freakonomics Guys" were on Good Morning America, one mom commented on a Facebook page: "Now we will have more kids’ deaths because of people not using car seats. Thanks, Good Morning America, for doing this and killing kids."

As I said, too many mothers are over-concerned and have bought into the government's and the car seat manufacturer's propaganda.

Remember, the government has no right to MAKE you put your kids in car seats. Say it with me now: "the government has the power, but not the authority." If you're old enough (and you probably are if you're reading this) you remember when no one sat in cars seats, no one wore seat belts, and I certainly don't remember some ridiculous amount of deaths because kids weren't in car seats. What I DO remember is a bunch of us kids crammed in the back of a station wagon on our way to to family get-togethers.

And EVEN IF it was more dangerous, who cares? Shouldn't we have the right to live my life as we choose, and strap (or not strap) kids into the car the way we want to? Beyond that, these laws are too arbitrary. Who gets to decide what's safe enough? Why is it the government? Do they know better than you and I how to raise our kids?

The government needs to get out of our business and let us be free to live as we want. The government should have the least influence on how we raise our kids. Do they love your kids more than you do?

Consider something else: as our kids grow up in this nanny state, they become accustomed to the government telling them what to do. I think that's where a lot of these overprotective moms come from. They've been conditioned to believe the government knows better than they do when it comes to raising their kids.

And I say all of this as a dad of two great kids I love very much.

Do yourself a favor: Google "freakonomics car seats" and read more about it. Make your own decision. Don't let anyone tell you how to think about this issue. And certainly don't trust the government's ability to raise your kids better than you can. They have no right to tell you what's best for your kids.