If you have read my previous article on the principles of economic freedom you will see that this recording is much the same as the article. Hope you like Knight Rider.
Somebody asked me today to tell them a little bit about my NO vote on the "Pick a Winner" tax credit bills we had in special session. I talked with the reporter and then decided to tell you what I had told her.
If you have read my previous article on the principles of economic freedom you will see that this recording is much the same as the article. Hope you like Knight Rider.
The house passed the Economic Development Bill today by a vote of 98 to 48.
I voted for several amendments to the Economic development bill including amendments to:
· Cut the Corporate Tax ¾ of a percentage (the only part of the bill that provides a decent help to more businesses than just the ones picked for targeted tax credits)
· A sales tax holiday for products that are “Made in the USA” (Finally a step in the right direction to ultimately encourage production of goods in America and also good for business in our state)
· No sunsets on Tax Credits for Food Pantries and Pregnancy Care Resource Centers. (These tax credits operates more like a tax deduction and they are nontransferable so no one stands to profit at the expense of the taxpayer Also, these are for benevolent organizations, not businesses so no one is forced into a competitive disadvantage)
After other amendments were added, I had doubts about a vote I cast to add sunsets to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, I liked a plan that I heard later by Rep Ryan Silvey. Rep Silvey had offered up an amendment to bring every tax credit under review every four years instead of sunsets. Due to the nature of the various types of tax credit programs (some are more characteristic of tax deductions etc…) I think it would be a good idea to bring ALL of them up for review on a routine basis, at this time in our state, we do not have the luxury of perpetual tax credit programs that continue on without any oversight.
Although I voted in favor of several amendments, I ultimately voted NO on the entire bill for two main reasons:
(1) The bill was extremely bloated and covered an entire host of different issues and tax credit programs and we didn’t even debate the content of the proposed 200 page + bill on the house floor, we just debated different amendments. The 200 pages of this bill were given to us a day or so before we arrived in Jefferson City and many of us felt we didn’t have adequate time to study the new version of the bill.
(2) I believe the Economic Philosophy of the state is headed in the wrong direction; instead of using sound principles of economics to spur economic growth, we are debating how best to control the economy in an attempt to force it into prosperity instead of relying on consumers and producers to initiate the growth. When the government issues policies to choose who can and who cannot participate in the market we only put more economic control in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians who feel they can improve the economy by writing new laws. The government cannot predict supply and demand so they should stop trying to give economic advantages to one industry over another. The more we do this, the deeper of a hole we will have to dig ourselves out of when we finally decide to break a sweat on the tax reform that we desperately need to give businesses more economic freedom to succeed and prosper.
I am glad that there were beneficial items in this bill but unfortunately the cost of this bill seems to have outweighed the overall benefit, especially if we continue with flawed economic policy geared more and more toward central planning.
Freedom, liberty and property rights for consumers, producers and laborers will make us the most prosperous in the end; it worked the first 200+ years in America and I believe that if we try it again we will see some great innovation come out of our state!
I just voted NO on the "China Hub" bill in the Committee on Economic Development. It seems that to compete with other states for economic development and job creation, many are under the impression that we have to do what everybody else is doing but just do a better job of it. Maybe that is the reason why I often hear people say "Well, we have to do something!" when they tell me that they do not like these targeted tax credits but they are going to vote for them anyway. Although the Aerotropolis bill is far from anything I consider to have true economic potential, parts of it are better than what we were given in committee before.
CORRECTION from earlier post: "Compete Missouri" is not in this bill as it was first proposed but some of the items still remain to my understanding (I am still trying to figure this out, we just got the bill the other day already had to vote on it without any debate in the committee itself).
There were Four NO votes on this bill in committee:
Targeted Tax Credits and the Principles of Freedom
The proper role of government is to protect the rights of the citizens. This means, among other things, that the government must keep us safe from invasion, protect our inherent rights such as our freedom of speech and our property. It takes funding for the government to protect our rights but when the government begins to reallocate the people’s money beyond their jurisdiction, their acts naturally become counterproductive to the purpose of government and become dangerous to our liberty, our treasury and our ability to pursue happiness with the confidence that we are all equal under the law.
I AM NOT AGAINST PROPER AND REASONABLE REGULATION IN THE MARKET AS LONG AS THAT REGULATION IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE INEGRITY OF THE MARKET SYSTEM BY PROTECTING THE PROPERTY (MONEY AND LABOR) OF BOTH CONSUMERS AND PRODUCERS.
Here are some freedom-minded bullet points on sound economic principles:
• When the government targets certain industries for tax credits in hopes of spurring economic prosperity, the government is either implying that it can predict supply and demand for goods and services, or it is attempting to suspend the laws of supply and demand altogether in favor of central economic planning, both of which are bad policy and rob the people of their liberty and property.
• When the government targets certain industries for tax credits, it is basically admitting that letting that industry have more money is a good thing that will spur economic growth. The problem is that the government is picking who gets a greater opportunity to succeed at the expense of the others, possibly even a small businesses competitors and thus there is no equality under the law. That notion alone is enough to make this a civil rights issue.
• The government is literally robbing the labor of the people through their tax money in an effort to assist others in their labor and pursuit of success. This is an outright abuse of our property rights and not only that but we are implementing the basic tenant of socialism to do it insomuch that we are advocating the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles in hopes of attaining a healthy economy.
• Another point to make is that there is no equality of law under such a program when one is forced to pay taxes so that a competitor may not pay taxes.
• Good and bad investments in our economy can only be properly determined when consumers and producers are free to make their decisions without interference of intrusive government policies that distort the pros and cons of the investment.
• The markets do not become more free when the government gets involved; they become less free. It is important to keep the government out of the market except when they are needed to protect the rights and property of producers and consumers.
Economic prosperity has always and will always follow the path of least resistance. Bottom line: If we want to bring back the jobs, we need to cut taxes and red tape equally for everyone and get the government to STOP planning the economy. Let the market and investors, consumers and producers work it out. That is the system that brought us the toaster, the lightbulb, the plasma flat screen TV and the Macbook Pro that I am typing this on. Let's try that system again and see what new ideas can come out of Missouri!
I am 100% behind Israel doing what they have to do to protect themselves but today I heard several people in a couple different conversations mention our obligation to protect Israel or otherwise do what ever it takes for to assure Israel's security.
I know we are spending money to help but the Israelites and their enemies continue to die. Israel has never been relieved of the threat that faces her 24 hours a day in spite of anything we have ever done. I know that when ever Israel tries to defend herself, the U.S. tells her to stand down or give up some land. Maybe the best way to help Israel is to quite "helping" Israel and let her make her own decisions.
I'm no foreign policy expert, but I was just thinking - If we let Israel handle her own foreign policy it might do more good for the entire region than the U.S. has been able to do. For example, back in the 60s, Israel took over large portions of her region of the middle east in less than 6 days and they did it with what could hardly be called an air force and a ground force of what was made up of mostly farmers and other civilians. When I was in high school, I watched on TV as Israeli tanks broke through the Palestinian barricade and surrounded Arafats house within 100 feet. It turns out that Arafat had ordered a barrage of attacks on the Israeli people and the body count was rising. The Israelis were about to turn Arafats house into rubble with him in it but the U.S. told Israel to stand down - so they did, and later, the attacks and suicide bombings continued.
If we really want to be a blessing to Israel, maybe we should give them their country back and let them go after their enemies just like we do. Besides, now they have a nuclear bomb and I am pretty sure that Iran (or anybody else for that matter) wouldn't feel so cavalier about wiping Israel off the map if they knew that Israel was unleashed to defend herself. Israel has a right to self preservation and no nation or "United Nations" has the liberty to infringe on that right. Like I said, I'm no expert but if our "help" isn't really helping, maybe we should consider helping by not helping.
On August 5, 2011 the United States’ credit rating was downgraded for the first time in history from a perfect AAA to a less then perfect AA+. As this article is being written, the United States dollar happens to be the reserve currency of the world meaning, among other things, that the value of other nations’ currency is tied to the value of our currency. Some other nations, like China, were rather upset at our failure to take charge of our spending and debt problem with the passage of the recent debt deal. Why were they angry? For this reason: we basically told them and the rest of the world that we are a bad investment
Here is how it works. When China purchases a U.S. bond, what they are buying is debt. In other words, when China buys a $1 million dollar bond at 3% interest, they are letting us borrow $1 million but as we pay it back, we must pay them an extra 3%. That extra 3% is what it cost us to borrow the money; after all, China doesn’t want to give us $1 million dollars for free. This system works just fine until we borrow more money than we make and paying the money back to China becomes difficult. What is even more difficult is paying back that extra 3%. If we don’t pay the interest, China won’t give us any more money because, like I already said, they don’t want to lend money for free. The more debt we take on the less likely it is that we will be able to pay it back accordingly and thus the reason for a lower credit score; we simply cannot be trusted with borrowing money.
Here is how the downgrade hurts us. When AAA is stamped on all the IOUs (U.S. Treasury notes and bonds) then China knows that we are good for our debts and they have confidence that we will pay them back along with the interest. When the AAA rating gets downgraded to AA+, that is a signal to China that we might not be able to pay them back as well as we thought we could. China is not going to have much confidence that we will pay them back so they will be tempted to stop loaning us money. A big problem for us is that we still need to borrow money just to pay for all the commitments we have already made. This commitment includes both interest and principal being paid back to the lender. Since the lower credit rating is signaling to China that there is more risk associated with our bonds or debt, we must raise the interest rate in order to persuade China to buy them anyway. In essence, we are giving China a raise for loaning us their money in order to make them feel better about it.
Lets say that we offer China an extra 9% of the money they loan us. China might like the sound of getting 9% instead of a 3% return meaning that for every $1 we borrow, we would now have to pay back $1.09. Here is a big problem: if we borrow $1 but we have to pay back $1.09, where does that extra 9 cents come from? The answer is YOU and your children and then THEIR children.
Recently, the chairman of the Federal Reserve said that if needed, the Federal Reserve would buy America’s debt. This is what we call monetizing debt. Basically, we print our own money and buy our debt from ourselves: that way we have new money to pay off debtors like China. Recall how I said China was upset. When we monetize our debt we literally create money out of thin air and we use this new money to pay China. When we print money like this, we are inflating the supply of our currency, which brings the value of our dollar down. As we monetize our debt and make payments to China, each payment of $1 million is worth less than the previous payment of $1 million. In the end, China is angry and prices will go up as the amount of money in circulation increases.
The direct impact this has on you is that YOUR dollars are worth less. This means you have to spend more dollars to buy food, gas, clothing, cars. That is inflation, which is an indirect “tax” on each of you.
The only way to solve this financial problem is to cap the debt and cut the spending in an effort to balance the budget. Only then can we hope for financial stability. Some people say that we should not balance the budget. I really do not know why anyone would want to live in a country that can’t be responsible with the people’s money. Some people say that the government should spend more in order to stimulate the economy. This just doesn’t work.
The government is, by nature, a consumer and it doesn’t produce anything but rather it secures our safety and our liberty (or at least that’s what a legitimate government does according to our Declaration of Independence).The argument is that if we borrow money and use it on “shovel ready” jobs such as bridges and roads, then people will have work and money to spend in their local economy. The flaw in this thinking is that in order to assume this will work, one would have to assume that the health of the economy is directly related to the amount of dollars that can be pumped onto it. If the federal government really believed that “stimulus” packages and bailouts work, then they would have cut each American a check for $2500 instead of sending it to government and corporate fat cats to “stimulate” the economy.
The law of supply and demand for products is entirely left out of this theory of “stimulus”. However, assimilating our policy to those laws of economics are what drives production, lowers unemployment and facilitates the exchange of money through commerce and wages. This is why it is important for America to have manufacturing and production jobs. If we are a consumer nation and not producing anything, then we will always have to borrow money to buy things, which is exactly the box Washington D.C. has been putting this country in for decades.
Cutting spending is the other factor. This might be a good start: the U.S. should stop paying 22% of the United Nations’ budget. How about we start cutting some foreign aid that all to often winds up going to countries that are notorious for corruption, like Mexico? A few years ago we sent billions of dollars plus aircraft and small arms to Mexico to help them secure their southern border- forget about America right Washington?
How about we pull some of our troops back from Japan, German, Italy, Qatar, Thailand, Belgium and should I keep going? We are phasing out military cooks and military police and hiring private contractors and paying them hundreds of thousands of dollars to do what an 18 year old would love to do for a thousand dollars a month with full benefits and free travel around the world. We send billions of dollars to countries all over the world, we send them our jobs, and then we take the youngest and the brightest America has to offer, put them in military uniforms and send them too. All too often the money we send them is misused, abused and the troops we send around the world aren’t appreciated. This isn’t the only answer to the problem but it is a small part of the answer. We could also start closing unnecessary military installations both abroad and in the United States, or at least relocate them to the Mexico/U.S. border.
To reiterate: We spend billions taking care of other people around the world but put ourselves in situations where we have to raise our own interest rates to cover the cost of borrowing money from China just so we can take care of everybody else but ourselves. Then we are the ones who get stuck with the bill by paying higher interest rates with an ever-inflating supply of currency. It has to stop. I’m not by any means an isolationist but I think a little common sense would tell us to start putting America first if we want to have an America at all in the future.
I’m sick of this nonsense that operating for the self-preservation of our country and our freedom is illogical and not compassionate. People who feel the way I do about some of this have recently been described in the media as “zombies,” “cannibals,” and even “vampires” all because we want the madness to stop. Sorry mainstream media, but we aren’t the monsters; the real economic monsters are in Washington D.C banning light bulbs (Republicans), sending guns across the border to Mexico (Democrats) and raiding Amish and organic groceries to keep them from selling milk (Bureaucrats). Our elected leaders in the federal government opt out of nearly everything they force on us such as individual healthcare mandates and social security taxes but then turn around and opt into retirement benefits for life and we pay for all of that too. Meanwhile, back home, the rest of us are bracing ourselves for yet another round of economic beatings.
From www.house.mo.gov : Jefferson City – A newly-formed interim committee will spend the next few months developing policy solutions that will help promote and strengthen healthy Missouri families. Missouri House Speaker Steven Tilley, R-Perryville, said he created the House Interim Committee on Strengthening Missouri Families because he believes a strong family unit is the key to helping Missourians reach their potential.
“Government certainly can’t solve every problem but we can work to ensure our policies are conducive to strengthening the family unit and providing a support network that will help parents and children successfully meet some of the challenges they may have little chance to overcome on their own,” said Tilley.
He noted that more than half of all marriages end in divorce and that Missouri’s divorce rate has consistently been higher than the national average. “We can’t stand idly by and allow the family structure to be weakened to the point that most marriages have no chance for success,” Tilley said. “We have to recognize that families represent the essential building blocks for our communities and our state, and that without strong families, we will never be able to reach our potential.”
Tilley said state Rep. Scott Largent, R-Clinton, will serve as chairman of the committee. Tilley said Largent was the ideal choice to lead the committee’s efforts based on his experience as the current chair of the House Committee on Children and Families.
“This is an issue that Rep. Largent is passionate about and one that has received much of his attention during his time as a legislator,” said Tilley. “I know he will be a strong guiding voice for the committee as they develop common sense solutions that will help strengthen the family unit and give our young people a much better chance for success.”
“As a legislature we often look for ways to fix problems in our state while failing to recognize the cause of these problems; trouble at home,” said Largent. “The cost of a weak family structure, both economically and socially, is something we as a state cannot afford. We have to take a long, hard look at our policies to ensure they are meeting the needs of Missouri families so that our young people are supported and nurtured in a way that allows them to reach their vast potential.” Largent said
the committee will hold a series of hearings around the state in the coming months.
An interim House committee announced this week by House Speaker Steven Tilley, R-Perryville, will spend the next few months looking at ways to improve Missouri’s budget process. Tilley said the House Interim Committee on Budget Transparency will continue the work of a similar interim committee formed last year for the same purpose.
“As Missouri families and business continue to work to do more with less during these tough economic times, we believe state government must do the same,” said Tilley. “I have encouraged the members of the committee to look for ways to root out waste, fraud and abuse in government and ensure a more efficient and accountable state government.”
The committee will be chaired by state Rep. Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City, who also chairs the House Budget Committee and who served as chair of last year’s interim committee. In 2010, Silvey and his colleagues pored over budget details as they met with representatives from every state department during a series of weekly hearings.
"We’re looking at yet another budget situation that will require state government to tighten its belt in much the same way Missouri families do when times get tough,” said Silvey. “We’ve made a serious commitment to ensuring we have the most efficient government possible – one that doesn’t duplicate services or waste money on ineffective programs. My plan with the committee is to continue that effort and find fiscally responsible solutions for the budget challenges ahead.”
The committee plans to hold a series of hearings in the coming weeks. Rep. Rick Stream, R-Kirkwood, will serve as vice chairman of the committee. Other members include Reps. Sue Allen, Tom Flanigan, Marsha Haefner, Randy Asbury, Mike Lair, Denny Hoskins, Mark Parkinson, John Cauthorn, Sara Lampe, Chris Kelly, Jeanne Kirkton, John Rizzo and Gail McCann Beatty.
I’m not a smoker and I don’t enjoy being near smoke, but I disagree with the proposal to ban smoking in private businesses within the city limits of Rolla. We’ve witnessed time and time again how government solutions - no matter how well intentioned - are so often worse than the problems those solutions were intended to address. I believe this is one of those cases. If smoking is banned in Rolla businesses, those who wish to go out and enjoy a smoke with their friends don’t have to drive too far down I-44 in order to find a place that allows it, and that means lost revenue for Rolla businesses and lost tax revenue for the City of Rolla as well. I’d like to see Rolla be a city with a vibrant economy where unemployment is low and opportunity abounds; not a place that pushes economic activity and jobs to surrounding cities.
There are many reasons to oppose a smoking ban, but probably the most important is that these types of bans disrespect one of the more significant and even sacred elements that have led to America’s success – the freedom of private property rights. Unlike many places around the world, in this country we generally respect private property rights and recognize that it’s the place of owners to dictate what legal activity does or does not take place on their property. After all, it’s their property, isn’t it? I may not like that some business owners choose to have their establishments full of smoke, but freedom and private property rights run both ways. I have the freedom to choose not to patronize businesses that disregard my desire to not have my body subjected to smoke. I can take my wallet somewhere else, and many times I do. That’s what freedom is all about – non-coercion. Do we really want to use the strong arm of the law to coerce people to not smoke or let others smoke on their property? Do we really want to burden law enforcement or other government agencies, including the court docket, with the enforcement of such a law when we know full well their resources are already stretched thin? I think not. Freedom sometimes comes with the inconvenience of needing to think through things like whether I should subject myself or my family members to loud movies at the movie theater, eye damaging lasers at the laser tag course, hard-hit softballs on the softball field, or smoke in a local business, but I’d much rather our society be full of people who think for themselves and their families and exercise their freedom to live, eat, work, and play where they want than to be burdened with laws which kill jobs, disrespect property rights, and acclimate people to the idea that government can and even should make these important decisions for us.
As a patron of other businesses, an employee and an employer, as well as a respecter of freedom and private property rights for which so many brave people have sacrificed their lives in the armed services, I for one believe people can and should exercise freedom and individual responsibility and decide for themselves what legal activities they wish to be exposed to. We don’t need a job-destroying law like a smoking ban, and I hope others, including non-smokers like myself, will stand against this anti-freedom smoking ban.
Prior to America’s independence from Britain, the citizens of the British colonies in America were oppressed by a central government, a monarchy, in which the people’s rights were not recognized or protected because these rights were attributed to the king only. Inherent rights, such as freedom of speech and the ownership of private property, were not believed to be owned by the individual, but rather, they were believed to be held by the central government; the king of England. The theory that kings were endowed by God with the authority to rule, regardless of the consent of their subjects, was known as “the divine right of kings.” It was through the application of this theory that the king was allowed to claim ownership over all the land in his kingdom. If you were fortunate enough, the king might grant you some land, but if he did, it was understood that the king still owned it and could recall it from your possession at any time and for any reason. The king held all sovereignty; therefore, the king had ALL the rights to the land in his kingdom.
Not only did the land belong to the king but the people were essentially owned by the king as well. It was the king that established what social class you would be a part of; if you were lucky enough, the king might grant you a title of nobility and a certain amount of permissions with his land and people as well. It was the king that told you what you were allowed to say, what you were not allowed to say, what religion you had to practice, what taxes you must pay and how often you would pay them. The king was not a public servant sworn to protect the rights of the people, as our elected leadership is supposed to be.
The most remarkable document to establish the principles of liberty and personal freedom came from the American colonies when the Second Continental Congress unanimously approved the Declaration of Independence to sever the political bonds which connected the colonies to British rule. The Founding Fathers of American government believed that the sole purpose of government was for the benefit of protecting the rights of the citizens, not the right of the rulers. They also believed that the doctrine of the divine right of kings was an oppressive, moral transgression against humanity and that no government, man, or woman for that matter, had the right to rule over his fellow man without their consent. Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, and this date has been celebrated as the birthday of the United States of America ever since.
The Declaration of Independence is the cornerstone of our American government. Although the United States Constitution provides us with the walls of American government, those walls only stand because of the self- evident truths and principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence. For example, look at the principles that Thomas Jefferson wrote into its text where it says “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal...” Stated here is the principle of equality. The Declaration of Independence goes on to say, “That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” This is where Jefferson mentions inherent rights. Although we are not created with equal physical attributes, abilities, or wealth, we are created equal under God and the Law.
The Declaration of Independence is most remarkable for its revolutionary statement, “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” This statement boldly declares that the only valid purpose behind the existence of any government is to do one thing: protect individual rights. Have you ever wondered how your tax money being sent to someone who hasn’t even applied for a job in the last six months does anything to protect your right to keep your own income? Have you ever wondered how congress could introduce over 5,000 bills a year and all of them are for the protection of your rights? My guess is that most of those bills, in some way or another, do nothing more than infringe on your rights, even if it’s just by wasting your tax money or regulating what kind of light bulbs you are allowed to use.
Now let me quote the previous part of the Declaration of Independence and continue on just a little with the principle that defines the existence of the US Constitution and tells you what this little book is all about. This is the principle:
“That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Let me touch on the last part of that quote where it says, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” It is from this that the principle of self-government is taken. From the Declaration of Independence, we can come to the conclusion that government is only legitimate if it does the following two things:
1. Secures and protects the inherent rights of the citizens
2. Operates with the consent of the citizens
One excellent way to establish your political view would be to read the Declaration of Independence and use the principles it contains as a filter of sorts. In other words, if the government, at any level, is operating without having met the criteria listed above, then it may very well be in- fringing on your inherent, God given, rights to one extent or another. As you read through this book, you will understand that American citizens should make a big deal out of small infringements.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “All Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...” In other words, what our Founding Fathers were asserting was the fact that the King of England, or any king for that matter, did not hold all inherent rights and sovereignty unto himself. Simply because all men are created equal, all men are sovereign; each one unto himself is bestowed with sovereignty at the moment of creation and therefore, each man is his own king.
What exactly does it mean to be sovereign? I am glad you asked! If you were to pick up a Black’s Law Dictionary, you would most likely find a couple of definitions similar to these:
Sovereignty – Sovereign –
-Holding supreme dominion, authority, or rule.
-A person, body, or state bestowed with independent and supreme authority.
The easiest way to illustrate sovereignty is to give you the example of a man who owns one acre of land that borders your property. If you want to walk across his land you will have to ask his permission. You must ask permission only because the land you want to use does not belong to you; you have no right to it. You, however, can walk across, build fences on, dig holes in, and burn your land if you choose to because you own it; you have the right to it.You do not need to ask permission to exercise your right; you are sovereign. You only need to ask permission if you don’t have a right.
What you need to understand is that you are a sovereign individual. You are bestowed with the sole owner- ship of your person; therefore, you have the supreme authority over the inherent rights that God gave you at the exact moment of your creation. For example, your thoughts are inherent because your thoughts cannot be separated from your mind and you are sovereign over your thoughts because you own them; you have the supreme authority over them, and no one can take them from you or control them for you. Alexander Hamilton may not have always been the best champion of limited government, but he was right on when he explained,
“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
Just for further understanding, you, and only you, own the rights to your body, your thoughts, as well as the right to do what is necessary to preserve your life. You have a conscience that is inherent and therefore cannot be separated from you either. You have the inherent right of self-preservation just by the virtue of the laws of nature; your body’s sole function is to keep you alive. Your individual and inherent rights will always be with you until the day you die simply because they cannot be extracted from your person; you are a sovereign individual.
Although inherent rights cannot by any means be extracted from you, it is possible for you to allow someone else to suppress them; at the most, you can let them claim ownership of you. For example, if you tell me that someone has taken away your freedom of speech, I will tell you that it is only because you surrendered your freedom to speak when you decided that you were unwilling to speak; you have allowed yourself to be enslaved. Thomas Jefferson often refers to inherent rights as “Natural Law” because your freedom of speech is just asnatural as your ability to speak; you are using the faculties that your Creator gave you in order to manifest your inherent rights and abilities. These natural rights are yours until you die, at the most, you may choose not to exercise them; however, no one can by any means take them from you; once again, you are a sovereign person.
One of our Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry, is remembered for a speech he gave in which he declared, “Give me liberty, or give me death!” What Mr. Henry is enlightening us to is the fact that there is no middle ground between liberty and slavery. You are never only half free or only one-third a slave; you are either free or you are not. Either you claim absolute ownership over yourself, or you do not. Those men and women around the world who died fighting for their freedom did, in fact, die free. The point is this: you will always be free as long as you exercise your freedom; even if you exercise freedom in the face of opposition, you are still free. The day you surrender you freedom is the day you enslave yourself. The only other alternative to slavery is death, hence Mr. Henry’s famous quote, “Give me Liberty or give me death.” You are a sovereign individual no matter what. The question is this: will you fold and give yourself over to slavery or will you exercise your sovereignty even if it means death?
After several years of bloodshed, the British finally recognized America’s Declaration of Independence. Soon afterward, a new government was created with the ratification of the United States Constitution. Written over the course of several months of debate, the US Constitution was composed for the purpose of establishing a government designed solely to protect the individual rights of its citizens. Our Founding Fathers established new and innovative measures to ensure that the new American government would always be in the hands of the people so that the government could only operate with the consent and particular involvement of the citizens themselves.
The United States Constitution could not be complete without establishing within it the principles of individual sovereignty and self-government as written in the Declaration of Independence; and as you will see, it has. Americans, unlike the people of any other country, have a governing document designed for the protection of the individual.
Copyright 2009 Paul Curtman, Don't Tread On Me, All rights Reserved.
You are invited to a legislative update and a question and answer session!
TOWN HALL 1
When: Thu Jul 14, 7pm – 8pm Central Time
Where: Pacific Eagles Club, Pacific, MO
TOWN HALL 2
When: Tue Jul 19, 7pm – 8pm Central Time
Where: House Springs Lions Club, House Springs, MO