Constitutional Libertarianism

Constitutional Libertarianism

Saturday, June 15, 2013

The Rule Of Law

We are a nation based on the premise that as a People, we adhere to the rule of Law.

That "Law" is known as the Constitution, further detailed by the Bill of Rights.

People were tired of being ruled by other people.  A person who is a ruler can be just about any kind of person and often are unjust, tyrannical, power hungry, self centered and so on.  They can be insane, and as long as rule resides with a person, that's too bad for everyone else.

What the U.S. did was to say that we will not invest the authority to rule to ay person or group of persons.  The people collectively hold that authority and will send representatives from their midst to make sure things work out in the best interests of all the people, not just the ones who have the favor of a person or party.  That's how it's supposed to work anyway.

We put the rules up on the wall.  These rules are for everyone to follow, no exceptions.  Keep in mind, the idea was in preventing the worst kind of ruler from coming about, a tyrannical, imposing, power hungry nutjob who cares only about what that person and their cronies want.

The rules are on the wall so that not only can people "police" each other, but can police themselves.  No real "need" for someone to walk around and tell people what's what, we can see for ourselves and make sure we individually are following the law.  That's called "responsibility. 

Responsibility in this kind of place where the law is written on the wall for everyone to see and know is part of what comes about when everyone is given the same, equal, rights to live their own lives (that's called "Liberty").  If you want Liberty, you are responsible for making sure that you are following the few (not anymore) laws that exist to make sure you are stepping on others freedom, rights and Liberty.

Living your own life and being free to make your own life decisions means you will take certain risks.  Any risk carries with it the possibilities that something positive can result from it or something negative can result from it. That's kinda why it's called a risk to begin with.

When you accept risk, you accept the consequences, good or bad.  That's why we should make sure we are making educated, intelligent, rational decisions   before taking on risks so we can be sure we are best prepared and willing to take on those risks.

But no, now people don't want to accept the consequences of their choices.  The results of the risks they take.  They want someone else to bail them out of the negative consequences but leave the positive ones to them alone.

It doesn't work that way.  Nobody comes in and says, "I'll take the negative consequences for you and take nothing of the good."  They want both.  The more of the negative they take from you, they want the same amount of the positive as well.  It doesn't matter who it is that alleviates your risks.  Family, friends, community members, the government.  Especially the government.

The more you ask or allow the government to take on or you, the more they will take and never give back to you.  The y knew this back then and that's why they installed a limited government.  The Constitution is mostly a list of limitations the federal government has.

Bit by bit, the federal government and the elected representatives we keep sending to do our business, keeps chipping away at those limitations, trying to negate or remove them entirely.When the government or a politician offers you anything, it's not free and it's not in good will.  They want you compromised so that you eventually are not able to realize or take action when they have finally usurped the authority of the People instead of being forced to abide by their limitations as set in the Constitution.

Oh yes, they'll sell it to you as safety, security, a "better way of life", an "easier way of life."

Stop being lazy, stop being lax, stop letting fear control you, stop expecting others to carry your water, stop being irresponsible, stop being unaccountable.

You are ruining it all for everyone else.  Instead of insisting that others take the weight of your risks, consider that soon, you will not be able to make your own choices at all and that you made it that way because you wanted someone else to do it for you.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

The Second Amendment. When you respect the Constitution, it works.

The problem a lot of people have in these modern times with the second amendment is that they think there is no need for it with a, compared to way back then, ramped up military.

See, if you actually read the U.S. Constitution (as ratified by the member states, keep this in mind, it's important) you'll see Congress has the authority, not the President, to do the following;

Article 1, Section 8;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

You'll notice that Congress is to be able to raise armies and keep them going for up to two years at a time.  This leads us to think that Armies should not already be "standing" waiting to be sent to war.

Also note that Congress is supposed to keep militias armed and trained, ready at the go to be called into service.  Who are the militias?  The average citizen, that's who.

The Constitution says that Congress is to provide for the militias to be armed and trained.  "Provide for" not actually arm them.  Why, because the Second Amendment addresses the issue by stating that citizens are able to own their own weapons to be able to serve in militias when called upon.

In today's world, we have a standing army, which we are not supposed to have.  You may also note that the states reserve the authority to manage the militias, not the federal government.  The federal army only has authority over those militia members as have been called into service of the federal army.

All able bodied people are supposed to be able to be a part of a local militia.  Allowing each person to keep and bear arms of their own makes having militias affordable.

What exactly does the Second Amendment say? 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now  also keep in mind that "Arms" is not only the weapon, but the ammunition as well. Obviously, the last sentence holds a lot of meaning, "Shall not be infringed."

Don't mess with it, is what it is saying.  Also, do you know what it means to "bear" arms?  It means to carry at the ready.

Do we have a lot of people in this country who have little to no respect for guns and other weapons?  yes, we do.  That accounts for those that have them and those that don't.  Those that have weapons and don't respect them are the ones doing stupid things like using their weapons to commit crimes or showing off recklessly and so on.  The bad apples in the bunch so to speak.

Take into account though how many people who are responsible, respectful gun owners and you will see that the vast majority of gun and other weapons owners are very respectful and responsible. 

They train with their weapon of choice, they have it at the ready for use in situations when someone is threatening theirs and those around them lives and safety.

So next time you want to talk about the Second Amendment and getting rid of guns or other weapons, think about education rather than oppressing and violating the Constitutional rights of millions of people.