Constitutional Libertarianism

Constitutional Libertarianism

Thursday, June 23, 2016

The Second Amendment, A Closer Look

First of I'd like to go back to an earlier post here and point out that the Rights we refer to in the Constitution and consequently the Bill of Rights are not granted by the government.  These are Natural or God given rights that the founding documents recognize as inherent.

This is extreme important in understanding the context of the Constitution.  First thing I want to point out is that the 2nd amendment refers to the right to "keep and bear arms".  "Arms" is broader than and inclusive of "firearms".  That means that guns, firearms, are just one type of arms or weapons that people are understood to have the right to have.

Arms also includes blades, spears, bow and arrow, etc...  These are all weapons, or arms, that are readily and universally identified.  So the Second Amendment shouldn't be construed as limited to guns.

Let's get back to identifying context again.  If the Constitution is based on recognizing natural or God given rights, how does that relate to arms?  Because the Right to Life MUST include the means to defend it and sustain it.  The natural or God given Right to Liberty MUST include the ability and means to defend it and maintain it.

Arms are a, if not THE, primary means to accomplish those things.  To deny the means, tools and know-how to defend and sustain/maintain our God given Rights is to deny that we have those natural or God given Rights to begin with.

So, the Second Amendment says;

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.
For those not understanding the nature of contractual writing, and the Constitution IS a contract, this says that

"Because we need people to be ready and able to fight for their Right to live in freedom, to be able to defend that freedom, we want to make sure people have the means to do that and nobody will get in the way."

Because we have been told by the authors of the Constitution in their own words (see the Federalist Papers as just one example as well as the personal journals and letters of those people who go into much greater detail) the Militia referred to are the people themselves.  There is no greater fighting force on Earth than one who is armed and ready behind every door.  The Emperor of Japan figured this out the hard way.

Now, again, using the context which is provided by both the Declaration of Independence and by the framers, this is not exclusive to firearms thus it is not delimited to specific types of firearms.   That would be ridiculously out of context.

As many have pointed out, arms are no more defined and delimited by the Second Amendment than the means of communication are by the First Amendment.  The example of guns being limited to the technology of the time would then mean computers and advanced printing technology, 3D printers for example, would be unusable by the citizenry as well.

Remember people, the founding documents are founded on individual rights.  Each individual has the God given rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, among others.  Each individual thus has the correlating responsibilities for exercising those Rights.

To put it short and sweet, "Do what you want as long as you don't get any on me."  The responsibility we have pertaining to having and exercising our God given Rights is to do no harm to the next individual.

Rights do not come without responsibility.  It is NOT the government's place in this country to grant us our Rights nor is it the government's place to dictate or deny our responsibilities.

I will end this the way it began.

 "The Rights we refer to in the Constitution and consequently the Bill of Rights are not granted by the government.  These are Natural or God given rights that the founding documents recognize as inherent."

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Rights are not "rights"

It seems as though we have a lot of people who are either ignorant of the founding documents or are willfully ignorant or just in plain denial.

Always going back to the basic point that we don't just take the Constitution on it's own but in the context as provided by the Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration tells us "why", the Constitution tells us "how".  We need to remind those ignorant of history that the rights we have are not granted by government.

In the U.S., the rights, actual rights, not to be confused with privileges, are not granted or given to people by the government.  They are given to people by God (A higher authority than people and identified in that way) and recognized by government.

Rights belong to all people, privileges belong to a membership.  As identified in the Declaration of Independence, people have the God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (among others).  The government cannot interfere with those rights.  It can NOT legislate in ways that exclude people from those rights.

The first amendment is very much tied to the right to liberty.  Free speech, free press, religion, assembly, and petitioning the government.

The second amendment is very much tied to right to life.  You have the right to defend your life and to sustain your life. (Defense and hunting at the least).

So, for all you that talk about repealing these amendments as if they are nothing more than clubhouse rules, you are incorrect.  These are representative of the God given Rights of each person and the Constitution exists to uphold those rights from the popularity swings of a mob majority that would deny those same recognition of Rights to minorities.

They are not the majority's Rights to give or take, they are not the government's Rights to give or take and they are no individual person's Rights to give or take from anyone else.

Get over yourselves.

Saturday, June 11, 2016

More Honey And More Money

Did you know that you can get bees to make more honey by only putting 9 frames into a honey super box instead of the 10 that usually fit in there? I can illustrate a libertarian point about voluntaryism with this example.
There are less frames, but the bees then take advantage of the extra space in between those frames to draw out. The end result of having thicker, deeper cells per frame? Heavier, more honey-filled cells. This little "trick" has been used for at least a century now in conjunction with the Langstroth hive. It's no secret.
How does this relate to the libertarian concept of volunteryism? People give more when it is their choice to do so. after centuries of government mandated social program participation, there is plenty of evidence to show that people who are coerced or mandated to participate end up giving only the minimum demanded of them for the most part.
The result? It takes more people to generate the same numbers as the amount that can be generated by fewer, voluntary participants who give more because giving was their decision in the first place.
People who are libertarian minded are not against helping their fellow man. They are not against the idea of social nets to help those who fall through the cracks or fall on hard times. They are opposed to being forced to give what they have earned to people who they never chose to give it to.
Ayn Rand used the terms "selfish" a lot. She was not advocating only thinking and doing for yourself and to hell with everyone else. She was making the point that people must be able to live their own lives, make their own choices for their own reasons and participate as they choose to do so. There is nothing wrong and everything right with living your life as you determine. It's in the Declaration of Independence it is such an important concept.
Look at all the facebook memes. See how many people post things about how not to let other people control you. Do the work you love and want to do and not let society or your Dad or anyone else make you be someone you don't want to be.
How many of the people who post those things are also the same people who will turn around and scream that "there oughtta be a law" to make people do things like participate in a government run safety net that is easily abused by those not in need, but find it easier to do the minimum to be taken care of by the government. Those people do exist and the libertarian just wants to decide for themself who it is they donate to, if they do donate.
The government cannot and will not make better decisions about how to live your life or spend your money than you can. You might suck at doing those things too, but trusting the government to do it is just letting the blind lead the blind,
Libertarian voluntaryism and making more honey on 9 frames. Sometimes less really is more.