A Few Thoughts On Liberty And Sovereignty

by Neal Ross

In 1922, D. H. Lawrence wrote, “Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves.

Most of America still is under the belief that we are a free and independent people. They couldn’t be more wrong. Their ignorance of how our system of government was designed to function, has allowed this fraud to be perpetrated upon the people by those who have been elected to safeguard our freedom and liberty. What makes it more sad is that the people, for the most part, are as apathetic as they are ignorant, they just don’t have the desire to learn the truth. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.


The Case for Disunion

by Joe Schembrie, LewRockwell.com

The Establishment Media is hyping the dire prophecy of a Russian professor that the United States will have a bloody civil war and “disintegrate,” after which the secessionist regions will be absorbed by other nations. The Establishment Media Moral: we must patriotically embrace our federal government or face horrendous consequences.

Certainly a full-blown civil war would be hellish. With modern weapons the casualties could exceed all our other wars. The disruption of food production and distribution chains in our specialized economy could trigger famine. To be imperially dominated by other nations could well mean the loss of our civil liberties.


Montana Firearms Freedom Act

by Greg Heller, The Holy Cause

There is a new bill circulating in Montana’s legislature which has significant implications on several fronts in the battle for liberty, most notably that of States Rights, and the right to bear arms.  The bill can be read here, and is not a long read (freedom is much easier to describe than tyranny), but to whet your interest here are a few snippets.


Is it Possible to Restore Constitutionalism?

by Gary S. Lawson, Heritage Foundation

When the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification in 1787, many citizens worried that the new national government proposed by the document was a Leviathan in waiting. During the crucial New York ratification debate, James Madison, writing as Publius, sought to allay these fears in the 45th Federalist Paper by emphasizing that adoption of the Constitution would create a government of enumerated, and therefore strictly limited, powers. Madison said: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined… [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce….”[1] Federal tax collectors, Madison assured everyone, “will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous.”[2] Exactly six months after publication of this essay, New York became the 11th state to ratify the Constitution.

Once the national government was up and running, disputes naturally arose about the proper scope of its “few and defined” powers and about the proper institutional form for the exercise of those powers. It is helpful to examine just a few of those early disputes to get a sense of the frontiers of constitutional argument in the Founding era–that is, to gauge the kinds of claims regarding federal power that generated serious discussion. Those examples provide an interesting basis for comparison with modern law.


The Future of Limited Government

by Jeff Wartman

If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.Jacob Hornberger.

Every four years, voters in the United States are given a choice between two major party candidates in the Presidential election.  We are often told that either of these candidates are the “mainstream” candidates and if you want your vote to count, you need to choose between either one of the two major party candidates who have a “chance” at “winning”.

However, for true supporters of limited government and personal liberty, this is often a choice made in vain.  If you truly believe in a limited, decentralized government which protects both economic and personal liberties and rights, during most elections there isn’t a major party candidate that will generally fit your values.  You have a choice between the Democratic Party, of which too many members wish to violate your economic rights and liberties, and the Republican Party, of which too many members wish to violate your personal rights and liberties.  This is not a judgment of individuals in either party.  Most individual members are doing what they think is right.  This is a judgment on those than run the major parties.


The Constitution: A Politically-Incorrect Guide

by David Gordon, Mises.org

Kevin Gutzman gives his readers much more than they had a right to expect. The “Politically Incorrect Guide” series in which his book appears aims at a popular audience: its goal is to correct commonly held myths of leftist propaganda.

Gutzman eminently fulfills this goal, but his book cannot be called an elementary work. Quite the contrary, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution is a major contribution to American constitutional history.

Gutzman is a leading authority on the Virginia ratification debates on the Constitution, and he uses his research to great effect. He has been much influenced by the pioneering originalist scholar Raoul Berger, but he strengthens and extends Berger’s views.


Destroying Liberty

by Walter E. Williams

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned, “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.” The freedom of individuals from compulsion or coercion never was, and is not now, the normal state of human affairs. The normal state for the ordinary person is tyranny, arbitrary control and abuse mainly by their own government. While imperfect in its execution, the founders of our nation sought to make an exception to this ugly part of mankind’s history. Unfortunately, at the urging of the American people, we are unwittingly in the process of returning to mankind’s normal state of affairs.


Where Do We Go From Here?

by Ed Noyes, SuperLiberty.com

“If you don’t know where you are going, you will probably end up somewhere else.”
Laurence J. Peter, US educator & writer (1919 – 1988)

Where are we going? What is the destiny of America? Who is responsible to save our nation?

It seems apparent that at this time in our history we are struggling to know where we should be going. Given the constant cries for a “bailout” for every form of financial crisis it seems that Americans have resigned themselves to government solutions to our problems. Many are now admitting that our financial crises have been contributed to (if not caused outright) by the government’s unnatural involvement in this economy. Despite this we do not seem to have the courage, or foresight, to address our problems in any other way but through greater government debt, guarantees, etc. Certainly, the endless piling on of debt onto the backs of the American people cannot continue indefinitely.


The Proper Role of Government

by Ed Noyes, SuperLiberty.com

It is amazing how far away we as a nation have strayed from the original vision of the founders with regards to the proper role of government. We have, in fact, devolved 180 degrees from that original purpose. Government was intended to be the protector of the rights of the people. Every individual was to be free to pursue his idea of happiness, as long as he did not violate the rights of others to do the same.

Government was to step in only when one’s “liberty interest” was violated to “restore” the victim. This was called the restorative justice principle. In fact, there was no “crime” other than treason against the people as a whole, unless there was a victim. No fines were paid to the State. The sole purpose of the law was to restore the victim.


Freedom is Golden

by Rep Ron Paul

As the Olympics wind down, I am amazed at how things change every four years.  Many Americans were glued to their televisions to watch the excitement from Beijing, and also heard announcers wax nostalgic with memories of times when the Soviet Union was the USA’s biggest competitor for Olympic gold.

There was a time when it was unthinkable that a government as powerful as that of the Soviet Union’s could possibly crumble, yet crumble it did.  The irony is that the strength of the Soviet government was also its weakness, as no country, no economic system can remain strong under the crushing burden that is central planning.


The Real Purpose of the Constitution

by Neal Ross

Two hundred and forty five years ago a small percentage of citizens stood up against a superior force and declared their independence from the tyranny under which they lived. This revolution for independence spawned men such as Patrick Henry, who declared, “…give me liberty, or give me death.” These were men who realized the inherent danger in their actions and were willing to risk all for that most precious gift, liberty.

The successful war, and the ensuing Constitution, which created our republican form of government, gave these men that gift which they had been willing to risk all to obtain. Yet they realized that to hold on to that gift the people of this country must remain vigilant to prevent tyranny from again ruling the people of this land.


Limit Government, Not Liberty

by Neal Ross

“Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it.”
–Woodrow Wilson

Power is something that is often sought. However, once it is obtained it is like a drug that constantly demands an ever increasing amount of it. Most often it is wielded in a way that only benefits those who have it, with little regard for the welfare of those who do not.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “I have never been able to conceive how any rational being could propose happiness to himself from the exercise of power over others.”

Our Founding Fathers were wise when it came to the temptations which came with unbridled power. Anyone who has taken the time to research the writings of Jefferson, Madison, and the other founders would know that they were wary of a government with unlimited power.