July 8, 2001
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." --Thomas Jefferson
This writer has spent the past 13 hours finalizing affidavits he has been working on the past many months. The task has involved thousands of hours of research into the structure of this nation and Liberty, along with what is lawful and right. The reason for the affidavits of truth is to do what he can to force the acknowledgement and protection of his rights by public officials.
Perhaps one might miss the import of the last statement above. This is the United States of America with a constitution securing the rights of all citizens of this union of individual Republics. And, the writer has to force the acknowledgement and protection of his rights by public officials???
Think about that for a minute or two. Either this nation of people joined together in common cause has a document or documents securing God-given unalienable rights or they don’t. It can’t be both, nor can it be in any shades of gray. Rights as given by God are clear; they are in black and white. We as people have rights, as do any creations of God, be they mankind or lower animal.
Assume for a moment that a male bear infringes upon the territory of another male bear. Both have the right to fight for the territory and, if one were killed, the other would have control of the territory needed primarily for breeding but also satisfying its needs of food, shelter, and water. It is the natural course of events in the wild and it is the right of both to attack and kill if necessary in acquiring or keeping territory.
In our less civilized days, we humans in all probability acted the very same. In fact, in acquiring territory, one might even say the government of the United States, along with many of the people, were rather brutal in taking the Indians’ territory they had been using for millennia for breeding, food, shelter, and the like.
But, few doubted that the Indians did not have the right to defend their territory – at least to this writer’s knowledge. Nor did any condemn the US Government and the people for being brutal as it is in the natural course of events that nations expand through condemnation of others.
Now, being anthropomorphic, if the bear entering another’s territory had a constitution securing his rights, or lived in a civilized bear society in which God-given rights to bears were self-evident, then the bear doing so would be infringing upon the rights of the first. In fact, the bear defending his territory could under the right circumstances “kill” the invading bear as the invading bear would be in the wrong and could be justly punished.
But, bears are bears and, regardless, have self-evident rights that neither man nor any other authority has the authority to interfere with. Thus, both the invader and the holder of the territory have the self-evident right to attack and to hold the territory, whether it takes killing, merely maiming, or nothing more than a threat. You see, bears cannot read and write, nor have they become ‘civilized’ although they do behave properly in the bear society.
We as mankind are supposedly “civilized” when perhaps we shouldn’t be. You see, like the bear, we have the right to establish our territories. We do so by purchasing property through our own labor. We also have self-evident rights that may not be infringed upon by others. In the words of Jefferson above, all that needs to be said is said. We have the right to behave in any fashion we wish as long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others, nor they upon our rights.
Take the government for example. If we were a bit less civilized, we would take any measures necessary against an official infringing upon our rights and not be wrong in doing so. An elected official has no more right to infringe or interfere in any manner with a sovereign’s rights than a citizen has to interfere in the rights of the official or another citizen. When it comes to protecting hard-earned territory, it is the less civilized man’s right to kill the offender, official or not. If civilized, then there must be lawful recourse against the offending official.
There is but courts ignore it. So, they, too, interfere with the self-evident right of one protecting their property, all of which is the whole of the Man, his talent, behaviors, whatever makes him happiest, and all forms of tangible, intangible, and Real property. They, too, in a less civilized society could be shot or hung with impunity.
But, it seems we citizens who do not rely on others for our well-being are civilized while government is not. We, at least the majority, do not attempt to infringe upon the rights of others while government stomps the rights of Man into the ground and covers it over with their bilge.
Such acts are direct invasions and attacks upon the rights of the sovereign. We should perhaps do as the bear does defending his territory and kill the offender. But, that wouldn’t be civilized, would it? So, instead, we act as an animal too timid to protect his territory and, just like such an animal, we lose our territory, our rights.
Thus, independence for this writer would dictate that any official infringing upon the rights of citizens be impeached and criminally charged with treason – and then receive the only penalty for treason. The officials who would deny and interfere with rights given by God deserve to be treated in the uncivilized manner to which they have become accustomed. After all, why should they have any more rights than an attacking army intent on deprivation of liberty and rights?
Government is to serve a very limited capacity, that of protecting the rights of Man, not to rob him of his rights. Straighten this out and we as a society would have few problems. Those citizens that would interfere, or not behave in a civilized fashion, would soon be weeded out. Most of us are civilized but have been, or are being, driven to extremes by laws made by governments acting outside their authority and against the very essence of what defines being civilized.
Had this been done since the first liberty-robbing law made by government, this writer would not have had to spend another day of his life defending his rights against invading governments but could have enjoyed the pursuit of his happiness and the exercise of his rights so as to have made his day an enjoyable day, a day of pure joy for being alive –
and exercising his independence.