Who ever thought it would be dangerous and even life threatening to eat a tomato?

I wrote the article below last year and here we are in the middle of 2008 with things only worsening dramatically within the past six months.

The dollar is sinking like a brick in a bathtub, fuel prices are rising like the Japanese Sun, and food supplies are diminishing and rising in costing every time we go to the grocery store. All this has happened in only six months after I wrote the following article.
To understand the difference in value judgments and principles, I’m going to cite a rather over simplification of a can of soup. 

The can is necessary to contain the soup and may even cost more than its contents, but we value the can to contain and transport the soup. When we arrive home and open the soup, we throw the can away. Our values have changed relative to the soup can, which is no longer of any value to us. Hence, we are making value judgments all the time by the way we make and change our decisions.  By the very nature of our value system there is constant change. There is nothing wrong with that. It’s the nature of who we are as human beings. However, principles are constant and therefore never change. The laws of the universe are principles that remain the same.
I recently read a poll that stated a vast number of Americans favored more taxation of individuals with wealth, which was in favor of the centralized government who then take away and redistribute those taxes to those with less wealth. The government does this anyway. Yet they are never satisfied. They always want more; in fact, the government has an insationable appetite for more.

Since taxes are an involuntary relinquishment of one’s property, this practice is by its true definition, thievery. Thievery is defined as taking one’s property in violation of the owner’s will. Those advocating taking more are simply advocating more stealing. With an attitude that this is the right thing to do, they vote for it. Yet from the standpoint of right and wrong, if stealing is wrong (and it is), it can be established as a principle. Those advocating this are then violating a principle, using their value judgments to promote, attain, and justify.

It is in fact their value system that says taking someone’s property is right and their right to have it “because they want” or “because they think they need the property which belongs to another” and have no qualms about demanding centralized government (either with a gun or threats of a gun), that it will be taken from its owner to give to someone else. And yet no one ever gives a thought that they are an accessory to thievery.

We all know there is nothing theoretical about this attitude and behavior, but the reality of the way things are today. 
There is a difference between principles and value judgments.  Accordingly, in these examples one can readily see how people’s value judgments can adversely affect their attitude relative to principles. However, value judgments in no way change the principle because principles are without exception and cannot be changes by human being or any living thing. Principles are universal, undeviating and immutable, which takes us back to the fact that it’s our value judgments and attitudes about principles that have led us down a destructive path.

Freedom is a principle commensurate with property ownership. If life is a God given right to exist, then one must by necessity have the ability to sustain life. With that right comes the right to own property, food, clothing and shelter as these things are all fundamental to sustaining life. 

When one eats a sandwich they control and own it. Political government can and does regulate the means of production with rules, regulations, policies, and taxation. But with the creation of a pair of pants or a shirt, once the individual puts the pants and the shirt on, he’s in control of that piece of clothing (property) and therefore owns it. Someone can come along and rob him with a gun, taking the shirt off his back, but at that point he has become the victim of robbery, which is taking someone else’s property in violation of the owner’s will.  The shirt owner is no longer the owner of his property; he has been unwillingly denied ownership, which leads us to the practices of our current government.

They operate with a gun (or threat of a gun) to remove property from individuals.
Principles are absolutes that never change.  For example, let’s say one decides to boil water. You may like it, hate it, want it, or need it, but for whatever reason and without subject to what anyone else thinks, in order to have it two principles must be applied. It must be contained and it must be heated.  That is a principle relative to boiled water and there are no exceptions to it.
Principles are also universal laws. Everyone knows about the law of gravity and many are educated about the laws of physics. Yet few have an understanding that freedom and ownership of property is a principle and many don’t stop to recognize the different in their value judgments and principles. Therefore, in this great country with so many educated individuals on so many subjects, it is ignorance for which is the root cause for which our nation lies.
The epitaph could be, “Here lies a country that failed to recognize the principle of freedom and ownership” or “Here lies a country whose citizens fought and died for freedom, but never knew ownership was the core of it” or  “Here lies a country that never knew centralized government was the enemy” because autocratic government is one who governs himself in self-control with self-responsibility.
Daily news’ pundits and news casters repeat the same thing. Most Americans believe we are headed in the wrong direction, but no one seems to have an answer as to what the right direction is. We must examine the cause of how and why we got turned around and headed in the wrong direction before we have rational answers to act and turn things around. The answers are inherent in the problem itself yet few discuss liberty and personal ownership of property.
It is incumbent upon all of us to reexamine ourselves, our beliefs, attitudes and the understanding of precisely what freedom and ownership means. There is only one moral position to take and that is an admission we have been coercing each other. And to change that, one must refuse to participate in the process by which some retain power over others to take property.

How does an individual or group of individuals obtain this power to take property and curtail freedom? How is the calculated process of removing property and liberty and sometimes even life from others accomplished? Obviously, we have voted ourselves into this predicament. Consequently, all of us who have participated, bear the responsibility for being where we are.
For those who argue that a large and powerful centralized government is necessary to protect us from foreign invaders, I would argue that no group of terrorists or another government on earth is coming here to take property owned and controlled by over 200 individuals. Only through centralized ownership and power is it possible to do that. Governments take over governments when the power is centralized. History tells us that.
Furthermore, it is obvious that monopoly decisions obtained by majorities or minorities have only worked to bring us to this brink of disaster. Central  government negates individual control. We cannot have it both ways.

We cannot place others in the seat of centralized power and expect to retain individual control and liberty. Its’ a contradictory notion on its surface.
 If we begin with the premise that freedom is self-control and self-responsibility with a right to own personal property 100%, if a centralized power takes away from that, the question is how much are we willing to surrender? Is it 10%, 50%, 95 %? Where are we today on that scale of diminishing freedom? If we agree to give up a percentage, who then decides where we can stop it at any given point?

The amount of central control is not static and stationary it is kinetic. Where are we today on that downward spiral and sliding scale?

Things have moved so dramatically in the past six months. Ask yourselves, how much central control of your life do you want? Then decide how to stop it at the point in which you decide.
Happy Fourth of July.
Let Freedom Ring!

Tagged with →  
Share →

0 Responses to The Moral Imperative (Issue 60)

  1. Mike Harmon says:

    I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!

  2. Tom Humes says:

    Nice Site layout for your blog. I am looking forward to reading more from you.

    Tom Humes