Friday, June 12, 2009

BYU Freedom Society Correspondence pt2


Thank you. You exceeded my expectations. I may not understand the delicacies of the interactions between self-government, Old Norse, and inalienable rights. May I ask a question to focus in on my confusion? Would you agree that the 'inalienable' right, although 'inalienable' in theory, because of Old Norse, in all practicality, in fact is alienable under law. The use of the terms 'rights' confuses me inasmuch as our theory pretends to inalienable rights but will restrict the inalienable right to what it deems is right (not wrong), which, to my mind, reduces it to the level of a mere law that is not to be broken. What is a right's value if it is subordinate to a law of right and wrong? What is its practical benefit to society? We have a right to free speech, as long as it is tolerable. We have a right to carry arms, as long as it meets with the demands of politicians, we have a right to live our religions, as long as it meets with social norms. My point is that, in the end, I have a right to keep the law, not a right to violate it - this hardly seems reassuring to me when it is men who decide where the line is drawn, the line where a right ends and begins - in practice.

I suppose the answer is that there would be utter chaos unless the law intervened on the 'misuse' of our rights. But who determines what a 'misuse' is? To me, it appears, in the end, that we are taken back to square one with a government that is not a protector, but a dictator of what is right and wrong. What is the use of 'rights' if we treat them the way we do?

Further, if my rights, in practice, end when I violate a law, then who of all of us really have any rights, for are we not all violators? I suppose this question points to Christ, and the parable of the certain king, and the unjust servant - but what does our temporal law do to fill this gap?

Thank you,



Within our current political structure, I believe you're absolutely correct. What you are witnessing is the transition from what our Founders called a "Constitutional Republic" to what they feared most -- a "Democracy". In explaining this, allow me a few words to build a foundation.

Original Foundation of Law

Law, in its basic and generic sense within the parameters of nature, is defined: The entity or power that defines things as they are. The question that immediately arises is this: How are things? and Who is going to be the authority to define them?

When I throw a ball in the air and watch it fall to the Earth I ask myself, "what is that motion?". The law responds by saying, "That is gravity". This is overly simplistic; however, the point is that law defines how things are. We, as creatures of reason and thought, therefore have the ability of observing occurrences in nature and defining law. John Adams made an important distinction when he noted that man does not make law -- only God makes law -- but man, because of his divine ability of thought and logic, can define and interpret the motion of natural law as established by the Creator. God, as the Lawgiver/Creator, has set nature in motion, and we -- as his Children, having been given the divine spark of reason and logic -- work out our own salvation to find out what that order is.

But who defines the way things are for the rest of us? This is where things often become confusing. I interpret things differently than another man (we each adhere to a different law; or, in other words, we adhere to a different definition of the way things are), and who is to say that my definition is right or wrong? From a religious standpoint, this is what is known as the doctrine of repentance. The LDS Bible Dictionary defines repentance as the changing of the heart and mind to be in line with God's own heart and mind; or, in other words, repentance is the process whereby we define our law (interpret how things are) according to how God has decreed things are. Is it any wonder that Alma, when holding both the highest political position in the land and also the highest religious position in the land, decided to give up his political seat to preach repentance to the people suffering from gross inequality, irreligion, and persecution one from another? Government is a poor master when governing the hearts of man, and it is best left to the physical relationships of each sovereign after the infringement of life, liberty, or property has been violated.

How is Law Interpreted Today?

Today, law is no longer seen as the definition of how things exist naturally, but it is considered a list of rules and regulations fabricated by man wherein the masses are controlled into compliance. This revisionism of terms is at the heart of the transition from a Constitutional Republic towards Democracy.

This is a sad occurrence. Before the separation of America from Great Britain, the Founders looked for a foundation in law wherein they could make a legitimate claim for separation from the then considered "divinely called Monarch of England". When it appears that God himself has called the Monarch you are fighting against, what legitimate claim do you make to declare yourself free and independent? The Founders, as inspired men of God, knew the foundation of law wherein they must adhere: to "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". They appealed to the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God as their foundation of law. The Founders knew they could not make law, but they were capable of applying the laws of nature wherein they knew that God had made them free. Sadly, we no longer adhere to a concept of natural law as dictated by Nature's God; today, the majority may pass at will and take God's place as the Lawgiver to pass any legislation whatsoever they want.

What Is a Constitutional Republic?

A Constitutional Republic, like I mentioned in my previous email, is a government that is created by the people -- as independent sovereigns -- wherein they adhere to a codex of laws before a majority's consensus. What is this codex of laws? It was the Laws of Nature that we just addressed. Society may work according to the majority vote, but when the majority must check itself against the Laws of Nature -- that is, laws that exist outside the scope, power, and regulating parameters of the majority -- the minority is therefore protected from the onslaught and persecution of the majority.

What is a Democracy?

Democracy does not adhere to an outside codex of laws, such as the Laws of Nature. The majority decides what is law, and how it is applied to the minority. There are no inalienable rights in a majority, because it is the majority that granted rights in the first place, and what can be granted can be taken away. A Democracy is a majoritism, and it has no other foundation or code for legitimacy other than the majority's consensus.

When applied to society, Democracy is synonymous with Socialism. When the workers of a corporation (majority) rise up against the owners of the corporation (minority) to take control of the corporation in the "name of the people" -- do we not call this Socialism? When there is no other claim for legitimacy of government other than there mere majority's consent, this is Socialism. In order to clarify such a distinction, we call this Social-Democracy (Socialist-Democracy).

Within this paradigm, everything you've addressed in your email is absolutely correct: Rights are merely a fabrication, and really only exist in the abstract consciousness of the people. Law is not a constant of nature, but is continuously changed according to social-norms. Law is nothing other than the imposed rules of the majority wherein they decide how best to control, manipulate, and coerce the rest of the people. All "rights" are therefore considered alienable/alterable and we end up with an influx of confusion and political turmoil.

Inalienable and Alienable? How Was the Transition Made?

The crux of this problem lies merely at the door of perception and semantics. After all, perception is the determining factor of law, right? Law is that which defines how things are, and our differing perceptions will vary what laws we adhere to and accept. This is tricky, because people -- at times -- will become so fixated on a particular issue that they will basically deny the existence of gravity to make sure their theory of the world is correct. They deny the obvious existence of natural law (natural consequence) to force their own perceived reality (forced outcome).

The same event can be seen in two different perceptions. When I see a man incarcerated for violent misconduct, I do not see a man who has lost any freedom or liberty. I see a man who stepped outside his natural law rights to violate the natural law rights of another; as such, this man, by the definition of natural law, is no longer capable of self-conduct and government and must be placed in a location of like-acting individuals (jail) until he may regain self-government. This same event, however, can be seen in different eyes. When rights are alienable, the masses take control over the individual (as a God-type figure), and punish him for breaking their social norm (whatever that may be). This man's "rights" are then taken away (by virtue of the masses that allowed him to even have any rights to begin with), and he remains without any rights until the masses decide that he may have them again (if any at all).

While the same consequence/outcome has been achieved, the perception of what has happened is completely different. Is this perception and difference important? Indeed it is! This is the very point wherein the transition from a Constitutional Republic to a Socialist-Democracy has been made! This is a subtle difference, and for one making the mental transition from a Democratic mindset to that of a Republic mindset there is often a lot of fear. Fear -- and the forced sense of security that immediately follows fear -- is the antithesis of freedom; in fear, the masses reject natural law for physical control. It appears that people find more perceived safety when they can control their neighbor than in allowing freedom to exist.


Law, within the parameters of nature, only define natural and inalienable rights -- they do not compete with them. When laws appear to compete with natural and inalienable rights, you know the transition is being made from freedom to coercion -- from our Constitutional Republic to a forced Socialist-Democracy.

We do not have the right to violate another sovereign individual's life, liberty, or property; however, when we do and step outside the limits of natural law to infringe upon our neighbor, then the natural law defines that such a person be dealt with in order to not do such a thing again.

It is important to always maintain the thought of inalienable liberty, freedom, and property. Why? Because it will always allow for freedom. Historically, Republics have lasted between 500 - 800 years, whereas Democracies have never stood longer than 200. The Founders hated Democracy with a divine passion that does not exist in our body politic today. George Washington, the man who would not be king, was noted to have wanted to be subject to a tyrannical monarch than to a Democracy. We were given a Republic (the only guarantee in the entire U.S. Constitution -- Article IV Section 4), and we must fight to make it so. The only guarantee of being safe in our inalienable liberty is within the protection of a Republic.

Hopefully this helped clarify a few issues. Please let me know if this helped.


Shiloh Logan

No comments: