1

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

While alarmists would, at this time, be remiss to herald the decline of the rule of law on this point, it becomes us to consider the avenues by which such an erosion may soon evidence itself. This is especially worthy of our consideration in light of our current trend toward socialism.

John Locke advises us that “Government has no other end, but the preservation of property,” and that “The reason men enter into society is for the preservation of their property.”

It is only a government that has rejected this obligation of preservation that will presume to be the ultimate owner of all property, especially land. For this reason, eminent domain, if it can be considered at all legitimate in its own right, must be utilized in the most sparing manner possible, wherein the government  assumes ownership only when absolutely necessary, when there are no possible alternatives.

This, unfortunately is not the case. There have been far too many cases of illegal government takeovers of property*.

Here are just two examples. With very little research, I’m sure that you can find plenty more.

http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=920&Itemid=165

There is a phrase in the constitution that alludes to eminent domain:”…nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

It takes very little consideration to determine that this concept has been regularly abused. As seen in the above cases, it has been used many times to transfer private property  to other private property owners. This is clearly unconstitutional.

It has yet to be considered whether eminent domain is a legitimate function of government. What implications does it have? Do we own property or do we lease rights to property from the government? This also affects the issue of government jurisdiction being defined by territory rather than by citizenship.

*(It must be noted that the government may at times act illegally. The United States government operates under the rule of law rather than the rule of men. There is no sovereign superior to the law. Therefore, any action taken by government officials which is contrary to the rule of law is to be understood as illegal.)

Communist Manifesto

I have just finished reading Marx and Engels’  “Communist Manifesto.” At the conclusion of section II there is a list provided of the steps necessary to create a Communist revolution.

Following is Marx and Engels’ conclusion of section II. If you do not have time to read the whole book, this is what you need to know about Communism:

“… The first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to establish democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will of course be different in different countries. Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of child factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.”

I’ll comment on this further in a later post

A Republic

As Americans, we are the inheritors of a vast and glorious heritage. It is our duty and privilege to be careful stewards of that legacy. Over the past few years, we have witnessed a speedy departure from the values of our heritage. However, we know that these kinds of movements do not start in a moment. They begin softly, without attracting much attention to themselves, and before you know it, they are overwhelming floods.

This video traces this departure in a selection of areas, highlighting those values upon which our nation was founded, and then contrasting that with where we find ourselves today. It is my hope that you will be inspired to reclaim that lost ground. It will most certainly be costly. Freedom is not free.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety,” ~ Benjamin Franklin

(click here to watch the video on Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/12081696)

Socialism

“Socialism always begins with government “interventionism;” the manipulation of the economy through governmental decree.” ~ Gary DeMar

There is a definite movement on the part of our leaders in Washington toward dependency on government interventionism. This trend is exhibited in the massive and widespread bailouts issued by the government to companies that are now commonly referred to as “too big to fail.” Why is this socialistic? Socialism is economically rooted in government dependency. It is, contrary to republicanism (or Americanism), founded on the premise of individual irresponsibility. It is designed not only to support failing lifestyles, but also to perpetuate them. If individuals are not dependent upon the government, the government must make them dependent.

Fiscal Responsibility

“When the people discover that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” ~ Benjamin Franklin

Fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the government is the first step to the destruction of a republic. As I noted above, if individuals are not dependent upon the government, a socialistic government must make them dependent. The way to do this is to create multiple massive social programs funded and run by the government, spend foolish amounts of money on these programs, create debt and then hike taxes to pay it off, but don’t pay it off. Instead, create more programs with the extra funds. Teach people to become dependent on these programs and force others into the system by exhausting their resources with high taxes.

Morality

“Separation of Church and State” is by far the favorite catch all in regard to morality in government. Many are extremely resistant to the idea of legislating based on moral standards. However, this demand for an extraction of moral principle from governmental standards is not only unfounded, it is impossible. All legislation is a matter of imposing someone’s moral standard through the law; even if that moral standard is one of lawlessness.

President Obama argues that the religiously motivated must “translate their concerns into universal rather than religion specific values.” This is outrageous in principle and impossible in practice. It must be understood that the demand itself (that concerns must be universal rather than religion specific) is a value, one which fails to be acceptable universally. Any individual of any persuasion is always incapable of divorcing himself from the values that he holds, even if – perhaps especially if – he holds them unconsciously .