Skip to main content

The government has displaced God & family

Author Christine Smith has written a superb article discussing the displacement of God and family for which the government is responsible. The Christian community has long been saying that the government seeks to displace Christ as the role of savior, but the government does so much more than just this and the cultural displacement of the modern omnimax government has had profoundly negative effects. It is not an exaggeration to say that the government has had a central role in the breakdown of marriages, families, parent-child relationships, and the once-common expressions of personal faith and religious beliefs.

I believe it's time we revive the ancient principle of liberty - not just for myself or my special interests - but for all people. It's time for a return to a principled commitment to the freedom of individuals to speak, think and act as they please so long as they respect the life, liberty and property of their fellow man. There is no salvation through political activism. The government is owned and operated by the same money interests to whom you are ultimately paying your taxes via these bailouts. We don't need a violent revolution. We don't need reform. We need moral, intellectual, cultural and even religious clarity on the God-given right of every man, woman and child of any race or nation to be free. All people should be free to own the fruits of their own labor, to not have it seized by corrupt or over-reaching governments, and to move and act as they see fit, knowing that God (or Nature, as your beliefs may be) designed men with the natural disposition to co-exist peaceably long before humans came up with the terrible idea of legitimate coercion and aggression (government).

As more people begin to see the inescapable truth that the government has vastly over-extended any legitimate claim it may or may not have to regulate and tax, spontaneous resistance to the corrupt policies of the state will emerge without organization, planning or direction. We see this occur in the case of tax resistance where people spontaneously begin to "cheat" on their taxes or find new ways to earn tax-exempt income as the burden of the state becomes so heavy as to become worth the risk.

The way forward is so simple that most people overlook it: believe in liberty, understand its moral and historical basis, and share with others what you have learned. The Internet is an immensely powerful tool to facilitate this. Read, learn and share. That's it. As more of us spontaneously begin this process, the state will find it increasingly difficult to continue on its path of unrestrained power and property seizure.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Constitution has gone to the dogs

Actually, it should have gone to the dogs, but didn't. I'm talking about  Leona Helmsley's estate , of course. The contract clause of the Constitution says, "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..." This means that private contracts cannot be changed by legislative edict. This clause is incredibly important because the willingness of private individuals to engage in profitable enterprise - which is the foundation of social welfare - crucially depends on their belief that they can realize a profit. In turn, their belief that they can realize a profit depends on their belief that they can hold parties to a contract liable to the terms in the contract. For example, lenders must have confidence that they can repossess the collateral for a loan if the loan is defaulted on. Otherwise, they will not take the risk of giving the loan in the first place. When lenders are too scared to lend, everyone is worse off. In the case of Leona Hel...
So, I spent all weekend watching JFK assassination videos and doing armchair JFK assassination research. Here are my notes: 1) Most of the debate seems to rage around trying to get evidence or proof that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy. This is silly because it grants - from the outset - the bizarre assumption made by the official theories that political figures are as likely to die at the hands of "mad attention-seekers" as they are to be assassinated by their enemies who actually stand to benefit. How many people are insane enough to think that the electric chair is a fair trade for "being remembered" by history, even if in infamy? And of those people how many are resourceful enough to pierce the security perimeter of the President of the United States? Kennedy was threatened by Richard Pavlick in 1960 after Nixon lost the election and, by all accounts, Pavlick was a lone nut. But all we know of his "assassination attempts" are his own tall tale...

What Law Is

Law What is law? Frederic Bastiat, in his treatise The Law, defines law as the collective use of force. As much as I love Bastiat’s treatise, I think his definition is not sufficiently analytical. It is certainly the case that the law plays a role in the collective use of force but the law is something more basic than this. We can begin by looking at law as it is today. The website for the Oregon courts has an excellent summary [1] of modern law and courts. I will quote it at length: Throughout history, people have had disputes and have needed some means to settle their disputes. As civil societies develop, they need an orderly system of conflict resolution. One system that developed in "western" cultures is the "law court" or court of law. In England, those early law courts developed a "body of law" called the common law, which defined both the rights of the people and the government and the duties people owe each other and their government. T...