Sometimes I believe that I’m becoming schizophrenic. On one hand I see the massive growth of our increasingly oppressive government. I see it’s heartless, mindless and soulless appetite that smothers the will and the initiative of our people. I see its unencumbered march toward total control extinguishing the sparks of liberty that God has placed within each of us, and I want to hunker down, to be alone, to tend my garden and pretend that it’s not happening. On the other hand, my anger, passion and my sense of justice are energized. I want to scream from the rooftops and mountaintops that Liberty is worth fighting for. I want to challenge and impede the monster’s movement every step along the way. I want to fight and resist with every fiber of my being. I do not want to submit, and I shall not.
Many people are drawing benefits and receiving subsidies from Big Government. Their allegiance or their indifference has been purchased. I have reason to believe that the government is going to give me a Rolex for Christmas….excuse me, the Winter Holidays. Isn’t that what it means to be on a watch list?
I’ve figured this out: I’m too late smart, and too soon old.
Fortunately, I have discovered that Grace is not a cashier at Kroger’s.
The Book of Proverbs (22:7, NIV) warns us “the borrower is servant to the lender.” Benjamin Franklin and other Founding Framers warned us against profligate spending and debt. Yet, for the past century we have childishly ignored their cumulative wisdom. We are now at the stage where we borrow to meet our debt payments, and still, the clowns in charge talk about reducing expenditures to 2008 levels. Why not 1908 dollars adjusted for inflation? They provide all kinds of reasons, alibis and excuses for not engaging in a serious and effective fiscal blueprint. Well, my fellow citizens, I have some advice for you in light of government’s irresponsible behavior. Sign up for Rosetta Stone and learn Mandarin Chinese.
It seems likely that many of you share my frustration with the apathetic attitudes of many of our family, friends and neighbors. Now we know how the Old Testament prophets felt. Jerusalem was conquered, and the people were dispersed….one thousand, nine hundred forty years ago. It’s true, if we do not learn from history, we are condemned to repeat it.
I love Christmas. I cherish the message of hope. I love spending time with my family. I enjoy the kitchen smells, the fragrance of pine and the non-stop Christmas music.
For the past year, I have traveled Ohio. I have made some wonderful new friends and re-connected with some old friends. I have been blessed. Thank you, one and all.
Comments welcome: earl4sos@gmail.com or cnpearl@woh.rr.com
My family has provided a phenomenal support system for me. Pat, my wife of 41.67 years (so who’s counting), daughter Kelly, hubby, Kevin and youngin’s Shaun and Erin plus son P.J., spouse, Heather, and little one, Sully have all been so supportive and encouraging. I love them all, and I’m so proud that I get to share their lives.
Dear career politician,
Stop spending MY money. Stop spending Pat’s money. Stop spending my children’s money. Stop spending my grandchildren’s money. Stop spending money. Stop spending. Stop!!!!!!!!!
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Guns and Moses
This is not a retrospective on the life of Axel Rose although he may be nearly as old as Moses. This entry is an exploration of the necessity for an armed citizenry. In the perfect world there would be no need for citizens to bear weapons. Today’s world is not perfect, however, and members of our society should be armed for a number of reasons. Obviously, one of the primary reasons is for personal protection. The United States has become an increasingly dangerous place, and even our smaller communities have not escaped the turmoil. Although crime prevention is a component of police work, most often the law enforcement officers do not become involved until after a crime has been committed. Their efforts are primarily directed toward investigation and apprehension. It seems, therefore, a prudent move for a citizen to have the means for self-defense and self-preservation.
A second justification for a citizen’s possession of firearms is for sporting purposes and varmint control. Target shooting and hunting are noble, healthy pursuits. They are the types of activities that an entire family can enjoy. The varmint control element may not be a huge issue in many neighborhoods—one doesn’t find too many Norwegian rats in Scarsdale, but in my small patch of the country, we do encounter the occasional pest. Woodchucks (we call them groundhogs around here), raccoons (nasty critters when threatened), and the increasingly annoying coyote are all threats to livestock, pets, crops or gardens. These feral critters are often too wily for effective trapping, so a well-placed shotgun blast or rifle shot is usually an effective determent.
Resisting tyrannical government is a serious endeavor. One does not cavalierly initiate armed activity against the power structure of the nation. The Founders and Framers of our country anticipated that at some time in the future, the citizens would feel compelled to rise and resist an overreaching governmental apparatus. As Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
The implication is that if the government becomes too big, too oppressive or too unresponsive, then the people must aggressively wrest the reins of power and self-determination from the entrenched power structure. The huge government entity will resist any attempt to contain it. Laws and regulations will be advanced that limit the ability of the people to assert their control over the leviathan. In June of 1788, George Mason prophetically identified a key element of government’s restrictive control.
“To disarm the people…. was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
Mason’s sentiment was further advanced by Patrick Henry:
O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone… Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation… inflicted by those who had no power at all?
The Founders and Framers, when considering additions to the Constitution that would protect individual God-given rights and secure ratification votes from some reluctant colonies, enshrined the individual right of the citizen to bear arms in the Second Amendment. Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court in the 2008 D.C vs. Heller decision upheld the historical understanding that the right to own and possess firearms is an individual one. That’s the good news. The alarming news is that the Court affirmed more than 220 years of common practice by a mere 5 to 4 vote! Our individual Second Amendment right is hanging by a thread even as our government becomes more oppressive and invasive.
So, why is the reference to Moses in the title of this piece? Our Judeo-Christian heritage informs us that if God is with you, then the size of your army or the power of your arsenal is incidental. David needed but a few smooth stones and a slingshot to vanquish the mightiest warrior of the Philistine nation whereupon their army surrendered. Samson slew a thousand of those pesky Philistines using the jawbone of an ass. I suspect that our country may have forfeited God’s blessing if we’ve ever had it. We cannot rely on His divine intervention to help us secure our liberty.
If the time should come that freedom-loving citizens are compelled to battle for their God-given liberties, then the right to bear arms is critical. Slinging stones and swinging jawbones will not achieve the objective. We must protect and defend our individual right to bear arms. Every branch of the federal government has, to some degree, undermined the Constitutional certainty that was understood at the founding. In many speeches I’ve advanced the notion of the “triad of liberty.” When we perceive that Government is exceeding its limits, we use the 1st Amendment to reason, to protest and to persuade. Our next remedy for relief is the 10th Amendment wherein our states resist the encroachment of the federal government that has run amok. Finally, we resist force with force by exercising our 2nd Amendment protections.
Asses’ jawbones do not contain enough firepower. They are readily available, though. You can find a career politician lurking around every corner.
Comments are welcome: earl4sos@gmail.com or cnpearl@woh.rr.com
A second justification for a citizen’s possession of firearms is for sporting purposes and varmint control. Target shooting and hunting are noble, healthy pursuits. They are the types of activities that an entire family can enjoy. The varmint control element may not be a huge issue in many neighborhoods—one doesn’t find too many Norwegian rats in Scarsdale, but in my small patch of the country, we do encounter the occasional pest. Woodchucks (we call them groundhogs around here), raccoons (nasty critters when threatened), and the increasingly annoying coyote are all threats to livestock, pets, crops or gardens. These feral critters are often too wily for effective trapping, so a well-placed shotgun blast or rifle shot is usually an effective determent.
Resisting tyrannical government is a serious endeavor. One does not cavalierly initiate armed activity against the power structure of the nation. The Founders and Framers of our country anticipated that at some time in the future, the citizens would feel compelled to rise and resist an overreaching governmental apparatus. As Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
The implication is that if the government becomes too big, too oppressive or too unresponsive, then the people must aggressively wrest the reins of power and self-determination from the entrenched power structure. The huge government entity will resist any attempt to contain it. Laws and regulations will be advanced that limit the ability of the people to assert their control over the leviathan. In June of 1788, George Mason prophetically identified a key element of government’s restrictive control.
“To disarm the people…. was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
Mason’s sentiment was further advanced by Patrick Henry:
O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone… Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation… inflicted by those who had no power at all?
The Founders and Framers, when considering additions to the Constitution that would protect individual God-given rights and secure ratification votes from some reluctant colonies, enshrined the individual right of the citizen to bear arms in the Second Amendment. Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court in the 2008 D.C vs. Heller decision upheld the historical understanding that the right to own and possess firearms is an individual one. That’s the good news. The alarming news is that the Court affirmed more than 220 years of common practice by a mere 5 to 4 vote! Our individual Second Amendment right is hanging by a thread even as our government becomes more oppressive and invasive.
So, why is the reference to Moses in the title of this piece? Our Judeo-Christian heritage informs us that if God is with you, then the size of your army or the power of your arsenal is incidental. David needed but a few smooth stones and a slingshot to vanquish the mightiest warrior of the Philistine nation whereupon their army surrendered. Samson slew a thousand of those pesky Philistines using the jawbone of an ass. I suspect that our country may have forfeited God’s blessing if we’ve ever had it. We cannot rely on His divine intervention to help us secure our liberty.
If the time should come that freedom-loving citizens are compelled to battle for their God-given liberties, then the right to bear arms is critical. Slinging stones and swinging jawbones will not achieve the objective. We must protect and defend our individual right to bear arms. Every branch of the federal government has, to some degree, undermined the Constitutional certainty that was understood at the founding. In many speeches I’ve advanced the notion of the “triad of liberty.” When we perceive that Government is exceeding its limits, we use the 1st Amendment to reason, to protest and to persuade. Our next remedy for relief is the 10th Amendment wherein our states resist the encroachment of the federal government that has run amok. Finally, we resist force with force by exercising our 2nd Amendment protections.
Asses’ jawbones do not contain enough firepower. They are readily available, though. You can find a career politician lurking around every corner.
Comments are welcome: earl4sos@gmail.com or cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
High Speed Fail
Ohio Governor-elect, John Kasich, derailed (for now) the Three C High-speed rail project. Maybe he has determined that an average speed of 41mph doesn’t necessarily meet the criterion for the “high-speed” designation. Perhaps he was swayed by the realization that massive amounts of funds would be necessary to construct the infrastructure for the rail system while Ohio’s ground transportation network is crumbling. It’s possible that he was concerned about the dislocation and eminent domain issues that would precede the building of the rail, though I doubt it. Individual rights and property are generally trampled for “the greater good.”
Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood (RINO-Illinois) notified Mr. Kasich that the $400 million in stimulus funds that were set aside to begin the rail project would be forfeited if not used for the high-speed boondoggle. In case you may have forgotten, that $400 million is: 1) our money; 2) our borrowed money and future debt; and 3) not President Obama’s nor Ray Lahood’s private stash for their pet social engineering projects. Kasich had asked for permission to divert the funds for other uses. Aside from the blatantly irresponsible action of seeking additional borrowed funds for any purpose, Kasich’s stand contains the nucleus of principle. States have the Constitutional right to determine what is best for their citizens. Big Nanny be damned.
Back to the fast train fiasco. The average subsidy for EVERY Amtrak passenger is $32…yes, every time someone purchases a ticket and ascends the steps to the passenger car, the taxpayers’ cash register rings up another thirty-two bucks. So, who in her or his right mind believes that the Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati FORTY-MPH EXPRESS would be more efficient? Even if it were as cost-effective as Amtrak, why should the taxpayers of Ohio be saddled with the bill for a relatively few riders? Why should Youngstown and Toledo residents underwrite ease and convenience for people in other jurisdictions? Why should the good people of St. Henry, Tiffin, Caldwell and Gallipolis bear the burden of propping up a certain loser? Besides, 41 mph does not suggest a “bullet train.” It is more reminiscent of a “stop action” bullet in a “Matrix” film. Hell, there are Kenyan distance runners who could outpace that thing.
OK, in the interest of proving for the public good and welfare, I shall prose some remedies for enhancing the feasibility of High-Speed Rail in Ohio. Because our fearless and clueless leaders are trying to establish the Buckeye as a leader in the alternative energy field, I submit that we should merge the two fiascos to arrive at a singular solution for all of our economic woes in Ohio. Let’s examine ways to propel the train using renewable energy resources.
Each engine on the train could have a windmill attached to its top (sorta like a beanie propeller). The faster the train would travel the more energy that would be generated. If we could reach “warp” speed, we might generate enough power to export to other states that are burdened with huge gas and oil reserves that the EPA will not allow them to tap. Our greatest concern would be that the train could conceivably become airborne if it exceeded the recommended ground speed. A flying train with a couple of dozen subsidized passengers could result in a tragedy of immense proportions.
Perhaps solar panels would provide an efficient energy system for running the train. Nighttime runs might have to be severely curtailed, and air conditioning requirements on the train may have to be ramped up, but the solar option could be very feasible on those 5 or 6 totally sunny days that we enjoy here in the Great Lakes region. In addition, every hail storm would create new jobs as we replace the damaged panels.
My favorite option involves the use of methane. Each train could be equipped with a methane converter. Farmers along the High-Speed corridor could pile their animal waste along the tracks. As the train speeds by, a waste collector would scoop up the excrement, capture the methane and convert it to energy. My greatest concern is that if the farmers were to stack too much material along the tracks, then our High-Speed Wonder train could arrive at its destination … full of crap. So, for now, we’ve avoided the Boo-Hoo Choo-Choo .
Comments welcome: earl4sos@gmail.com cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood (RINO-Illinois) notified Mr. Kasich that the $400 million in stimulus funds that were set aside to begin the rail project would be forfeited if not used for the high-speed boondoggle. In case you may have forgotten, that $400 million is: 1) our money; 2) our borrowed money and future debt; and 3) not President Obama’s nor Ray Lahood’s private stash for their pet social engineering projects. Kasich had asked for permission to divert the funds for other uses. Aside from the blatantly irresponsible action of seeking additional borrowed funds for any purpose, Kasich’s stand contains the nucleus of principle. States have the Constitutional right to determine what is best for their citizens. Big Nanny be damned.
Back to the fast train fiasco. The average subsidy for EVERY Amtrak passenger is $32…yes, every time someone purchases a ticket and ascends the steps to the passenger car, the taxpayers’ cash register rings up another thirty-two bucks. So, who in her or his right mind believes that the Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati FORTY-MPH EXPRESS would be more efficient? Even if it were as cost-effective as Amtrak, why should the taxpayers of Ohio be saddled with the bill for a relatively few riders? Why should Youngstown and Toledo residents underwrite ease and convenience for people in other jurisdictions? Why should the good people of St. Henry, Tiffin, Caldwell and Gallipolis bear the burden of propping up a certain loser? Besides, 41 mph does not suggest a “bullet train.” It is more reminiscent of a “stop action” bullet in a “Matrix” film. Hell, there are Kenyan distance runners who could outpace that thing.
OK, in the interest of proving for the public good and welfare, I shall prose some remedies for enhancing the feasibility of High-Speed Rail in Ohio. Because our fearless and clueless leaders are trying to establish the Buckeye as a leader in the alternative energy field, I submit that we should merge the two fiascos to arrive at a singular solution for all of our economic woes in Ohio. Let’s examine ways to propel the train using renewable energy resources.
Each engine on the train could have a windmill attached to its top (sorta like a beanie propeller). The faster the train would travel the more energy that would be generated. If we could reach “warp” speed, we might generate enough power to export to other states that are burdened with huge gas and oil reserves that the EPA will not allow them to tap. Our greatest concern would be that the train could conceivably become airborne if it exceeded the recommended ground speed. A flying train with a couple of dozen subsidized passengers could result in a tragedy of immense proportions.
Perhaps solar panels would provide an efficient energy system for running the train. Nighttime runs might have to be severely curtailed, and air conditioning requirements on the train may have to be ramped up, but the solar option could be very feasible on those 5 or 6 totally sunny days that we enjoy here in the Great Lakes region. In addition, every hail storm would create new jobs as we replace the damaged panels.
My favorite option involves the use of methane. Each train could be equipped with a methane converter. Farmers along the High-Speed corridor could pile their animal waste along the tracks. As the train speeds by, a waste collector would scoop up the excrement, capture the methane and convert it to energy. My greatest concern is that if the farmers were to stack too much material along the tracks, then our High-Speed Wonder train could arrive at its destination … full of crap. So, for now, we’ve avoided the Boo-Hoo Choo-Choo .
Comments welcome: earl4sos@gmail.com cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Saving Liberty
So, our first two entries in this three-part series on Liberty addressed how to define “liberty,” and in a primitive way, how to share what is “true liberty.” Now we’ll attempt to resolve how to “save liberty.” We already know that many people are dependent on government goodies, and may not view their dependence as part of the problem. Others may be aware that their involvement in the government scam programs undermines their and our liberty, but have calculated that their own short-term interests outweigh the good of the nation and the freedom for future generations. A third group is the radically clueless. They have no historical perspective and no civic knowledge. They simply float along immersed in their own ignorance. So, how do we penetrate the barriers of self-interest and know-nothingness in order to generate a movement for liberty? Do we don the William Wallace costume worn by Mel Gibson in “Braveheart,” paint our faces blue, and scream “Freedom.?” It could be a beginning, but I suspect that it may attract the guys with white coats and butterfly nets before it lures a sufficiently large number of citizens to our cause.
It would be better if we could illustrate for our fellow citizens that government goodies represent the ties that tightly bind us and restrict our freedoms. Why is it that we cannot sue the government for misfeasance or malfeasance without the government’s permission? Why is it that the pernicious RICO laws cannot be used to break the government monopolies or disassemble government collusion? Why are overreaching government promises not subject to contract law? When the ObamaCare monstrosity was passed, I heard several people complain about the exemption for government functionaries. But that’s the point, isn’t it? If government grants you some unconstitutional goodies, shouldn’t they have the right to exempt themselves? When you slavishly trade your liberty for some semblance of government security, you will lose.
Your liberty, our liberty is not a segmented right. Just like one cannot be a little bit pregnant, one cannot be partially free. What does a little bit of liberty represent—a longer chain, a larger cage? Dancing with the government is not the “hokey-pokey.” You can’t put one foot in and take it out again. You’re either all in…and selling out your God-given freedom, or you’re out…fighting each and every encroachment on your ability to live in unencumbered liberty. None of us is clever enough, tough enough or strong enough to compromise a “little” liberty for a “little” security. Once the tentacles of Nanny get their grips on you, they will not willingly set you free. “It’s for the greater good.” Submit your will to the state for the betterment of all is the siren song that we hear so often to legitimize the government’s insatiable desire to control every little detail of our lives. I’ve often noted that government has no heart, no mind and no soul, but allow me to add that government has no conscience or remorse. If government messes up your life or destroys the well-being of the country, it merely consumes a greater share of our labor, our property and our liberty and moves on.
To save our liberty, we must stop the inexorable expansion of government, then begin to unravel its multiple threads, and reduce it to its skeletal foundation. Can we save our liberty? Perhaps, but only if a significant number of us denounce and deny the “welcome wagon” basket of goodies that our government and the career politicians offer us and promise us. Despite their protestations and tender words of compassion, they will not love us in the morning when they are done with us. Bottom line: Liberty is an individual right. One can do whatever one wishes as long as he/she does no harm to others or their property. For liberty to exist, therefore, requires that individuals gnaw through the shackles of dependency and deny the “Trojan-horse gifts” from government. Continuing to be a ward of the state at any degree undermines the refreshing prospect of liberty for all. Give it up and enjoy the blessings of liberty.
Please comment: earl4sos@gmail.com cnpearl@woh.rr.com
It would be better if we could illustrate for our fellow citizens that government goodies represent the ties that tightly bind us and restrict our freedoms. Why is it that we cannot sue the government for misfeasance or malfeasance without the government’s permission? Why is it that the pernicious RICO laws cannot be used to break the government monopolies or disassemble government collusion? Why are overreaching government promises not subject to contract law? When the ObamaCare monstrosity was passed, I heard several people complain about the exemption for government functionaries. But that’s the point, isn’t it? If government grants you some unconstitutional goodies, shouldn’t they have the right to exempt themselves? When you slavishly trade your liberty for some semblance of government security, you will lose.
Your liberty, our liberty is not a segmented right. Just like one cannot be a little bit pregnant, one cannot be partially free. What does a little bit of liberty represent—a longer chain, a larger cage? Dancing with the government is not the “hokey-pokey.” You can’t put one foot in and take it out again. You’re either all in…and selling out your God-given freedom, or you’re out…fighting each and every encroachment on your ability to live in unencumbered liberty. None of us is clever enough, tough enough or strong enough to compromise a “little” liberty for a “little” security. Once the tentacles of Nanny get their grips on you, they will not willingly set you free. “It’s for the greater good.” Submit your will to the state for the betterment of all is the siren song that we hear so often to legitimize the government’s insatiable desire to control every little detail of our lives. I’ve often noted that government has no heart, no mind and no soul, but allow me to add that government has no conscience or remorse. If government messes up your life or destroys the well-being of the country, it merely consumes a greater share of our labor, our property and our liberty and moves on.
To save our liberty, we must stop the inexorable expansion of government, then begin to unravel its multiple threads, and reduce it to its skeletal foundation. Can we save our liberty? Perhaps, but only if a significant number of us denounce and deny the “welcome wagon” basket of goodies that our government and the career politicians offer us and promise us. Despite their protestations and tender words of compassion, they will not love us in the morning when they are done with us. Bottom line: Liberty is an individual right. One can do whatever one wishes as long as he/she does no harm to others or their property. For liberty to exist, therefore, requires that individuals gnaw through the shackles of dependency and deny the “Trojan-horse gifts” from government. Continuing to be a ward of the state at any degree undermines the refreshing prospect of liberty for all. Give it up and enjoy the blessings of liberty.
Please comment: earl4sos@gmail.com cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Sharing Liberty
If you’ve ever had the opportunity to interact with a two-year old, then you are probably aware of the universal tendency to control our own lives. Toddlers undoubtedly have questionable judgment, but they, nevertheless, possess an insatiable urge to make their own choices. Where the little child may fall short in the milieu of responsible liberty is in the realm of accountability. As we mature through knowledge and experience, we must learn the laws of responsible accountability to complement our inherent liberty. True liberty, therefore, is the unfettered living of our lives in any way or form that does not harm others or their property.
The purpose of the law, therefore, is to enshrine our liberty not to limit it. Further, the law should be used to design and enforce the issues of accountability and responsibility. Contracts, public and private, should be rigorously enforced, and those (including government) who violate the lives, labor and property of others must be made to provide sufficient restitution. Liberty is, therefore, absolute regarding one self and extremely limited when interfering with others. Intervention and interaction with the lives of others can be accomplished if all parties involved willingly assent. The associations and cooperative efforts must be wholly voluntary for the essence of liberty to be maintained.
While on the campaign trail for the last year, I often lamented our loss of liberty because of the unrestrained growth of the “Nanny-state.” Invariably, my complaint was met with cheers, knowing nods or “amen’s.” I often wondered, however, how many of my listeners truly understood the core of my concern. For far too long, too many of our citizens have relinquished their freedom for mere crumbs of “security” from the federal government….and to a lesser degree from the state government. I suspect that a significant number of my audience would gladly stop our meaningless foreign aid program, but would fight to the death to retain Social Security or Medicare. Also, while many citizens may oppose the broken welfare system that we have in place, how many are truly willing to examine duplicitous military expenditures with the same fervor?
When we forfeit our liberty, for whatever purpose, we surrender a piece of ourselves. Our humanity, our unique nature is God-given and God-breathed, and when we willingly or submissively fail to wholly exercise our liberty, then we necessarily diminish our special humanity. A study of history illustrates that most people are willing to sacrifice freedom for some notion of security. Most of us lack the courage, the conviction or the passion to forgo a life of relative ease in order to secure our absolute liberty. Are we willing to give up our subsidies, our tax breaks or our special programs? Those of us who have had children know that weaning time is difficult and filled with angst. This analysis is not intended as an indictment of my fellow citizens, but merely represents my observations about our tendencies to travel the “easy’ path.
So, how do we share the concept of true liberty to our family, friends and neighbors? How can we inoculate them against the lure of government “gifts and largess?” We might begin with the example of the two-year old whose adamant desire for self-determination illustrates our innate desire to manage our own lives. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (Matthew 19:14, NIV). Although I’ve never encountered an exegesis that examines this verse on the basis of liberty, the application of innocence as the underlying attribute can be extended to include liberty. Childlike innocence makes one unaware or indifferent to the pervasive influence of a controlling government. Jesus admonished the disciples to allow the children to approach his seat of grace because they were doing so willingly. In a metaphorical sense, the disciples represent the power of a government that determines who is worthy. Just as grace is reserved for the willing, liberty is a gift for the unburdened. True liberty can exist only when we sever the tendrils of government control, and when we sever the cords of our reliance.
Your comments are welcome: cnpearl@woh.rr.com earl4sos@gmail.com
The purpose of the law, therefore, is to enshrine our liberty not to limit it. Further, the law should be used to design and enforce the issues of accountability and responsibility. Contracts, public and private, should be rigorously enforced, and those (including government) who violate the lives, labor and property of others must be made to provide sufficient restitution. Liberty is, therefore, absolute regarding one self and extremely limited when interfering with others. Intervention and interaction with the lives of others can be accomplished if all parties involved willingly assent. The associations and cooperative efforts must be wholly voluntary for the essence of liberty to be maintained.
While on the campaign trail for the last year, I often lamented our loss of liberty because of the unrestrained growth of the “Nanny-state.” Invariably, my complaint was met with cheers, knowing nods or “amen’s.” I often wondered, however, how many of my listeners truly understood the core of my concern. For far too long, too many of our citizens have relinquished their freedom for mere crumbs of “security” from the federal government….and to a lesser degree from the state government. I suspect that a significant number of my audience would gladly stop our meaningless foreign aid program, but would fight to the death to retain Social Security or Medicare. Also, while many citizens may oppose the broken welfare system that we have in place, how many are truly willing to examine duplicitous military expenditures with the same fervor?
When we forfeit our liberty, for whatever purpose, we surrender a piece of ourselves. Our humanity, our unique nature is God-given and God-breathed, and when we willingly or submissively fail to wholly exercise our liberty, then we necessarily diminish our special humanity. A study of history illustrates that most people are willing to sacrifice freedom for some notion of security. Most of us lack the courage, the conviction or the passion to forgo a life of relative ease in order to secure our absolute liberty. Are we willing to give up our subsidies, our tax breaks or our special programs? Those of us who have had children know that weaning time is difficult and filled with angst. This analysis is not intended as an indictment of my fellow citizens, but merely represents my observations about our tendencies to travel the “easy’ path.
So, how do we share the concept of true liberty to our family, friends and neighbors? How can we inoculate them against the lure of government “gifts and largess?” We might begin with the example of the two-year old whose adamant desire for self-determination illustrates our innate desire to manage our own lives. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (Matthew 19:14, NIV). Although I’ve never encountered an exegesis that examines this verse on the basis of liberty, the application of innocence as the underlying attribute can be extended to include liberty. Childlike innocence makes one unaware or indifferent to the pervasive influence of a controlling government. Jesus admonished the disciples to allow the children to approach his seat of grace because they were doing so willingly. In a metaphorical sense, the disciples represent the power of a government that determines who is worthy. Just as grace is reserved for the willing, liberty is a gift for the unburdened. True liberty can exist only when we sever the tendrils of government control, and when we sever the cords of our reliance.
Your comments are welcome: cnpearl@woh.rr.com earl4sos@gmail.com
Monday, November 8, 2010
Seeking Liberty
Words have no inherent value. They are merely symbols that we use to transmit ideas to others. For example, when I write “rock,” do you picture a stone object that is larger than a pebble and smaller than a boulder? Or…do you envision a chair with arched feet that moves forward and back? Perhaps you conjure up a particular genre’ of music that has captured the imagination of generations while undergoing multiple transformations. Maybe you perceive “rock” to be a metaphor for stability and certitude. “Rock” is simply an assembly of four distinct etchings or symbols that when placed together in a particular order (not CRKO), prompt your mind to retrieve a picture.
As we have noted, “rock” can generate several different pictures, so context is required to further identify which definition of “rock” we are attempting to communicate. Consider this: when we say someone is “rocking,” we could be discussing Granny or KISS, but we have eliminated the geological version by adding context. “Rock” is generally considered to be something tangible, but when used to discuss the broad spectrum of music, the tangibility of the concept becomes more problematic. This little journey into American-English linguistics is an exercise for illustrating how difficult it can be to effectively communicate intangible ideas.
Take “liberty,” for example. Webster’s top two definitions identify liberty as 1) freedom from slavery, captivity etc., and 2) a particular right, freedom etc. How would one describe the concept of true liberty to someone who is uninformed? Technically speaking, a serf is not a slave, nor is an indentured servant, but neither can be characterized as enjoying the fruits of liberty. The version of Webster that I used for this discussion (New World) did not identify the source of the particular right or freedom that represents “liberty.” So, is liberty too illusive to define, or too idealistic to matter? Is “liberty” real, or merely the magical musings of multitudes who yearn for something that is unattainable? Can something so ephemeral, so difficult to define or identify be of value? Worth desiring? Worthy of great effort to secure? Can liberty be invested with enough intrinsic value that one would sacrifice her/his life to obtain it or secure it?
Our Framers and Founders considered liberty to be the highest ideal of a civil society. As they labored to devise a system of governance, they sought to maintain a balance between tyranny and anarchy. Anarchy would transform the concept of liberty into the reality of libertine license while tyranny would obviously suffocate the spark of freedom. They rightly discerned that liberty would thrive in an environment structured by the rule of law, but the practice and application of the law should not be excessively restrictive. To achieve the delicate balance they limited the powers of the government and recognized that our freedoms, our liberty are gifts from God and should not be altered by government.
According to the Founders, government should not tamper with the natural law. What God has ordained, no device created by man should limit or abridge. Tomorrow, we’ll discuss the application and practical use of liberty. How do we recognize it? How can we explain it? How to secure it, restore it and implement it. Until our citizens understand the true nature of liberty, they will not grasp its importance for our lives.
Your comments are welcome: cnpearl@woh.rr.com or earl4sos@gmail.com
As we have noted, “rock” can generate several different pictures, so context is required to further identify which definition of “rock” we are attempting to communicate. Consider this: when we say someone is “rocking,” we could be discussing Granny or KISS, but we have eliminated the geological version by adding context. “Rock” is generally considered to be something tangible, but when used to discuss the broad spectrum of music, the tangibility of the concept becomes more problematic. This little journey into American-English linguistics is an exercise for illustrating how difficult it can be to effectively communicate intangible ideas.
Take “liberty,” for example. Webster’s top two definitions identify liberty as 1) freedom from slavery, captivity etc., and 2) a particular right, freedom etc. How would one describe the concept of true liberty to someone who is uninformed? Technically speaking, a serf is not a slave, nor is an indentured servant, but neither can be characterized as enjoying the fruits of liberty. The version of Webster that I used for this discussion (New World) did not identify the source of the particular right or freedom that represents “liberty.” So, is liberty too illusive to define, or too idealistic to matter? Is “liberty” real, or merely the magical musings of multitudes who yearn for something that is unattainable? Can something so ephemeral, so difficult to define or identify be of value? Worth desiring? Worthy of great effort to secure? Can liberty be invested with enough intrinsic value that one would sacrifice her/his life to obtain it or secure it?
Our Framers and Founders considered liberty to be the highest ideal of a civil society. As they labored to devise a system of governance, they sought to maintain a balance between tyranny and anarchy. Anarchy would transform the concept of liberty into the reality of libertine license while tyranny would obviously suffocate the spark of freedom. They rightly discerned that liberty would thrive in an environment structured by the rule of law, but the practice and application of the law should not be excessively restrictive. To achieve the delicate balance they limited the powers of the government and recognized that our freedoms, our liberty are gifts from God and should not be altered by government.
According to the Founders, government should not tamper with the natural law. What God has ordained, no device created by man should limit or abridge. Tomorrow, we’ll discuss the application and practical use of liberty. How do we recognize it? How can we explain it? How to secure it, restore it and implement it. Until our citizens understand the true nature of liberty, they will not grasp its importance for our lives.
Your comments are welcome: cnpearl@woh.rr.com or earl4sos@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
