A call for reason
By: J.J. Jackson
A pamphlet on the superiority of Liberty and calling for it's
January the twenty-first, in the Year of Our Lord two-thousand and eleven
This essay is freely given to the people of the United States. It may be reprinted and distributed freely by anyone with the sole conditions that it has no fee, even to cover printing and duplication costs, whatsoever attached to it and that proper credit is given to the author.
Copies of this pamphlet may be downloaded for free from http://www.libertyreborn.com/
A Call for Reason (Part I) - The Conditions Of Mankind:
My fellow Americans, I appeal to you that reason dictates to all that men can only
This is why I ask your indulgence with the following dissertation. Because I want you to be confident inasmuch as what I am about to discuss is reason and not illogic hidden behind a mask to deceive you into making a non-reasoned and ill advised choice.
With regards to the conditions in which man can exist in I submit that there are in truth but only three.
First, is that they can exist in a state of absolute anarchy; unbridled freedom where all men constantly look out for only their own betterment in an irrational and chaotic ballet. In such a state each man rises or falls purely by his own strength and cunning only to be outdone by one that is more so than he. While this sounds grand to a point, there is a downside when explored further. In such a state the only rights that any man has are those that he is able to take and hold by his own prowess. All persons must therefore constantly look over his or her own shoulders for the next threat to what he has or she has gained and be prepared to defend their gains by force.
Here, in this state of existence, if one can take a tract of land and defend it from all others that would desire that land then one inherently has a "right" to that land until someone else is able to take it from him. Here a man or woman only has a right to live so long as no other person wishes him or her dead and is capable of completing such a task.
While man can certainly exist in such a condition, I suggest that he does not and cannot remain there for more than an instance of history because of man's social nature and intelligence. These things make it impossible for absolute anarchy to remain viable because the intelligence of those who are weaker individually allows them learn quickly that the best means to compete against the stronger, more cunning and better equipped is to form some sense of an accord and enter into a tribe or other type of society. Man's social nature also drives even the strongest to also seek out companionship either through willing agreement by all parties or through forced coercion by the strongest if only for the most basic of urges and the propagation of the species. Both of these realities lead to an order which will arise and once one has order, there cannot be anarchy.
So I actually I must admit and appeal to you that man can only truly exist in one of two states, both of which are societal, once this first of anarchy and loneliness is found to be untenable to the basic nature of man. I must appeal to you that man must either exist in a state of societal liberty or a state of societal oppression and slavery. The path chosen by the society so formed depends entirely on those that form it and those that from that point onward exist within it.
Man is a creature that learns from his experiences. And as such some will learn the best state for themselves is one in which all men mutually agree to rightfully and properly defend one another from harm by others. This state is called liberty. For others however this learning inherent to the nature of mankind leads them to desire a state in which they seek to further their own desires by placing themselves above others. This is a state where many are oppressed by the few for the sole betterment of these few. Societies, as mere collections of men, are subject to these same opposing forces being constantly pulled to and fro and between groups of men that have learned how best to secure the good, the equality of all, the right and the proper and those groups of men that have learned how best to secure their power above all else, the bad and the wrong. So within any society there are those that prefer liberty and there are those that will prefer oppression of others, and perhaps even themselves, for either power or security respectively.
Man is an imperfect creature. Only the most noble of the species have truly the well being of all in their best interests at all times. And I dare say that perhaps not a single man has ever existed that would fall wholly into that category except for Christ himself.
In comparison and by conjunction all collections of men and their societies are also imperfect. But how imperfect they are depends on the majority disposition of those within them. When collections of men, by majority, hold dearest their own rights and by correlation the rights of all mankind as descended upon us from God and at least strive for perfection based on such, societies are good. These societies and those within them, by majority, understand that it is in their own best interest to secure liberty for all because they know that their own majority, and hence power, within the culture is likely fleeting in the history of it. Inherently these societies are jealous of any encroachments upon individual liberties regardless of the person being harmed or threatened. They covet their unalienable rights because they fear the loss of their own at the hands of a new majority that may arise at some point within such a society.
Even if each member differs slightly in the fineries of what exactly entails liberty, the fact that the majority is jealous of even the slightest encroachment upon their liberty holds such societies in a state of near perfection. This near perfection comes in a form where each member is allowed to pursue their own liberty while not infringing upon that of another man lest anarchy ensue. While the individuals are not perfect, and perhaps even far from it, the whole approaches perfection through a joint distrust of creeping authority and regulation and an understanding that power is fleeting and that those who rule today will not rule tomorrow and that respecting the rights of all is the best way to ensure that the rights of all will be carried forward even when a new administration arises.
In a state of liberty the societal structure put forth is where government exists as a necessary evil to maintain as much freedom for each individual member as can be granted without the freedoms of another being infringed. In such societies individual citizens are free to contract with one another for goods and services and interact without interference from others regardless of status and power and each may seek redress when true, real and measurable harm befalls them at the hand of others. In such a society the bounds of what one man can do is limited only by what are the rights of all men and of those that he interacts with as well as his own innate abilities. It is a state where government does not poke and prod the people in a direction the government deems fit for them to travel. It is a state where the rights of one are the rights of the whole; where my rights are yours and yours are mine and never shall the two cross.
Such societies enact government for the sole purpose of defending those under it from harms both internal and external and provide only the most basic of functions to allow each man and woman within them to rise and fall based on their own ability, choices, drive and yes, even luck. Such basic functions are, as previously said, only those that do not infringe upon rights equally held and as such are by definition limited since growth beyond being merely basic would inherently infringe on the rights of someone.
In libertarian societies of conservative government, action from the seat of administration is restricted while actions by those that live within these societies are less bound but not entirely boundless. There is no inherent right to infringe on the rights of others or establish a duty upon other individuals to help further another's own betterment.
On the other hand, when these same collections of men as previously mentioned, by majority, decide that others are put upon this Earth to serve them and that their desires trump the inalienable rights of man, societies turn bad. They become rotted to their core upon such thoughts. Inherently persons in such societies are not jealous of encroachments upon their liberties but only encroachments to their power over others and are interested in only what they may receive by the authority of the State and from the coffers of the State which has been taken from another for them.
In a state of oppression, the societal structure put forth is where government allows a similar state to the untenable infringements that would exist under the state of anarchy. Except that instead of individuals taking that which they can by their singular means without limit, they have now moved to organize others to aid them in such a pursuit from the start. Whereas in anarchy the individually strong take what they desire without regards for the unalienable rights of others and survive by means of their personal superiority, in the state of oppression what others have is taken by the strongest group that is desirous of it and through their own group superiority rather than the strongest individual only.
Such societies, by nature, require that rights belonging to some be trampled for benefits to be granted to the superior group or even groups. They become collectives wherein rights are not equally applied to all. They become gatherings where some of what one has is taken to enhance what another does not possess and believes they should have as well as to maintain the machinery and ultimately making miserable the productive members of such a society.
When the property or industriousness of one is taken by another or group of citizens and a claim is put upon it through force the argument becomes accepted that someone else has a greater right to such things than the person from which it emanated. It leads to the popular dictum that some are more equal than others.
Witness to the horrors of what such ideology brings has been seen throughout history. Racial based slavery in the southern states early in the record of our own country is just one such example where the rights of one group were taken to benefit another without the recourse of just government. The acts of Nazi Germany under Chancellor Hitler where the very lives of the Jews and other "undesirables" were taken as punishment for pretended crimes are but another glaring example. This list is not to be completed with just these two examples but to discuss all of them that have occurred would take volumes and not be practical for the space reserved here. I believe that you as an intelligent being can fully flush out this list in your own mind and allow me to move forward with this discussion.
Now, noticing the contrasts of these two ideologies previously described, there can be little doubt that all men being created equal with the same rights and privileges to be stripped only as recourse when they have harmed the rights and privileges of others, and been so found guilty by a jury of their peers, is by reason, a sound balance to maintain. It puts all on equal footing to use their talents to the best of their own ability while accepting that others can and should do the same. If they cheat, if they steal, or if they do harm to another the society punishes them justly. But if they are just better at doing what they do than others then the society leaves them to pursue their liberty.
Just as was previously stated in the reverse, there can be little doubt that when any man or group of men seeks to harm others by denying them their God given rights that the evil and enslavement that follows is neither sound nor balanced. It in fact grows exponentially upon itself as decisions of right and wrong stem no longer from a constant but from imperfect men continually attempting to manage an enforced and arbitrary balance which they have deemed should exist to support themselves above others. Such societies put certain groups artificially ahead of all other groups and inherently make them and the people contained within them unequal to those that are not part of the superior group.
Within societies there always exists a fight; a struggle where the good and the bad are in precarious balance. There is always a struggle between those that seek liberty and those that seek enslavement or to enslave. And I compel you to consider my words of what becomes of societies where the later dominates and is true as the many historical examples from which we can learn will show.
Do they not become societies where some citizens have the fruits of their own genius and labor taken from them by force, often at gun point and with threat of prison or even death should those citizens not acquiesce, to better those that have never developed such talents of their own? History shows that they do.
Do they not become societies where some better themselves on the unwilling backs of others? History, again sadly, shows that they do.
Do they not become societies of masters who command and slaves who must follow? Invariably the answer is yes.