Self-Government

[Truth Warrior]

Self-Government

Posted By Donald J. Boudreaux On September 1, 2000 @ 3:00 am In Columns | No Comments (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/self-government-2/print/#comments_controls)
Donald Boudreaux is president of FEE.

The United States is often described as an experiment in self-government. But what is this thing? Most people understand “self-government” to mean democracy. According to this understanding, a people are self-governed if they regularly vote to select the individuals who are to occupy political offices. This method of deciding who holds political power has clear advantages over conferring political power according to military prowess, bloodlines, or other criteria remote from the input of the ordinary men and women who are to be governed.

Understood in this way, to endorse self-government is hardly to take a courageous or controversial stand. No good case can be made that fitness to govern is best determined by bloodline or by skill at military conquest. Clearly, whatever power the state exercises ought to be exercised by people chosen in fair elections by those who are subject to the state’s dictates. Almost no one in modern Western society disagrees that people ought to be governed in this way.

But such government, regardless of its merits, is not really self-government. It is government by the elected. No amount of romantic praise of democracy can change the fact that even the best popularly elected government routinely obliges Smith—against his will—to do the bidding of Jones. And whether Jones be an influential special-interest group or a popular majority, when Smith is threatened with coercion to do Jones’s bidding, neitherSmith nor Jones is self-governing. Smith is governed by Jones, and Jones is governing not only himself but Smith as well.
True Self-Government
Self-government in a truer, more literal sense is both desirable and possible.

True self-government is just that: self-government. Each individual governs himself. Each person is free to chart his own life’s course, choosing which risks to brave and which to avoid. Each person is responsible only for himself, for his family, and for those whom he—of his own volition—chooses to care for. Each person has a claim to the fruits only of his own labor and sacrifices, and no claim to the fruits of another’s labor and sacrifices. Each person has a legal right to do as he wills so long as he respects the equal rights of others and honors all his commitments.

Of course, living in this way—as a free man or woman—requires discipline. To be foolish and imprudent is to fail at self-government. Typically, people who don’t govern themselves personally pay the price of not doing so. One advantage of a free society is that it focuses the costs of irresponsible behavior on those who behave irresponsibly, and it focuses the benefits of responsible behavior on those who behave responsibly. The result is that irresponsible behavior is kept to a minimum.

But how to distinguish responsible from irresponsible behavior? If we let each individual determine how to make this distinction, won’t the result be chaos?

Some behaviors are plainly and always destructive of social cooperation. Murder, theft, rape, slaveholding, arson—these and other behaviors whereby some people coerce others are unquestionably out of bounds; the law should prohibit them. These behaviors should be prohibited precisely because they interfere with their victims’ rights to govern themselves.

The precise means of deciding which behaviors the law should prohibit, as well as how to enforce these prohibitions, is debatable. I don’t wish to weigh in here on the dispute between anarcho-capitalists and advocates of limited government. Reasonable people can and do disagree about just how far we can go in ridding ourselves of the state, although no reasonable person believes that society can exist without laws protecting each of us against coercive threats against our persons and property.

But the state today does far more than enforce laws against murder, theft, and other obviously predatory acts. Almost all that today’s state does offends the idea of self-government. Government in America today doesn’t hesitate to coerce those who are politically weak to do the bidding of those who are politically strong. Nor does government today hesitate to treat its subjects as foolhardy imbeciles in need of strict guidance from the state. In both ways, today’s government denies people their right of self-government. The state governs; its subjects obey. Each of us is ruled to an increasingly large degree not by ourselves, but by others.

Consider: regulations mandating that we wear seat belts; minimum-wage legislation; government restrictions on drug use; state blue laws; truancy statutes; the regulation of advertising; tariffs and other import restrictions; government controls on which foreigners we may associate with on American soil; building codes; occupational licensing; the command that every worker contribute to the Social Security and Medicare schemes; taxation that consumes around 40 percent of our income—the list of offenses against self-government is endless.

Many people who reflect on all that government does today will insist that it simply must do these things, for otherwise, too many people will fall into traps that they are either too stupid or too weak to avoid.

I don’t doubt that each of us will make some choices that we later regret. Nor do I doubt that some of us will prove to be especially inept at making wise choices. And surely from time to time these unwise choices will lead to terrible consequences.

But what is self-government if not the ability to govern yourself as you choose—with you taking responsibility for yourself and leaving others free to take responsibility for themselves? Those who insist that government must take responsibility for the safety and welfare of people should stop proclaiming their allegiance to liberty and self-government. They should instead forthrightly proclaim an allegiance to the principle of government by the elite few of the irresponsible many.

I would resolutely object to this principle, but at least its advocates would be forthright. They would no longer be masquerading as friends of the noble ideals that motivated Jefferson and Madison. They would, instead, honestly reveal themselves as patrons of the notion that ordinary men and women are incapable of self-government and, hence, unworthy of liberty. The result would be a more enlightening debate. Liberty and self-government stand clearly opposed to the exercise of intrusive state authority. People advocating intrusive state authority would then be explicitly aware that they reject liberty. They would be forced to concede that they do not believe in the principle of self-government.



Article printed from The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty: http://www.thefreemanonline.org
URL to article: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/self-government-2/

[Truth Warrior]

Bump!

[Truth Warrior]

Bump! .....

[heavenlyboy34]

Very nice. Thanks! :cool::) Tell Theo about this. He's looking for information on autarchism/self-government so as to understand it better.

[virgil47]

Sounds like the ultimate balkinization to me. No need to divide and conquer just conquer one at a time. Easy pickens for those that would rule by force. I'm afraid I'd have to opt out of a society or should I say a lack of society such as this. I truly much prefer to have the support of the rule of law.

[Truth Warrior]

Sounds like the ultimate balkinization to me. No need to divide and conquer just conquer one at a time. Easy pickens for those that would rule by force. I'm afraid I'd have to opt out of a society or should I say a lack of society such as this. I truly much prefer to have the support of the rule of law. When you find one, please let me know. Collectivize on, dude. ;) Say "Hi" to your flock for me, OK? :D

[Truth Warrior]

Very nice. Thanks! :cool::) Tell Theo about this. He's looking for information on autarchism/self-government so as to understand it better. And I have some swamp land in Louisiana and a bridge in New York to sell you. ;) :rolleyes: :D

[Working Poor]

Will humankind ever be true enough to be self governed?

[Original_Intent]

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
James Madison

Guess what TW - they aren't.

[mediahasyou]

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
James Madison

Guess what TW - they aren't.

If men were evil, why do we give them the tool of government to create mass destruction?

[Original_Intent]

If men were evil, why do we give them the tool of government to create mass destruction?

I remember something about "binding them down with the chains of the Constitution"...seems like while people slept the chains were moved from the elected to the voters.

[Theocrat]

Will humankind ever be true enough to be self governed?

Not until they overcome their sinful natures by submitting to the God Who can make them new creatures.

[Truth Warrior]

Will humankind ever be true enough to be self governed? For sure, not as long as we are stuck in barbarism. BTW, it's a choice. ;) :)

"The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." ~ Gustave Le Bon

[Truth Warrior]

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
James Madison

Guess what TW - they aren't.

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."

Guess what, O_I - I really hope that you enjoy FEMA camp. ;)


Satan Is In Control Of Human Governments (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/satanownsgov.html)

[Truth Warrior]

If men were evil, why do we give them the tool of government to create mass destruction? A most excellent question.<IMHO> ;) It beats the crap out of me. :p BTW, I don't. :)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

We hold these things to be self-evident that self-government in a truer, more literal sense is both desirable and possible. True self-government is just that: self-government. Each individual governs himself. Each person is free to chart his own life’s course, choosing which risks to brave and which to avoid. Each person is responsible only for himself, for his family, and for those whom he—of his own volition—chooses to care for. Each person has a claim to the fruits only of his own labor and sacrifices, and no claim to the fruits of another’s labor and sacrifices. Each person has a legal right to do as he wills so long as he respects the equal rights of others and honors all his commitments.

Nope, try again.

[Truth Warrior]

We hold these things to be self-evident that self-government in a truer, more literal sense is both desirable and possible. True self-government is just that: self-government. Each individual governs himself. Each person is free to chart his own life’s course, choosing which risks to brave and which to avoid. Each person is responsible only for himself, for his family, and for those whom he—of his own volition—chooses to care for. Each person has a claim to the fruits only of his own labor and sacrifices, and no claim to the fruits of another’s labor and sacrifices. Each person has a legal right to do as he wills so long as he respects the equal rights of others and honors all his commitments.

Nope, try again. "Step into my parlor said the spider to the fly." GOTCHA!! < insert evil mad scientist's laugh here >

Ralph Waldo Emerson
Politics
(1844)

Nota
This is one of the Essays that Emerson published in the period 1841-1844. In it, he advocates the practice of self-government as the most rightful way to organize individuals in society.

In dealing with the State, we ought to remember that its institutions are not aboriginal, though they existed before we were born: that they are not superior to the citizen: that every one of them was once the act of a single man: every law and usage was a man's expedient to meet a particular case: that they all are imitable, all alterable; we may make as good; we may make better. Society is an illusion to the young citizen. It lies before him in rigid repose, with certain names, men, and institutions, rooted like oak-trees to the centre, round which all arrange themselves the best they can. But the old statesman knows that society is fluid; there are no such roots and centres; but any particle may suddenly become the centre of the movement, and compel the system to gyrate round it, as every man of strong will, like Pisistratus, or Cromwell, does for a time, and every man of truth, like Plato, or Paul, does forever. But politics rest on necessary foundations, and cannot be treated with levity. Republics abound in young civilians, who believe that the laws make the city, that grave modifications of the policy and modes of living, and employments of the population, that commerce, education, and religion, may be voted in or out; and that any measure, though it were absurd, may be imposed on a people, if only you can get sufficient voices to make it a law. But the wise know that foolish legislation is a rope of sand, which perishes in the twisting; that the State must follow, and not lead the character and progress of the citizen; the strongest usurper is quickly got rid of; and they only who build on Ideas, build for eternity; and that the form of government which prevails, is the expression of what cultivation exists in the population which permits it. The law is only a memorandum. We are superstitious, and esteem the statute somewhat: so much life as it has in the character of living men, is its force. The statute stands there to say, yesterday we agreed so and so, but how feel ye this article today? Our statute is a currency, which we stamp with our own portrait: it soon becomes unrecognizable, and in process of time will return to the mint. Nature is not democratic, nor limited-monarchical, but despotic, and will not be fooled or abated of any jot of her authority, by the pertest of her sons: and as fast as the public mind is opened to more intelligence, the code is seen to be brute and stammering. It speaks not articulately, and must be made to. Meantime the education of the general mind never stops. The reveries of the true and simple are prophetic. What the tender poetic youth dreams, and prays, and paints today, but shuns the ridicule of saying aloud, shall presently be the resolutions of public bodies, then shall be carried as grievance and bill of rights through conflict and war, and then shall be triumphant law and establishment for a hundred years, until it gives place, in turn, to new prayers and pictures. The history of the State sketches in coarse outline the progress of thought, and follows at a distance the delicacy of culture and of aspiration.

The theory of politics, which has possessed the mind of men, and which they have expressed the best they could in their laws and in their revolutions, considers persons and property as the two objects for whose protection government exists. Of persons, all have equal rights, in virtue of being identical in nature. This interest, of course, with its whole power demands a democracy. Whilst the rights of all as persons are equal, in virtue of their access to reason, their rights in property are very unequal. One man owns his clothes, and another owns a county. This accident, depending, primarily, on the skill and virtue of the parties, of which there is every degree, and, secondarily, on patrimony, falls unequally, and its rights, of course, are unequal. Personal rights, universally the same, demand a government framed on the ratio of the census: property demands a government framed on the ratio of owners and of owning. Laban, who has flocks and herds, wishes them looked after by an officer on the frontiers, lest the Midianites shall drive them off, and pays a tax to that end. Jacob has no flocks or herds, and no fear of the Midianites, and pays no tax to the officer. It seemed fit that Laban and Jacob should have equal rights to elect the officer, who is to defend their persons, but that Laban, and not Jacob, should elect the officer who is to guard the sheep and cattle. And, if question arise whether additional officers or watch-towers should be provided, must not Laban and Isaac, and those who must sell part of their herds to buy protection for the rest, judge better of this, and with more right, than Jacob, who, because he is a youth and a traveller, eats their bread and not his own.

In the earliest society the proprietors made their own wealth, and so long as it comes to the owners in the direct way, no other opinion would arise in any equitable community, than that property should make the law for property, and persons the law for persons.

But property passes through donation or inheritance to those who do not create it. Gift, in one case, makes it as really the new owner's, as labour made it the first owner's: in the other case, of patrimony, the law makes an ownership, which will be valid in each man's view according to the estimate which he sets on the public tranquillity.

It was not, however, found easy to embody the readily admitted principle, that property should make law for property, and persons for persons: since persons and property mixed themselves in every transaction. At last it seemed settled, that the rightful distinction was, that the proprietors should have more elective franchise than non-proprietors, on the Spartan principle of "calling that which is just, equal; not that which is equal, just."

That principle no longer looks so self-evident as it appeared in former times, partly, because doubts have arisen whether too much weight had not been allowed in the laws, to property, and such a structure given to our usages, as allowed the rich to encroach on the poor, and to keep them poor; but mainly, because there is an instinctive sense, however obscure and yet inarticulate, that the whole constitution of property, on its present tenures, is injurious, and its influence on persons deteriorating and degrading; that truly, the only interest for the consideration of the State, is persons: that property will always follow persons; that the highest end of government is the culture of men: and if men can be educated, the institutions will share their improvement, and the moral sentiment will write the law of the land.

If it be not easy to settle the equity of this question, the peril is less when we take note of our natural defences. We are kept by better guards than the vigilance of such magistrates as we commonly elect. Society always consists, in greatest part, of young and foolish persons. The old, who have seen through the hypocrisy of courts and statesmen, die, and leave no wisdom to their sons. They believe their own newspaper, as their fathers did at their age. With such an ignorant and deceivable majority, States would soon run to ruin, but that there are limitations, beyond which the folly and ambition of governors cannot go. Things have their laws, as well as men; and things refuse to be trifled with. Property will be protected. Corn will not grow, unless it is planted and manured; but the farmer will not plant or hoe it, unless the chances are a hundred to one, that he will cut and harvest it. Under any forms, persons and property must and will have their just sway. They exert their power, as steadily as matter its attraction. Cover up a pound of earth never so cunningly, divide and subdivide it; melt it to liquid, convert it to gas; it will always weigh a pound: it will always attract and resist other matter, by the full virtue of one pound weight; - and the attributes of a person, his wit and his moral energy, will exercise, under any law or extinguishing tyranny, their proper force, - if not overtly, then covertly; if not for the law, then against it; with right, or by might.

The boundaries of personal influence it is impossible to fix, as persons are organs of moral or supernatural force. Under the dominion of an idea, which possesses the minds of multitudes, as civil freedom, or the religious sentiment, the powers of persons are no longer subjects of calculation. A nation of men unanimously bent on freedom, or conquest, can easily confound the arithmetic of statists, and achieve extravagant actions, out of all proportion to their means; as, the Greeks, the Saracens, the Swiss, the Americans, and the French have done.

In like manner, to every particle of property belongs its own attraction. A cent is the representative of a certain quantity of corn or other commodity. Its value is in the necessities of the animal man. It is so much warmth, so much bread, so much water, so much land. The law may do what it will with the owner of property, its just power will still attach to the cent. The law may in a mad freak say, that all shall have power except the owners of property: they shall have no vote. Nevertheless, by a higher law, the property will, year after year, write every statute that respects property. The non-proprietor will be the scribe of the proprietor. What the owners wish to do, the whole power of property will do, either through the law, or else in defiance of it. Of course, I speak of all the property, not merely of the great estates. When the rich are outvoted, as frequently happens, it is the joint treasury of the poor which exceeds their accumulations. Every man owns something, if it is only a cow, or a wheelbarrow, or his arms, and so has that property to dispose of.
The same necessity which secures the rights of person and property against the malignity or folly of the magistrate, determines the form and methods of governing, which are proper to each nation, and to its habit of thought, and nowise transferable to other states of society. In this country, we are very vain of our political institutions, which are singular in this, that they sprung, within the memory of living men, from the character and condition of the people, which they still express with sufficient fidelity, - and we ostentatiously prefer them to any other in history. They are not better, but only fitter for us. We may be wise in asserting the advantage in modern times of the democratic form, but to other states of society, in which religion consecrated the monarchical, that and not this was expedient. Democracy is better for us, because the religious sentiment of the present time accords better with it. Born democrats, we are nowise qualified to judge of monarchy, which, to our fathers living in the monarchical idea, was also relatively right. But our institutions, though in coincidence with the spirit of the age, have not any exemption from the practical defects which have discredited other forms. Every actual State is corrupt. Good men must not obey the laws too well. What satire on government can equal the severity of censure conveyed in the word politic, which now for ages has signified cunning, intimating that the State is a trick?

The same benign necessity and the same practical abuse appear in the parties into which each State divides itself, of opponents and defenders of the administration of the government. Parties are also founded on instincts, and have better guides to their own humble aims than the sagacity of their leaders. They have nothing perverse in their origin, but rudely mark some real and lasting relation. We might as wisely reprove the east wind, or the frost, as a political party, whose members, for the most part, could give no account of their position, but stand for the defence of those interests in which they find themselves. Our quarrel with them begins, when they quit this deep natural ground at the bidding of some leader, and, obeying personal considerations, throw themselves into the maintenance and defence of points, nowise belonging to their system. A party is perpetually corrupted by personality. Whilst we absolve the association from dishonesty, we cannot extend the same charity to their leaders. They reap the rewards of the docility and zeal of the masses which they direct. Ordinarily, our parties are parties of circumstance, and not of principle; as, the planting interest in conflict with the commercial; the party of capitalists, and that of operatives; parties which are identical in their moral character, and which can easily change ground with each other, in the support of many of their measures. Parties of principle, as, religious sects, or the party of free-trade, of universal suffrage, of abolition of slavery, of abolition of capital punishment, degenerate into personalities, or would inspire enthusiasm. The vice of our leading parties in this country (which may be cited as a fair specimen of these societies of opinion) is, that they do not plant themselves on the deep and necessary grounds to which they are respectively entitled, but lash themselves to fury in the carrying of some local and momentary measure, nowise useful to the commonwealth. Of the two great parties, which, at this hour, almost share the nation between them, I should say, that, one has the best cause, and the other contains the best men. The philosopher, the poet, or the religious man, will, of course, wish to cast his vote with the democrat, for free-trade, for wide suffrage, for the abolition of legal cruelties in the penal code, and for facilitating in every manner the access of the young and the poor to the sources of wealth and power. But he can rarely accept the persons whom the so-called popular party propose to him as representatives of these liberalities. They have not at heart the ends which give to the name of democracy what hope and virtue are in it. The spirit of our American radicalism is destructive and aimless: it is not loving; it has no ulterior and divine ends; but is destructive only out of hatred and selfishness. On the other side, the conservative party, composed of the most moderate, able, and cultivated part of the population, is timid, and merely defensive of property. It vindicates no right, it aspires to no real good, it brands no crime, it proposes no generous policy, it does not build, nor write, nor cherish the arts, nor foster religion, nor establish schools, nor encourage science, nor emancipate the slave, nor befriend the poor, or the Indian, or the immigrant. From neither party, when in power, has the world any benefit to expect in science, art, or humanity, at all commensurate with the resources of the nation.

I do not for these defects despair of our republic. We are not at the mercy of any waves of chance. In the strife of ferocious parties, human nature always finds itself cherished, as the children of the convicts at Botany Bay are found to have as healthy a moral sentiment as other children. Citizens of feudal states are alarmed at our democratic institutions lapsing into anarchy; and the older and more cautious among ourselves are learning from Europeans to look with some terror at our turbulent freedom. It is said that in our license of construing the Constitution, and in the despotism of public opinion, we have no anchor; and one foreign observer thinks he has found the safeguard in the sanctity of Marriage among us; and another thinks he has found it in our Calvinism. Fisher Ames expressed the popular security more wisely, when he compared a monarchy and a republic, saying, "that a monarchy is a merchantman, which sails well, but will sometimes strike on a rock, and go to the bottom; whilst a republic is a raft, which would never sink, but then your feet are always in water." No forms can have any dangerous importance, whilst we are befriended by the laws of things. It makes no difference how many tons weight of atmosphere presses on our heads, so long as the same pressure resists it within the lungs. Augment the mass a thousandfold, it cannot begin to crush us, as long as reaction is equal to action. The fact of two poles, of two forces, centripetal and centrifugal, is universal, and each force by its own activity develops the other. Wild liberty develops iron conscience. Want of liberty, by strengthening law and decorum, stupefies conscience. "Lynch-law" prevails only where there is greater hardihood and self-subsistency in the leaders. A mob cannot be a permanency: everybody's interest requires that it should not exist, and only justice satisfies all.

We must trust infinitely to the beneficent necessity which shines through all laws. Human nature expresses itself in them as characteristically as in statues, or songs, or railroads, and an abstract of the codes of nations would be a transcript of the common conscience. Governments have their origin in the moral identity of men. Reason for one is seen to be reason for another, and for every other. There is a middle measure which satisfies all parties, be they never so many, or so resolute for their own. Every man finds a sanction for his simplest claims and deeds in decisions of his own mind, which he calls Truth and Holiness. In these decisions all the citizens find a perfect agreement, and only in these; not in what is good to eat, good to wear, good use of time, or what amount of land, or of public aid, each is entitled to claim. This truth and justice men presently endeavour to make application of, to the measuring of land, the apportionment of service, the protection of life and property. Their first endeavours, no doubt, are very awkward. Yet absolute right is the first governor; or, every government is an impure theocracy. The idea, after which each community is aiming to make and mend its law, is, the will of the wise man. The wise man, it cannot find in nature, and it makes awkward but earnest efforts to secure his government by contrivance; as, by causing the entire people to give their voices on every measure; or, by a double choice to get the representation of the whole; or, by a selection of the best citizens; or, to secure the advantages of efficiency and internal peace, by confiding the government to one, who may himself select his agents. All forms of government symbolize an immortal government, common to all dynasties and independent of numbers, perfect where two men exist, perfect where there is only one man.

Every man's nature is a sufficient advertisement to him of the character of his fellows. My right and my wrong, is their right and their wrong. Whilst I do what is fit for me, and abstain from what is unfit, my neighbour and I shall often agree in our means, and work together for a time to one end. But whenever I find my dominion over myself not sufficient for me, and undertake the direction of him also, I overstep the truth, and come into false relations to him. I may have so much more skill or strength than he, that he cannot express adequately his sense of wrong, but it is a lie, and hurts like a lie both him and me. Love and nature cannot maintain the assumption: it must be executed by a practical lie, namely, by force. This undertaking for another, is the blunder which stands in colossal ugliness in the governments of the world. It is the same thing in numbers, as in a pair, only not quite so intelligible. I can see well enough a great difference between my setting myself down to a self-control, and my going to make somebody else act after my views: but when a quarter of the human race assume to tell me what I must do, I may be too much disturbed by the circumstances to see so clearly the absurdity of their command. Therefore, all public ends look vague and quixotic beside private ones. For, any laws but those which men make for themselves, are laughable. If I put myself in the place of my child, and we stand in one thought, and see that things are thus or thus, that perception is law for him and me. We are both there, both act. But if, without carrying him into the thought, I look over into his plot, and, guessing how it is with him, ordain this or that, he will never obey me. This is the history of governments, - one man does something which is to bind another. A man who cannot be acquainted with me, taxes me; looking from afar at me, ordains that a part of my labour shall go to this or that whimsical end, not as I, but as he happens to fancy. Behold the consequence. Of all debts, men are least willing to pay the taxes. What a satire is this on government! Everywhere they think they get their money's worth, except for these.

Hence, the less government we have, the better, - the fewer laws, and the less confided power. The antidote to this abuse of formal Government, is, the influence of private character, the growth of the Individual; the appearance of the principal to supersede the proxy; the appearance of the wise man, of whom the existing government, is, it must be owned, but a shabby imitation. That which all things tend to educe, which freedom, cultivation, intercourse, revolutions, go to form and deliver, is character; that is the end of nature, to reach unto this coronation of her king. To educate the wise man, the State exists; and with the appearance of the wise man, the State expires. The appearance of character makes the State unnecessary. The wise man is the State. He needs no army, fort, or navy, - he loves men too well; no bribe, or feast, or palace, to draw friends to him; no vantage ground, no favourable circumstance. He needs no library, for he has not done thinking; no church, for he is a prophet; no statute book, for he has the lawgiver; no money, for he is value; no road, for he is at home where he is; no experience, for the life of the creator shoots through him, and looks from his eyes. He has no personal friends, for he who has the spell to draw the prayer and piety of all men unto him, needs not husband and educate a few, to share with him a select and poetic life. His relation to men is angelic; his memory is myrrh to them; his presence, frankincense and flowers.

We think our civilization near its meridian, but we are yet only at the cock-crowing and the morning star. In our barbarous society the influence of character is in its infancy. As a political power, as the rightful lord who is to tumble all rulers from their chairs, its presence is hardly yet suspected. Malthus and Ricardo quite omit it; the Annual Register is silent; in the Conversations' Lexicon, it is not set down; the President's Message, the Queen's Speech, have not mentioned it; and yet it is never nothing. Every thought which genius and piety throw into the world, alters the world. The gladiators in the lists of power feel, through all their frocks of force and simulation, the presence of worth. I think the very strife of trade and ambition are confession of this divinity; and successes in those fields are the poor amends, the fig-leaf with which the shamed soul attempts to hide its nakedness. I find the like unwilling homage in all quarters. It is because we know how much is due from us, that we are impatient to show some petty talent as a substitute for worth. We are haunted by a conscience of this right to grandeur of character, and are false to it. But each of us has some talent, can do somewhat useful, or graceful, or formidable, or amusing, or lucrative. That we do, as an apology to others and to ourselves, for not reaching the mark of a good and equal life. But it does not satisfy us, whilst we thrust it on the notice of our companions. It may throw dust in their eyes, but does not smooth our own brow, or give us the tranquillity of the strong when we walk abroad. We do penance as we go. Our talent is a sort of expiation, and we are constrained to reflect on our splendid moment, with a certain humiliation, as somewhat too fine, and not as one act of many acts, a fair expression of our permanent energy. Most persons of ability meet in society with a kind of tacit appeal. Each seems to say, “I am not all here.” Senators and presidents have climbed so high with pain enough, not because they think the place specially agreeable, but as an apology for real worth, and to vindicate their manhood in our eyes. This conspicuous chair is their compensation to themselves for being of a poor, cold, hard nature. They must do what they can. Like one class of forest animals, they have nothing but a prehensile tail: climb they must, or crawl. If a man found himself so rich-natured that he could enter into strict relations with the best persons, and make life serene around him by the dignity and sweetness of his behaviour, could he afford to circumvent the favour of the caucus and the press, and covet relations so hollow and pompous, as those of a politician? Surely nobody would be a charlatan, who could afford to be sincere.

The tendencies of the times favour the idea of self-government, and leave the individual, for all code, to the rewards and penalties of his own constitution, which work with more energy than we believe, whilst we depend on artificial restraints. The movement in this direction has been very marked in modern history. Much has been blind and discreditable, but the nature of the revolution is not affected by the vices of the revolters; for this is a purely moral force. It was never adopted by any party in history, neither can be. It separates the individual from all party, and unites him, at the same time, to the race. It promises a recognition of higher rights than those of personal freedom, or the security of property. A man has a right to be employed, to be trusted, to be loved, to be revered. The power of love, as the basis of a State, has never been tried. We must not imagine that all things are lapsing into confusion, if every tender protestant be not compelled to bear his part in certain social conventions: nor doubt that roads can be built, letters carried, and the fruit of labour secured, when the government of force is at an end. Are our methods now so excellent that all competition is hopeless? Could not a nation of friends even devise better ways? On the other hand, let not the most conservative and timid fear anything from a premature surrender of the bayonet, and the system of force. For, according to the order of nature, which is quite superior to our will, it stands thus; there will always be a government of force, where men are selfish; and when they are pure enough to abjure the code of force, they will be wise enough to see how these public ends of the post-office, of the highway, of commerce, and the exchange of property, of museums and libraries, of institutions of art and science, can be answered.
We live in a very low state of the world, and pay unwilling tribute to governments founded on force.
.
.
.
Darn it ALMOST fit. Oh, well. :rolleyes:

http://www.panarchy.org/emerson/politics.1844.html

< ROFLMAO! > :D

[Theocrat]

TW, here's another perspective on self-government (http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article.php?ArticleID=2775) for your consideration. :)

[Truth Warrior]

TW, here's another perspective on self-government (http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article.php?ArticleID=2775) for your consideration. :) Thanks! :)

Satan Is In Control Of Human Governments (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/satanownsgov.html)

The Riddle of the World

Alexander Pope

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan
The proper study of mankind is man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God, or beast;
In doubt his mind and body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks to little, or too much;
Chaos of thought and passion, all confus'd;
Still by himself, abus'd or disabus'd;
Created half to rise and half to fall;
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all,
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd;
The glory, jest and riddle of the world.


“I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master.” http://thinkexist.com/i/sq/as5.gif Thomas Jefferson quotes (http://thinkexist.com/quotes/thomas_jefferson/) (American (http://thinkexist.com/nationality/american_authors/) 3rd US President (http://thinkexist.com/occupation/famous_presidents/) (1801-09). Author (http://thinkexist.com/occupation/famous_authors/) of the Declaration of Independence. 1762 (http://thinkexist.com/birthday/august_21/)-1826 (http://thinkexist.com/birthday/july_4/))

[Xenophage]

We hold these things to be self-evident that self-government in a truer, more literal sense is both desirable and possible. True self-government is just that: self-government. Each individual governs himself. Each person is free to chart his own life’s course, choosing which risks to brave and which to avoid. Each person is responsible only for himself, for his family, and for those whom he—of his own volition—chooses to care for. Each person has a claim to the fruits only of his own labor and sacrifices, and no claim to the fruits of another’s labor and sacrifices. Each person has a legal right to do as he wills so long as he respects the equal rights of others and honors all his commitments.



"Self-evident" literally means that the only evidence required to prove the truth of a particular statement is the fact that the statement has been made.

So, how many statements, not including their grammatical variations, are self-evident?

Hint: its a small number.

[Theocrat]

Thanks! :)

Satan Is In Control Of Human Governments (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/satanownsgov.html)

The Riddle of the World

Alexander Pope

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan
The proper study of mankind is man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God, or beast;
In doubt his mind and body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks to little, or too much;
Chaos of thought and passion, all confus'd;
Still by himself, abus'd or disabus'd;
Created half to rise and half to fall;
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all,
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd;
The glory, jest and riddle of the world.


“I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master.” http://thinkexist.com/i/sq/as5.gif Thomas Jefferson quotes (http://thinkexist.com/quotes/thomas_jefferson/) (American (http://thinkexist.com/nationality/american_authors/) 3rd US President (http://thinkexist.com/occupation/famous_presidents/) (1801-09). Author (http://thinkexist.com/occupation/famous_authors/) of the Declaration of Independence. 1762 (http://thinkexist.com/birthday/august_21/)-1826 (http://thinkexist.com/birthday/july_4/))

Your response shows me that you either failed to read and meditate on the article I linked, or you failed to understand and accept the truth instantiated by the author.

[Truth Warrior]

Your response shows me that you either failed to read and meditate on the article I linked, or you failed to understand and accept the truth instantiated by the author. For about the umpteenth time now, I don't presume to scan God. :rolleyes: I'm not quite THAT arrogant. :p

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Experiment in self-government? Um, no. Unless you're a communitarian that believes self = community, then yeah, this would definitely be that.

[Truth Warrior]

Experiment in self-government? Um, no. Unless you're a communitarian that believes self = community, then yeah, this would definitely be that. Think individual NOT collective. :rolleyes:

[Theocrat]

For about the umpteenth time now, I don't presume to scan God. :rolleyes: I'm not quite THAT arrogant. :p

I find it interesting you keep making that point because your sentiment is itself a presumption that God doesn't want to be scanned, that He has not provided a means by which He can be scanned, and that scanning Him is an act of arrogance.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Think individual NOT collective. :rolleyes:


I do. I'm saying that communitarians believe in community over the individual, therefore, to them, self-government equates to democracy. But not to me. I think this was more of an experiment in minarchism. And it pretty much failed. There were many errors in the Constitution, but that's human nature.

[Truth Warrior]

I find it interesting you keep making that point because your sentiment is itself a presumption that God doesn't want to be scanned, that He has not provided a means by which He can be scanned, and that scanning Him is an act of arrogance. That's NO such thing, Presumptuous. :p :rolleyes: You need to walk your walk MORE than talk your talk.<IMHO> :)

[Theocrat]

That's NO such thing, Presumptuous. :p :rolleyes:

Really? So where does this belief of yours originate from?


For about the umpteenth time now, I don't presume to scan God. :rolleyes: I'm not quite THAT arrogant. :p

[Truth Warrior]

Really? So where does this belief of yours originate from? Can an amoeba comprehend a galaxy? ;)

You need to "walk your walk" MORE than "talk your talk".<IMHO> :)

"The core message of all the world's religious writings is the same: ethical integrity, honesty, sincerity, compassion, tolerance and non-violence."

The theists are just about as ARROGANT as the atheists, in my experience and humble opinion. :p

[Original_Intent]

Wow an argument between TW and Theocrat that is actually mildly interesting.

Theo scored a couple there, I think.

[Original_Intent]

Can an amoeba comprehend a galaxy? ;)

You need to "walk your walk" MORE than "talk your talk".<IMHO> :)

"The core message of all the world's religious writings is the same: ethical integrity, honesty, sincerity, compassion, tolerance and non-violence."

The theists are just about as ARROGANT as the atheists, in my experience and humble opinion. :p

What if God was one of us? :D

[Truth Warrior]

Wow an argument between TW and Theocrat that is actually mildly interesting.

Theo scored a couple there, I think. Theo, still needs to deal with this one, as do you, BTW.<IMHO> ;)
Satan Is In Control Of Human Governments (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/satanownsgov.html)

[Truth Warrior]

What if God was one of us? :D I usually reject hypotheticals. What if the moon is made of green cheese? :p :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

Theo, still needs to deal with this one, as do you, BTW.<IMHO> ;)
Satan Is In Control Of Human Governments (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/satanownsgov.html)

So do most people. :eek::(;)

[Truth Warrior]

I do. I'm saying that communitarians believe in community over the individual, therefore, to them, self-government equates to democracy. But not to me. I think this was more of an experiment in minarchism. And it pretty much failed. There were many errors in the Constitution, but that's human nature. Read the OP, or not. :rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

AWESOME website loaded full of information -

http://theadvocates.org/revisedIncludeHeader/images/banner.jpg
http://theadvocates.org/ (http://theadvocates.org/)









.

[Theocrat]

Can an amoeba comprehend a galaxy? ;)

You need to "walk your walk" MORE than "talk your talk".<IMHO> :)

"The core message of all the world's religious writings is the same: ethical integrity, honesty, sincerity, compassion, tolerance and non-violence."

The theists are just about as ARROGANT as the atheists, in my experience and humble opinion. :p

No, an amoeba cannot comprehend a galaxy, but humans aren't amoebas. In order for humans to comprehend God, God has to initiate the process Himself in a transcendent way. That's why we have the Bible as our access to His story and His purpose for the universe. He even tells us why and how we ought to be self-governed individuals.

The arrogant thing is for men to reject God's testimonies about Himself for the sake of their own arbitrary and subjective beliefs. A person cannot be truly self-governed until or unless they are governed by God. When God is taken out of the picture, the State naturally steps in. As William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, once said, "Men must be governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants."

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I usually reject hypotheticals. What if the moon is made of green cheese? :p :rolleyes:

People are never as dumb as we think they are.

[Truth Warrior]

People are never as dumb as we think they are. Speak for yourself. ;)

[Theocrat]

Theo, still needs to deal with this one, as do you, BTW.<IMHO> ;)
Satan Is In Control Of Human Governments (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/satanownsgov.html)

No, Satan is not in control of human governments, as is taught by Holy Scripture and understood by the Church in history. These excellent summaries should suffice (since you refuse to let the Bible speak on its own authority about the legitimacy of civil government), as opposed to the pacifist leanings of Matthew J. Truitt:

The Belgic Confession of Faith (Article 36) (http://www.ccel.org/creeds/BelgicConfession.html#Article%2036)
The Heidelberg Catechism (Question 101) (http://www.ccel.org/creeds/heidelberg-cat.html#Heading7)
The Second Helvetic Confession (Chapter 30) (http://www.ccel.org/creeds/helvetic.htm)
The Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 23) (http://www.ccel.org/creeds/westminster.htm)

Let me see how you deal with those. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

Can You Understand the Words Coming Out My Mouth?
Yep. I just don't agree with them. ;)


No, an amoeba cannot comprehend a galaxy, but humans aren't amoebas. In order for humans to comprehend God, God has to initiate the process Himself in a transcendent way. That's why we have the Bible as our access to His story and His purpose for the universe. He even tells us why and how we ought to be self-governed individuals.

You are correct, the gap is even fantasically wider for humans than for the amoebae. But you don't even believe nor live your own Bible, from what I've seen. :( So why should anyone else? Or are you just another one of those cafeteria "Christians"?

The arrogant thing is for men to reject God's testimonies about Himself for the sake of their own arbitrary and subjective beliefs. A person cannot be truly self-governed until or unless they are governed by God. When God is taken out of the picture, the State naturally steps in. As William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, once said, "Men must be governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants."

It looks just like another bunch of human stuff with a power and control agenda to me. Penn sounds like another frickin' STATIST. :(

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan




"By their fruits, ye shall know them."

[Truth Warrior]

No, Satan is not in control of human governments, as is taught by Holy Scripture and understood by the Church in history. These excellent summaries should suffice (since you refuse to let the Bible speak on its own authority about the legitimacy of civil government), as opposed to the pacifist leanings of Matthew J. Truitt:

The Belgic Confession of Faith (Article 36) (http://www.ccel.org/creeds/BelgicConfession.html#Article%2036)
The Heidelberg Catechism (Question 101) (http://www.ccel.org/creeds/heidelberg-cat.html#Heading7)
The Second Helvetic Confession (Chapter 30) (http://www.ccel.org/creeds/helvetic.htm)
The Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 23) (http://www.ccel.org/creeds/westminster.htm)
Let me see how you deal with those. :rolleyes: They are TOTALLY irrelevant to the question at hand. We're talking BIBLE here, or at least I am. What makes you think that the religion / "Church" AND BIBLE that EMPEROR Constantine established, purportedly ABOUT Jesus, was in FACT what Jesus had in mind ~300 years earlier, before THAT very same EMPIRE executed him? :rolleyes:

It's the exact same type of issue TODAY. D.C. today is NOT what the "FederalistFounders" had in mind, only 220 years ago. :rolleyes:

Would the STATIST created religion of the STATIST Roman Empire, as just another STATIST extension of it's power and control, at just another level, admit it? NO! It's hardly any wonder that actually READING the Bible became a sometimes capital punishment offense ........... for the Latin ignorant peasants, without their "go between" clergy INTERPRETING and "EXPLAINING" what it "REALLY" means to them.

You've been hoodwinked by a PRO, Satan, according to YOUR VERY OWN BIBLE ( HOLY SCRIPTURES, as you say ), my friend. ;) I'd hafta say that the subsequent bloody HISTORY of the "Christian" church ( human institution ) merely confirms that tragic and sad FACT.<IMHO> :p "By their fruits, ye shall know them."

BTW, simple denial does NOT constitute a rebuttal nor a refutation. ;) That particular Bible "lesson" already has an existing LF/RPF thread. Your absence was noted. Shall we continue this conversation there? Here's a link to the thread OP to get you up to speed.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1931549&postcount=1 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1931549&postcount=1)

Thanks! :)

P.S.
re: "pacifist leanings of Matthew J. Truitt": A CHRISTIAN PACIFIST!!! :eek: Who is the Prince of Peace? ( trick question ;) )

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/when_fascism_comes_300.gif

[Truth Warrior]

AWESOME website loaded full of information -




http://theadvocates.org/revisedIncludeHeader/images/banner.jpg (http://theadvocates.org/)
http://theadvocates.org/ (http://theadvocates.org/)
.
Yep, I'm a LONG TIME fan, even before discovering LRC. ;) What's your take on the thread OP?

Thanks! :)

[Truth Warrior]

So do most people. :eek::(;) ;)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Speak for yourself. ;)

Isn't it about time that we started growing up and behaving like serious Americans?

[Truth Warrior]

Isn't it about time that we started growing up and behaving like serious Americans? Sorry, I'm ANTI-collectivist. :rolleyes: Or do you just have a mouse in your pocket? And BTW, I'm DEAD serious. Dropped your Plato, eh? :)

How about that Emerson essay posted previously? Did you just happen to TRANSCENDENTAL it ....... on purpose? :D

Just in case, here's the link to it again :
http://www.panarchy.org/emerson/politics.1844.html (http://www.panarchy.org/emerson/politics.1844.html)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Sorry, I'm ANTI-collectivist. :rolleyes: Or do you just have a mouse in your pocket? And BTW, I'm DEAD serious. Dropped your Plato, eh? :)

How about that Emerson essay posted previously? Did you just happen to TRANSCENDENTAL it ....... on purpose? :D

Just in case, here's the link to it again :
http://www.panarchy.org/emerson/politics.1844.html (http://www.panarchy.org/emerson/politics.1844.html)


Healthy civil-measures created and implemented to return our nation to its Civil-Purpose have a nasty habit of staying on the books to become filthy legal-precedents. Or, to put it another way, a container of healthy vegetables today will always spoil into a can-of-worms tomorrow. The evil in tyranny is its nature to spoil from good measures to bad legal-precedents and then from bad legal-precedents to even worse ones.
While one can utilize the value in the philosophy of Ralph Waldo Emerson when combatting the invading political philosophies of foreign cultures, the only true value in his work is how our nation needs to constantly regain its soul by returning itself by way of American-Movements to its primary Civil-Purpose.
While the French might die for freedom, the Chinese for the collective, the British for their King, and the Jews for God, Americans die for the chance of returning home to enjoy the happiness brought about when eating an American cheeseburger.

In regards to Plato? How could anyone know about the master professor and at the same time despise him? I don't think it is possible.

[Truth Warrior]

Healthy civil-measures created and implemented to return our nation to its Civil-Purpose have a nasty habit of staying on the books to become filthy legal-precedents. Or, to put it another way, a container of healthy vegetables today will always spoil into a can-of-worms tomorrow. The evil in tyranny is its nature to spoil from good measures to bad legal-precedents and then from bad legal-precedents to even worse ones.
While one can utilize the value in the philosophy of Ralph Waldo Emerson when combatting the invading political philosophies of foreign cultures, the only true value in his work is how our nation needs to constantly regain its soul by returning itself by way of American-Movements to its primary Civil-Purpose.
While the French might die for freedom, the Chinese for the collective, the British for their King, and the Jews for God, Americans die for the chance of returning home to enjoy the happiness brought about when eating an American cheeseburger.

In regards to Plato? How could anyone know about the master professor and at the same time despise him? I don't think it is possible.
I don't despise Plato. For one thing he's dead, so what would be the point? It just cracks me up that you rail on Europeans and yet near deify Plato. I just find your mental compartmentalism and cognitive dissonance absolutely hilarious. :D

[Chosen]

No such thing as self government in this anarchistic context you provide, sorry about that. Stop reading comic books and posting it as political "evidence."

Your method of confirmation of point is a link to the nutcase lew rockwell, lol. Lew said it, it must be true...

Nothing to see here but extremist nonsense, move along.

[Theocrat]

They are TOTALLY irrelevant to the question at hand. We're talking BIBLE here, or at least I am. What makes you think that the religion / "Church" AND BIBLE that EMPEROR Constantine established, purportedly ABOUT Jesus, was in FACT what Jesus had in mind ~300 years earlier, before THAT very same EMPIRE executed him? :rolleyes:

It's the exact same type of issue TODAY. D.C. today is NOT what the "FederalistFounders" had in mind, only 220 years ago. :rolleyes:

Would the STATIST created religion of the STATIST Roman Empire, as just another STATIST extension of it's power and control, at just another level, admit it? NO! It's hardly any wonder that actually READING the Bible became a sometimes capital punishment offense ........... for the Latin ignorant peasants, without their "go between" clergy INTERPRETING and "EXPLAINING" what it "REALLY" means to them.

You've been hoodwinked by a PRO, Satan, according to YOUR VERY OWN BIBLE ( HOLY SCRIPTURES, as you say ), my friend. ;) I'd hafta say that the subsequent bloody HISTORY of the "Christian" church ( human institution ) merely confirms that tragic and sad FACT.<IMHO> :p "By their fruits, ye shall know them."

BTW, simple denial does NOT constitute a rebuttal nor a refutation. ;) That particular Bible "lesson" already has an existing LF/RPF thread. Your absence was noted. Shall we continue this conversation there? Here's a link to the thread OP to get you up to speed.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1931549&postcount=1 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1931549&postcount=1)

Thanks! :)

P.S.
re: "pacifist leanings of Matthew J. Truitt": A CHRISTIAN PACIFIST!!! :eek: Who is the Prince of Peace? ( trick question ;) )

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/when_fascism_comes_300.gif

TW, what part of 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Isaiah 9, Matthew 28, Romans 13, Colossians 2, Hebrews 1-3, and Revelation don't you understand when it comes to God ordaining civil governments? I don't know how may times I've explained it to you in these discussions, from the Scriptures, that government does not originate from Satan, but from God.

The reason I posted those links is because they use the Scriptures to show how it teaches that God ordains and reigns over civil governments. The difference between those links and the one link you post from Matthew J. Truitt is that my links are based on historical evidence of what the Church has always understood the Bible teaches concerning the nature and legitimacy of civil government. Your anarchical presuppositions will not allow you to see that for what it's worth. You simply ignore what I say, and continue posting your one-liners, Lew Rockwell links, and typical anarchy quotes.

I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again to you by "casting pearls before swine." If you don't understand the Scriptures insofar as they teach that Jesus Christ is now in control of all the kingdoms of the world through His resurrection (whereby He defeated the powers of Satan and hell totally), ruling the nations on the right hand of His Father in Heaven, and will judge all men either unto damnation or glorification at the Final Judgment, then it is you who is being controlled by Satan, not human governments.

[Truth Warrior]

TW, what part of 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Isaiah 9, Matthew 28, Romans 13, Colossians 2, Hebrews 1-3, and Revelation don't you understand when it comes to God ordaining civil governments? I don't know how may times I've explained it to you in these discussions, from the Scriptures, that government does not originate from Satan, but from God.

The reason I posted those links is because they use the Scriptures to show how it teaches that God ordains and reigns over civil governments. The difference between those links and the one link you post from Matthew J. Truitt is that my links are based on historical evidence of what the Church has always understood the Bible teaches concerning the nature and legitimacy of civil government. Your anarchical presuppositions will not allow you to see that for what it's worth. You simply ignore what I say, and continue posting your one-liners, Lew Rockwell links, and typical anarchy quotes.

I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again to you by "casting pearls before swine." If you don't understand the Scriptures insofar as they teach that Jesus Christ is now in control of all the kingdoms of the world through His resurrection (whereby He defeated the powers of Satan and hell totally), ruling the nations on the right hand of His Father in Heaven, and will judge all men either unto damnation or glorification at the Final Judgment, then it is you who is being controlled by Satan, not human governments.

You're kinda sounding like BeFranklin, etc.. :( This is NOT a GOOD thing.<IMHO> ;) You may be starting to understand why the neighborhood door-to-door very concerned "Christian" recruiters just seem to skip my house now, for some strange reasons. I used to invite them in for a "friendly" chat, and even offered them milk and cookies. :D BTW, THEIR parting shots were usually just very MUCH like yours, except OFTEN not quite so nice.

:cool: Dueling BIBLE verses. I love it!!
Human Government Is A Rejection Of God (http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/israelking.html) AND Josephus on the Origin of the State (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/horn2.html)

What part of the NEW testament just goes right OVER your head, "Christian"? Nor actually even ATTEMPTED to BOTHER to address and answer ANY of the MAJOR questions asked, I see ....... ONCE AGAIN ......... AS is sadly USUAL :(

C'mon Theo, deny it for me again, it really just cracks me up every time you do it. < LMAO ! > :D I'm particularly fond of your preferred BOGUS ( Satanic ) "civil government" OXYMORON!!!

When you may yet eventually choose to look at D.C. objectively and dispassionately, will you see and think of Jesus OR Satan?

And how many times do I have to tell you that Paul, THE ROMAN, does NOT over rule JESUS? :rolleyes: BTW, gauging from your over the top over reaction I guess that I must have also done pretty well in "handling" your "AUTHORITIES" ( so called )!

So is the book of Revelations just wacko "fear mongering" BUNK and the mad ravings of a delusional lunatic? If not, just where is the "anti-Christ" getting all of his EARTHLY NATIONS for the FINAL battle, concluding the 7 year tribulation? :rolleyes: What is the whore of Babylon? ( trick question )

Satan controlled, eh? Does that make me an EVIL person? Can we still be friends? Pretty please. I hope that you kept the receipt for your soul.

Thanks! :)


"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." -- Albert Einstein


"By their fruits, ye shall know them."

[Working Poor]

People who self govern have free minds and hearts they love and respect themselves and others.

They know good neighbors keep good boundaries.

[Truth Warrior]

People who self govern have free minds and hearts they love and respect themselves and others.

They know good neighbors keep good boundaries. Thank you sincerely for your continuing and ongoing wisdom. ;) :)

[Truth Warrior]

No such thing as self government in this anarchistic context you provide, sorry about that. Stop reading comic books and posting it as political "evidence."

Your method of confirmation of point is a link to the nutcase lew rockwell, lol. Lew said it, it must be true...

Nothing to see here but extremist nonsense, move along. I realize and understand that for YOU Lew comes nowhere close to near competing with the likes of Robert Locke, "brother" Neocon. :p :mad: OF COURSE you also didn't even BOTHER to see that the thread OP did NOT come from Lew NOR LRC. < LMAO! >:D So OBVIOUSLY YOU DIDN'T EVEN READ IT.

BTW, great advice there.<IMHO> Please feel free to just take it yourself and just move along. Since you are also obviously posting on the WRONG forum web site. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the thread bump, BTW.

As a ( hopefully ) PARTING reminder and clue of where the HELL you are:

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/lewrock0305a.gif

"Visit LewRockwell.com, an outstanding and crucially important Web site I visit every day." -- Ron Paul.
"THE REVOLUTION, A MANIFESTO" ( page # 158 ), http://www.lewrockwell.com/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/) ;)

Get a clue!!! :mad:

[Truth Warrior]

Self-Government


The object of the republican form of government and of the principles that are essential to that form, is to enable a people to govern themselves to the most practicable extent possible. Not every nation of people are capable of self-government, and many expected the experiment of the Founding Fathers to fail. But it did not fail, and the experiment proved that an educated and enlightened people are capable of self-government. The question remains, however, the extent to which government by the people themselves may be extended.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790. ME 3:60

"Every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney, 1792. ME 9:7




"When forced to assume [self-government], we were novices in its science. Its principles and forms had entered little into our former education. We established, however, some, although not all its important principles." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:44

The Foundation of Self-Government
"Man a rational animal, endowed by nature with rights, and with an innate sense of justice; and... he [can] be restrained from wrong and protected in right, by moderate powers, confided to persons of his own choice, and held to their duties by dependence on his own will." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:441


"Man is capable of living in society, governing itself by laws self-imposed, and securing to its members the enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and peace." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. ME 17:446

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320

"At the formation of our government, many had formed their political opinions on European writings and practices, believing the experience of old countries, and especially of England, abusive as it was, to be a safer guide than mere theory. The doctrines of Europe were, that men in numerous associations cannot be restrained within the limits of order and justice, but by forces physical and moral, wielded over them by authorities independent of their will. Hence their organization of kings, hereditary nobles, and priests." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:440

"We of the United States are constitutionally and conscientiously democrats. We consider society as one of the natural wants with which man has been created; that he has been endowed with faculties and qualities to effect its satisfaction by concurrence of others having the same want; that when, by the exercise of these faculties, he has procured a state of society, it is one of his acquisitions which he has a right to regulate and control, jointly indeed with all those who have concurred in the procurement, whom he cannot exclude from its use or direction more than they him." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:487




"We exist, and are quoted as standing proofs that a government, so modeled as to rest continually on the will of the whole society, is a practicable government." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820. ME 15:284

[I]Qualifications for Self-Government
"The qualifications for self-government in society are not innate. They are the result of habit and long training." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Everett, 1824. ME 16:22


"[Without becoming] familiarized with the habits and practice of self-government,... the political vessel is all sail and no ballast." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Dearborn, 1822. FE 10:237

" happy truth that man is capable of self-government, and only rendered otherwise by the moral degradation designedly superinduced on him by the wicked acts of his tyrant." --Thomas Jefferson to M. de Marbois, 1817. ME 15:130




"We are a people capable of self-government, and worthy of it." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac Weaver, Jr., 1807. ME 11:220

[I]Minds Capable of Self-Government
"[The] voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government. The contrary spirit is anarchy, which of necessity produces despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Philadelphia Citizens, 1809. ME 16:328


"Their habits of law and order, their ideas almost innate of the vital elements of free government, of trial by jury, habeas corpus, freedom of the press, freedom of opinion, and representative government, make [a people], I think, capable of bearing a considerable portion of liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1816. (*) ME 15:84

"It is from the supporters of regular government only that the pledge of life, fortune and honor is worthy of confidence." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Philadelphia Citizens, 1809. ME 16:329

" people [are] so demoralized and depraved as to be incapable of exercising a wholesome control, their reformation must be taken up ab incunabulis. Their minds [must] be informed by education what is right and what wrong, [must] be encouraged in habits of virtue and deterred from those of vice by the dread of punishments, proportioned indeed, but irremissible. In all cases, [they must] follow truth as the only safe guide and eschew error which bewilders us in one false consequence after another in endless succession. These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure of order and good government." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:234




"[We] believe in the improvability of the condition of man, and [we] have acted on that behalf, in opposition to those who consider man as a beast of burden made to be rode by him who has genius enough to get a bridle into his mouth." --Thomas Jefferson to Joel Barlow, 1810. ME 12:351

[I]The Spirit of the People
"[Our] object is to secure self-government by the republicanism of our constitution, as well as by the spirit of the people; and to nourish and perpetuate that spirit. I am not among those who fear the people. They and not the rich are our dependence for continued freedom." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:39


"No man has greater confidence than I have in the spirit of the people, to a rational extent. Whatever they can, they will."--Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:208

"The spirit of our people... would oblige even a despot to govern us republicanly." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:35




"But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:224

Enduring Difficulties
"I am not discouraged by [a] little difficulty; nor have I any doubt that the result of our experiment will be, that men are capable of governing themselves without a master." --Thomas Jefferson to T. B. Hollis, 1787. ME 6:156


"I... consider the people as our children, and love them... as adults whom I freely leave to self-government." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:489

"While the boasted energies of monarchy have yielded to easy conquest the people they were to protect, should our fabric of freedom suffer no more than the slight agitations we have experienced, it will be an useful lesson to the friends as well as the enemies of self-government." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to New York Legislature, 1809. ME 16:362

"It is a blessing... that our people are reasonable; that they are kept so well informed of the state of things as to judge for themselves, to see the true sources of their difficulties, and to maintain their confidence undiminished in the wisdom and integrity of their functionaries." --Thomas Jefferson to Caesar A. Rodney, 1810. ME 12:358

"The steady character of our countrymen is a rock to which we may safely moor." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1801. ME 10:255

"The only point on which [General Washington] and I ever differed in opinion was, that I had more confidence than he had in the natural integrity and discretion of the people, and in the safety and extent to which they might trust themselves with a control over their government." --Thomas Jefferson to John Melish, 1813. ME 13:212

"It was by the sober sense of our citizens that we were safely and steadily conducted from monarchy to republicanism, and it is by the same agency alone we can be kept from falling back." --Thomas Jefferson to Arthur Campbell, 1797. ME 9:421

"I confess I was highly pleased with... proof of the innate good sense, the vigilance, and the determination of the people to act for themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:132




"Those who will come after us will be as wise as we are, and as able to take care of themselves as we have been." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1811. ME 13:40

Powers Rightly Exercised by the People
"To secure [our inherent and inalienable] rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315


"Circumstances denied to others but indulged to us have imposed on us the duty of proving what is the degree of freedom and self-government in which a society may venture to leave its individual members." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802. ME 10:324

"We think in America that it is necessary to introduce the people into every department of government as far as they are capable of exercising it, and that this is the only way to insure a long-continued and honest administration of its powers." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnoux, 1789. ME 7:422, Papers 15:283

"The right of representation in the legislature a right inestimable to [the people], and formidable to tyrants only." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:31, Papers 1:430

"The people, being the only safe depository of power, should exercise in person every function which their qualifications enable them to exercise consistently with the order and security of society... We now find them equal to the election of those who shall be invested with their executive and legislative powers, and to act themselves in the judiciary as judges in questions of fact... The range of their powers ought to be enlarged." --Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, 1814. ME 14:47

"The government which can wield the arm of the people must be the strongest possible." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac Weaver, Jr., 1807. ME 11:221

"The suppression of the [Burr] conspiracy by the hand of the people, uplifted to destroy it whenever it reared its head, manifests their fitness for self-government, and the power of a nation, of which every individual feels that his own will is a part of the public authority." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to New Jersey Legislature, 1807. ME 16:295

"The hand of the people... has proved that government to be the strongest of which every man feels himself a part." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Tiffin, 1807. ME 11:147




"The full experiment of a government democratical, but representative, was and is still reserved for us. The idea... has been carried by us more or less into all our legislative and executive departments; but it has not yet, by any of us, been pushed into all the ramifications of the system, so far as to leave no authority existing not responsible to the people; whose rights, however, to the exercise and fruits of their own industry can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers not subject to their control at short periods... My most earnest wish is to see the republican element of popular control pushed to the maximum of its practicable exercise. I shall then believe that our government may be pure and perpetual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

[I]The Danger of Independent Powers
"It should be remembered as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only at first while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice as fast as that relaxes." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:213


"I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1803. ME 10:438

"We shall... secure the continuance of purity in our government by the salutary, peaceable, and regular control of the people." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:71

"[General Washington] has often declared to me that he considered our new Constitution as an experiment on the practicability of republican government, and with what dose of liberty man could be trusted for his own good; that he was determined the experiment should have a fair trial, and would lose the last drop of his blood in support of it." --Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, 1814. ME 14:51

"I have no fear, but that the result of our experiment will be, that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master. Could the contrary of this be proved, I should conclude either that there is no God, or that He is a malevolent being." --Thomas Jefferson to David Hartley, 1787. ME 6:151

"If ever the earth has beheld a system of administration conducted with a single and steadfast eye to the general interest and happiness of those committed to it, one which, protected by truth, can never know reproach, it is that to which our lives have been devoted." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1826. ME 16:159


http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0600.htm (http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0600.htm)

WOW! No wonder the IDIOT state doesn't dare teach T J in their "government schools". :p :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

http://www.answers.com/topic/self-governance (http://www.answers.com/topic/self-governance)

[Truth Warrior]

http://cwis.org/298prelm.html (http://cwis.org/298prelm.html)

[Truth Warrior]

Self-government (Self`-gov"ern*ment) (?), n.

1. The act of governing one's self, or the state of being governed by one's self; self-control; self-command.

2. Hence, government of a community, state, or nation by the joint action of the mass of people constituting such a civil body; also, the state of being so governed; democratic government; democracy. "It is to self-government, the great principle of popular representation and administration, -- the system that lets in all to participate in the councels that are to assign the good or evil to all, -- that we may owe what we are and what we hope to be." D. Webster.

http://www.selfknowledge.com/86331.htm (http://www.selfknowledge.com/86331.htm)

I choose to pick #1. ;) :)

[heavenlyboy34]

People who self govern have free minds and hearts they love and respect themselves and others.

They know good neighbors keep good boundaries.

+infinity and beyond! :D:cool:;)

[heavenlyboy34]

Self-government (Self`-gov"ern*ment) (?), n.

1. The act of governing one's self, or the state of being governed by one's self; self-control; self-command.

2. Hence, government of a community, state, or nation by the joint action of the mass of people constituting such a civil body; also, the state of being so governed; democratic government; democracy. "It is to self-government, the great principle of popular representation and administration, -- the system that lets in all to participate in the councels that are to assign the good or evil to all, -- that we may owe what we are and what we hope to be." D. Webster.

http://www.selfknowledge.com/86331.htm (http://www.selfknowledge.com/86331.htm)

I choose to pick #1. ;) :)

All the info you've provided is brilliant, and I thank you (plenty of stuff there that I haven't seen yet)...but the message seems to be lost on all too many RPFers and Amerikans in general. :(

[Truth Warrior]

All the info you've provided is brilliant, and I thank you (plenty of stuff there that I haven't seen yet)...but the message seems to be lost on all too many RPFers and Amerikans in general. :(

Ah shucks, thanks! :o

NOW get busy, grasshoppa. ;) :D

The thread marches on, and waits for NO ONE to play "catch up"! :p

( I'm listening to Wagner ) :)

[heavenlyboy34]

Ah shucks, thanks! :o

NOW get busy, grasshoppa. ;) :D

The thread marches on, and waits for NO ONE to play "catch up"! :p

( I'm listening to Wagner ) :)

Are you listening to "The Ride Of The Valkyries"? ;) :cool:

[Truth Warrior]

Are you listening to "The Ride Of The Valkyries"? ;) :cool: Yep, got it on a repeat loop on the other PC. :D

[heavenlyboy34]

Yep, got it on a repeat loop on the other PC. :D


Sehr gut, der TW! :cool::D:) Die Walkyrie FTW!

[Truth Warrior]

self–gov·ern·ment Pronunciation: \-ˈgə-vər(n)-mənt, -ˈgə-vəm-ənt\ Function: noun Date: 1654

1: self-control (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-control) , self-command (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-command)

2: government under the control and direction of the inhabitants of a political unit rather than by an outside authority ; broadly : control of one's own affairs

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-government (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-government)

[Truth Warrior]

http://www.cafepress.com/idealogo/176660 (http://www.cafepress.com/idealogo/176660)

[Truth Warrior]

Secrets and Self-Government by Ryan McMaken (http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken73.html)

[Truth Warrior]

Why Limited Representative Government Fails by Michael S. Rozeff (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff202.html)

[Truth Warrior]

The Free Society Is in Process by Alvin Lowi, Jr. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lowi4.html)

[LibertyEagle]

+ Thread starters who are promoting their own material will be limited to two personal thread bumps

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22

I'm closing this thread.