Connect with us

Culture

What Is Freedom & Why is Private Property Important in a Free Republic?

This kind of reality always cancels individual rights and the superior position of the people to the state, thereby spoiling the protection of Natural Rights that a free republic has to offer.

Published

on

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”  —Mao Tse-tung, proud mass-murderer of 65 million Chinese, including 46,000 scholars, according to The Black Book of Communism

 

Why Life in a Republic Is Preferable to Life in a Democracy

A republic (Latin: res publica = people’s thing or public matter) is a form of government in which governance is considered the “people’s thing”—a matter for the public to direct.  The executive power is not above the law and may only execute the laws, not make them.  All state officials are either elected or appointed by elected officials.  However, in contrast to a democracy, which is Majority Unlimited, a republic is Majority Limited, protecting the rights of every individual person, every minority group, against the whims of the majority.  Every citizen of a republic is recognized as having Natural Rights that no majority has the legal authority to infringe or abolish.  America is a republic, not a democracy, and for good reason.  In fact, not once does the US Constitution make mention of the word “democracy.”

Trending: Joe Biden Wants Christians on Terror List for Opposing LGBTQ Agenda

 

The Republican Principle Promotes Liberty for All

The Republican Principle is this: Freedom is more important than Majority Rule.

A republic legally restrains the whims and prejudices of the majority from harming the individual.

 

The Democratic Principle Permits Tyranny of the Mob

The Democratic Principle is this: Majority Rule is more important than Freedom.

A democracy legally permits the whims and prejudices of the majority to harm the individual.

 

Freedom Means Power to the People

A free republic uses a constitutional framework to fence off the Natural Rights of the people, so they may not be violated by policy or by law.  This means that certain kinds of rules are illegal to make.  Therefore, in the United States, a law that infringes the freedom of speech is illegal and will not stand; likewise, a law that disallows one’s being permitted a fair fight with a criminal assailant is off-limits; and so is any law that allows spurious government searches of a person’s property or prevents freedom of association or other important rights.  In a free republic, the burden of proof is on the government to show there is probable cause to conduct a search or to file a criminal charge, and the government must prove criminal misconduct beyond a shadow of a doubt before imprisoning an individual, since every person has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty—and accusations are never proof of wrongdoing.

Because the majority is not allowed to make certain kinds of rules, individuals and minorities enjoy legal protections against all ill-informed prejudices of the mob.  Freedom is considered more important than majority rule in a republic, whereas, in a democracy, the majority can make whatever rules it wishes against minorities and individuals, which is why so many elitist oligarchies and socialist dictatorships rise to power in democratically-elected governments that are not limited by the fencing-off of individual rights, in accordance with the principles of republicanism.  Natural Rights are important: with them, freedom reigns, and the people govern; without them, tyranny rules, and the people groan.  Without the retention of Natural Rights by the people, the government assumes dictatorial power to grant rights as privileges.  And these privileges are all politically determined, such as Hitler’s issuing of the privilege to own a gun for self-defense only to fellow National Socialists.  One of the first priorities of socialists like Hitler is the confiscation of all weaponry owned by individuals and minorities who are not in sympathy with the goals of socialism.

 

So, What Is a Natural Right?

A Natural Right is something that one is naturally permitted to do independently for oneself with the reasonable expectation that no person and no state entity will impede one from doing it: speaking one’s mind, defending oneself and one’s loved ones from harm, minding one’s own business on one’s own property, deciding how one wishes to make a living, peaceably gathering with whatever group of people one wishes to spend time with. . . .

In a republic, all human beings possess the same rights—which means that government agents are not allowed to exercise rights that the citizenry does not possess—and one must not violate someone else’s rights in order to procure a good or service.  In other words, a man has the right to hire a doctor to examine his children, but if he must take money (a form of property) from a third party, by threat of force at gunpoint (via government taxation), in order to pay for those medical services, then he has violated someone else’s property rights in order to obtain those services; or if he compel the physician to examine or treat his family, by using physical force against the physician, then he has directly violated the right of the medical professional to determine his own actions, free from coercion.

One has the right to work to earn money to purchase healthcare, and one has the right to barter for medical services by providing services to a doctor in exchange for his.  But the minute taxes are collected to pay for services that not all members of the general public derive equal benefit from, then the general welfare is not being promoted, only some individuals’ welfare at the expense of other individuals; this is wrongful taxation, because some people are being harmed by having their rights violated, so that others may receive a special privilege not being offered in equal measure to the persons taxed.  A free people must always keep in mind that government depends on force, and, although some government is needed to keep people from harming one another, government should not itself be facilitating harm by infringing the people’s Natural Rights.

 

Private Property: Without It, There Is No Individual Freedom

All crimes are crimes against property.  Slavery is perhaps the worst crime short of murder.  And it is a crime against property, since one’s person is one’s first and most intimate property.  Therefore, the theft of a person’s labor, even by government force, is a crime against property.  The fruit of one’s labor is one’s property; thus, forced confiscation of any portion of the fruit of a person’s labor for purposes unavailable to him is a violation of his Natural Rights.  Every crime is, at its root, an act of theft: murder is stealing a life; slavery is stealing someone’s labor; and taxation for purposes unrelated to the general welfare is a form of stealing, as well.  Creation of a law that makes self-defense illegal is stealing the rights of potential victims to enjoy equal protection of their lives, along with the criminals who wish to bring them harm.  Democratic government is, therefore, a constant risk to life and limb, since a simple majority vote can wipe out all fairness with regard to the needs of individuals and minorities to protect themselves by legal right.

A republican state is limited in its ability to convert rights into privileges and, therefore, is safer for the people.  Since a constitutional republic creates an even playing field—rather than allowing the kind of political rule-making that gives all the advantages to people who refuse to follow rules altogether—individuals have the power to limit evil interference by use of the same weapons that criminal assailants have at their disposal.  This is an important Natural Right for the people to retain, for, without it, all crimes are not only enabled, but encouraged, including the possibility of corrupt politicians’ criminal acts against the citizenry in ways against which there would be no recourse to act as a check upon their criminality.

The right to protect private property is necessary in order for citizens of a republic to enjoy their Natural Right to protect themselves against criminal behavior—whether that be against the criminal activities of a single individual or of a collective entity, including a tyrannical state.  And if there be no right to protect property—and thereby no right to protect one’s own physical person—then the most basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cannot be guaranteed, except by special consideration of the state, in the name of the collective majority.  This kind of reality always cancels individual rights and the superior position of the people to the state, thereby spoiling the protection of Natural Rights that a free republic has to offer.

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement

Culture

The Year of Stupid: Boeing Forces Exec to Resign Over 33-Year-Old Op-Ed Opposing Women in Combat

33 years ago, Boeing exec Niel Golightly wrote an op-ed wherein he opposed women in combat. Now he’s lost his job.

Published

on

Thirty-three years ago, Boeing executive Niel Golightly wrote an op-ed when he was a 29-year-old Navy Lt. wherein he opposed women n combat roles. Today, in the year of stupid, Boeing forced him to resign.

Until this week, Golightly was the head of communications for Boeing, but now he is out for having an opinion 33 years ago that was the prevailing, common opinion of nearly everyone but the most fringe activists at the time.

The then Navy Lt. had his op-ed in a magazine published by the U.S. Naval Institute. It is an outfit which describes itself as “an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to global security.”

Who would have thought the magazine article printed in 1987 would be so troublesome after three decades?

In his op-ed, Golightly expressed the common feeling that introducing women into combat units would disrupt the dynamics necessary for a cohesive fighting unit.

“At issue is not whether women can fire M-60s, dogfight MiGs, or drive tanks. Introducing women into combat would destroy the exclusively male intangibles of war fighting and the feminine images of what men fight for—peace, home, family,” Golightly wrote, according to an excerpt published on the U.S. Naval Institute’s website.

Indeed, women were barred from combat in U.S. military forces from our founding all the way until Barack Obama broke down those barriers in 2013.

Absurdly, Golightly’s then extremely uncontroversial opinion has led to his job loss today.

“My article was a 29-year-old Cold War navy pilot’s misguided contribution to a debate that was live at the time,” Golightly said in a statement this week. “My argument was embarrassingly wrong and offensive. The article is not a reflection of who I am; but nonetheless I have decided that in the interest of the company I will step down.”

“Boeing does not agree with the views expressed in the article, and it does not reflect Niel’s views today,” the company added.

“Niel and I discussed at length the article and its implications for his role as the Company’s lead spokesman,” Boeing President and CEO David Calhoun said. “I want to emphasize our Company’s unrelenting commitment to diversity and inclusion in all its dimensions, and to ensuring that all of our employees have an equal opportunity to contribute and excel.”

David Calhoun, you are a morn.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Culture

Copenhagen’s Little Mermaid Statue Defaced with ‘Racist Fish’ Graffiti

Now the left-wing loons are coming for Copenhagen’s Little Mermaid statue which was defaced with “racist fish.”

Published

on

Now the left-wing loons are coming for Copenhagen’s Little Mermaid statue which was defaced on Friday with the words “racist fish.”

Isn’t it wonderful that we have lunatic leftists around to let us all know that fish are racists?

The “Little Mermaid,” a bronze statue honoring folk tale writer Hans Christian Andersen’s famous story, was erected in 1913 and placed on a rock near the sea off a pier in Copenhagen.

The local police said they had no clue who defaced the 107-year-old tourist attraction.

“We consider it vandalism and have started an investigation,” the Copenhagen police said on Friday morning.

According to Reuters:

“I am having a hard time seeing what is particularly racist in the fairy tale “The Little Mermaid,” Ane Grum-Schwensen, researcher at the H.C. Andersen Center at University of Southern Denmark, told local news wire Ritzau.

How is the Little Mermaid racist?

Since when does the Black Lives Matter movement need logic, facts, or reality to intrude upon the world of lies they have built?

All they are interested in is wanton, meaningless, destruction.

BLM’s SOLE goal is to destroy what they deem white civilization.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Culture

Report: Schiff’s Staff Knew In February About Russian Bounties On American Soldiers

Published

on

By

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff saw reports back in February that Russia was purportedly paying Taliban operatives to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan but took no action.

The Federalist reported that “multiple intelligence sources” told the publication that some members of Schiff’s staff “were briefed in February on intelligence about Russia offering the Taliban bounties in Afghanistan,” but that Schiff “took no action in response to the briefing.”

TDW:

A new report alleges that top committee staff for Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), were briefed in February about Russia offering the Taliban bounties to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan, but Schiff remained inactive vis-à-vis the issue. According to The Federalist’s Sean Davis and Mollie Hemingway, “multiple intelligence sources familiar with the briefing” said it occurred when a congressional delegation made a trip to Afghanistan in February.

Davis and Hemingway note that Schiff was asked on Tuesday if he knew about the Russia story before it was printed by The New York Times report, and Schiff answered, “I can’t comment on specifics.” They point out, “As chairman of the intelligence committee, Schiff had the authority to immediately brief the full committee and convene hearings on the matter. Schiff, however, did nothing. He did not brief his committee on the matter, nor did he brief the gang of 8, which consists of top congressional leadership in both chambers.”

Schiff has implied that President Trump did not have access to the full intelligence, saying, “You don’t deprive the President of the United States of information he needs to keep the troops safe because you don’t have it signed, sealed, and delivered… If the intelligence community had intel along the lines that is publicly reported … this is information I think would be negligent to keep from him.” More

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff needs to be removed from his position on the intelligence committee. The congressional trip that was not recorded into the record needs to be thoroughly investigated. Schiff is most likely the source to The New York Times and he needs to be held accountable.

Continue Reading

Culture

Rapper Blasts Black Lives Matter: ‘Not Our Movement,’ ‘Given To Us By George Soros’

Published

on

By

Rapper Blasts Black Lives Matter: ‘Not Our Movement,’ ‘Given To Us By George Soros’

Rapper Lord Jamar sparked controversy when he renounced the Black Lives Matter organization over its Marxist origins, alleging it was created by far-left philanthropist billionaire George Soros and saying it is robbing Black Americans of their own “organic movement.”

In a viral video, Lord Jamar said that he is not a “Black Lives Matter” supporter, saying the organization’s radical views that fall outside its original mission statement.

“I’m not a Black Lives Matter supporter,” Jamar said in an interview on SCUM.

“You’re not?” the interviewer asked in surprise.

“No, absolutely not,” responded Jamar. “Because it’s not our movement. This is a movement that was given to us by, you know, George Soros and his f***ing boys. Because they saw how things were going and they didn’t want to go back to the 60s to where we started having our own organic movements. That was a big f***ing problem for them. So let’s give the people a movement that we can control. We’ll provide them the leaders and all this type of s**t. That’s what black lives matter is.”

“Look at the leaders of Black Lives Matter,” he said. “These lesbian women who are trying to incorporate, you know, LG whatever the f*** the letters are, incorporate their concerns into black people’s concerns. Go to the website. Look it up.”

Continue Reading

Culture

Here We Go: Mass. County Allows Employees to Get Insurance for ‘Polyamorous’ Relationships

Somerville, Mass., will allow city employees to get taxpayer funded insurance if they are in a “polyamorous domestic partnership.”

Published

on

Last week, the city council of Somerville, Massachusetts, changed its rules to allow city employees to get taxpayer funded insurance even if they are in a “polyamorous domestic partnership.”

It appears that the June 29 ruling made Somerville the first government body to legitimize sexual couplings of three or more people.

The new rule altered the existing language in Somerville law covering marriages, eliminating the part referring to partnerships as “entities formed by two persons” to “entities formed by people,” according to the Somerville Journal.

According to the paper:

Ward 6 Councilor Lance Davis, who chairs the Legislative Matters committee that reviewed the ordinance, said this began by just wanting to draft an ordinance recognizing domestic partnerships. Somerville didn’t have one, and a constituent request moved the council to work with the city on an ordinance.

“During our initial conversations, a couple things jumped out,” said Davis. “The first draft required domestic partners to notify the city of any change of address, which struck me as not in line with what married folks have to do, and required that they reside together, which again struck me as something I’m not required to do as a married person, so we got rid of those provisions.”

Davis added that fellow councilor J. T. Scott reached out and said, “‘Why is this two?’ And I said, ‘I don’t have a good answer.’ I tripped over my words a bit, and played devil’s advocate, but I had no good reason. So, I pulled it out, went through quickly making whatever word changes necessary to make it not gendered or limited to two people.”
Davis piously added:

“I’ve consistently felt that when society and government tries to define what is or is not a family, we’ve historically done a very poor job of doing so,” said Davis. “It hasn’t gone well, and it’s not a business that government should be in, so that guided my thinking on this.”

In the U.S., “Coupling” and marriage was always about growing and stabilizing society.

Gay “marriage,” and “Polyamorous” groups do not do that. They do just the opposite.

This is just more evidence of the faster deterioration of the country.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Culture

BLM Protesters Heckle Cops As Working Class Illiterate Rubes – Calls Black Officer “Black Judas”

Published

on

By

BLM Protesters Heckle Cops As Working Class Illiterate Rubes – Calls Black Officer “Black Judas”

Black Lives Matter protesters at the NY CHAZ brag about their college educations and mock the police for being uneducated, working-class, illiterate rubes. They also call a black cop “black Judas” or race traitor.

Are these brainless idiots bragging about their college degrees? Now, that’s hilarious! Welders, plumbers, electricians are the smart ones. They have jobs and will make tons more money than these french fry chefs. Plus they don’t have to worry about their jobs being sent overseas.

These activists clearly exhibit a form of ‘group narcissism’ similar to racism. They think they are better than others of a different class. As long as fools keep electing Democrats they will suffer the consequences.

Continue Reading

Culture

California Schools No Longer Allowed To Suspend Elementary, Middle School Students For Disruptive Behavior

Published

on

By

California Schools No Longer Allowed To Suspend Elementary, Middle School Students For Disruptive Behavior

California schools can no longer suspend elementary, middle school students for their disruptive behavior.

“We want the teacher to be able to teach their class and not have disruptive students, but we also want to minimize these suspensions,” said the author of Senate Bill 419, Sen. Nancy Skinner, a Democrat from Berkeley. “The more a child is suspended, the more likely they are to do bad in school and just do bad overall.”

KTVU:

California’s elementary and middle schools will have to find an alternative to suspension when it comes to dealing with unruly students due to a new law that took effect Wednesday.

Beginning July 1, 2020, it will be illegal for public and charter school officials to suspend students for “willful defiance,” a broad category that includes disrupting class or willfully defying teachers.

California banned these types of suspensions for students up to third grade beginning in 2015. The law Newsom signed permanently bans these suspensions for grades four and five and temporarily restricts them for grades six through eight until 2025. More

Seeing as how many of the teachers in California are hardcore left-wing moonbats it’s nice to see that they’ll get to endure the direct results of some of their own liberal policies.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
 
Send this to a friend