Greater Than God

The new hotness or old and busted?

The new hotness or old and busted?

Since the beginning of time, mankind has sought to make itself equal to God.

We have done it by ignoring Natural Law, inventing postmodernism and by claiming God never existed of if He did, he died somewhere along the way.

Since God – or the idea of Him – presupposes that there is a power that exceeds that of man, there are men who have reasoned that if there is a higher power, it then follows that power can be used to control other men.
That explains the creation of governments of all shapes and forms.

It also explains the creation of tyrants – for if government is a power equal to God, then the leader of that government must also be equal to God (or perhaps even greater). It is no mere coincidence that from ancient times, kings have claimed a direct connection with the particular deity gave them the divine right to rule. By claiming that God was placing his proxy in the hands of an individual, that individual shared and was trusted to exercise His power.

Communism was supposedly invented to stop this practice – Marx reasoned that if the desire to be as powerful as God could be eliminated – or at least divided up among the populace – it would be eliminated as the root of the conflicts and unfairness inherent in any system based on rule by divine right. In the waning days of the Russian Empire, Marx saw the future where the divine rule of the Czars was being replaced by the capitalist power of the bourgeois.

It is also no coincidence that we hear the same argument from collectivists and anarchists today – get God out of government they say, “separation of church and state” they wail.

Marx, like our collectivist brethren of today, was no fan of religion. Strangely enough, if you know the history of the early communist movement, you know that most it’s “leading lights” were children of wealthy, religious families, often attending seminary or pursuing religious educations themselves.

Where Marx erred in his formulation was that he thought God was responsible for the faults he saw in the churches and correspondingly, in the systems of government, when in fact it was not God nor religion at all – it was the governing organization of institutional religion that was failing…in short, it was man trying to assume the power of God through the church.

I have stated that capitalism is the only economic and societal system where prosperity is only achieved by first serving a need, want or desire of others. At its most basic, capitalism is the free market philosophy that uses price as a signal to the market to change, to adjust. Capitalism isn’t a cause; it is an effect, a result. Capitalism rests upon a very simple concept, an economic transaction occurs at that point where a seller is willing to sell and a buyer is willing to buy. This one on one, individual philosophy allows the price of a good or service to be established by the individuals involved in the transaction based on the value of the transaction to each.

In my mind, there is no or more equitable or fair method of economic transfer than this.

What is also true is that capitalism, or any economic system for that matter, is merely a reflection of the actions of individuals in a society. In a free society, the quality of that society (and in this case, the quality of the economic system) depends on the quality of individual – that a society is comprised of individuals and those individuals, acting in their own best interests will yield the best result for society.

Capitalism is inherently dependent on fairness and equality to be successful. Where communism guarantees an immortal government, capitalism only guarantees creative destruction. If one studies the life span of the USSR and then looks at America during that same period, one sees business empires rise and fall, many different individuals write “rags to riches” stories and the direction of the American government change in a multitude of ways as reflected in the culture of the country. One does not see that in the USSR – only a continuance of government and systematic repression.

I won’t say that all of Marx’s ideas about the evils of concentrated power were wrong – but in reality, Marx chose the wrong enemy, the wrong root cause. He chose to fight religion and capitalism – but all Marx’s system did was to concentrate power in a myriad of agencies, committees and planners – the very power he sought to disperse to the proletariat through communism. He simply replaced God with government. His system gave God’s immortality to government agencies and anointed the central planning authorities with the divine right of kings.

Communism has always produced exactly opposite the result it has promised. It was wrong then, it is wrong today.

Advertisements

28 thoughts on “Greater Than God

  1. I want to like this post — I really do. But I can’t. I understand what you mean to say. I know that you think you are actually saying it. It’s just that you aren’t, but that is not a slight, Utah. It’s just that you are confused, and I can say that because I was, too. You are confused as to what Capitalism actually is. You have confused it with what you want it to be. That is the same mistake you mentioned where men ignore Natural Law and try to impose their own desires over top of it. Too many of us are doing the same thing with Capitalism.

    By definition, Capitalism — as we know it today — is collectivist in nature. When you have millions of stock holders in a company, this is not a ‘private’ endeavor. It is a social endeavor. In fact, were it not for a social/collectivist act, corporations (and thus, modern Capitalism) could not exist. Corporations are artificial entities. They are created by legislation, which is passed by the government. In a nation where the people are supposedly their own masters, this means the people create these Corporations. And the creator is always master of his/her creation, so these corporations are forever subject to the control of their creator. In this case, that is the people.

    However, Marx wanted that control for himself, but since he could not run a business and could only survive by mouching off the wealth of others, he needed to create a way to steal that power and place it under his control. This is all ‘big government’ is: the centralization of power under the control of people who cannot create it themselves. Thus, Marx saw the Capitalist as his natural enemy, and this is what his entire ideology is built upon: the war between the creator and the thief. He tried to disguise this true nature by calling it a class struggle between haves and have nots, but when you understand that the ‘haves’ are creators and the ‘have nots’ are thieves in their hearts, then you see Marx’s reality for what it is. And it is at this point that you understand Capitalism — a word Marx coined — is just the word Marx assigned tot he creative collectivists. It has nothing to do with the free market.

    And that is what you and I truly want: a free market. That is what Scripture commands. Read the Law of Moses and you will find commands to use fair weights and measures, to do business ethically and to judge fairly according to the law. THIS is the free market: where all are provided equal access tot he market and treatment under the law but nothing more. It says nothing about collective action, which is what a corporation is. The individual is part of Natural Law, but collectives are not. They are created by individuals acting outside Natural Law — just like the big govt. types, only for the purposes of business instead of governance. In this sense, Marx was correct. But it is also what points us to the path of correction.

    We need to return to Natural Law, to God. This does not mean we cannot cooperate, it just means we have to learn how to do it according to Natural Law. Co-operatives are permissible because they are individual entities (i.e. people) working together by free choice, not a collection of people coming together to give their authority and rights to whomever they appoint to act in their place. There are huge differences here, and confusion over these differences is everywhere…even among those of us who want to believe we know better (and I count myself first on that list)

    • I don’t think I am “confused”. I don’t argue that capitalism has been perverted, that much is a fact – but no matter what you call it the basis of capitalism is exactly what I have explained it to be.

      • Utah,
        You and I agree on the basis of Capitalism !

        The Anti-Corporation “dialogue” which is often hinted at is the oppo-same of collectivist Communist principles just masqueraded as populist egalitarianism.

        As I know YOU would agree….Contracts are not Communism and Free association for labor or Enterprise is not Legislation.

        • Nice try, Don, but you still have not dealt with the plain and simple FACT that corporations exist only because of a collective action. Free association and contracts just cloud the issue, and that is where the deception comes into this equation. After all, the ‘Progressive’ speaks of freedom and progress, but this does not make them a libertarian anymore than private ownership and contracts make what we have now a free market.

          But then again, I’ll change positions when you and Utah tell all of us that NAZI Germany had a free market. I mean, Messerschmitt, Henschle, Heinkle, Krupp and BMW were all allowed to keep ownership of their private companies, and Hitler made contracts with them, but I think those men (as well as Hitler) would have been shocked to hear you tell them they were a ‘free market.’ So, if free association, contracts and private ownership = free market, NAZI Germany must have been a free market — right?

          • Actually most “Libertarians” ARE Progressives, their definition(s) of Liberty being predicated upon specific self-interest issues.

            To Quote you…”.. corporations exist only because of a collective action. Free association and contracts just cloud the issue, and that is where the deception comes into this equation…”

            Now Paraphrasing (Obama/ Elizabeth Warren/ Hillary (Bengazi) Clinton)…. ” You didn’t create that business….. It was (the Collective action) of everyone else who built the Roads and police forces to protect you that made your business possible…”

            It is a truism widely known that…Everything happens because of Combined effort and enterprise. Except taking a walk by yourself. Using the term “Collective Action” clouds the larger issue of passing embedded Socialist/Communist ideology off as acceptable parts of Lockeian Republicanism. Locke argued that the state existed by the power of Civil Society, that this was its source of Moral Power. Whereas Hobbes argued that voluntary and private associations should be “suppressed”.

            Voluntary Combined effort and enterprise within the rule of law ( Republicanism) “associated” with Collective action……deception indeed.

            Free association and Freely entering into Contracts IS the issue.

            I think it was Hayek who pointed out that Free Enterprise cannot survive the destruction of the rule of law. Such as we have seen with Obama, The GOP Congressional Leadership and before that with G W Bush declaring that he …”..must abandon the Free market to “save” the free market”.

            Such it was with Hitler and the Italian Fascists and Leninists before him. ( He merely followed their examples). Utah and I and most anyone who has genuinely studied this history knows this and doesn’t subscribe to the sophomoric premise that Nazi businesses were Free Market enterprises. Any more than they subscribe to the notion that because NAZI courts said it was “legal” to confiscate Jewish property and later exterminate them represents any kind of “Rule of Law”.

            So your appeal to this argument is specious.

            • “Locke argued that the state existed by the power of Civil Society, that this was its source of Moral Power.”

              And THAT, Don, is a collective action. Thanks for making my point while trying to tell people how I am wrong.

              Don, form and function define: NOT your desires.

              That said, the FACT remains that Capitalism (as Marx defined it and even as it is practiced and has ALWAYS been practiced) does not = free market (form and function, my friend, form and function). If it did, then I could start a new car company, or broadcast company, or cell phone company — but you can’t. Oh, you can SAY it is possible, but that is playing the Progressive game of saying something is voluntary when you know that you have stacked the tax code to bankrupt anyone who chooses to go against you (i.e. coal fired plants are possible, but Obama will bankrupt you — as he promised). Same thing today. The large corporations have grown so powerful that they control access to the market, and that negates the free market.

              So, by FORM AND FUNCTION, what you are defending is the American form of fascism that has developed between Govt. and Corporate America — which is exactly what we have: two sides of the same coin and neither side can see the truth because they are blind to themselves.

              • “…“Locke argued that the state existed by the power of Civil Society, that this was its source of Moral Power.
                And THAT, Don, is a collective action. Thanks for making my point while trying to tell people how I am wrong….”

                LOL….not at all, you are attempting to make an equivalence relationship between the meaning of Civil Society and the Collective action. ( not withstanding that the former does not have “action” as the integral part of its Concept ). And you enjoin this equivalence by mere repetition.

                Civil Society thus defined by Locke implied the a priori assumption of the primacy of individual thought, intention and association not based on the actions attempted as a Collective. The Collective was not the a priori impetus FOR the Civil Society.

                At this point I would argue what you first posited to Utah…..that you “think you are saying one thing but are saying another”…..

                As another point…”‘Capitalism” is purely Marxist in terminology and says very little about true commerce or its history.

                • No, Don, what I am trying to do is remain consistent. Unfortunately, that seems to be something you are unwilling to do whenever your sacred oxen are drug onto the field of slaughter. And telling me I am the one equivocating is mildly amusing — coming from a man who just equated a totalitarian Progressive with an Anarchist Libertarian.

                  You know bloody well what I mean by a collective action. You just can’t grant my point because you know the moment you do, you have lost your argument. I have not been using collective in the same way as Marx, Progressives or Communists would use the word. My history on the RNL is very clear that I oppose it. The COLLECTIVE is as artificial as the corporation. So you are being very disingenuous with me and the readers here.

                  As far as Locke goes, he and I are in perfect accord. YOU are the one out of step with what he is saying. But again, you cannot admit this without losing your argument, so you start playing with the definition of words.

                  You can call it civil society or a collective action: the form and function remain the same. Government is formed by the whole of society entering into an agreement (see my bloody post of the Social Contract, Don, and stop pretending that I disagree with Locke when that post draws heavily from him and his source on the issue — ROMANS). HOWEVER, just as government is the result of a collective (i.e. group) action, so is the creation of the corporate structure.

                  The problem you seem to have is that you think I am arguing for some sort of commie utopia or that I am anti private property. If you were honest with me and yourself, you would know damned well this is not the case. But then, if you do that, you will have to see things as they truly are and that is too difficult for most of us to do. I know because I had to do it and it shook everything I thought I knew about the way things are. But I faced it and now I have an even better understanding of both the problems and the solutions. This is how and why I can say with absolute certainty that you are wrong on this point!

    • Gentlemen,

      We assume Capitalism to be “free market”, unencumbered by government interference as described and explained by Frederic Bastiat in “The Law” 1848. .

      A Free market is protected in our Constitution as evidenced by patents and copyrights being a power given to the federal govt.

      Joe, I understand your point, the term “capitalism” is misused by today’s Marxist governments, just as is “liberal” and “conservative” is purposely misused in order to confuse and misdirect the populace.

      Utah is writing to explain what capitalism is suppose to be.

      America’s founders understood, assumed capitalism to be “free market” not fascism = “crony capitalism”.

      Crony capitalism is not capitalism. Crony capitalism is fascism.

      Marxism.

      • Texas,

        ‘Capitalism’ can never be a free market as it requires man-made laws before it can exist. You do not need ‘capital’ to engage in the free market. I can stand on the corner and hire myself out, shine shoes, work as a handyman, etc. Or I can grow and sell produce, weave, etc. None of this requires capital (i.e. stocks and corporations). Thus, Capitalism is not natural, like the free market is. It is a product of society, thus — by definition — collectivist in nature.

        But again, I mean no insult or slight. I am pointing four fingers back at myself here as i did not understand it for the majority of my life, either. But I do now, and this is why I try to help people see the crucial difference here.

        Look at it this way: the Statist uses the collective of government to seize power. The Capitalist uses the collective of the corporation. Both are using a creation of the collective to control others, and both use the other to convince people to defend the people seeking to control them. Govt. does it by promising goodies taken from the Capitalist, while the Capitalist promises to defend the goodies they earn. But in reality, both are deceiving people to defend the power and control they have seized and there’s nothing ‘free’ in any of it.

        See the two posts I put up on http://theroadtoconcord.com/ I explain it better there.

        • Joe, I “see” where you are coming from.
          Utah, I “see” where you are coming from.

          There is no way the ills of America’s current situation can be corrected before we all “understand” where “we” are now. In order to have full understanding, we must realize how we got here.

          ONLY then, can we all honestly and accurately identify our problems and correct them.

          Capitalism
          Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.[1] Modern Capitalism is essentially mass production for the needs of the masses.[2]

          I emphasize:
          … by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

          I add: competition without favor, protection and competition elimination/prohibition, by government actions and policies” A level playing field being available to anyone who wishes to step on the field and compete in an equal (not fair) manner.

          • Texas,

            OK, so tell me, how is it that you can tell me that ANYTHING Washington does these days is ‘public?’

            They govern AGAINST the will of the people so — by definition — they are acting according to private decisions. Which then means the government is in the control of private people who just happen to get ‘elected’ (rather like CEO’s).

            Texas, does that Woodrow Wilson essay on elected dictators come to mind yet? Do you not see the parallels between the corporate and government worlds?

            Still, do not infer that I am apposed to what Utah seems to want. It’s just that I am not thoroughly convinced that he actually wants the free market (sorry Utah, but it is true.). Defending corporations means you are defending collective control — not the free market.

            But there is a kernel of truth and hope here. If we return to GOD, and His Natural Law (as our founders did), then THAT is the solution. Anything else — ANYTHING else — is just another way of saying “I, me, my, we,” and that will result in the same continued failure. Ask the ancient Israelite what happened when they claimed credit and when they gave the credit to God. One way leads to peace and prosperity; the other to 70 years of exile (or worse…).

            It is the same formula our founders used, and it worked for them. It also failed us the same way. Trace the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings. This is the solution. Anything else will fail — period!

            • Joe,

              Woodrow Wilson’s “administration” is complete. Marxism successfully implemented. American Communism-DONE.

              My goal, your goal, and I believe Utah’s goal, is to help those that seek to see, to see. The United States Federal Government is no longer our “America” as dreamed by our Declaration of Independence and founded by our Constitution.

              Until a majority of Americans humble themselves, honestly seek truth, and are able to truly see reality, America is lost. Seeking to continue in a system because it is what you know and you are profiting from it, will only continue Wilson’s “utopian elite”, who subjugate all of us.

              Rights come from “our Creator”. Until a majority of Americans realize seeking “rights” from Government, is actually seeking privilege within a caste system, and subjugating themselves to the arbitrary capriciousness of Bureaucrats . . .

              Now? Every action taken by government is meant to subjugate a majority for a minority. All in order to guarantee their hold on ultimate power.

              Divide and conquer. (Hang together, or surely be hanged separately.)

              Until true Americans, few of us as there are; are able to accurately and honestly accept and describe the enemy of liberty, (Wilson’s administrators/elites = Marxists = American Communism) America will continue to disintegrate. I cannot think of one thing America’s federal government has done in recent years that is not illegal. Otherwise stated, Un-Constitutional.

              Every action taken, purposely favors someone. And when one is favored, many more are “dis-favored”. Writing laws which give “one” or “one entity” permission to do what everyone else cannot freely do, is the opposite of “equal protection under the law”. Every law passed by its very nature is the exact opposite of “equal protections under the law” because the law is written to favor someone, something over and above others.

              A great awakening is required in the hearts of Americans, if there be any left.

              A miracle required.

              Most people cannot be honest with themselves or their Creator (if they believe in one), much less their brethren. Many are too ignorant, indoctrinated, selfish, or evil, to attempt to see.

              • Texas,

                I agree with all you just said. All I am trying to add to it is that ‘private’ does not exempt us from the comments you made. Corporate America is as guilty of everything you just said, too. But, because people claim it is ‘private,’ they think it is somehow exempt from Natural Law. How can we understand the problems of govt. without also seeing that we have created these exact same problems in the world we think of as ‘private???’

                Until we look to BOTH sides of this problem, we will never see past our won interest, and until we see past our own interest, the truth will remain hidden.

  2. Pingback: ‘Capitalism’ is NOT the Free Market | THE ROAD TO CONCORD

  3. It will take a storm to clear away all the dead wood, and there are indications that one is on the way. See signs1787.wordpress .com – then read ‘The Mystery of the Shemitah’, Jonathan Cahn’s latest effort to get the point across.

  4. Well Joe, from your argument all forms of government are ‘Collectivist’. All forms of business ventures that consist of partnerships or groups of investors are ‘Collectivist’. All forms of society including religious societies are ‘Collectivists’. ‘Collectivists’ are bad.

    So does anarchy provide the only ‘good’ form of society or government? How well does the idea of everyone does what they want, promote free trade? Free association and free trade requires a society and government that allows that to exist through ‘LAWS’ approved by the society, A ‘collective’.

    So which ‘collective’ do you suggest control our society and government?

    • Triper57,

      Did I actually say that, or are you inferring this because you want to defend Utah’s position?

      I did not say ALL government is ‘Collective,’ but the formation of a representative govt. is a collective action. I do not capitalize ‘collective’ because I am trying to get people to see that any govt. formed through a social contract is a collective action: it is an action involving the whole of society (i.e. public).

      HOWEVER, there are many forms of govt. that are NOT collective or Collective in nature. A dictatorship is not necessarily the result of a collective action, nor does it necessarily form a Collective entity.

      I hope this helps you see that your question is based on flawed assumptions about what I have been trying to explain and help people see. If not, it is MY fault for not being good enough to make my position clear enough to be understood. But this does not mean my position is incorrect because it rests entirely on definitions (definitions based on form and function, not individual desire).

      • Joe: Understand all to well what you are saying. All groups are collectives comprised of members of the larger collective, Society. But your use connotes the Marxist usage of collective to all collectives. In fact the word itself has so much association with Marx that i doubt you can use the word without that connotation. You don’t like the connotation. Use a different word.

        A dictatorship is the result of a collective action, maybe not a Marxist or Fascist collective but a dictator does not arise without some form of group/collective support.

        Form and function – Collective: adj

        1: denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or whole

        Collective: noun

        1. a business or organization that is owned by the people who work there; also : the people who own such a business or organization.

        • Tripper,

          OK, I’ll accept your premise about using a different word when the old one becomes tainted. So, what will you call yourself now that the enemies of liberty have destroyed any and every word you can use to describe yourself? (I hope you see the point I am making, and accept that it is being made playfully).

          Seriously now, I refuse to play the Progressive game. Words mean things. I’ll stick to them, thank you. If people do not see how they are being used through the context of their use, it is they who have the problem — not I. Deep down, I suspect you will agree, but you want people to like you and your ideas, so you are willing to conform to your opponent’s rules. So you try not to use tainted words. Funny, isn’t that exactly the mistake Rush tells us the Republicans make: trying to be like rather than to stand their ground and argue their case?

          Now, you used the adjective/noun definitions of ‘collective.’ I take it you have not read my post about Capitalism under Natural Law yet, have you? Because I directly addressed these different usages, and I clearly explained how they are BOTH the result of collective actions, with one being twice removed from the confines of Natural Law. In short, govt. depends on the people for creation, and a corporation depends on the government for creation. Thus, the corporation is twice removed. This makes it impossible for it to be private property. The best society can do is allow it to be treated as private property, but there must be limits or Natural Law is violated.

          Finally, there can be and have been dictatorships that had nothing to do with the people — unless you consider cowering to be a collective action. If so, then you are sliding backward into accepting Obama’s negative vs positive rights argument. Not doing something is not equal to doing something (negative vs positive action). But that is a different discussion.

          • Again Joe, you fail to grasp the meaning of the Noun; collective. A collective is Marx. You want to be understood, use a different word. When you use it as a noun you are making the Marx connection. It has been used by the Marxists for over 100 years and your snit about using it because it has been co-opted by the progressives is admirable but displaced. You won’t change any of their meanings, because you don’t have the audience. You don’t have an audience because people misunderstand your argument.

            • Triper,

              I’m not the one who doesn’t understand. In fact, I understand all too well. If someone can’t (or won’t) understand what I am saying, then they are already too far gone to be reached…

              • “We need to return to Natural Law, to God. This does not mean we cannot cooperate, it just means we have to learn how to do it according to Natural Law. Co-operatives are permissible because they are individual entities (i.e. people) working together by free choice, not a collection of people coming together to give their authority and rights to whomever they appoint to act in their place.”

                I understand, all too well, your argument. Your idea gives the running of the co-operative/corporation/collective over to GOD, not man. Yet it is man’s interpretation of these GOD given laws (thus an imperfect interpretation) you are blindly giving your rights and authority to. The weak link here is Man’s interpretation of those laws. Just as it is man’s interpretation of his own laws here on earth that cause our problems.

                Again which version of the interpretation are you supporting? Or are we to assume you are speaking as GOD’s representative here on earth? Yes, we need to return to a belief in God as an individual. But, ever since we found freewill in the Garden of Eden, God has left us alone to institute those forms of Belief Systems and Government, to gain the “separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”. We live in a nation of laws of men (therefore imperfect), designed to protect our Natural Rights, from abuses from that very Government or collective. Our Founders recognized that under the concept of free will, no religious belief system possessed the Natural Right to suppress another man’s belief system, thus the First Amendment prohibition that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”.

                Is our system perfect? Not hardly. Is it the best that it can be? Again hardly. Do you have all the answers as you claim? I think not.

                • Triper,,

                  I understand that man will fail in his understanding of God. Still, the founders pointed the way to God — and specifically, the God of the Bible. They also told us that the Bible agrees with Natural Law. But it was because we differ in our understanding of God that they focused on Natural Law (described in both Job and Romans). Here is where it is much harder to ‘differ.’ We all know we have a right to our own will, our own bodies and that we have a right to certain private property. We know that Natural Law allows for self-defense, and parental control of children, etc. THIS is the value of Natural Law: it is the common ground upon which we can all meet without having to wage war over ‘whose god?’

                  Now, that said, I am not claiming that I have all the answers. But I know this much — and I do not care if people think it sounds arrogant. I know that both Natural Law and history BOTH teach that certain things do not work and others do. So, when I look to both Natural Law and history and find them in agreement, then I make a statement based on these lessons, it is not me claiming to have the answer — it is just the way things work/are. But then, we live in a society where no one wants to hear someone ever state anything with certainty, don’t we?

                • Triper,
                  I think you are mis-understanding Joe’s proposed course. You are conceiving the concept of natural law “upside down and inside out”.
                  You write: “Your idea gives the running of the co-operative/corporation/collective over to GOD, not man. Yet it is man’s interpretation of these GOD given laws (thus an imperfect interpretation) you are blindly giving your rights and authority to.”

                  “Natural law” is not a complete set of laws which direct and order everyone’s individual actions as the Federal Government’s Marxism/progressive/communist/fascist actions today.

                  Natural law is simple and embodied in our Declaration of Independence and America’s Constitution with “LIMITED POWERS”.

                  Not “LIMITLESS POWERS” as the Federal Government has usurped over the last century.

                  Nearly everything the federal government does today is beyond the powers granted in our Constitution and its amendments. Nearly everything the federal government does today directly violates our Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and therefore ILLEGAL.

                  With “natural law” as a guiding principle, government actions are prohibited, NOT individual’s actions. No interpretation is required. Look in our Constitution and see if the specific power is authorized, if it is not, sorry government, you cannot order that, prohibit that, or take that …

                  With government limited, instead of American individuals limited by limitless government, American’s would be set free and become quite prosperous. Those who seek to “force their will” upon others, would be forced to stop and prohibited from limiting individuals with unending regulations and protected non-competition.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s