The Center for Social Leadership » Constitution

What are the connections between liberty and property?

Stephen Palmer — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:00:08 +0000

“…power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will.” -Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #79

A malignant idea exists in socialistic thought that societies can have political freedom with limited economic freedom.

More precisely, this dangerous idea is that political and economic freedom are separate and distinct freedoms and that one can survive without the other.

Furthermore, in democratic socialism the theory is that wealth can be forcefully redistributed through the government, or in other words that society has a right to the economic labor of all individuals.

At the heart of this destructive ideology is that economic freedom is unnecessary and that a society can still be free without it.

Europe has embraced this ideology to a large extent, and America is not that far behind.

However, there is an inseparable connection between liberty and property, a connection that, if severed, leads to the loss of both liberty and private property.

Why It Matters

It is your unalienable right to work, to labor, and to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

Freedom means the ability to control your destiny through your own effort–if the government takes the fruit of your labor (your property) for anything other than taxes to support its proper role, it reduces your ability to create the life of your choice.

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is no force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.” -John Adams

Furthermore, property is a tool to express your unique contribution to the world.

Bill Gates shares his vision and business skills by creating computers. Ray Kroc shared his drive and innovation through real estate and hamburgers.

Without private property rights, these men and others like them would have no outlet to express their individuality.

If a person wishes to pursue their happiness by creating a business, that happiness will be deterred if they do not have access to create a physical manifestation of the business through property.

John Locke wrote extensively about this topic in his Second Treatise on Government. He wrote,

“[E]very man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.

“It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer; no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to….

“He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. Nobody can deny but the nourishment is his.

“I ask then when did they begin to be his? And ’tis plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common. That added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done: and so they become his private right.

“And will any one say he had no right to those acorns or apples he thus appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? … If such a consent as that was necessary man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him.

“We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that ’tis the taking part of what is common, and removing it out of the state Nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use.”

Without economic freedom all other freedoms are obsolete. With freedom comes the responsibility to use your hands, your mind, and your strength to care for yourself, to provide you and your family with economic necessities and desires.

With responsibility comes opportunity to create your own destiny. Unless your private property rights are protected your ability to determine your life is severely limited.

Recommended Reading:

The Mainspring of Human Progress by H.G. Weaver
The Virginian by Owen Wister
Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

*****************************

Stephen Palmer is a marketing consultant and persuasive writer with KGaps Consulting, a co-founder of The Center for Social Leadership, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Stephen resides in Round Rock, Texas with his gorgeous wife Karina, awesome son Alex, and princess daughters Libby, Avery, and Laela. Stephen and Karina blog about their magical life on Palmer Journeys.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com

What are “legitimate foundation” and “legitimate authority” in political philosophy?

Stephen Palmer — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:00:40 +0000

“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority. –Alexander Hamilton

Simply put, legitimate foundation means the will of the People at large, while legitimate authority is the express permission granted by the People to the government to perform some function.

Put together, they form the philosophical foundation of the powerful idea that man does not exist for the state, but that the state exists for man.

Legitimate Foundation

The idea that the government should exist according to the will of the People and solely to benefit the People at large was revolutionary in the 18th Century. Previously, governments primarily benefited those governing, or special interests.

The American Founders taught that the will of the People, as expressed through constitutional means, is the only solid, sustainable, and legitimate foundation of republican government.

This does not mean, however, that they were referring simply to the concept of majority rule alone, as we learn from Federalist Paper #51; the idea is to guide the nation by the will of the majority, while protecting minority rights (i.e. preventing the majority from taking private property).

Legitimate Authority

Thomas Jefferson spoke of legitimate authority in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote,

“…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

The United States Constitution was the first (and to my knowledge the only) constitution to be instigated by, or to have originated in, the People, then ratified by the People.

In other words, the People, through their colonial representatives, called for the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Representatives at the Convention represented the People within their respective territories–not the government itself.

They were authorized by the People to do the will of the People. Our Constitution was initiated and created from the bottom up, rather than dictated from the top down.

Then, after its creation by the representatives of the People, the Constitution was taken back to the People–once again through their colonial representatives–to be ratified, or accepted.

Previously, the historical norm was for the government–whether through a monarchy, aristocracy, or other form of ruler’s law–to dictate from the top down the laws and constitutional forms that the People must obey.

As David Hume wrote in 1752,

“Almost all the governments which exist at present, or of which there remains any record in story, have been founded originally either on usurpation or conquest or both, without any pretense of a fair consent or voluntary subjection of the people.”

Why It Matters

To drive the point home with these critical concepts, think of illegitimate versions of the same concepts.

For example, illegitimate foundations of government would include a government being founded by the will of a monarch or a dictator, a special interest group, one branch of government solely, etc. and primarily to protect and benefit such individuals or groups.

Illegitimate authority would include any government imposing arbitrary laws without permission from the People to do so through constitutional means, any branch of government engaging in extra-constitutional activities; a special interest group, such as a banking cartel, exercising undue influence upon the People without their consent; etc.

Any time a government, individual, institution, or special interest group imposes any law, regulation, policy, program, or procedure without the express permission of the People through constitutional means–and backs it up with force and violence–tyranny ensues.

In fact, the word “tyranny” itself originates from the Greek, meaning “illegitimate ruler.”

It’s like your in-laws meddling with your children — only much worse, since it usually involves pesky things like theft, murder, rape, and pillage.

Danger From the People

However, an even more important point must be made, which is that the greatest danger to popular governments lies with the people themselves, rather than with illegitimate rulers or laws.

With the right and ability to vote and legitimately influence public policy comes the temptation for the People to vote themselves benefits from the national treasury. As Benjamin Franklin wrote,

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Our nation flipped this ruinous switch in 1913, with the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments and the passing of the Federal Reserve Act. I’ll save my analysis of these for another article.

The point is that with rights and privileges come responsibilities. We are so blessed in America to enjoy a constitutional structure based on legitimate foundation and legitimate foundation. However, this also means that We the People are primarily responsible for the maintenance of our freedom.

This requires education. As Thomas Jefferson wrote,

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

What is the American form of government?

Stephen Palmer — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:00:56 +0000

The most common–and grossly incorrect–answer to this question is that we are a democracy. The right–albeit simplistic–answer is that we are a republic. A more sophisticated answer is that we are a constitutional republic.

The most thorough answer came from James Madison, who said that our form of government is an “Extended Limited Commercial Federal Democratic Republic.”

By “extended” he was referring to geography–never before in history has there been a republic that covered so much territory.

“Limited” refers to the fact that the Constitution expressly defines what the government can and cannot do.

“Commercial” refers to our national character.

The Founders said that there were three main national characters–martial, religious, and commercial. Rome had a martial character, as does China. Ancient Israel had a religious character.

Since religious and martial-character nations tend toward tyranny, the Founders chose commercial.

By “federal,” Madison meant as much power as possible was preserved with the People, and that the federal government only existed for specific and limited purposes.

The idea of federalism is that the closer one gets to the People the more power there is, while the closer one gets to the federal government, the less power one finds.

“Democratic” refers to the idea that we are a social democracy, although not a governmental democracy.

Social democracy is the concept that intrinsic in our culture is the understanding that all men and women are created equal, that no individual is better than another, and that everyone has equal opportunity to succeed.

(As an interesting side note, Oliver DeMille gives an updated version of Madison’s lengthy label. He says that we are now an “Internationalist, Sometimes Constitutional (Except Where Prohibited By Law), Extended (Globally), Increasingly Commercial, National, Representative/Virtual/Popular Democracy, With a Technocratic Supremacist Court.” But that’s a conversation for another day…)

Why It Matters

As James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #10:

“…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

“Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

In a pure democracy, all it takes to pass a policy is simple majority vote. But what happens if the policy encroaches upon unalienable rights? If 51% vote in favor of it, the 49% who voted against it will be tyrannized.

Furthermore, what always happens in a democracy is that very few people are even actively involved–which means that it always degenerates into some type of aristocracy or oligarchy, or rule by few.

To quote James Madison again:

“A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

“The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

“The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.

“Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.”

In other words, a republic has a much greater chance of protecting and preserving unalienable rights than does a democracy.

Democracies in history have always degenerated into “mobocracies” that tyrannize minorities, and they have always failed.

Beware of those who say we are a democracy — they are those who will encroach upon your unalienable rights in the name of equality.

*****************************

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com

What is the proper role of government?

Stephen Palmer — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:00:22 +0000

According to the American Founders, the proper role of government is to protect unalienable rights.

The government cannot rightfully do anything that an individual cannot rightfully do. In other words, if it is wrong for an individual to steal another’s property, then it is wrong for the government to do the same thing.

As Cleon Skousen put it in The 5,000 Year Leap, the government should protect equal rights — not provide equal things.

Competing views include, but are not limited to, the following:

The role of government is to distribute all things equally (communism).
The role of the government is to take care of its subjects (democratic socialism).
The role of the government is to expand its empire (martial societies).
The role of the government is to “help the little guy” (democracy).
The role of the government is to promote the interests of “big business” (capitalism).

Why It Matters

By definition, government is force. Behind every government policy is a gun to the heads of citizens saying, “You will do this, or else…”

Therefore, anything other than the philosophy that the proper role of government is to protect unalienable rights always has and always will lead to tyranny.

The more government tries to “help” society, the more tyrannical it becomes. Since the government does not produce, it can only take what others has produced to fulfill its aims.

If it wants to provide welfare, it cannot do so without taking from one person or group of people to give to another. And since government is force, this is, as Frederic Bastiat said, “legal plunder.”

Follow-Up Question: Ideally, how, or by whom, should the poor and disabled be helped, if necessary?

*****************************

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com

What are the differences between unalienable and civil rights?

Stephen Palmer — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 10:00:47 +0000

Unalienable.com has the following great definition of unalienable rights:

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.

“By the ‘absolute rights’ of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it.

“The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized.

“These are what are termed the ‘absolute rights’ of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.”

In short, unalienable rights are the rights every individual has whether in or out of society.

In other words, if you live alone in the wilderness, do you have an unalienable right to “free” health care? Obviously not.

Do you have an unalienable right to till the ground and produce food, to build a house, to pursue your own happiness? Of course.

Civil rights are rights granted by the State that are not unalienable. Civil rights include such things as the right to drive and the right to vote.

Civil rights are legitimately created (at least as long as they are aligned with Natural Law) by the society to maintain peace, order, and security.

Why It Matters

A person who believes that man’s rights come from human sources does not differentiate between unalienable and civil rights. To him or her, all rights are civil, meaning they are granted by the State.

Without this fundamental understanding, no rights are sacred and unalienable — all rights can be revoked upon a majority vote or dictate.

This is why we hear politicians claiming such things as “health care is a right.”

A person who believes that health care is a right believes that the State can give and take away rights based on a majority vote or the whims of its leaders.

Follow-Up Question: Does taxation encroach upon unalienable rights?

*****************************

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com

What is the source of man’s rights?

Stephen Palmer — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:00:27 +0000

The Declaration of Independence states that “…all men are created equal…they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

Sir William Blackstone wrote:

“Man…must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator…This will of his Maker is called the law of nature…This law of nature…is of course superior to any other…No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force…from this original.”

Others who have taught that man’s rights come from God and/or Natural Law include Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Montesquieu, and John Locke.

The competing view(s)–that rights come from the State, or collective society, or a monarch, or a “vanguard”–have been taught by philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, Karl Marx, Jean Jacques-Rousseau, and John Rawls.

Why It Matters

If our rights come from a human source, whether that be collective society, a monarch, or any other person or group of people, then they can also be taken away by human sources.

In other words, unless rights come from a Creator or Natural Law–a source that transcends humans–they are not unalienable by definition.

If your right to life is granted by collective society, or a democracy, then your life can rightfully be taken by nothing more than a majority vote.

If your property is granted by a vanguard, or a group of elite individuals in charge of the state, then it can be taken at any point by the same people.

If a king grants you your right to raise a family and grow a garden, he can legitimately take your wife, sell your kids as slaves, and pillage your garden any time he sees fit.

Our constitution was not written to grant rights — it was written to secure rights that have always existed regardless of any government.

*****************************

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com

What Does it Mean to Be “American?”

Mike Wilson — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:00:46 +0000

Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann once accused Barack Obama of holding positions that are “anti-American” (and she was not the first).

What did she mean? In order to define what it means to be “anti-American” we should define what it means to be “American” and use examples from history to see if our judgment is fair or even accurate.

Was Patrick Henry “American?” Was he who emphatically and boldly challenged: “…but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” American?

Or did his adamant opposition to the Constitution as it was written in 1787-88 make him “anti-American?”

What does it mean to be “American?”

The fundamental philosophies and ideas that undergird the founding of the American Republic are the following:

Equality before the law
National and local sovereignty
Powerful self-governance and self-determination
Peace through strength
Disdain for imperialism and privilege
“Light on the hill” example of freedom
A willingness to fight against tyranny and oppression in all its forms.

Which of these principles is Barack Obama opposed to? How many of these principles have been not only ignored, but trampled by the policies of the outgoing Republican administration? Which “America” is Rep. Bachmann talking about?

Was Henry David Thoreau being “anti-American” in his willingness to be jailed for his refusal to pay a poll tax used to finance the Mexican-American War, which he believed to be unjust?

Was Martin Luther King Jr. “anti-American” when he helped “freedom riders” show Americans the absolute “un-American-ness” of “separate, but equal” and segregation?

When will we stop questioning one another’s “American-ness,” or patriotism?

I am as grateful for those whose patriotism is demonstrated in fighting with truth and justice to protect my rights at home from an ever-increasingly invasive government as I am for those who fight with weapons with defend my life.

What gives Rep. Bachmann the right to question anyone’s “American-ness”, especially when America is made up of thinking individuals who see things distinctly from their neighbor?

I challenge you to find someone whose motives you have questioned, then make a conscious effort to trust their motives, their love for their country, and the hope they have for its people.

****************

Mike Wilson received his B.S. degree in Chemistry from Brigham Young University and pursued graduate work at the University of California, San Diego, where he earned a M.S. degree in Biomedical Sciences prior to obtaining his M.D. at the UCSD School of Medicine.

He lives in Cedar City, Utah with his wife Jenni and their six children and practices emergency medicine in St. George, Utah while working on a Ph.D. in Constitutional Law at George Wythe University. He is also an Associate Mentor at GWU.

Mike’s passion is promoting idea that the common man has power and capacity to affect grand change in the world through true principles of love, goodness, and virtue. Because of his Jeffersonian trust in the common man, he considers himself a “little d” democrat (an ideal, not a political party).

He believes that the cause of liberty is founded essentially in widespread powerful education, checks on power, and promotion of virtue and goodness. Force is never a real solution to problems for Mike and the statesman’s role is to understand the ideal, see where society is, and then put himself in a position to move society in the direction of the ideal.

Basic Tribal Culture, Part 3: Major Weaknesses of Tribalism

Oliver DeMille — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:00:40 +0000

This is part 2 of a 3-part series, which is continued from this series.

Read Part 1 Here
Read Part 2 Here

At this point, we should note that while traditional tribal culture does have much to teach us from its idyllic simplicity, it is far from perfect. Studying its pitfalls and common flaws is also instructive.

When tribes are run by small councils of all adult members, these weaknesses can be mitigated.

But when tribes don’t follow the leadership of councils of all adults, they turn against themselves; whatever other form of government they adopt, it becomes corrupt.

When this happens, various problems arise. The problems that follow are the normal for tribes that are not led by councils of all adults.

Economic Control

Tribal culture generally gives a great deal of economic power to tribal leaders.

Interestingly, most tribes distribute political power well between the executive (who gets power only in the face of external challenges and only for the duration of the challenge), the judicial (often a shaman and in many cultures left to families⎯both of which are usually independent of the executive and legislative), and run by the legislative (sometimes councils of elders, sometimes the combined adults of the tribe, sometimes both).

Of course, there are tribes that fail to follow these models, but the freest tribes use these basic systems.

Still, even with political freedoms, few historical tribes have economic freedoms.

The trust of the chief, the head elder (male or female) or the shaman is often absolute.

And, indeed, such leaders often adopt a sort of royal mentality where they believe that what is good for the leader’s finances is good for the whole tribe. In this form, nobody sees undue control of everyone’s finances and ownership as a negative.

But often, it creates the loss of political freedom—including parental choices, like who should marry whom—and a strict caste system with no economic or social mobility.

Many tribes face long-term poverty for most members of the tribe. Such poverty never persists in a truly free-enterprise model, which includes both freedom and opportunity.

Often tribal leaders see this as a threat to their power and, by extension, the tribe’s security and viability.

Emerging tribes with a charismatic leader who seeks control over individuals’ and families’ finances are cultish, and history is littered with the tragedies that such arrangements can lead to.

If a tribe wants to sell things, that’s great. But trying to pool resources or give up control of personal property should of course be met with serious suspicion.

This discussion also exposes a national-culture flaw: the idea that in learning from other cultures we should not judge their systems, traditions and behaviors.

Perhaps this is true when the goal is to maintain purity and academic objectivity in anthropological studies, but it certainly not true when our purpose is to learn and apply the best of tribal (and national) cultures to the tribally-nationalistic-globally-connected societies of the future.

If some calamity changes the world drastically, the same lessons will need to be applied in the new local societies that will be forged.

We need to measure the parts of each culture by how well they promote and support an environment of freedom, prosperity and happiness for all.

Interpersonal Politics

In a small group, political power is often swayed by personalities, likes and dislikes, trysts and history, baggage and personal weaknesses. Nothing can keep this from happening, and in a free system and voluntary tribes it doesn’t matter much.

In a local or official tribal system where the government has actual power over life, death, imprisonment, finances, etc., systems should always be established that keep this from happening.

By “systems” I mean written constitutions with separation of powers, checks and balances well-structured.

Class Power

Most tribes are aristocracies. This is a problem, because the class system is usually established by those in power and dominated by certain families.

In a local structure, or any model where the tribe or community is non-voluntary and/or actually has government power, the solution to this is to establish a legislature of all adults in the tribe.

As the tribe grows in size and geographical scope, local councils representing perhaps no more than 150 households continue to govern themselves, and may send representatives to a regional council to manage affairs of mutual interest to the coalition of local councils.

Conformity

Tribes often flounder economically and fail to grow because the people become too socially conformist. When tribes demand sameness on many levels and in nearly every aspect of life, they shut down creativity, leadership, wisdom and progress.

This is natural to any group, and in national cultures it is often called “groupthink.”

It is important for any group to continue learning, thinking, risking and trying.

Of course, certain violent and anti-social behaviors from rape to murder and so on cannot be tolerated. But stopping criminal behavior is far different from scripting people’s lives and socially enforced hyper-conformity.

This also translates to a socially-enforced closed-mindedness with respect to new ideas and a lack of tolerance for diversity, which lead to a stagnation of creativity and a tendency toward thought-policing.

Lack of Diversity

These conspire to cause narrowness of thinking, along with many of the other problems listed above. On the one hand, the whole point of tribe is joining together based on commonalities.

But the thing which makes tribes flourish is truly caring about each other, connecting, bonding. And connections based on both commonality (such as the shared value of freedom of choice) and diversity (such as the shared value of freedom of conscience) weave a much stronger fabric than one based on sameness.

Conclusion

The New Tribes of the 21st Century would do well, of course, to avoid these pitfalls. As stated, nearly all of these go away when a tribal society is governed by small councils of all adults in the tribe. If the tribe is too large for everyone to have a voice, smaller sub-councils are needed.

Historical tribes do have their weaknesses, but these also have much to teach us. Our generation of citizens needs to understand the good and the bad from the great tribes, nations and societies of history.

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd Online.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

Connect With Oliver:

Things You Don’t Talk About In Polite Company

Dave Wilson — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:00:56 +0000

In 2002 President George W. Bush said,

“The public education system . . . is where children from all over America learn to be responsible citizens, and learn to have the skills necessary to take advantage of our fantastic opportunistic society.”

At first blush this is just a gaffe, Freudian in my opinion.

But there is much that is more of concern in this statement than a private-school boy not knowing the proper usage of the word “opportunistic.”

The first point of concern is whether the school system should be where children should “learn to be responsible citizens.”

Citizenship is learned at the feet of parents through discussion, everyday choices, and exposure to influences.

This can often give a very bad result. The school system may serve as a stopgap against crummy home environments, but this highlights the other problem with Mr. Bush’s comment: the system is too focused on “skills necessary to take advantage of our fantastic opportun[ity-abundant] society.”

Citizenship should be taught in the home, but isn’t because the responsibility has been abdicated to the schools that are too concerned with job training.

So where is the citizenship education happening? It’s not.

And the result?

“A major study by the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University of the 2000 election asked respondents about six key positions held by Bush or Gore. Most Americans questioned could correctly identify only one of the candidates’ positions. In the average answer, 46 percent of those surveyed said they did not know and 16 percent got it wrong.

“Three fourths of U.S. citizens queried in another survey about key aspects of democracy could answer only 13 percent of the questions correctly, though many of the facts known by relatively small percentages of the public seem critical to understanding—let alone effectively acting in the political world: fundamental rules of the game; classic civil liberties . . . the names of representatives; many important policy positions of Presidential candidates or the political parties; and significant public policies.’” (Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries Naomi Wolf, p. 177)

John Adams said,

“The preservation of the means of knowledge among the lowest ranks, is of more importance to the public, than all the property of all the rich men in the country.”

But we have abdicated our citizenship to those rich men. We don’t discuss politics and we don’t write to or otherwise pressure our representatives to do what we want them to. We don’t study or even read the Constitution or the writings of the founders.

As long as we can get a tee time and a hair appointment, we figure our country is being well-managed.

Well, in a sense it is — being managed, that is. It’s being managed by an oligarchy, an aristocracy, because the rest of us either feel we have no say or don’t care.

“We the people” was a very profound statement in its time. Never before had a government been established by planters and printers.

Even in previous attempts at democracy, successful to some degree, the governments were established by (and maintained for) an aristocratic elite.

We are letting our legacy be gently wrested from us by power- and money-hungry elites. And as long as we don’t throw up a stink about it, they’ll keep tugging. If it were a purse or wallet, we would scream, “STOP IT! THIEF!”

Scream At the Thieves

So how do we scream at these thieves? Our representatives aren’t as insulated as a lot of us think. Most of our state representatives have their cell phone numbers published (at least in their campaign literature). All of them, state and federal, will respond to a constituent’s message.

And if you have a dozen signatures on a letter, you become a special interest group, a voting block, something to be attended to. Why? Because 1) you’re organized, and 2) you understand your role as a citizen, and they know you’re watching your legacy wallet.

************************

Dave Wilson has lived most of his life in Utah, with stints in American Samoa as a boy and Colombia as a young adult. He has earned a BA in English and an MBA, but is now ready to begin his education.

He has traveled to 21 countries outside the U.S., mostly on business, and is currently living out his boyhood dream of being a mid-level manager in a mid-sized company.

Dave lives in Utah County with his wife and three boys and blogs at www.NotQuiteCenter.com.

Why Tribes are Vital to Success in the 21st Century, Part 3: Foundations of American Freedom

Oliver DeMille — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:00:49 +0000

This is part 3 of a 3-part article.

Read Part 1 Here
Read Part 2 Here

The most accurate way, then, to diagram the American governmental system is to diagram the local system correctly, then the federal and state levels with their three branches each, separations of power and checks and balances.

But how exactly does one diagram the local level?

The basics are as follows.The true freedom system includes establishing, as the most basic unit of society, local government councils that are small enough to include all adults in the decision-making meetings for major choices.

This system is clearly described in Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, Volume 1, Chapter 5, and in Liberty Fund’s Colonial Origins of the American Constitution.

These town, city, or tribal councils truly establish and maintain freedom by including in the most local and foundational decisions the voices and votes of all the adult citizenry.

These councils make decisions by majority vote after open discussion. They also appoint mayors/chiefs, law enforcement leaders, judges and other officials.

All of these officials report directly to the full council and can be removed by the voice of the council.

Representative houses and offices are much more effective at the larger state and national levels.

But the point that cannot be stressed enough is: The whole system breaks down if the regular citizens aren’t actively involved in governance at the most local levels.

In this model, every adult citizen is literally a government official, with the result that all citizens study the government system, their role in it, the issues and laws and cases, and think like leaders. Without this, freedom is eventually lost.

Indeed, in a nation where the government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, is it any wonder that a population of unengaged “citizens” is the beneficiary of a government constantly increasing its power at the cost of our freedoms? What other outcome can reasonably be expected?

Once again, the most successful tribes, communities and even nations through history have adopted this model of local governance that includes all citizens in the basic local decision-making.

The result has always been increased freedom and prosperity. No free society in history has lasted once this system eroded.

Tocqueville called this system of local citizen governance the most important piece of America’s freedom model.

Today we need to better understand the foundations of tribal culture so that we actually, truly begin to understand local and tribal governance in a system of freedom.

This will be vital to the future of freedom in a world where the new tribes are taking the place of historical communities.

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd Online.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.