Collectivism, though at its apex and seemingly more powerful than ever, is on the decline; individualism is on the rise.

With its rise, individualism, also known as libertarianism, poses threats to American culture and governance.

It also provides significant, positive opportunities that have not been available for more than a century.

It is imperative that we identify the dangers of mainstream libertarian thought and provide alternatives in order to capitalize on the opportunity to create a balanced, sustainable, free, and just society.

As is so common throughout history, we may swing the pendulum from collectivism to libertarianism to find that they are both equally dangerous and unsustainable.

The danger posed by libertarianism — or the opportunity — is predicated upon how it will be defined and practically applied.

The Decline of Collectivism

Collectivist institutions are splitting at the seams and crumbling due to financial infeasibility, dramatically changing age demographics, and the cultural mediocrity that they instill.

Foreign wars, which necessitate higher taxes and thus enable the centralization of power, are becoming less and less popular, both for financial and moral reasons.

All forms of collectivism are showing themselves to be unsustainable as a matter of empirical fact, rather than subjective value judgment.

The popularity of Ron Paul, and a general decline of trust in the government and other modern institutions, especially among the youth, also evidence the decline of collectivism.

The Fragmented Nature of Libertarianism

While there are universal tendencies shared by modern libertarians, libertarianism as a political movement and ideal has not yet gained the coherence necessary to appropriately use it as a specific, functional label.

The tagline of the Libertarian Party is “Smaller government, Lower Taxes, More Freedom,” which is about as universal as the movement gets.

However, Lew Rockwell — one of the most popular and widely read libertarian websites, boasts the tagline “Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market,” which is clearly more ideological, more concentrated, and therefore more divisive.

While Ayn Rand preached the “virtue of selfishness,” Leo Tolstoy advocated self-transcendence and Christian service.

And in contrast to Rand and Tolstoy, whose messages center on personal morals and values, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, and others generally avoid such concerns and focus primarily on the economic aspect of freedom.

Attempting to define libertarianism appears to be an irony and even a contradiction, since at its core libertarianism viscerally rejects any label or identification that would even hint at forced or inauthentic uniformity.

As a response to collectivism — or sameness — libertarianism celebrates diversity and independent thought.

However, since it appears to be the default heir to the decaying throne of American politics and culture, defining it is one of the most vital steps to steer it in the right direction.

And doing so must take place within the context of identifying its flaws, in order to correct them.

Three Prominent Dangers of Libertarianism

In spite of its fragmented nature, libertarianism in general displays three universal characteristics that, unless replaced, will limit its impact and sustainability as a freedom movement.

As a disclaimer, understand that identifying them is a difficult task, since libertarianism largely remains undefined and open to interpretation.

In other words, if you identify yourself as a libertarian yet do not associate yourself with these flaws, then this does not apply to you. If the shoe fits, wear it; otherwise do your best to steer mainstream libertarianism in the right direction.

1. Self-Interest

A product of Ayn Rand, who has emerged as the preeminent spokesperson for modern libertarianism, self-interest is expressed in the oath taken by Rand’s ultimate hero, John Galt:

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.”

At the heart of libertarian thought seems to be the sentiment, “I want to be left alone to live my life the way I see fit.”

While the quest to be free from governmental oppression is natural and commendable, this is hardly an inspiring alternative to liberalism.

Wanting to be left alone to pursue one’s self-interest is a poor substitute for wanting to make the world a better place.

2. Flawed Definition of Freedom

The default definition of libertarian freedom is the freedom to do whatever a person wants, as long as they do not harm or encroach upon the natural rights of others.

In other words, “license” is probably a more accurate word than “freedom.”

Johnny Kramer, columnist for Lew Rockwell, recently wrote an article entitled What Libertarianism is Not wherein he says,

“Libertarianism is not a philosophy of morality or a guide to proper behavior. It is simply a political philosophy that holds that everyone should be legally free (in other words, free from coercion) to do as they please, so long as they don’t violate anyone’s body or property (in other words, so long as they don’t initiate coercion against anyone else); and that the State, if it should exist, should be bound by the same rules as the rest of society.”

This misguided and limited definition quickly degenerates into hedonism, decadence, and ultimately, societal decay, as displayed by the Greeks and Romans.

3. Emphasizes Individualism; Downplays Family, Community, and Religion

James Ure wrote in a previous article:

“Tellingly, the word ‘individual’ appears fifteen times in the first twenty sentences of the [Libertarian Party] platform, but the words ‘family’ and ‘school’ only appear once each, the words ‘church’ or ‘religion’ only appear a few times, and the words ‘community’ and neighborhood’ do not appear at all.”

As we also learn from Mr. Ure, family, community, and religion are “institutional mediating entities” that balance the desires for individual freedom with the demands of communal cooperation.

An overly individualistic society is a fragmented, unsustainable society, lacking forms to perpetuate itself.

Three Counter-Balancing Ideals

To counteract the above three dangers of libertarianism, three ideals should replace them, with a deliberate, conscious, and transparent effort: public virtue, an expanded definition of freedom, and a shift from focusing on the individual to focusing on family, community, and religion.

1. Public Virtue

“There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honour, Power and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real liberty.” -John Adams

As one of the Four Foundations of Freedom, public virtue means to voluntarily sacrifice personal benefit for the good of society.

For example, Robert Morris, a relatively obscure figure in American history, was one of the wealthiest colonists who spent his entire fortune — and even borrowed from others — to finance the Revolutionary War.

As Oliver DeMille writes:

“One [historical] record remarked: ‘If it were not [proven] by official records, posterity would hardly be made to believe that the campaign…was sustained wholly on the credit of an individual merchant.’

“When the War ended, this self-made millionaire spent three and a half years in debtors prison after he lost everything. His wife…watched possession after possession disappear during the War. When Robert went to prison after giving so much to the cause of freedom, she tended a borrowed little farm and walked each day to the prison with her daughter Maria to visit her husband.

“Robert left prison a broken down old man and died shortly thereafter. The financier of the Revolution, and his family, understood public virtue…”

In most cases, such a profound display is not necessary; we simply have to do our best to serve others on a daily basis.

It’s grossly incomplete to proclaim that the government should not take care of people; those who are able and privileged have the duty to care for the handicapped and the aged, serve the underprivileged, uplift the impoverished, and educate the illiterate.

The easiest and best way to eliminate bureaucratic and illegitimate government entitlement programs is to replace them with private institutions operated voluntarily by virtuous individuals.

Most libertarians believe that the proper role of government is to protect unalienable rights. But keeping the government contained in its proper sphere is predicated upon the people expanding their love of rights to include a strict adherence to their duties to their fellow man.

As Viktor Frankl wrote,

“Being human always points, and is directed, to something or someone other than oneself — be it a meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter. The more one forgets himself — by giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love — the more human he is and the more he actualized himself…Self-actualization is only possible as a side-effect of self-transcendence.”

Instead of starting with the thought, “I want to be left alone,” a better approach would be to start with, “I want to do my best to serve others so that the government doesn’t have to.”

The one says, “Leave me alone”; the other says, “How can I serve?”

It’s obvious which one leads to a more healthy, sustainable society. The incomplete sentence, “The government should not redistribute wealth” must be finished with “…and the people have the duty to ensure that all members of society are well cared for.”

The rejection of forced charity must never lead to the neglect of the right forms of voluntary charity, as does Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

2. Expand the Definition of Freedom

Freedom is so much more than being free from the illegitimate constraints of the government. Freedom is a much broader, more comprehensive concept than “freedom from“; it also includes “freedom to.”

The new definition of freedom must include two critical aspects: 1) a primary focus on how an individual can become personally, internally free regardless of external circumstance, and 2) the fusion of rights with duties.

Spiritual, financial, physical, mental, and emotional freedom are ultimately far more important than governmental freedom, since the one is predicated upon the other; the more personally free individuals are in a society, the more free their government will be.

Viktor Frankl, locked in a concentration camp cell, is more free than the drug or pornography addict in America.

As Edmund Burke said,

“Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.”

It’s nice to be free from governmental tyranny. But we must also realize that we are free to love in the face of hatred, forgive cruelty without hesitation or reservation, to love those who hurt us as much as we love those who honor us.

We are free to eradicate all feelings of revenge, bitterness, enmity, and malice; to replace hatred with love, bitterness with understanding, pride with humility, vengefulness with forgiveness, cruelty with mercy and compassion. We are free to choose how we respond to oppression.

Furthermore, we must realize that inherent with our rights to freedom are corresponding duties.

We have a right to free government; we also have the duty to maintain such a government. As Thomas Paine wrote:

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”

We have the right to do whatever we choose to do with our bodies; we have the duty to be true to marital covenants and to protect the unalienable rights of unborn children.

We have the right to view whatever we want; we have the duty to shun pornography in all its forms.

We have the right to administer our finances how we see fit; we have the duty to stay out of debt and produce more than we consume.

Political philosophy removed from personal morality is like an individual without a heart or an automobile without an engine; personal morality is what makes political and economic liberty function.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin,

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

3. Shift From Individualism To Familial & Communal Association

Healthy society isn’t comprised of individualistic hedons doing whatever they feel like doing; it’s comprised of virtuous, faithful, and tight-knit families and communities who know and serve one another, who provide support and encouragement to each other, who work together, who mourn with each other, and who share a common heritage and common values.

Collectivism and individualism are opposite sides of the same imbalanced coin. Family, community, and religion provide balance. They preserve and perpetuate culture. They restore society when it has lost its way.

While collectivism leads to an oppressive, centralized breakdown of society, individualism causes divisive decay. The solution to each is to bolster the health, strength, and vitality of family, community, and religion.

Conclusion: The Opportunity

Libertarianism has an unprecedented opportunity to reclaim America’s freedom. But to do so it must eliminate its flaws and define itself appropriately.

Specifically, it must eliminate the flaws of misguided self-interest, a limited definition of freedom, and an excessive focus on individualism.

It must define itself as a movement that includes political and economic freedom from oppression, as well as personal freedom to do what’s right. It must stress duties as much as it stresses rights.

It must shift from individualism to communalism — not forced or governmentally-imposed collectivism, but voluntary familial, communal, and religious associations.

The foundation of libertarianism must be much more than wanting to be left alone; it must be based on a desire to serve, to contribute in meaningful and lasting ways to society.

Some may say that these proposed ideals stray from being universal.

While it’s imperative for any movement to stick with universals in order to create coherency and momentum, it’s even more important to define what those universals are.

If the libertarian universals are simply “smaller government, less taxes, and more freedom,” the impact and sustainability of libertarianism will be severely limited.

If, on the other hand, it expands its universal tenets to include the morality of public virtue, the depth of personal freedom beyond mere political and economic freedom, and the necessity of strong families, communities, and religious associations, it can be the movement that restores the American republic and secures liberty for generations to come.

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

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

This connection is a critical bridge builder: sister languages, the Arabic, and the Aramaic, the written language which was once the global language, stretching from the Near East to Malabar in India and East China.

It is intriguing to note that Dr. Sidney Griffith, a Catholic priest and noted Syriac scholar, states that:

“Neither Qur’anic nor Aramaic Scholars have seen fit to make the linguistic connection, and it is about time that connection was made.”

Western academia has been primarily concentrated on Biblical Greek. What we need now is to consider the Aramaic/Syriac New Testament, written in the language Jesus actually spoke, as an additional tool for comparative analysis.

I have found this an invaluable tool working with the Islamic world in seeking bridges to the common ground. Muslims respect the similarity of words, meanings, and relate to the Eastern traditions and idiomatic nuances of the Aramaic.

They are very similar to the Arabic of the Qur’an and the Hebrew of the Torah; and can help unlock useful mysteries within the Eastern Holy Books.

The Prophet Muhammad and Aramaic

Some Islamic historians tell us that trusted Assyrian and Syriac speaking believers in Jesus interacted with the Prophet Muhammad and likely read to him from the Aramaic Eastern Text. The very word Qur’an, which means “The Recital,” is derived from an Aramaic/Syriac word qiriana.

Original Revelation of the Holy Books (Why the Aramaic has special meaning for Muslims)

The most compelling logic for use of the Aramaic New Testament in building bridges to the Common Ground deals with the Muslim view of “original revelation.”

Islam holds that God, through the angel Gabriel, spoke the revelation to the Prophet Mohammed in Arabic and is considered the official language of “The Recital.”

Thus, the only accepted written version is Arabic. Since Jesus spoke Aramaic, Muslims believe (consistent with Islamic logic) the “Holy” written version of the Gospel would be in Aramaic.

It is helpful to note that Aramaic was the first written Semitic script of the three, followed by Hebrew and finally, Arabic.

The ever widening “gulf” separating us is unfortunate, but it is my hope that studying the related Semitic languages of the East will serve as a key foundation, providing evidence that our faiths have more in common than we have believed in the past.

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

Mark Siljander is an ex-Congressman and the author of A Deadly Misunderstanding: A Congressman’s Quest To Bridge the Muslim-Christian Divide.

He represented Michigan for fifteen years, which includes three terms as a Member of the United States Congress, where he served on the International Relations Middle East Subcommittee and was Ranking Member of the Africa Subcommittee. He was the primary sponsor of the African Famine Relief Act.

Mark was later appointed by President Reagan as a US Ambassador (Alt. Delegate) to the United Nations in New York, where he served as a member of the Middle East and Africa Strategy Group of permanent representatives.

Ambassador Siljander is a student of several languages, including Chinese, Spanish, Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew, and has spent over ten years studying the three Holy Books of the Abrahamic faiths.

With over 26 years serving in the power circles of Washington and semi-official travel to nearly 130 countries, he has generated unique opportunities for frequent access to world leaders.

These experiences have led him to develop a unique paradigm for the peaceful resolution of conflict that has been successfully applied in several challenging areas of the globe.

Mark Siljander reinforces his conflict resolution efforts through regular travel overseas with Congressional and high-level delegations.

His new book, A Deadly Misunderstanding: A Congressman’s Quest to Bridge the Muslim-Christian Divide, offers hope and genuine reconciliation between cultures and religions and answers to centuries-old conflicts.

In this revelatory book he recounts his amazing spiritual odyssey from anti-Muslim Christian conservative to pioneer in discovering uncharted, ground-breaking common roots between Islam and Christianity, while trailblazing a unique diplomatic path for bringing the two communities together.

This story inspires hope in our increasingly desperate world, uncovering compelling common ground for followers of these two super-power religions.

“No Christian or Muslim will be unaffected after reading this book. Siljander’s paradigm-shifting discoveries could radically shift the contemporary religious landscape and help heal the rift between Islam and the West.” -Christianbook.com

At our root are basic misunderstandings of concepts like “religion” and “conversion.”

Siljander breaks down and re-assembles these concepts through study of the ancient Semitic languages of both religions, making paradigm-shifting discoveries that unite rather than divide us.

His findings are drawn from 27 years of study and practice in a real life journey.

Wherever he and his praying partners travel among Muslim nations, the outcome of their quiet diplomacy is respect, trust, love of friends and enemies, and significant real-world breakthroughs in crisis situations of which few are aware.

His book offers explosive models based on ancient truths, proven to powerfully affect people, conflicts, countries, and potentially change cultures.

This is the kind of “change” future presidents must strive for. This seemingly implausible path to peace dismantles the engine of terror without firing a single shot.

Click here to learn more and to purchase your copies now.

“Rumors indicate that the Siljander book … has angered … the influential ‘war lobby’ depending on decades of religious conflict.” -Veterans Today

About the Author

Mr. Siljander represented Michigan for fifteen years, which includes three terms as a Member of the United States Congress, where he served on the International Relations Middle East Subcommittee and was Ranking Member of the Africa Subcommittee. He was the primary sponsor of the African Famine Relief Act.

Mark was later appointed by President Reagan as a US Ambassador (Alt. Delegate) to the United Nations in New York, where he served as a member of the Middle East and Africa Strategy Group of permanent representatives.

Ambassador Siljander is a student of several languages, including Chinese, Spanish, Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew, and has spent over ten years studying the three Holy Books of the Abrahamic faiths.

With over 26 years serving in the power circles of Washington and semi-official travel to nearly 130 countries, he has generated unique opportunities for frequent access to world leaders.

These experiences have led him to develop a unique paradigm for the peaceful resolution of conflict that has been successfully applied in several challenging areas of the globe.

Mark Siljander reinforces his conflict resolution efforts through regular travel overseas with Congressional and high-level delegations.

Purchase your copy now to get on the cutting edge of the Middle East conflict and find real solutions to terrorism.

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

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

“One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.” -Aristotle’s Law of Noncontradiction

Last year I read The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream by Barack Obama.

Here’s my take on the man: I like him. I’d love to hang out with him casually and work with him professionally. I respect and admire his drive, his desire to make the world a better place.

Assuming he doesn’t use a ghostwriter, he’s a world-class writer (there is speculation to the contrary). He’s a piercing and holistic thinker, and a top-notch persuader. He is sincere, thoughtful, caring, and judicious.

Here’s my take on his politics: His conclusions and policies are inconsistent and contradictory.

There are many examples, but I want to focus on just one here.

In the chapter entitled Faith, Barack discusses his own religious views and delves into public policy regarding faith and religion. Interestingly, he and I largely agree in this area.

He details not only the glaring dangers, but also the simple realities of mixing religion and government. He writes:

“Jefferson and Leland’s formula for religious freedom worked. Not only has America avoided the sorts of religious strife that continue to plague the globe, but religious institutions have continued to thrive…Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

“But let’s even assume that we only had Christians within our borders. Whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests that slavery is all right and eating shellfish is an abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount — a passage so radical that it’s doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application?”

His point, of course, is that using the force of government to institute, enforce, and/or promote religion is a bad idea.

Two pages later, he makes my point regarding his own politics by saying:

“In judging the persuasiveness of various moral claims, we should be on the lookout for inconsistency in how such claims are applied…we need to recognize that sometimes our argument is less about what is right than about who makes the final determination — whether we need the coercive arm of the state to enforce our values, or whether the subject is one best left to individual conscience and evolving norms.”

Exactly.

Unfortunately for those of us footing the bill to enforce his values, his own views are inconsistent. For one so concerned about not enforcing particular religious views through the government, he’s strangely eager to do that very thing in the economic realm.

He shudders at the thought of religion being imposed through government, while toiling to institute laws that forcefully take from some to give to others. He praises New Deal reforms and champions wealth redistribution.

His perspective is arrived at in the name of such lofty ideals as “helping” and “communal values” and “equal opportunity” — all of which, by the way, I share with him, but in a different context.

But when the decorative language is stripped naked, a cold gun of physical force is exposed.

To quote from Barack again:

“That is one of the things that makes me a Democrat, I suppose — this idea that our communal values, our sense of mutual responsibility and social solidarity, should express themselves not just in the church or the mosque or the synagogue; not just on the blocks where we live, in the places where we work, or within our own families; but also through the government.

“Like many conservatives, I believe in the power of culture to determine both individual success and social cohesion, and I believe we ignore cultural factors at our peril. But I also believe that our government can play a role in shaping that culture for the better — or for the worse.” [emphases added]

This euphemistic rhetoric ignores the hard realities of the nature of government. It sounds nice, but there’s a fundamental difference between churches, communities, businesses and families and the government.

The former institutions are based in voluntarism, while the latter is based in force.

Herein lies the blindspot of modern liberalism. As George Washington warned,

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.”

Barack’s first inconsistency, then, regards how the government should be used. According to Barack, government shouldn’t be used to force religious values, but it should be used to redistribute wealth.

But the second, more perplexing inconsistency, regards why Barack feels the government should be used this way. His reasoning behind his views on the relationship between religion and government rests on values.

Values are subjective, as the argument goes, so one group cannot rightfully impose their values on another.

And since religious morals are arguably a set of subjective values, the government should not be involved with religion.

Here’s where I’m stumped: How is wealth redistribution any different? How is democratic socialism not fundamentally based in values?

The fact is that wealth redistribution is based on subjective values every bit as much as is religion. The only way for Barack’s perspective to be consistent is if religion is value-ful and economics is value-less.

But it’s not true — economics carries within it values and mores, all of which are arguably subjective, just like religion.

You can’t state that the government should stay away from religion because it’s based on subjective values, while also holding that the government should redistribute wealth in the name of “communal values.”

Both courses equate to the exact same thing — one group of people imposing their subjective views and values upon others through the force of government.

This is the classic intellectual tyrant fallacy — thinking that your values are the right ones, the values that can rightfully be imposed upon society.

Barack is ultra-concerned with religious values being imposed upon himself and others, while simultaneously imposing his economic values upon us.

To clarify, I wholeheartedly support any and all charitable efforts when done through voluntary institutions. I’m not arguing against charity and “communal values” and “equal opportunity”; I’m arguing against illegitimate government force.

I agree 100 percent with Barack and all other liberals who believe that we should love and lift and serve. We agree that vast inequities in wealth distribution pose significant dangers to society.

We agree that individuals and institutions can and should do more to cure societal ills. We agree that wealth should not be used to exploit.

And frankly, I think that more conservatives should agree with these ideals than they seem to.

Our disagreements revolve around the role that the government should play in all of this. Government is force. It’s not a nice community hall where we all come together in the spirit of cooperation to help each other out — that’s the purview of family, community, religion, and business.

The blindspot of modern liberalism is thinking that government is a good place to solve all societal problems. The only problem that the government is qualified and has the natural right to solve is the violation of unalienable rights between individuals and groups.

Keep the government in its proper role of protecting unalienable rights, and use voluntary institutions to perform works of charity.

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

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

Read Part 1 Here
Read Part 2 Here
Read Part 3 Here
Read Part 4 Here

An atheistic oppression hater will generally not learn anything from his oppression other than the fact that it doesn’t feel good physically and mentally.

A freedom lover draws upon his relationship with a Higher Power to find meaning in suffering, to gain compassion, wisdom, and charity from oppression.

A freedom lover quite possibly might even accept his oppression as being the will of God and humbly and teachably accept it.

An oppression hater would respond to that by either saying, “If there is a God who causes suffering, I don’t want to have anything to do with him,” or, “There is no God that causes either pain or pleasure in this world. Man alone is responsible for pain and suffering or pleasure and happiness.”

This attitude is precisely what leads to hatred instead of love; they learn from their suffering to hate God, man, or both.

The freedom lover learns to submit his will to God; the oppression hater submits his will to the attainment of his own pleasure. Haters of oppression would have the joy of life without the misery and do not possess the ability to comprehend that the enjoyment of and appreciation for happiness is predicated upon experiencing unhappiness.

As regards the concept of equality, oppression haters fight for mere egalitarianism based on forced, equal distribution when they are in a poor economic class, or they fight to maintain a deferential aristocracy when they are economically rich.

Again, without a sense of true balance and an objective standard of right and wrong, they always promote the extremes, in this case those being democratic socialism or extreme, stratified capitalism.

A lover of freedom seeks to implement a structure that treats all men equally before the law, and uses checks and balances on human nature as opposed to force.

Freedom lovers know that we are all equal in the sight of God, yet different and unequal in our talents and abilities.

They desire to use their God-given abilities to enhance the abilities of others and to make all men great, while oppression haters seek either to stifle individual talent in the name of equality, or to use their capabilities to exploit others.

Conclusion

To be happy, one must be free. To be free, one must find truth and align one’s thoughts, speech, and actions to that eternal, exalting truth.

This process of alignment consists of virtue. Integrity is to maintain virtue after having obtained it for the duration of one’s life.

In this process of achieving happiness one must make the conscious choice to be motivated and animated by and dedicated to love for freedom, fidelity to principle, and allegiance to God, and not hatred of oppression, adherence to moral relativism, and allegiance to self.

Recommended reading:

• Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke
• Animal Farm by George Orwell
• 1984 by George Orwell
• The Lord of the Flies by William Golding
• Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
• The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli
• The Weight of Glory by C.S. Lewis
• As a Man Thinketh by James Allen
• The Chosen by Chaim Potok
• The Real George Washington edited by Parry, Allison, & Skousen
• Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe
• A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens
• Man’s Search For Meaning by Viktor Frankl
• And There Was Light by Jacques Lusseyran
• The Hiding Place by Corrie ten Boom

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

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

Read Part 1 Here
Read Part 2 Here
Read Part 3 Here
Read Part 4 Here

Thus far, I have proposed a specific solution to a specific problem.

This trend towards federalism, and the opportunity it provides jurists and scholars to empower mediating entities gives me hope for a unified America.

But I conclude by sharing why there is a greater hope for these mediating entities and the future of our society than a potential shift in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.

There is hope for the future of our families, schools, neighborhoods, churches and political institutions because of a growing number of family-oriented, community-minded people who are raising their children to be leaders.

These future leaders will know how to create unity in an extraordinarily individualistic society because they are now experiencing unity in their homes.

They will know how to make personal sacrifices for the benefit of their communities because they are being asked to make sacrifices for their families right now.

They will deal with the complexities of a pluralistic society by finding the strengths of diverse cultures, ethnicities, religions, and backgrounds because they are reading about the great men and women from these cultures, ethnicities, religions and backgrounds right now.

They will understand good forms of government because theories of government are part of their studies; and they will implement these forms because they are now living under well-implemented forms of good family governance.

They will demand more from their political parties because they are demanding more from their study groups, scout troops, and religious organizations right now.

They will want to protect our educational institutions, neighborhoods, churches, and communities because they are invested and involved in these groups right now.

Because they are now learning to find balance in life despite powerful and diverse external pressures, they will bring balance to society in the future.

They will be inspiring because they have been inspired, hopeful because they have grown up with faith, and they will know their limits because they have been pushed to them.

Regardless of whether the New Federalism takes hold, these future leaders will be the glue that holds society together.

Their involvement will compensate for the general sense of national complacency and selfishness.

Maybe some of these future leaders are in your very home — or maybe you yourself are one of these leaders.

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

James C. Ure, Esquire is a mentor of Constitutional Case Law at George Wythe University and the owner and headmaster of Williamsburg Academy, an accredited, private, online high school with an emphasis in leadership, classical works and the outdoors.

James received his B.A. in English from Brigham Young University and graduated magna cum laude from South Texas College of Law. In law school, James served as President of the Federalist Society, the J. Reuben Clark Law Society and hosted speeches or debates with prominent judges and professors from around the country. He also served on the South Texas Law Review, which published an article of his on the structure and powers of the U.S. Constitution.

He has been a small business owner, clerked for a Texas state court judge and a law firm, and served as an intern in the Utah House of Representatives for the majority whip. He is married to the former Angela Stott. They have three children and reside in Cedar City, Utah.

The National Platform of the Libertarian Party defends the view that

“all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”

The platform opposes any regulation of obscenity, including pornography, “despite claims that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women,” as well as any speech codes at tax-funded schools, claiming that “language that is deemed offensive to certain groups is not a cause for legal action.”

It opposes eminent domain, zoning laws, building codes, property taxes, resource management, public health legislation, and all regulation of abortion.

Finally, it holds that “consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships” and that the state does not have the authority to define the terms of marriage because marriage is simply a private contract.

Tellingly, the word individual appears fifteen times in the first twenty sentences in the platform, but the words family and school only appear once each, the words church or religion only appear a few times, and the words community and neighborhood do not appear at all.

Clearly, in libertarian thought, “respect for individuals, apart from family and other associations, is paramount to a just and virtuous society.”

This individualistic view of society is spreading through our government and our homes like wildfire.

It has already caused a steep decline in national unity and promises to continue tearing societal fabric apart until nothing but individual, atomistic, autonomous shreds remain.

Although there are many causes at the root of this individualism, I will only treat one in this article: the harm modern Supreme Court jurisprudence has inflicted on various societal associations that have previously been sources of societal unity.

In this article I explain how the current U.S. Supreme Court’s extraordinary emphasis on individual rights perpetuates a national sense of individualism.

I then explain the current method the Court uses to protect individual rights and show how this method corrodes the influence of unity-creating institutions often referred to as mediating entities.

I conclude by encouraging jurists and scholars to consider a simple shift in jurisprudential policy that would counteract these individualistic trends by revitalizing our mediating entities.

I also suggest one important reason we can have faith in our future even if the libertarian fire continues to spread.

The Court & Individual Rights

To begin, first consider the Court’s current method of interpreting the Constitution when it comes to a person’s rights.

When the State passes legislation that infringes on an individual’s rights — for example, a law that prohibits an individual from creating pornography — the Court simply balances the importance of the individual’s right against the state’s need to restrict that right, in this case the need to restrict pornography.

The amount of scrutiny a court will use when analyzing how much weight to give the individual’s right depends on the type of right in question.

If the right in question is one the court has deemed “fundamental,” such as the individual’s right to marry, procreate, care for her children, have an abortion, or vote, the court will use a high-level degree of scrutiny, called strict scrutiny, and the court will apply strict standards which are likely to find the law unconstitutional.

However, if the right in question has not been deemed “fundamental,” such as the individual’s right to hunt, fish, drive a car, or declare bankruptcy, the court will use a lower degree of scrutiny and the law will be upheld as long as the state can provide a rational reason for passing the law.

In the case of pornography, the Court has decided that a person has a fundamental free-speech right to create most types of pornography so laws restricting its creation are likely to be struck down.

Why is this method of Constitutional interpretation, which accords so well with the spirit of the Libertarian Platform, overly individualistic?

Because while the Court correctly holds the individual’s rights in high esteem, it regularly fails to consider the implications that upholding a given individual’s rights in a particular instance will have on other individuals.

What about the effect this decision may have on families, schools, churches, and neighborhoods?

These entities — often called mediating entities — are essential to a free society and merit more consideration in political platforms and Supreme Court jurisprudence.

These entities are the source of unity in free societies and play a unique and essential role.

To be continued…

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

James C. Ure, Esquire is a mentor of Constitutional Case Law at George Wythe University and the owner and headmaster of Williamsburg Academy, an accredited, private, online high school with an emphasis in leadership, classical works and the outdoors.

James received his B.A. in English from Brigham Young University and graduated magna cum laude from South Texas College of Law. In law school, James served as President of the Federalist Society, the J. Reuben Clark Law Society and hosted speeches or debates with prominent judges and professors from around the country. He also served on the South Texas Law Review, which published an article of his on the structure and powers of the U.S. Constitution.

He has been a small business owner, clerked for a Texas state court judge and a law firm, and served as an intern in the Utah House of Representatives for the majority whip. He is married to the former Angela Stott. They have three children and reside in Cedar City, Utah.

Disturb Us, Lord

Sir Francis Drake

Disturb us, Lord, when we are too well pleased with ourselves,
When our dreams have come true because we have dreamed too little,
When we arrived safely because we sailed too close to the shore.

Disturb us, Lord, when with the abundance of things we possess
We have lost our thirst for the waters of life;
Having fallen in love with life, we have ceased to dream of eternity
And in our efforts to build a new earth,
We have allowed our vision of the new Heaven to dim.

Disturb us, Lord, to dare more boldly, to venture on wider seas
Where storms will show your mastery;
Where losing sight of land, we shall find the stars.

We ask You to push back the horizons of our hopes;
And to push into the future in strength, courage, hope and love.

Please share your thoughts about the poem with the community by commenting below.

If one is to believe our so-called mainstream and conservative media outlets, we are essentially being offered a choice of aligning ourselves with the lying socialists or the racist imperialists.

It’s a classic false dilemma of having to choose between socialism and imperialism. Lovers of freedom must emphatically reject this dichotomy if they are serious about the cause of liberty.

Constitutional attorney and longtime freedom advocate Jacob Hornberger correctly notes that the “isms” aren’t what pose the greatest long-term threat to our liberties. Instead, he zeros in on the following:

“…the moral degeneracy…that is reflected by increasing numbers of people who see nothing wrong with torture, political confiscation and redistribution of wealth, wars of aggression and occupations, destruction of civil liberties, and the prosecution and punishment of people committing economic crimes and tax violations.”

Each of the problems listed above are rooted in the deliberate departure from our nation’s founding principles.

Instead of turning to proven principles like limited government, respect for inalienable rights, and the free market, we have placed our faith in parties and personalities that keep us perpetually stirred up against one another.

Too many Americans have allowed their hatred of their political enemies to overshadow their love of freedom.

Another equally fatal blindness that is affecting a majority of Americans is the notion that the character of our nation flows from our leadership in Washington D.C. rather than from the combined character of our citizenry.

A nation of morally degenerate people would continue to decline even under the most inspired leadership.

The only cure that should inspire any confidence is the one where each of us strives to develop our character and improve personally as if our nation’s fate depended upon it.

Of course, the number of people who are willing to actually do this is statistically so small that an electron microscope would be required to accurately measure it. But as anthropologist Margaret Mead stated:

“A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

When a small group of thoughtful people aligns their efforts with what the signers of the Declaration of Independence referred to as Divine Providence, that’s when miraculous things happen such as we saw at our nation’s founding.

As John Eidsmoe points out in Christianity and the Constitution, that’s why Constitutional Convention delegate Gouverneur Morris correctly anticipated as early as 1789 that the burgeoning French Revolution would end very differently from its American counterpart due to lack of morals among the French people.

Morris recognized that self-government requires more than simply throwing off the chains of the despot. It requires education and respect for laws that were based upon absolute moral truths, rather than laws which were likely to be exploited at the whims of men.

Perhaps this is why Morris, along with George Washington and John Adams, each described religion and morality as being among the essential prerequisites for a free society.

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

Bryan Hyde is a radio host, husband, father, graduate student at George Wythe University, and seeker of truth. He does professional voice work through his company One Clear Voice.

Bryan blogs at The White Rose Society and writes firearm reviews for The Truth About Guns. He and his wife Becky are raising their six children in Cedar City, Utah.

Connect With Bryan: