The Right to Own Property?

Given your explanation of Fascism above, how does that differ from our system in the US where we have property taxes that must be paid to retain ownership of our land? Where regulations on the work place policies must be maintained or the govt will seize the business?

Correct me if I am wrong but under that explanation we actually do not own our property, we only maintain title, for what that is worth.

Your Thoughts?
Benjamin Keisler


Thanks for your comments Benjamin. I believe that you are exactly right. We never fully own property (land, businesses, etc) due to taxation and regulation. Not only that, but as long as the "death tax" is in effect,  eventually all property will come under ownership of the State.


According to the 5th amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Today, property is being seized through the "death tax", through eminent domain, through regulations--none of which involve due process or just compensation.

For a more thorough treatment of this subject, click on the link below:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-34.pdf
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/seizure-fever-the-war-on-property-rights/

Here are more links to articles documenting government seizure of private property:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1093c.asp
http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/press/Background-Morningland-Estrella.pdf
http://saltspringnews.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=18578

"No other rights are safe where property is not safe." -- Daniel Webster

isms

“How do Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and Libertarianism (and any other "isms") fit into 5 forms you listed early in your post?”

Thanks for asking. I have neither read anything in relation to this nor thought about it before, but here's what I've come up with. I hope you don’t mind if I take a long detour in reply.

Capitalism, Socialism, Communism and Fascism are economic (as well as political) systems; Libertarianism and Authoritarianism (or Statism) are political philosophies. There are others, of course, but these are the relevant categories at this point in history.

Capitalism is based on the principle of individual rights and the belief that individuals working to benefit themselves and their families and engaging in trade will create the greatest benefit for all. It is characterized by private ownership of capital.

In a Socialist system a centralized government owns all capital and controls the economy by means of regulation and legislation.  In theory Socialism is a temporary intermediate stage in the progression toward the ultimate goal of communism.

Fascism is similar to socialism:

The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal . . . .

Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it—at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens . . . .*

In a Communist system ownership and control of the economy is by the people as a collective and government is no longer necessary. A true Communist system has never existed. Nations have always fallen during the Socialism stage in every time and place that it has ever been implemented.

On the spectrum of political philosophy, all people believe in various levels of self-government. An extreme Libertarian believes that individuals should have complete moral and economic self-government while an extreme Authoritarian (Statist) believe that individuals should have no moral and economic self-government, but rather ought to be completely controlled by the State. Most of us are somewhere in the middle.

Now to answer your question. A pure Libertarian would prefer Anarchy. A Monarchy or an Oligarchy, because it needs to maintain power, will always be Statist. A Democracy seems at first to be Libertarian, but the majority will always vote to benefit themselves at the expense of the minority, therefore becoming Statist. The only form of Government in which Authoritarianism is restrained is a Republic. This is because everyone is obligated to follow the Law. The only way around this is to corrupt the people and/or the system in such a way that it no longer functions.

Economic systems are servants of political philosophy. The more Authoritarian the philosophy is, the more Socialist or Fascist the economic system will be. The more Libertarian the philosophy is, the more Capitalist the economic system will be. Very rarely is any philosophy or economic system pure. Usually it falls somewhere on a broad spectrum.

For decades the two major political parties have both stood on the Authoritarian end of the spectrum. One is simply moving faster toward Statism than the other. Click here to take a quick quiz to see where you stand.

2006 House rankings. The one at the top is Ron Paul, with Jeff Flake slightly lower and to the right. Red is Republican, blue is Democrat. Notice how nearly all fall toward the Authoritarian (Statist) side.

*the Fascist New Frontier, The Ayn Rand Column, 98

America's Form of Govt.

George Washington impersonator educating teens about America

What form of Government does America have?

What type of Government did our founding fathers establish?

If you answered Democracy to these questions, you answered with the vast majority of people. I believe the answer to the first question is Oligarchy and the second is Republic. Let me explain.

The misunderstanding arises, I believe, from the mistaken belief that the form of government describes the method in which a nation's leaders are chosen. It does not. It is rather a description of the ultimate source of authority a nation looks to for its government.

Government appears in 5 basic forms:
1. Anarchy: rule by none
2. Monarchy/Dictatorship: rule by one
3. Oligarchy: rule by committee/elite
4. Democracy: rule by majority
5. Republic: rule by law

Anarchy is rare and always short-lived. Chaos results in a vacuum, opening the door to any who are able to gain support or seize power, creating a Monarchy or Oligarchy. This is how Hitler was able to come to power in post World War I Germany.

A true Monarchy is also rare and short-lived. This is primarily because it is rather easy for another power-seeking individual to dispose of the monarch/dictator and replace him.

Oligarchy is the most common form of government. Most governments that appear to be Monarchies/Dictatorships are actually Oligarchies. This is why when the leader is deposed he is always replaced so quickly and easily. He is simply a "front man" for the Oligarchy.

Most often America is described as a Democracy. I hear this all the time by students, Presidents, media and others. I will let the founders themselves speak on this point.


"...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 are violent in their deaths."--James Madison


"The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."--Alexander Hamilton


“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”--John Adams


"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."--John Quincy Adams

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."--Alexander Tyler


Clearly, our founders did not intend to establish what they, in their own words, saw as a dangerous and reprehensible form of government.

The four forms of government that we have mentioned so far look to men as their source of authority. There is one remaining form that stands apart from the rest. A Republic.

“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”--Chief Justice John Marshall

A Republic is rule by law. Lex Rex, Law is King. Under a Republic, all men are equally under the law, from the lowliest commoner to the most powerful politician. In America's case, this means the Constitution and it's preface, the Declaration of Independence.

Our country has been in a steady decline as we have turned away from God and away from the principles our nation was founded on. We need first to turn our hearts toward God. Then we need to educate ourselves on those principles given to us in his Word--principles our nation was founded on-- elect representatives who understand those principles, and teach those principles to our children.

When asked what type of government the people had been given, Benjamin Franklin answered, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Can we?

Update on the California Ballot Measure

You may remember me mentioning gathering signatures at the TEA party rally for a ballot measure to define "personhood". I just got word that we gathered an astounding 600,000 signatures, but needed 694,355 to get it on the ballot. It's sad on the one hand that we could fail on such a fundamental issue,  but encouraging that even in California we could get that close.

On the Origin of Human Rights

Someone requested that I write more about American history and government, so here is the first of a series of articles. Thanks for the suggestion!

Where do human rights originate? The answer is clearly stated in our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The founders clearly believed that our rights originated the Creator God. As our Creator, he grants us certain rights and only he has the authority to separate us from them; they are inalienable. Not only that, but through his revelation, we can identify what our rights are. The founders listed several that they considered to be most important. They are the Bill of Rights, the first eight amendments to the constitution. Just for good measure, they added the 9^th amendment:

The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There is a dangerous movement in our country however. When we reject God, we also reject the source of our rights as acknowledged in our Declaration. Some other source then has to be found.

Some look to government as the source of human rights. We can see this everywhere when poeple ask permission of government to go fishing, build an addition to their house, or purchase a gun. This is dangerous territory. If government can issue rights at will, it can also take them away at will.

Some look to the majority. Elections are held to grant rights to special groups (it is of note that elections are never held to grant rights to mankind; it is always a section of society). All we have to do is look at slave-holding societies to recognize that this is also not a safe source of human rights for all mankind.

Some look to nature. It sounds secure, as we are not looking to other human beings. However, the question arises, “How can we know what our rights are?” Unlike Jehovah God, nature has not left us a written revelation.

We are left with no source for identifiable inalienable human rights. Is it any wonder then that they are very rapidly being eroded? I believe that the only answer is to return to the One who grants us life and liberty. If we do not humble ourselves, turn from our sin and call on Him, we will continue to see human rights erode.

The Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

TEA Party

"There are more instance of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."--James Madison

"It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."--Samuel Adams

This was the second year for our family to attend a TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party. We are studying Government and Economics this year and what better way to put into practice what we have learned than this? It was a great experience; there were several thousand people protesting and it was very peaceful. The best part was the reaction of people driving by reading the signs--lots of honks in agreement and thumbs-ups. We also saw quite a few people drive by with a curious and slightly perplexed look, which after reading the signs changed to an "OK-that-makes-sense" look and nods of approval. The messages of decentralized government and free-market economics really seem to resonate with a lot of people.

This year I also circulated a petition regarding a potential ballot measure in California to define personhood as existing from conception to death. Sad, but necessary. This was a really scary thing, as I am not accustomed to talking to complete strangers, but people were polite even when they disagreed. In the end, I learned a lesson in overcoming the fear of man (Mt. 10:28) and we got quite a few signatures.

No More Kings

Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, "Rule over us, you and your son and your grandson also, for you have saved us from the hand of Midian." Gideon said to them, "I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the Lord will rule over you."--Judges 8:22-23

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, "Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations."...And the Lord said to Samuel, "Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them...."--I Sam. 8:4-7

Until the time of Saul's appointment as King, the Hebrew civil government consisted of a number of Judges (see Exodus 18). The Judges and the people looked to God as their Supreme Judge, Lawgiver and King (Isaiah 33:22). In time, the people began to desire a human king, like the nations around them. Gideon refused to be their king, and reminded them that that position belongs to God alone. The second time the people rejected God, he gave them their desire, with a firm warning of the consequences. They continued to reject God and Saul was appointed King. History has shown God's warning being fulfilled over and over again.

Moving forward 2500 years, God's people began to be persecuted for their faith by not only Kings, but by those who claimed to be serving God in the Church. These people were forced to flee to North America. The people governed themselves according to God's Word. Although they were still under the rule of kings, the physical distance provided them greater liberty. They were loyal to the king, but King George was not as loyal to his people. He violated British law in his colonies all over the world. British law, it seems, did not apply outside of Britain. He trampled on rights that were given to the people by God. The colonists in America had effectively been governing themselves by God's law for 200 years and were not willing to have their liberty trampled. So in 1776, the 13 sovereign colonies declared themselves independent of the crown.

Now, I know this is nothing new. However, it struck me the other day that this was a monumental event! For the first time since approximately 1100 BC, men once again recognized God as their King! As in the time of the Judges, men had rule by law (the law of the King, Jehovah God) rather than rule by man. This is a Republic.

What a heritage! It makes me so proud to be an American! It also grieves me to know that Americans have once again turned away from King Jehovah in search of an earthly king. We must repent, turn away from our self-serving ways and once again recognize Jehovah God as the Creator and Sustainer of life, our Judge, Lawgiver and King. We must once again become intimately familiar with the scriptures, submit every area of our lives to God, and look to Him rather than our elected representatives as the healer of our ailing nation. Only then will we be blessed. Only then will we have liberty.