Epictetus's Discourses (Book 4, Chapter 1 ) "Of Freedom"  opens with this line; "He is free who lives as he likes; who is not subject to compulsion, to restraint, or to violence."  We have written much here about freedom, liberty and our existential rights as individuals.  One of these fundamental and intrinsic rights is the right to privately own property.  It is often overlooked in the ongoing debates about rights and freedoms, but it is so critical that is must not be neglected.  Without it, humans can never truly be free of compulsion from others.

Irish Green Party Senator Pauline O'Reilly recently defended a piece of legislation being debated by stating; "When one thinks about it, all law and all legislation is about the restriction of freedom. This is exactly what we are doing here. We are restricting freedom, but we are doing it for the common good."  She went on to state; "If a person's views on other people's identities make their lives unsafe and insecure, and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace, our job as legislators is to restrict those freedoms for the common good."

This is a difficult article to write. In the wake of the devastating sneak attack by Hamas in Israel on Oct 7, which resulted in the tragic loss of over 1,200 innocent lives and the abduction of several hundred as hostages, Israel has responded with a commitment to eliminate Hamas from Gaza once and for all. One cannot help but be overwhelmed by the barbarity of the terrorist attack on Israel as well as the ongoing devastation and death in Gaza. 

A fairly reliable test for whether or not government should have a particular power or authority is whether or not you would want your worst enemy to have that power or authority over you.  This illustrates the idea that we often conflate the government with some wiser, more benevolent entity kindly watching out for us all with equanimity and love. In reality government is nothing more than other people - flawed, fallible, sometimes mature, often petty and rarely wise people.

In any democratic society, the judicial system serves as a bedrock of justice, fairness, and the rule of law. Its legitimacy hinges on the belief that judges make decisions impartially, free from political bias or ideological influences. However, when judges become politically motivated or ideologically driven and work in conjunction with a politically weaponized prosecutorial process, it poses a significant threat to the long-term stability of the judicial system. This article explores the dangers of the combined impact of politically motivated judges and a weaponized prosecutorial process and why they are detrimental to the very foundation of the judicial system.

In a democratic society and especially within a Constitutional Republic such as ours, the fundamental principle that government should always be neutral and balanced in all of its actions is the bedrock upon which the rule of law stands. Central to this principle is the concept that all laws should apply equally to all citizens. This ensures fairness, protects individual rights, and promotes a just and harmonious society. In this article, we will make the argument for government neutrality and examine counterarguments that challenge this core principle.

In recent years, the idea that "the personal is political" has gained significant prominence in discussions surrounding social justice and activism. This concept, which originated in feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s, suggests that personal experiences and choices are inherently political and, therefore, open to scrutiny and critique.  Politicians and political activists have seized this idea and used it to justify a whole range of intrusions into the lives of Americans. We reject this concept entirely and posit instead that the personal is not political.

In the fierce debate over identity politics, the self-proclaimed right to identify one's own pronouns and to require others to use them or fall afoul of the law has now reached the point that this issue of compelled speech must be addressed.  In this article, we will examine the principle that government cannot compel speech, which is rooted in the fundamental values of individual freedom and the protection of First Amendment rights. Using gender pronouns, particularly in the context of compelled speech, serves as a pertinent example of why the freedom of expression in language choice should remain a free and unhindered individual choice

it is crucial that we scrutinize the dangers of the government's response, drawing parallels with the ill-famed Patriot Act and its erosion of privacy and freedom.  The terrorists actions on 9/11 and the American government's response resulted in the disastrous Patriot Act that grossly violated the rights of Americans and multi-decade wars that cost the lives of thousands.

This article contends that while maintaining public safety is vital, the United States must not compromise its foundational principles of freedom and privacy by further curtailing civil liberties in response to violent protests or possible terrorist actions linked to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian war. The perilous path of sacrificing essential freedoms for transient security must be avoided.

In recent years, American politics has witnessed a significant shift on the political left in terms of its political and social rhetoric. Its efforts to use public policy and social activism to enforce its beliefs and values on everyone have moved in an extreme direction. Real concerns are emerging that the political left  is, perhaps unknowingly, taking a perilous path towards a totalitarian future. This article explores the historical context of totalitarianism and raises questions about whether the Left is unwittingly paving the way for an American future devoid of individual freedom. The principle is simple; if we will not govern ourselves, we will be governed by others.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution is a foundational pillar of American democracy, explicitly protecting freedom of speech from government interference. It plainly states, "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." This fundamental right has long been considered sacrosanct, ensuring that individuals can express their thoughts, ideas, and beliefs without government interference.

Together, these elements demonstrate the founders' intent to create a government that derives its authority from the consent of the governed, allowing for self-governance and the protection of individual freedoms.  This is firmly established by the clear language of the 10th Amendment, "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."

This then is the Great American Experiment: can the American people govern themselves, preserve their rights and freedoms and keep the power of government in check and balance?

The Constitution of the United States emerges as a profoundly significant document of negative powers designed to safeguard the intrinsic human rights of each individual. This reality celebrates the Constitution's focus on limiting the reach of government, the unequivocal recognition of inherent human rights, and the unwavering commitment to preserving personal autonomy. Examining the historical backdrop, philosophical roots, practical implications, and contemporary relevance of the Constitution's emphasis on negative powers offers a comprehensive understanding of its role in preserving individual liberty and human dignity.

In this week's article, I am working through my thoughts on what I consider to be the four top lies of  collectivism in all of its various forms (Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism etc.).

These four topics seem to be present in every version of collectivism we've encountered so far in human history and so addressing them will hopefully strip away the facade regardless of what form the collectivist approach takes.

In no particular order the top four lies of collectivism are:

1. Workers are not exploited

2. We provide for those who cannot provide for themselves

3. We eliminate poverty

4. Every one works at what each one is best at and what they enjoy