Feb 28th, 2013 - Letter to the President - On the Nature of man

Why the government has no authority to stop you from carrying a gun.

Let us begin this by taking a different path. In the past when discussing this idea all of us turned toward the written laws. Those of us on the side of the Constitution turned to it, those of on the other side turned to the opinions of Judges and the standing statutes in place by governments. Today, we shall feign ignorance to the existence of any such notions and instead look at man himself and his place as natural being in the universe.

John Locke said: Man... hath by nature a power.... to preserve his property - that is, his life, liberty, and estate - against the injuries and attempts of other men. 

We, by natural law, that is by the action of being created (by God or by our parents) are independent thinking creatures. Our life is our own to judge of, in length of years and steady of health. It is not the action of others that determines such a thing, for if someone else takes my Life, he does indeed murder me and rob me of my sacred pleasure. The same goes for Liberty; it is mine to come and go; to say and be of my own desire. If one were to come and say that I had no natural freedom to do as I please, that person would in fact enslave me. And lastly Locke mentions Estate (not pursuit of happiness – more on why the founding fathers chose this instead in later paper), meaning that the individual himself and his items are also his natural right, being that if someone were to take these items he would be a thief. But there is also an inter-connectivity of his words. You see, Locke realized, as did the founding fathers, that the physical body that you possess is also the physical manifestation of your existence.

It too is property.

The body is the singular most important object owned by an individual. It, if stolen, is murdered and lost to the world and its Estate is taken. One action against the highest form of personal Estate and all three (Life, Liberty, and Estate) are taken and depending on the infringement it could result in a complete loss for all time of these three sacred treasures. The body is the object of all this life. It is the form by which work (actions) are put to use to create other Estate. And by this transfer of work from one object to another, the process increases Liberty, by will and desire. Should not then this Liberty of the body and holy protection of Life and Estate not also be warranted and secured by the whole of the Estate of each body? Does, for example my hair not belong to me and my heart and blood not belong to me where it does belong in by desired natural place? Could I not then say the same for other objects of my estate? My clothing does fit upon my shoulder and I do wear it according to my desire, need and vanity. Do I not require the Estate of my glasses to help correct the estate of my eyes as I would use curtains in my home to protect the color of my carpets from the sun? Do I not desire the use of a watch as part of my person to procure the passing of time and to ensure the interaction of my Estate with that of others is respective of their time? All objects are members of my Estate, with equal right to exist free in my Liberty and Life where I choose the value of the Estate. This is my natural right; the choice of assigning value to myself.  All vanities, perhaps, but no other objective Estate has the authority to determine it's worth, for that action is a form of enslavement.

Therefore any law that would rob me of my Estate would be illegal. Would it be legal for the State to demand my hair or my fingernails or my blood? Those are things that are not intrinsic to my continued life, but then, what of those other more ‘important’ objects, for surely only I have the authority to measure which of my items of Estate has the most value, and the State has zero authority to measure or weigh the value of my hair in relation to my blood and heart. Would it then be legal for the State to describe a requirement of how I transport my skin from one place to the other or that I keep it covered or uncovered? Yet, we stand in a place today where individuals born naturally free with Life to pursue, Liberty to enjoy, and Estate to grow, must by laws, be continually restricted in all manner of illegal actions against nature.

Now what of this pesky thing called a weapon? Is it not also an extension of my estate? Does it not also fall to me to set the value and responsibility of this items work and purpose and where it sits inside my Estate? A government has no more authority to decide what I can own in this regard as it does any other type of Estate, for the moment it makes such a claim it stands over the other two already established natural rights: Life and Liberty. It does this to Life by stealing the value of my work (the time to create the Estate that would allow me to create space in it for weapons) and it does it to Liberty in the most obvious fashion: by baring the free exercise thereof.

And should then also, as I am free to maneuver this property of arm and leg from public place to others, my other Estate and personal property be allowed to move with me accordingly? I am free to move my estate of my motor vehicle from my home to work without interference or restriction (although the State does violate this freedom by enforcing licensing and creating unfair tariffs against our property for no other sake than to stuff its coffers) . I am also free to fill a bag full of items and walk with them anywhere I wish. As long as I do not steal from the Estate of others, nor damage the Liberty of others on their own Estate, what right would they possess to stop such a person? None.

A person is therefore naturally, by god and creation, free to exercise the transport of their personal Estate as they feel should fit their wishes. Anything else is a crime against that person.

Now why would anyone want to stop the free exercise of a person’s Life, Liberty, and Estate? Are there valid reasons to limit freedom? No. There is not a single valid reason. The only underlying reason that anyone has ever put forth is fear. They are afraid of what someone else’s freedom will cause them. We are not talking about the actual overt act of men who actually damage others, but merely the idea that sometime in the future some other natural free created being will walk up out of the blue and disrupt another’s freedom. This is an absurd reason. It is no better than a child whom is afraid to sleep in their own bed because they believe a monster lives under it, building a tale of lies and superstitions over an obvious and impossible story. An wise father would give the child solace by showing the nature of the lie and by giving the recourse of action (“Mommy and I are right down the hall, I’ll be here faster than a tick if you need me.”) to help the child learn the value of coping with possible futures. The unwise father lets the child forever sleep in bed with them, even as they grow into adults.

Fear is the only answer they give us when they say we are not responsible enough to own or move our own Estates as we wish. That is slavery.

I refuse to believe that this brave country now cowers behind the shield and has taken to writing laws solely to alleviate fear. We have, at some point in our History passed the keys of our freedom to the government instead of safely keeping them locked into our own Estate. What has the government done with those keys we handed them in hopes of them protecting it for us? They have locked the doors, drawn up the bridge and surrounded themselves with the swords and spears of a million laws, by which to keep us from ever retrieving our own natural property.

We must regain our personal responsibility and protect our Life, Liberty, and Estate from any encroachment and especially from snake oil salesmen come to lie whispered cures to social illness in our ears. Our ears are our property as are our tongues and fingers and fists. We must protect our rights, natural and true, from the enemy of Liberty.