ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal… [Declaration of Independence]
Government's primary function is to protect its citizen's unequal ability to acquire property. [Federalist Paper #10]
On first glance, these statements seem like contradictions. Fast-talking tyrants use the first statement to gain power. They promise that every person has an equal share of the national wealth. These tyrants have done the equivalent of turning gold into lead.
Why is the equality of people the first concept mentioned in the Declaration? Because the Founding Fathers hated the aristocracy. They hated the aristocracy far more than the monarch--with good reason. There was only one monarch but hundreds, maybes thousands, of aristocrats. Some served in the House of Lords, one house of the British congress. And since the monarch confers titles, people who want to become aristocrats have a personal goal with no connection to the best interests of the nation.
The Founding Fathers feared an aristocracy would evolve in the U.S. Has it?
In every group of people--whether a small club, a neighborhood, an organization,
a city, state or country--some people are treated as leaders of the group even
if there is no formal leader-position in the group. The quality of the leader's
ideas rarely effects their ability to gain power. It's their personality,
rhetoric, and charisma that draws followers.
Many people want a leader to direct at least some aspect of their lives. And some people like having every moment of their lives scheduled. A clear example of this need is cults. Cults would not grow and flourish if people didn’t want to follow a leader, someone to tell them how to live.
The Founding Fathers knew about this basic psychological need. This need isn't intrinsically good or bad. It’s simple a human trait. And the Founding Fathers knew that human nature can't be changed. (Have you heard about the former anarchist who quit because of too many rules?)
This human trait--to look to someone else for advice, answers, or direction--will always exist. Instead of attempting to change human nature, the Founding Fathers wanted to make it difficult--if not impossible--to look to the federal government for the answers to a majority of life's problems. To do this, the United States Constitution severely limits the federal government’s power.
A "government" is not a person, place, or thing. It is a set of rules that people who live in a specific geographical area agree to follow. This is true for any government, including monarchies and dictatorships. When people no longer want to follow a monarch or dictator, they revolt--like the American colonies. The Declaration of Independence references the right that all people have to change their government.
A few years ago, the people in the county where I live decided to exercise their right to change a part of the county's governmental structure. Six months after a school board election, the school board made a decision that the majority of the people in the county disagreed with. Without any prior organization, the citizens came together and petitioned the county for a new school board election. A new election was held and the offending school board members were replaced.
The current US federal government's rules are far stricter and more limiting than the British government in 1776. We have so many "rules" it would take a lifetime of study to know them all. Yet Congress spends the majority of every year in session, writing and debating more rules. It certainly was not the Founding Fathers' plan to create a government with so many rules. But an overwhelming number of rules is the life-blood of tyrants.
Before examining the tyrant's love of rules on a national scale, let's see how a tyrant might operate from one of the lowest governmental positions--as your city's forester. Let's say she doesn't like you. Chances are, she can fine you for breaking a city forestry rule or regulation. You might not even be aware of the specific rule.
If by some miracle you have not broken any of the zillions of city forestry rules, she can probably make up a new rule. For example, she might decide that homeowners are responsible for the strip of land between the sidewalk and street and it must be filled with grass that is 4" tall. She takes this wonderful idea to a superior in the city government along with a picture of the ugliest example of non-maintenance of this strip of land she can find and her idea becomes a rule.
Now she can come to your property with a ruler. If the grass in the strip of
land between your sidewalk and the city street is not 4", the city can fine you
and make you pay for a city lawnmower to correct the infraction.
Of course, there are the sidewalk rules: width, length between scorings,
material, smoothness, no cracks. And the fruit-tree rules, the leaf rules, the
dead blossom rules, the pooper-scooper rules, and on and on . . . This tyrant
can make your life miserable. Threats to national security don't take the
emotional toll of this one tyrant. How prisoners of war are treated is not an
issue in your life. How you are being treated as a citizen in your town should
be--and is--the big issue in your life.
In this example, are all people equal? No. A city office-holder has power over your grass!
How did this happen? It probably happened a few steps at a time. The original city "beautification" rules made sense to nearly everyone: no cars on cement blocks in the front yard, no farm animals within the city limits, no exotic animals, no RVs within view of the street, no broken sidewalks. . . this was how the rules developed over time.
Then the rules became more intrusive to some property owners. You can't build cabinets for customers in your garage. That tree in your backyard is so special that it can't be cut down. Your friend can't live in the efficiency apartment in your basement. A rock 'n roll band can't play on Memorial Day afternoon in your back yard. (I add this "rule" to the list so I can relate a true story.)
My family home was really large with a huge backyard. For six or seven years in the mid-60s, my parents hosted a picnic in our backyard every Memorial Day. The guests were very special people who deserved to be honored for their work. After our meal one year, our guests were entertained by my younger brother's rock 'n roll band. They couldn't be much older than 8th or 9th graders, but they were very good. They were already getting jobs to play at college fraternity and sorority dances.
It was about 3:00 in the afternoon and we didn't know that a neighbor had called the police and complained about the noise coming from our backyard. The police who came to investigate parked in front of our house. As soon as the policemen started walking around the house, they could see the band but not its audience.
Those of us sitting in the backyard were surprised to see two very stern-faced policemen--obviously set on admonishing the noisy teens--appear from around the house. But our surprise was nothing compared to the policemen's. Our special Memorial Day guests every year were the 35-40 sisters who taught in the Catholic schools in our city. The policemen quickly apologized for interrupting and made a hasty exit!
This story points out--once again--that everyone is not treated equally. What would have been the policemen's reaction to an audience of 35-40 teenagers? (I've attached a couple of pictures from later that same day. That's me on the basketball court.)
It also reminds us how easy it is to fall into the desire to regulate our neighbors' lives--whether the neighbor is next door, across town or across the country. Sur e the music in our backyard was a little loud, for less than a hour. But the same neighbor who called the police held gatherings at her house once or twice a year. And the guests' cars completely blocked the street where we lived. But no one complained. We were neighbors and we could live with the unequal wants of each other.
This is what it means to be an American. Yet we have allowed the government to make rules about the smallest things in our lives, for example, where children can sit in cars, and seem hellbent on expanding the government's rules to include limiting salt intake, demanding that everyone buy health insurance and banning fishing.
You can help support KNOWFREE by purchasing your copies HERE
* All Federalist Paper quotes are from The Federalist
Papers: Modern English Edition Two, available on my website and Amazon.com
for $24.95
http://Mary.Webster.org
**************************************************