Replies

First off I don’t think that the founders of this Republic would be rolling over in their graves. They understood human nature and the nature of government which is why they established this Republic to the best of their ability for the purpose of preserving liberty.
The politics of their day and the politics of today are not that far removed…
Actually (being a student of history) I would say that politics are pretty tame today as compared many of the political climates of the past. The problem is that as time goes on there are more and more people who are willing surrender their liberty in exchange for temporary comfort and security as provided by government; the bigger problem is that in doing so they also surrender my liberty and your liberty and everyone else’s liberty in the process.

As to a few examples…

Let’s take your example of guns.
Let’s say that when my grandfather was a young man he owned a farm in a farming community. Nothing around for miles except for fields of crops, trees and live stock.
Lets say that he enjoyed plinking tin cans off of his fence with his Winchester model 1894 lever action rifle or his Colt model 1911 .45ACP semi automatic pistol on Saturday afternoons… perfectly acceptable due to the fact that there was no danger of causing anyone any harm… it was his farm, there were hundreds of acres in all directions, due to the ballistic arc of the projectiles leaving the barrels of those firearms it would have been physically impossible for them to travel far enough to harm anyone in an adjoining farm.

However, the right that exists that allowed him to be in possession of those arms in the first place was not a right given to him by his government and it was not a right to own firearms for the purpose of Saturday afternoon tin can target practice, It wasn’t even a right to posses arms for the purpose of hinting for food. The right to keep and bear arms is the natural right born into every man that allows him a means of self defense.
First in defense of himself, his family and property, then his community, state, country… ECT.

Now let’s fast forward to present. My family still owns the little farm house, but the acres and acres of farmland have given way to medium density subdivisions. People all packed tightly together in tract homes or spec homes on pieces of land no more than a quarter acre.
Would it be acceptable for me to take my grandfathers guns out on Saturday afternoon and shoot tin cans off of the same fence that has lined the farmhouse since he was a young man?
The answer is most certainly no.
Is it reasonable for that community to pass legislation that makes it illegal and punishable by law to do such a thing?
The answer is yes.
And would passing such a law be a usurpation of my liberty?
The answer is no.

Now lets say that certain factions in that community wanted to pass legislation barring anyone from possessing arms… would that be a usurpation of the liberty of the members of that community? Absolutely!

They would be removing the right of a person to defend his own life, it is not a right that was granted by government or a collective group of people and it is not a right that can rightfully be taken away by any government or collective group of people.
(Unless of course we are talking about suspending or removing the ability to exercise that right for a criminal… a person that has willfully used force to harm others and has been adjudicated guilty as prescribed by law)

Now, in self defense I am talking about the immediate action that one would need to take in order to protect his life, or the life of his family from the violent aggressions of another. You are asleep in your home at 2:00am and someone has broken in with the intent of doing you harm… at this point you are the only one that can provide for your safety and the safety of your family… calling 911 is only going to bring the cops there to try and solve the crime that is about to be committed.
Statistically in most cases there isn’t sufficient time for an officer to respond in time to do anything other than clean up the mess and gather evidence. If you had your grandfathers .45 pistol in the drawer you would have a fighting chance of keeping the invader from doing you harm, but if the community had banned possession of firearms and you had surrendered it to the local police station in the interest of being a good law abiding citizen and the invader was armed, you are now much less likely to be able to defend your life thanks to the power of the collective disarming you for your (a law abiding citizen) for the “good of the community”.

Secondly, let’s use your example of health insurance.
You stated: “Once the city grows up around you and you join an insurance pool (health ins.), your diet does adversely affect my premiums.”

Who ever said that an insurance company was obligated to provide coverage to people that choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle?
And equally, who ever said that you had to join an insurance pool that provided coverage to people that choose to lead unhealthy lifestyles?
You are perfectly free to shop around for preferred health coverage that is provided by a more discriminating company that chooses to screen their customers for high risk lifestyles and refuses to cover all but the most health conscious applicants, thereby keeping costs down and allowing them to offer lower premiums to those health conscious customers that they do choose to cover.
And if no such company exists and there are enough people that feel the same way that you do, then the market will respond by creating such coverage, because there will be a market for it.

The problem arises when government steps in and compels people and industry.
Let’s say that legislation has passed in your community that creates “public healthcare”.
Everyone is covered regardless of their economic status…
Everyone that works for a living is compelled by law to contribute to the program and thereby everyone receives coverage… from the homeless to the most wealthy of the community, everyone is offered equal care… sounds great right?

The collective has gotten together and voted that you as a producer (someone that earns an income) is obligated, by law, to give a certain portion of your income to the public health plan and if you refuse to pay your “fair share”, or try to hide some of your income so that you wont have to pay so much, there are consequences… fines, jail time… ECT.

But how about the heroin addict that lives in the alley down town that shares needles with the hooker that lives in the abandon building two streets over, or the guy that panhandles by the interstate that uses all of the money that he gets from panhandling to buy booze and cigarettes, or the 21yr old party boy that makes a modest living as a bartender in the local pub thereby pays less into the public healthcare plan based on his income, but who also has unprotected sex with a different woman almost every night?
They are all covered equally… and as costs go up due to the amount of care that has to be given to these people who have chosen to live an irresponsible lifestyle, but contribute little to nothing into the pot, the amount that you are required by law to contribute also goes up.
Now, let’s say that you have worked very hard your entire life and you have attained, by your own efforts, a pretty decent standard of living. You’re not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but you’re living comfortably. Now the collective has stepped in and voted away a portion of your earnings to go into this “public health fund”, a portion that gets higher and higher every year due to the amount of non-contributors and those that are covered who choose to live unhealthy lifestyles.

You are obligated by law to contribute because you are a producer, but the non-producers are not under any obligation clean up their lifestyles.

The collective has created a “public right” to healthcare and has put the burden of providing that “right” on your back, but there is no responsibility for the consumers to live up to…

They have usurped your liberty… they have confiscated your property by threat of force.
Your life and time and efforts no longer belong to you… you are now a slave to the collective.
And the natural progression in this process of confiscation for the “greater good” is that politicians in that community will pander to more and more non-producers. Promising more and more entitlements in exchange for votes, thereby obligating you, the producer, to give more and more of your property to the “greater good”.

This is what I’m talking about… this is what is going on right now all around us.
This is what will lead to our demise unless we reverse this trend.

My life is my own… no man or group of men has a claim to it, or to the fruits of my labor.
The laws of an ordered society are proper and necessary unless those laws lay waste to the basic fundamental rights of man or lay claim to that mans property or his life via coercion and threat of force.
That is the state of tyranny; whether that tyranny is brought about by a single dictator or the vote of the collective… it is tyranny just the same.