[2006-08-20] “…to Institute new Government, laying its foundation…”http://tinyurl.com/Institute-New-Governmenthttp://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=8.msg28#msg28
- "They tell us, Sir, that we are weak, unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be next week? Will it be next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed and a guard stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Sir, we are not weak if we make proper use of those means which [the Covenant] has placed in our power."
[Paraphrased from Patrick Henry]
This copy of the published article has an extension of note [3] which includes a link to the article “DON'T RUN FOR THE HILLS TO FIGHT FOR FREEDOM”. DLW
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2006/tle381-20060820-04.html
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 381, August 20, 2006
“…to institute new Government, laying its foundation…”
Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence
Credit The Libertarian Enterprise
From Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, dated 1776:
- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
I submit that the government of the United States of America operated mostly within the limits of the Constitution from 1788 until the Constitution was openly ignored and blatantly subverted by President Abraham Lincoln from 1861 to 1865, and that since that time, instead of being restored and restrained to its original limits, the government has instead expanded its powers far beyond the limits once imposed by the Constitution and has indeed become destructive of the ends enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and for which the Constitution was allegedly created to protect.
That is a premise of this essay and since there is ample evidence of this published elsewhere, proof will not be offered in this essay. Such being the case,
the focus and purpose of this essay is to exercise, in Jefferson’s words, “the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”.I submit to the reader, L. Neil Smith’s
Covenant of Unanimous Consent [1] (written in 1985 and hereinafter referred to as The Covenant) as the proposed Form of the “new Government”, The Covenant being, in essence, a form of Self-Government. Its foundation rests on the moral statement contained in the Non Aggression Principle [2], which is expressed in the five Precepts of the Covenant. The organization of its powers is described in the Supersedure clause of The Covenant. The powers of The Covenant are indeed derived from the consent of “the governed”, they being the
self-governing, individual Signatories themselves.
How the Covenant of Unanimous Consent
fulfills the promise of
Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence:
The Declaration: - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The preamble of the
Covenant of Unanimous Consent nicely compliments the above:
- “WE, THE UNDERSIGNED Witnesses to the Lesson of History -- that no Form of political Governance may be relied upon to secure the individual Rights of Life, Liberty, or Property”
The Declaration: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,”
The Covenant: “now therefore establish and provide certain fundamental Precepts measuring our Conduct toward one another, and toward others:”
The Declaration: “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”
The powers of
The Covenant —a document of
self-government--are indeed derived from the consent of “the governed”, they being the ACTUAL, SELF-GOVERNED, INDIVIDUAL SIGNATORIES of
The Covenant. This also satisfies the objections noted by Lysander Spooner in 1870. Instead of being a document (such as the U.S. Constitution) that describes how the government should act, and a document that YOU DID NOT sign,
The Covenant is a document that describes how YOU will act and is a document that YOU voluntarily sign, if and only if you agree to govern yourself according to
The Covenant’s terms and conditions, which are
The Covenant’s Precepts.
The Declaration: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles . . .”
The Foundation of
The Covenant rests on the moral principle in the
Non-Aggression Principle [2] and is expressed in the five Precepts of
The Covenant.
The Declaration: “and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Each of the five Precepts and the Supersedure clause provide the powers and the form that the Signatories believe to be “most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”.
Furthermore, there is a point not addressed in Jefferson’s Declaration, but raised in 1964 by Ayn Rand regarding “dissenters”, or those who do NOT sign
The Covenant, but who may trade with or even live among Signatories. Such people are very simply and very clearly warned—explicitly in each of the five Precepts--what to expect if they choose to violate the rights of Signatories. This is especially true when Territory [3] is clearly marked as being governed by the Supersedure clause of
The Covenant. (Some individual Signatories may even choose to display indicators that they are
Signatories to The Covenant, thereby providing—among other things--further warning to dissenters).
These simple and clear warnings, explicit in each of the five Precepts, are also the Means of Enforcement against Signatories who would violate
The Covenant, a feature that is completely missing from the U.S. Constitution.
Galt’s Oath and the libertarian Non Aggression Principle (NAP/ZAP) are moral/ethical principles. The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a political statement of interpersonal relationships based on those moral principles. Unlike the U.S. Constitution--which was created by a committee of Lawyers to replace the (much better) Articles of Confederation, while both Jefferson and Adams were in Europe--the Covenant actually FULFILLS the promise of individual freedom in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. The Covenant is simple, rational, personal, easy to understand and even short enough to memorize.
The Covenant also satisfies the objections noted by Lysander Spooner. Instead of being a document that describes how the government shall act, and a document YOU did not sign, the Covenant is a document that describes how YOU will act and is a document that YOU voluntarily sign, if you agree. Those who do not sign (the “dissenters” mentioned by Ayn Rand above) are not punished, they are simply and clearly warned what to expect if they violate the rights of Signatories.The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is indeed the political foundation—as suggested by Thomas Jefferson--and the “legal framework needed to establish and maintain a free society open to all, including dissenters” as was suggested by Ayn Rand.
Dennis Lee Wilson
DennisLeeWilson@Yahoo.com Objectivist and Jeffersonian
Sovereign Individual & Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
[1] L. Neil Smith's Covenant of Unanimous Consent can be found at
http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html A copy is also available at
http://tinyurl.com/Covenant-and-Galts-Oath along with backups of supporting articles written by L. Neil Smith and misc. discussions.
[2] The Non Aggression Principle (also known as the Zero Aggression Principle):
"A libertarian is a person who believes that
no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." - L. Neil Smith [
emphasis of the moral principle added]
Further discussion of this moral principle can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/Index-to-Covenant-Articles [3] While there obviously could be great benefits to living in a
Supersedure zone--such as a town or county--there is also the risk and hazard of gathering a number of Signatories into what could become a target area for violent Statist dissenters. As in all things, individuals need to assess for themselves the risks of such alternatives. For some excellent advise in this area, see
DON'T RUN FOR THE HILLS TO FIGHT FOR FREEDOM an excerpt from
Invisible Resistance to Tyranny: How to Lead a Secret Life of Insurgency in an Increasingly Unfree World, by Jefferson Mack.
The excerpt from his book can be found
at my site, along with a related comment from The Claire Files, as well as at Vin Suprynowicz site,
http://www.thelibertarian.net/Subscribers/Archives/Newsletters/03-04-Run-For-The-Hills.htm (Privacy Alert, April 2003).
Creative Commons
Attribution Share Alike
Copied two paragraphs from "A personal journey..." ( http://tinyurl.com/2dm6kgj ) and inserted before last paragraph. 2010-10-29
I love Arizona, I loathe its intrusive governments, especially the City of Phoenix.
