An Amazon success story!

For six (6) straight weeks the Kindle version of Liberty Inherited has been an Amazon bestseller.  This week the paperback has also made its way onto the bestseller's list. 

 

 Liberty Inherited in paperwork

An Englishman’s Dire Prophesy: Why Democratic Republics Fail (Are we there yet?)

In 1793, William Young, then a Member of Parliament, wrote:

Ingenious and able men will then soon hit on the various paths to authority which the temper of society opens to them: they will feed the ambition of one with promises, the vanity of another with praise, the avarice of a third with gifts. But even in the simplest state of manners, it is not pure virtue that commands, for pure virtue is then no distinction; it is ability that commands. The stronger minds of the few must ever command the weaker minds of the generality. The stronger mind feels a right as it were to command the weaker; and what it feels a right to, it will assume it can, and by what means it can.

At the time, the French Revolution was just entering into its ‘Reign of Terror’ phase and there was much talk among Britons of eliminating the monarchy and establishing their own republic.  Young was one of several who wrote essays in defense of the British system and the rights it granted to Englishman.  One aspect of this defense is the warning of where a democratic republic could lead.

With the first line, Young is explaining the fact that ‘ingenious and able’ men will exploit whatever paths society offers them.  If the society is wealth focused, as in a free-market based society, then these men will rise to the top of industry.  If the society is power focused, as in a socialist/Marxist state, then the same type of men will rise to the top of government.  In both cases they will use the weakness of others (i.e. ambition, vanity and greed) to gain their wealth and power. 

In the following sentence Young warns against the tendency of democratic republics to discard traditional values.  In time, he cautions, virtue ceases to exist and only one’s ability matters.  No longer will society value the noble, the good, and the pure.  Achievement, either materially or in fame (i.e. celebrity status), will be the sole measure of those who the society admires. 

He goes on to explain that the admiration—or even idolization—that develops within the society results in those of weaker minds turning to strong minded for leadership.  In return, the strong minded feel it their right and duty to command the weaker and less able members of the society.  Thus, for the sake and benefit of the weak, the strong-minded will empower themselves to implement rules, policies, and laws that protect society from the weak-minded and the weak-minded from themselves.

The result is that as the power of the strong-minded grows, liberty, the promised by-product of a democratic republic, shrinks.  This, Young writes in other parts of the essay, leads to the most terrible of all tyrannical governments; an empowered aristocracy comprised of  ‘ingenious and able’ men unrestrained by virtue. 

It is amazing to think that at a time when the bloodiest days of the French Revolution was still to come and the ‘American experiment’ was still in its infancy, a man could have such an understanding of democratic republics.  Yet, it is not that incredible when we realize that he is not discussing government, but human nature.  As Young explains it, “We must take men as they are…and not as the poets and artists describe them.” 

As much as we like to believe otherwise, human nature is still basically the same now as it was back when Young penned his essay.  ‘Ingenious and able’ people still pursue wealth and power.   They still exploit the weakness of others to gain such wealth and power.  This is done in both business and government.  Therefore, to empower one in an attempt to restrain the threat, perceived or real, of the other only increases the possibility of tyranny.

I believe the Founding Fathers recognized this weakness in democracy and the saw that the way to minimize its danger was not to limit liberty, but to limit power.  This is why the founding documents focus more on the limiting of government power than individual rights.  Unfortunately, over the last 100 years we have removed many of the protections they built into the system and, as a result, we risk the danger that Young so eloquently warned us of.

About the same time Young wrote his essay, Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government the United States would have.  In response he replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Yes, Mr. Franklin, if we can keep it indeed.

D-Day: The Anglosphere Victory

Amphibious assaults are one of the most difficult military operations to perform, even for one united army. But on D-day, there were two unique and very different armies, the US and the British/Canadians.

While the Brits and Canadians had the same equipment, training, and structure, the US Army was very different. American divisions were larger and organized differently. The individual soldiers were trained differently and the Army as a whole had a doctrine that reflected its unique experiences. Although some equipment was shared, such as the M4 Sherman tank, most of the American equipment was different from their British and Canadian counterparts.  Attempting a complex military operation such as 'Overlord' with such divergent forces greatly reduced its chances for success. But succeed it did.

The fact that the Anglo-American forces could overcome these differences and form a cohesive fighting force is a reflection of how much similarity there is between the nations of the Anglosphere. During the war the Germans and Italians could not do it and the allies never attempted to do it with the Russians.  It is very difficult to find anything similar to it in history.  Whenever battles were fought with multiple allies, they tended to fight as separate forces.  There was never a joint command and if there was cooperation it was because one force was subordinate to the other.  This was not the case on D-Day.  Both the British and Americans shared the same level of authority and one was not subordinate to the other.  Only the Anglo-American Combined Staff could create such effective unity from such a divergent force. 

So for me, D-day is not only a symbol of the Anglosphere's fight against tyranny, but also what can be achieved when English-speaking nations put aside their differences and unite for the betterment of mankind. Then miracles, like D-Day, can happen.

Queen's Jubilee: Why Americans should care

Like most Americans, my view of monarchy is that it is a political system that instills fancy despots who are above the law and who arbitrarily rule over their subjects.  This is compounded by the tradition of producing spoiled despots (many of them sick- physically and mentally- from centuries of inbreeding) to replace themselves.   The product of this hereditary and absolute rule is a system that allowed generations of monarchs to lord over everything within their realms, trample the rights of individuals, and treat people in general as nothing more than beast of burden. 

But as I started doing research for my book, Liberty Inherited, I soon discovered the English (British after the Acts of Union) monarchy was different, special, and exceptional among the monarchies of the world. 

As Sir William Young explained it:

The word king in Great Britain means not the same thing as king elsewhere; as formerly in France, or as actually in Prussia, Hungary, or Spain. It means a person invested with the executive power, as to the people individually to administer the laws, but under the control of the laws; and as to the people as a nation, to administer the government, but under the control of the nation. As to the persons and property of individuals, the king has no power or authority, but what the people by their representatives have veiled in him by laws made for the public peace and advantage of all.

In other words, unlike the rest of the world, the British subjects did not serve the King, he served them. 

What is amazing is that Young scribed those words over 200 year ago (1793) while the French Revolution was just starting and the “American Experiment” was in its infancy.  One ended with the establishment of a tyrant named Napoleon Bonaparte while the other became a symbol of liberty and freedom.  The reason for this differential of outcome is that although both believed in liberty and justice, only one, the United States, was based on the “rights of Englishmen.”   It is these rights which evolved under the English system of limited monarchy that provided the principles that would make the United States into the great nation it has become.

This would not have happened if the original colonies had the misfortune of being colonized by one of the continental powers.  As I explain in Liberty Inherited:

Due to the absolutist beliefs of the French and Spanish such a [limited government] system of ruling colonies could not even be imagined. People living in the French and Spanish empires were never given autonomy over the affairs of their colony. Governors and Captaincies were usually minor nobles sent from the mother country. They ruled with the authority of the king, which gave them dictatorial powers over their subjects.

The result would be that the United States would not have had the political principles that have been the foundation of its success.  Instead, it and the other English-speaking nations (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc) would be nothing more than the political basket cases that many of the former French and Spanish colonies are.  

Additionally, we must wonder if the American Revolution would have been possible if the colonies were those of Spain or France.  It must be recognized that in an era when rebellion was met with ruthless and often bloody suppression the British government showed remarkable restraint.  A restraint the Empire did not always show to those it viewed as non-English.  If not for their rights as Englishmen, the instigators of the revolution would have been rounded up long before shots were fired at Concord and Lexington.  In a French or Spanish colony, at the first utterance of a rebellious word, they would have been summarily arrested and shot, their property confiscated, their families left destitute.

Even the prosecution of the war by the British army, while at times marked by abuses, was very civil for the period.  The local populace was mostly left unmolested and even treated cordially.  Lord Cornwallis, the commander of the British army, had numerous opportunities to pursue the defeated Continental Army but failed to do so.  Thus allowing Washington to slip away and fight another day.  Most American history books explain his lack of aggressiveness as plain ineptitude but Cornwallis went on to go down in history as a great British general.  He had notable successes in India and Ireland, both of which showcased his military and political abilities. 

So why was he unable to do the same in Britain’s American colonies? Maybe the answer lies in that the rebellious colonists were seen and treated more as misguided Englishmen than warring enemies.  As such, they were entitled to receive the rights and benefits of being Englishmen.  If so, that would be the greatest irony of the American Revolution, that while fighting for their “rights as Englishmen” they were being shielded by those rights.

It is only natural that in the intervening years the United States and the United Kingdom would come together to defend freedom and liberty throughout the world.  It was with aid from the United States that Britain was able to resist Nazi tyranny and it was predominately Anglo-American forces that ultimately put an end to Hitler’s reign of death and oppression.  This blow for liberty and freedom was followed up with both nations containing and then defeating the equally bloody and oppressive ideology of communism. 

Britain’s support to America after the attacks on 9/11 demonstrates that this special relationship is alive and well in the 21^st century.   As Dennis Murphy (former adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair) explained it: 

He [PM Blair] would speak for all of us who value democracy and freedom when he committed Britain to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the USA in their darkest hour of the early years of the 21st Century, as they had done for us, twice, during ours in the 20th Century. They'd always been there for Europe when we needed them.  They needed us now.

A recent CNN/ORC poll shows that 82% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Queen.  I believe this positive view to be well deserved.  Not because of who she is or her individual appeal, but because of principles she and the British monarchy symbolizes.  For, without these principles, the United States would not be the nation it is today.

This is why the Queen’s Jubilee should matter to Americans.  It is a time when we need to reflect on the good fortune of the thirteen original colonies being English/British, that the great men who founded this nation were “freeborn Englishmen” and that we inherited the English principles for freedom, liberty, and justice for all.

Therefore, I say, “God Save the Queen and the great traditions she stands for.”

Englishman's Right to Bear Arms and the 2nd Amendment

In my last blog post, No 1776 without 1688, I discussed how many of the rights we take as being uniquely American were actually the rights that many Englishmen enjoyed in the 17th century.  I do this for more than just amusement purposes. By understanding the proper historical perspective of the founding of this nation, we get clarity into what motivated the Founding Fathers.  We get an insight into why they took the actions they did.  Lastly, we get an intimate understanding of the principles conveyed in the founding documents of this nation.

This is especially true for the Bill of Rights and its most controversial amendments, the right to bear arms. There are two current interpretations of this amendment.  One interpretation believes that the founding fathers intended the right to bear arms to be limited to members of "a well regulated militia." The other interpretation believes that the founding fathers meant for it to be a check and balance on the authority of government. Therefore, it is an individual right outside of the governmental system or establishment.

A cursory reading of the amendment lends validity to both of these interpretations.  But when we trace the right to bear arms back to its historical origins we find that only one interpretation is substantiated.

As I explain in my book, Liberty Inherited, the right to bear arms first appeared in writing in the Declaration of Rights of 1689. Like the Bill of Rights, the Declarations of Rights was the product of a revolution and the events leading up to it. 

By the time of James II ordination in 1685, the limits on an English monarch's power had long been established. But James did not like this and wanted to restructure the English government on the French and Spanish models. In both of these countries, the king had absolute power over the nation and his subjects. James knew this would require him to impose his will on the liberty loving and fiercely independent English people.

One of the obstacles to James' goals was that the English people were just as well armed as any loyal force he could assemble.  He could not entirely eliminate the ownership of weapons since many at that time relied on them for their livelihood.  Therefore, he used his royal prerogative to restrict the weapons that an Englishman could own to those that could only be used for hunting and sporting purposes. This meant that the average person would only be allowed to own small caliber muskets for small game and shotguns for bird hunting. This left the populace at a great disadvantage to royal forces and at the mercy of the King.

After waking up to the threat that James II posed to their liberty the English people overthrew him in what was to be known as The Glorious Revolution. Like the Americans 100 years later, they realized that they would need a document that would assert “their ancient rights and liberties.” That document was the Declaration of Rights and in its list of rights number seven states:

7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

Please note that the intended purpose of arms was for ‘defense.’  Considering the motivating factors behind the document it is clear that the drafters of the Declaration of Rights saw an armed populace as a defense against government, in this case a monarchy, abuses of power. 

It is not inconceivable that the drafters of the Bill of Rights did not intend the 2nd amendment to, likewise, be a check on the power and authority of government. To do otherwise, is to believe that such learned men such as George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin were utterly unaware of the document that guaranteed their rights as Englishmen.

No 1776 without 1688

There is no question that 1776 was an important year.  For nearly 18 months, Englishmen on both side of the Atlantic had been fighting and killing each other.  Only after it became clear that their “rights as Englishmen” were not to be respected by London’s ruling class did the men who would become the Founding Fathers of this nation decide that independence was the only option.  

That year, a rebellion became a revolution and it would end with the establishment of a new kind of government.  One based on the untried premise that man was capable of governing himself.   No longer was a monarch or elites needed to tell the common man what to do—how to live.  This became known as the American Revolution, but in reality it was a revolution for all of humanity and forever changed the world.

Most Americans are familiar with the significance of 1776, but very few know about the year that made the American Revolution possible, 1688.  Almost 100 years before the American Revolution, back in old England, another revolution took place. This was called the Glorious Revolution and it is a revolution that all Americans should remember.  For without the events of 1688—without the Glorious Revolution— there would be no American Revolution, no Constitution of the United States, no Bill of Rights, no Declaration of Independence. 

We clearly see this in the early writings and speeches of the Founding Fathers, especially those prior to the Declaration of Independence. The one common justification for their rebellion was that they were fighting for their rights as “freeborn Englishmen.”  For example, in response to the Stamp Act the colonists drew up the Declaration of Rights of 1765.  Section 2d states:

2d That His Majesty's liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the inherent rights and privileges of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain. 

In other words, they were reaffirming their “rights as freeborn Englishmen” and one would be hard-pressed to find a member of the 2^nd Continental Congress who did not utter the phrase at least once in a speech or debate.  

We need to remember that in most of the world at the time servitude and serfdom was the norm, not liberty and freedom.  So why did these august men believe they had rights?   The answer is the Glorious Revolution.  

  

Just like the American Revolution of 1776 produced such extraordinary documents as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 resulted in an equally impressive document known as the “Declaration of Rights.”  This document, signed by William and Mary, King and Queen of England, numerated several principles and rights that would be reaffirmed in the founding documents of United States.  These include:

• The right to bear arms
• The right to trial by jury of their peers
• Innocent until proven guilt
• Protection from cruel and unusual punishment
• Right to bail
• Right to petition government

And, of course, the big one:

• No taxation without representation

As I explain in my bestselling book, Liberty Inherited, “This comparison of the documents from 1689 and those from 1776 reveals that there is a connection between the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution. It supports the argument that the American Revolution was fought for English values based on classical liberal principles.”

In other words, there would not have been a 1776 without a 1688.

Looking Left and Right

Today, Congress had the chance to preserve the constitution, but failed to do so.  The Smith-Amash Amendment to H.R. 4310 would have prohibited the indefinite detention of American citizens suspected of planning terrorism on U.S. soil.  As a result of its defeat, the government will have the power to detain American citizens for as long as they want without ever granting them their constitutional right to a trial.  Again, this is only on suspicion, which can be determined just on hearsay.  If you are an America, your right to being "secure in your person" has just been greatly reduced.

What is even more disturbing is that the defeat of this amendment was only possible with support from both parties, right and left.  It makes one ask, "Is either party, on the right or left, interested in preserving the constitution?"  The answer is clearly NO.

But this does not surprise me. After a lifetime of studying history, especially in the modern era (16^th century-present), I have come to understand that there are two threats to liberty, freedom and democracy.  These two threats are:

Busybodies on the Right 

Collectivists on the Left

By Busybodies, I mean the people—often religious, often well-intentioned—that want to mold society into their vision of it.  They want the government to limit or prohibit activities they find objectionable, such as prostitution, gambling, smoking, obesity, etc.  Their objection to any given activity is usually moral based, but can also be the result of outright animosity.  For example, many who want to restrict or limit alcohol consumption are those who have dealt with (or seen loved ones deal with) the terrible affects of alcoholism.  They often become so passionate in combating what they see as the cause of pain and suffering that they are willing to remove other people’s right to responsibly enjoy alcohol.

For the collectivist on the left, it is “social injustice” that motivates their destruction of freedom.  They see inequality, especially material inequality, as the great evil.  That one person should have so much while many have so little is very disturbing to them.  Additionally, they see everyone as part of a group and inequality between groups is equally as, if not more, disturbing than the disparity between individuals.  These are injustices that must be rectified.  They demand that the government create regulations and policies that will eliminate the injustices.  This usually takes to form of redistributing of wealth, affirmative action programs, “social justice” initiatives, regulations, and restrictions on freedoms.

Whether a person is a Busybody on the Right or a Collectivist on the left is not important.  What is important is to recognize that both are a threat to freedom, liberty, and democracy.  They are both progressive state-based ideologies that want to use the coercive power of government to enforce their will on the American people.  

It is also important to recognize that neither view is representative of the values that this nation has been built on; limited government, individual freedom, private property, and free market economics.  (For details of the 1600 year evolution of these values see my bestselling book: Liberty Inherited )

I argue that to refer to these groups as the Right and Left end of the American political spectrum is either a product of intellectual dishonesty or lack of understanding of this nation’s political history.  They are, in reality, the two faces of Progressive-ism, which is based on the idea that man can achieve a utopian world.  One leads to fascism and the other communism.  They both use the same means, governmental coerciveness.  What they differ on is their vision of the utopian world they so desperately desire to impose on us.

It is only natural to look at the threat that those who we oppose pose to our freedoms, liberty, and rights.  But this “we good, you bad” approach leaves us blind to the danger from our ‘own side.’

[A historical example of this is Hitler’s SA.  The SA (Sturm Abteilung) was the infamous “brown shirts” of the Nazi party.  Its membership was mostly made up of radical socialists and they believed that they were fighting for the elimination of inequality and to return law and order (morality) to Germany.  Once in power, Hitler no longer needed this army of “useful idiots” –as Lenin called such people—and in June/July 1934 ordered a purge of the whole organization.  This purge, known as “The Night of the Long Knives,” resulted in the death of hundreds of the SA’s leaders and imprisonment of thousand of its members.  In the end, it was their own side that made Germany into one of the bloodiest authoritarian regimes of the 20^th century (only surpassed by Communist Russia and Mao’s China).]

The truth is that there are elements within both the Republican and Democratic parties that threaten our freedom.  Some claim to be Conservative while others declare themselves Liberals.  Sometime they are religious, but just as often they are secular.  But the titles do not matter.  What is important—what we must ask ourselves- is, “Are they furthering liberty for all or are they just using specific issues to manipulate me into being a ‘useful idiot?’

Lastly, we need to accept the reality that we have greater influence over our friends than our enemies.  This means that we have a better chance of protecting our rights and freedoms from the threats within our own side.  This does not mean that we ignore threats from our opponents or that we assume that they are policing themselves.  It does mean that we have two eyes and all liberty loving Americans need both wide-open, one looking left while the other looks right.