The Christian Solution C   S  
Home Page   About TCS   Contact Us  

April 1, 2009

"Liberty and Justice for all" becomes socialized

Source: Campaign for Liberty
Liberty and Law, not "Law and Order"

Source: Rebecca Hagelin

Source: Walter Williams
'Social justice' and hatred

Walter Williams wants you to ask your minister, political representative, or college professor this simple question.

  • Do I have exclusive ownership of my own life? Yes or no?

I agree that none of them will give you a simple yes or no answer. -- "It depends", will be the likely answer.

Like the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes of old who was confronted by the truth and light of Jesus, you will not get an answer.

If answering "No, you do not have ownership of your life, others do", then they are agreeing that enslaving you is OK -- that raping you is OK -- that murdering you is OK -- that stealing from you is OK.

On the other hand, if they say "Yes, you do have ownership of your life, then slavery, rape, murder, AND stealing will be actions that others cannot take against you.

Drafting you for military service or a federal youth service team also becomes a violation of your sovereignty.

Taking money from you to give to others for food stamps, public housing, WIC, and medicaid becomes an invasion of your sovereignty, even if done legally through the government.

The Founders knew governments became this way and left Americans with the ultimate "Checks and Balances" against state tyranny, the Second Amendment.

Does society own you or do you own society?

  • The expression I grew up with was that a criminal had to "pay his debt to society".

    "Pay his debt to Society"?

    Now I realize this saying in truth means "Pay your debt to "Socialism".

    Stalin had men pay debts to his society; debts paid in the Siberian Gulag concentration camps.

    Obama will surely have men pay debts to his society as well; the society which he will define for us.

    If society owns everything then no one owns anything, including his own life in most communist societies.

    Actually that is not true. Of course there are people who decide things.

    The ones who speak for society are the ones who virtually own everything. And from my research, that almost always appears to be Jewish Pharisees. True in Stalin's Russia and true in Obama's America.

  • Another expression I grew up with was that a criminal was to be "brought to justice."

    There is still nothing apparently wrong with the word justice, until that is, you add the word "social" in front of it.

    Today, social justice insures justice to some groups through an injustice to all other groups.

    REAL Societal Debts, which Social Justice Demands to be Repaid

    Oh, don't get me wrong. I believe there are societal debts one can incur that "social justice" demands one repay to society.

    The examples that come to mind are food stamps, public housing, WIC, and medicaid.

    The most powerful moment from the film Cinderella Man was when boxer James Braddock, played by Russell Crowe, freshly victorious in his boxing career, was of such a moral character that he remembered to return to the welfare office in order to pay back the welfare money which "society" had given him to help his family during the Great Depression, at a time in his life when he was down and out.

    Real debts

    Most times, we owe individual debts to our families, friends, neighbors or local businessmen.

    Prior to America becoming a socialist country, men paid their debts to the ones they owed the debt to.

    If you stole an Apple from a grocer, you were expected to repay the grocer for the apple and the time and effort he was out in prosecuting you.

    We had a debt to our parents who raised us, and hence we provided for them in their old age.

    Christian principles

    Recently, many have started pointing out the fact that "government giving" is not "Christian giving". It is really government "stealing" in order to "give"; whereas Christian giving is an individual who cared enough to work for money, so that he could give that money to someone he felt was in need of his help.

    In Christian charity, the individual expects repayment from God and if he were ever in need, perhaps help one day from the ones whom he had helped.

    In Government charity, the government expects to be repaid by votes and punishes the man who worked hard to earn that money by taking it away from him.

    In Christian sin, the individual asks forgiveness of both God and the one offended, then offers restitution to make the one offended whole again.

    In Government sin, the government asks the criminal to pay restitution to the government in fines or prison time, while the offended party is rarely made whole again.

    For instance, write a hot check today and you go to jail. Writing a hot check is stealing from a bank. It is not stealing from the government (Yes, perhaps it is now with the FDIC). But the restitution is no longer to the bank, it is made to the collectivist whole we call "society" in the form of prison. Hence, "paying back society".

      In colonial and early post-independence America, jails were uncommon and penitentiaries all but unknown. In many communities those convicted of property crimes were compelled to make restitution to their victims, a practice growing out of the recognition that such offenders owe a debt to particular victims, not to a collectivist abstraction called "society."

      If the economic correction we're experiencing were to result in a much-overdue social correction, the existing "justice" system would be demolished and reconstructed on the basis of liberty protected by law, rather than "law and order." The purpose of the law, wrote John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government, "is not to abolish or restrain but to preserve and enlarge freedom."

      The preservation of individual liberty and property requires a government apparatus so minimal as to be practically invisible, and a law enforcement touch so slight as to be nearly imperceptible.

      This is why our rulers have spared no effort to propagate and maintain a cult of "law and order," in which the supposed needs of "society" are paramount and justice for individual victims of actual crimes, where it occurs, is a fortuitous but inconsequential happenstance.

      --William Norman Grigg

    Liberty through Law

    The Jewish media-Scribes often portray society as broken into two camps.

    • Camp 1: the "law and order" camp -- usually Republicans.
    • Camp 2: the "liberty" camp -- often Democrats; although Libertarians will differ with me on this.

    Neither side would have pleased the Founding Fathers.

    For the first, the Founders would have bristled at anyone wanting the "law and order" they saw under the laws of Britain, which were meant to virtually enslave them. For that matter, Hitler and Stalin were also well know to have plenty of "law and order."

    If the Founding Fathers were to see the draconian "war on (American people who take) drugs", or the upcoming merciless "war on (American people who happen to be) the rich" under Obama, and especially, torture of people we never even bothered to declare war on, they would be dusting off their muskets.

    The Founding Fathers would also have bristled at a liberty defined to allow a woman the liberty to leave her husband she had contracted in marriage and the liberty to destroy the life growing in her uterus that they had created together.

    They would have quickly recognized that her liberty was suborned to the marriage contract she freely entered into. They would also recognize that one was not at liberty to take away others "life, liberty or pursuit of happiness." So killing a baby is not a liberty anyone can have.

    Again, the Founding Fathers would be activating their militias to save unborn babies.

    The America we once had was created to enact only laws that protected the life, liberty and property of individuals, in accordance with the Constitution.

    The America of today enacts laws that protect whatever the government (i.e. society) has defined as its own life, liberty and property -- individuals be dammed.

    With Liberty and Justice for all

    "With Liberty and Justice for all" used to mean that all "individuals" in society had liberty and justice.

    Today, the twisted meaning is "With Liberty and Justice for all" means that all "social groups" enjoy liberty and justice.

    Liberty meant we owned our selves, having been placed on Earth by God. Justice was our protection of our liberty.

    Now, groups are played against each other in a Jewish Pharisee power game of divide and conquer, using meaninglessly twisted freedom words.

    At the beginning, Americans had liberty for all, because we had justice for all.

    Too bad that the fighting for liberty and justice spirit that our Founders once had is not genetically inheritable.

    The main problem is because we have lost the desire for "truth and justice." With the emphasise on the loss of "truth".

    Article located at:
  • Last Hope for America
    Christian Libertarian: Harmonious Union
    Church and State

    The Christian Solution ©             First Release: March 15, 2008