The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

The Greater Good

The modern Democrat Party, and Progressive and Leftists, often attempt to advance their policy goals and social agendas under the belief that they are beneficial for the ‘Greater Good’ of all America and of all Americans. They often justify these actions under a Democratic political theory of the Constitution, as I have written in my article “A Republican Constitution or a Democratic Constitution”. The question that arises is, what is the ‘Greater Good’ for Americans? Are implementations of social agendas for the ‘Greater Good’? Are myriad rules and regulations for the ‘Greater Good’? Are governmental interventions into all aspects of American society for the ‘Greater Good’? They may, or may not, be for good, but are they for the ‘Greater Good’?

For the ‘Greater Good’ of All Americans, we need not look any further than the Declaration of Independence, as it states:

“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, …”

Therefore, the ‘Greater Good’ of all Americans is for “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” that is secured through the “just powers from the consent of the governed “. This is instituted in America by the protection of our “Natural, Human, and Civil Rights” as espoused in the Constitution of the United States. It should be noted that the powers of the government are only for the ‘Greater Good’ if they are ‘just’ powers, and these just powers of the Federal government are the “ Limited and Enumerated Powers” as espoused in the Constitution of the United States. Such Limited and Enumerated Powers are not expansive, as I have noted in the “General Welfare” section of the aforementioned article.

As I have also noted in the aforementioned article, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution were passed to assure that the ‘Greater Good’ originates from the Natural Rights of the people, as the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The Tenth Amendment was passed to assure that the Federal government did not usurp the Natural Rights of the people, as the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Ninth Amendment assures us that if a right is not enumerated in the Constitution that the right is retained by the people, and not that that the right does not exist. This also reminds us that rights do not originate from the Constitution but from the people. The Tenth Amendment reminds us that any government power not delegated to the Federal Government in the Constitution is a power delegated to the States, or to the people, as long as their Natural, Human, and Civil Rights are not infringed upon.

These Natural and Constitutional Rights assure us that the ‘Greater Good’ cannot override our Natural and Constitutional Rights. Any ‘Greater Good’ Law or Regulation that violates our Natural and Constitutional Rights is therefore Unconstitutional. The ‘Greater Good’ must always exist within our Natural and Constitutional Rights; otherwise, it is not for the ‘Greater Good’.

The Natural Right to Life

One of the things that we can be assured of in life is that we will all eventually die. Whether it be by old age, disease, fatal accidents, or by acts of nature (i.e., through Natural Causes), death is inevitable. You have no Natural Right to Life in these circumstances. You do have the Natural Right to Life in that your life may not be unjustly taken by another person or persons. The keyword to this right is ‘unjustly’, as there are some circumstances where your life can be justly taken. If you take the life of another in the protection of your life, or a family member's life, and for the protection of the lives of others, at what point is it a ‘just’ or an ‘unjust’ taking. This issue, and other circumstances in which one person takes the life of another, is one for "Justice and The Rule of Law in America" to determine.

The issue of the Natural Right to Life in an Abortion is complex, and the subject of my articles, “The Abortion Question“ - An examination of the Human Rights of an unborn child, and the issues and concerns regarding abortion, and “The Analogy of Abortion and Slavery“ - An examination of how the current abortion debate is analogous to the debate on slavery that occurred prior to the Civil War. I would refer you to these articles for a more thorough examination of this issue.

Capital Punishment is another issue of the Natural Right to Life. Many would argue that the Death Penalty is a violation of the Natural Right to Life, while many would argue that a person who has committed a heinous crime deserving of a death penalty has forfeited their Natural Right to Life. The answer to this question, from the Natural Right to Life perspective, is whether the death penalty is a just or unjust taking of human life. The proponents of the death penalty would argue that if the convicted person had a just trial where all his judicial rights were protected and enforced, then the death penalty is justified. The opponents of the death penalty argue that it is never justified to take the life of another person. My Observation, “Capital Punishment”, examines this issue in more detail.

The other issue of the Natural Right to Life is the taking of civilian lives from Acts of War. The taking of the lives of combatants during a war is an issue of a ‘Just War’ and ‘The Rules of Engagement’ during a war. The issue of civilian deaths because of wartime actions is a very thorny issue. At what point do the actions of civilians supporting a war make them subject to the taking of their lives. And at what point is collateral damage (the inadvertent casualties and destruction inflicted on civilians in the course of military operations) become acceptable. These are issues for legal scholars, theologians, and philosophers and is beyond the scope of this article and my abilities to address this issue. I, therefore, leave this issue for your consideration.

The Natural Right to Life is the first and most essential Natural Right, for, without it, you cannot have any other Natural Rights. It should be preserved and protected in all societies and governments.

The Natural Right of Freedom of Conscience

As I have written in my article “The Meaning of the First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution” the First Amendment to the Constitution, the “Freedom of Expression” is a misnomer as it would be better named as the Natural Right to the “Freedom of Conscience”. The First Amendment states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment to the Constitution is quite a mouthful, and the question arises as to why these rights were lumped together into one Amendment rather than having separate rights? The answer is that our Founding Fathers knew that these rights were inseverable. Inseverable as you cannot have one of these rights without having the other rights of this Amendment. To exercise one of these rights you are in effect exercising another of these rights, and any attempt to limit one of these rights is an attempt to limit another of these rights.

Unfortunately, the modern Democrat Party, and Progressive and Leftists, often attempt to limit one or more of these rights in the name of advancing policy goals and social causes that they believe are beneficial to America and Americans. However, limiting the “Natural, Human, and Civil Rights”, and especially the Freedom of Conscience, is never beneficial to anyone or any society. For such limitations lead to the direction and control of a person or society, which leads to a subjugated or subservient people. The hubris of a government that believes that they can direct or control a free people is astounding. Only a subjugated or subservient people can be directed or controlled.

As Americans believe in “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All” we are a free people. A free people that should reject any limitations to our First Amendment rights, as well as rejecting any politician or leader that would limit our First Amendment rights. By not rejecting any politician or leader that would limit our First Amendment rights we are on the slippery slope of becoming a subjugated or subservient people.

The Natural Right of Self-Protection

As I have written in my article “The Meaning of the First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution”, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is the Natural Right to protect yourself, your family, and your society from violent acts that may be perpetrated against yourself, or your family, or society. Whether these violent acts be from an individual, a group, or a government, you have the Natural Right to protect yourself against these violent acts. The Second Amendment states:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

You also have the Natural Right to protect yourself from encroachments to your “Natural, Human, and Civil Rights” from individuals, groups, or government. And you have the Natural Right to arm yourself with sufficient and adequate weaponry to protect yourself, and your family, and your society. It is your Natural Right, and nobody’s else right, including a government, to determine what types and amounts of weaponry are necessary to protect your Natural Rights. Therefore, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and fishing, as if often claimed, but everything to do with protecting your Natural Right of Self-Protection.

Any attempt to parse this Amendment to constrict the Natural Right of Self-Protection is an attempt to limit your Natural Rights. And any constrictions of your Natural Rights are detrimental to society. Constricting weaponry of those people convicted of violent crimes is not a constriction of the Natural Right of Self-Protection, as those people who have committed violent crimes have forfeited this Natural Right of Self-Protection by their very actions. A necessary constriction, as those people who have committed violent crimes are not utilizing weaponry to defend themselves but for the purposes of violating the Natural Rights of others.

Unfortunately, the modern Democrat Party, and Progressive and Leftists, often attempt to limit the Natural Right of Self-Protection under the guise of reasonable gun control for the benefit of America and Americans. However, limiting the Natural Right of Self-Protection is never beneficial to anyone or any society. For such limitations lead to the direction and control of a person or society, which leads to a subjugated or subservient people. The hubris of a government that believes that they can direct or control a free people is astounding. Only a subjugated or subservient people can be directed or controlled.

As Americans believe in “Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All”, we are a free people. A free people that should reject any limitations to our Second Amendment rights, as well as rejecting any politician or leader that would limit our Second Amendment rights. By not rejecting any politician or leader that would limit our Second Amendment rights, we are on the slippery slope of becoming a subjugated or subservient people.

The Natural Right of Property

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, the unalienable Rights that he had drafted were Life, Liberty, and Property. His fellow committee members (John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston) thought that it would be more comprehensive if they changed “Property” to the “pursuit of Happiness”, as property was one of many means to obtain happiness.

Property that includes your person, your real estate, your personal possessions, and your money. They are your property and no others property until you decide to part with them, or they are forfeited to another by Due Process of Law. However, the Due Process of Law forfeiture may only occur for just purposes and may never be arbitrary. And Just Purposes may never be for the benefit of another person or persons to the detriment of yourself. In the case of necessary Eminent Domain transfer of your real estate property, the government must always give you just compensation for your real estate property, and the utilization of Eminent Domain is only for the public good. "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning" to justify the utilization of Eminent Domain by the government is not acceptable, as this type of reasoning will allow for the government to seize any property for any tortuous or convoluted reason, which is a violation of your Natural Right of Property.

This is why “Entitlements” are often a violation of your Natural Right of Property, as they often take your money (in the form of taxes) for the benefit of another person or persons. It should be remembered that taxes are levied to support the necessary functions of the government for the good of all, not for the good of some. To do so otherwise is tantamount to depriving someone of their monies earned by their work and labor for the benefit of another, which is a violation of your Natural Right of Property. For who has the right to take money out of the pocket of one person to give it to another person without their consent (also called Spending Other People’s Money)? Or as President Lincoln has stated:

"You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.”
- Abraham Lincoln

And taking monies from a taxpayer to give to another is the same principle. This taking of taxes to benefit some people, rather than all the people, infringes on the Natural Right of Property of those that have been taken from. Some of the governmental actions that violate these tenants are direct Government Entitlements to individuals (further elaborated in my article “Entitlements”) and the funding of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s). NGO’s are often special interest groups with a common objective of their members. Sometimes these objectives are economic, political, or social. But in all these cases, it is for the benefit of their members' objectives, i.e., the good of some, and it is not for everyone’s benefit, i.e., the good of all.

Unfortunately, the modern Democrat Party, and Progressive and Leftists, often attempt to violate your Natural Right of Property for the purpose of what they believe is “The Greater Good”. But the greater good is never served by violating someone’s Natural Rights. For our Natural Rights are inviolate, and these Natural Rights assure us that the ‘Greater Good’ cannot override our Natural Rights. "Torturous and Convoluted Reasoning" to justify the Greater Good is not acceptable for the violation of our Natural Right of Property. Any ‘Greater Good’ Law or Regulation that violates our Natural Right of Property is therefore immoral. The ‘Greater Good’ must always exist within our Natural Rights; otherwise, it is not for the ‘Greater Good’.

Please note that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid taxes should not be viewed as taxes. They should be viewed as an insurance policy. Something that you pay into to receive a benefit when you are eligible. Therefore, they are not an entitlement, but an investment that is due to you by your having contributed to them. However, when the government expends more than it has collected or saved, then it becomes an entitlement. Therefore, we must put our financial house in order regarding Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid funding and expenditures so as not to violate our Natural Right of Property.

Conclusion

Our Natural Rights of Life, Freedom of Conscience, Self-Protection, and Property are basic and fundamental Natural Rights that are inseverable from each other, as you cannot have one without the others. And you cannot have Freedom and Liberty without the Natural Rights of Life, Freedom of Conscience, Self-Protection, and Property. Therefore, these Natural Rights are paramount to a free people, and thus supersede The Greater Good if this greater good would violate any of these Natural Rights. For those that would compromise on these Natural Rights to obtain some Greater Good, I would remind them of the sage wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
- Benjamin Franklin

To which I would paraphrase: