0 Items  Total: $0.00

Aristocracy

The Bedrock of Freedom: The Ben Carson vs. Rand Paul Debate by Oliver DeMille

February 13th, 2015 // 9:27 am @

Measles, Vaccinations, Common Core,
and the Deeper Issue We’re All Experiencing

randpaul 300x263 The Bedrock of Freedom: The Ben Carson vs. Rand Paul Debate by Oliver DeMilleThe disconnect right now is tearing our nation apart. Over and over, people engage in the Surface argument, while the Deeper issue is actually a lot more important.

For example, consider the national discussion of whether the government should mandate vaccinations against measles and other similar diseases. The Surface issue is whether vaccinations are safe, or whether in some cases they are hurtful to a child. But the Deeper issue is much more important: Who should make the decision about vaccinations for your children? Government? Or you as the parents?

I recently watched two interviews with U.S. presidential hopefuls that clearly illustrate this point. In the first interview, Ben Carson was asked about measles and vaccinations. He stated that vaccinations should be firmly mandated by government for all children. Period.

Rand Paul took a slightly different approach. He said that vaccinations work and that children should be vaccinated, but that the more important issue is this: Government doesn’t own such decisions about children, parents do. Parents should have the final say.

Both of these men are medical doctors, and both have a history of commitment to the principles of freedom. But in this case, one called for government mandates and the other called for sticking with freedom. Very interesting.

Force and Reason

Ben Carson went on to say that the idea that vaccinations are widely damaging has been debunked, but then he added an interesting point. He said that of course a few children are allergic or otherwise react poorly to vaccinations, but overall the benefits of widespread vaccination are worth it.

That’s reasonable. But, if reason is to be our guide, which of the following is more reasonable:

1-Educating the populace about the scientific facts, then using government force to mandate what parents must choose for their children?

2-Educating the populace about the scientific facts, then letting parents make choices for their children?

This illustrates the current growing division between those who generally trust the government and those who usually distrust it. This disconnect is now a major feature of our nation. It shows up in numerous important issues, including:

1-The government should mandate Common Core across the nation to raise standards for schools and students.

   Vs.

2-Parents should have the final say on whether or not Common Core is good for their specific children.

Or:

1-The police are justified in using deadly force as needed, because law enforcement is paramount and force is frequently necessary—and police and government agents are nearly always in the right.

   Vs.

2-The community should be very vigilant about any use of force by the police to ensure that it was truly justified, because police forces and governmental agencies sometimes overstep their bounds and aren’t held accountable.

To Trust or Not to Trust

America is split, more each year, by these two major perspectives: “We almost always trust the government to do the right thing,” versus “We don’t usually trust the government to do the right thing.”

Through most of the 20th Century, by the way, an average of 78% of Americans held the first view (trust), while today only 23% of Americans believe the government will do the right thing most of the time. That’s a huge change.

And clearly the disconnect isn’t partisan. It divides both major parties, and it also divides independents. Just look at Common Core, for example. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are strongly against it, while Jeb Bush is a firm supporter. Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee supported it at the state level and then opposed it when it became a federal program. And all of these men are leading Republicans.

Or look at the vaccination issue. Some of the strongest supporters of government mandates are top Democratic politicians, while many of the communities with the lowest rates of vaccination (and highest levels of anti-vaccination activism) are university neighborhoods dominated by progressive faculty and administrators.

On the Right, many Republican voters demand that everyone get vaccinated, while a vocal opposition calls mandatory vaccination a socialistic plot. Ben Carson versus Rand Paul, so to speak, but spread through the population regardless of party.

Now, change the Surface issue, from, say, vaccinations to police use of deadly force in Ferguson, Cleveland, or New York, and the sides quickly shift.

Bad Comparisons

Here’s another example:

1-The government should regulate and then force the education of all children ages 5-16.

   Vs.

2-Parents should have the right to make the final educational decisions for their family.

This one clearly hits very close to home, but the divide is still there. Ben Carson said something really interesting while he was making his case for mandatory vaccinations. He compared them to seatbelt laws and also laws against texting while driving. I like Ben Carson, so this surprised me because these two things shouldn’t be treated the same. (He probably would have clarified this if he had time to elaborate.)

The main intent of “don’t text while you drive” laws is to protect other people from bad driving, while the focus of seat belt laws is to protect the driver.

In the case of Common Core, supporters often speak as if their major goals are to improve society, while many parents who dislike Common Core care mostly about the education of their own children. And pro-vaccinators often cite public health statistics at the same time that anti-vaccination parents point to anecdotal examples where specific children were harmed.

Simplicity and Standards

This all makes sense, if we take the time to really consider it. In short, those thinking in terms of the mass population naturally overlook the specific, individual cases (“they’re just anecdotal”) while many a concerned parent logically ignores the statistical tables (“my son isn’t just a number”) and focuses on the potential danger if her child just happens to be one of those who is harmed.

Both views have merit. Both are reasonable. Both make sense. But back to our original question: To whom are we going to give the final say?

The answer depends on what level of society is best equipped to deal with each specific situation. Consider:

  • If it’s a question about nuclear attack or foreign invasion, the federal government was designed to deal with it.
  • If it’s a question of crime or direct danger to everyone, it’s a state or provincial issue.
  • Or, if anything in level B can be handled more effectively at a local level, it should be.
  • If it’s about what’s best for an individual’s education, prosperity, or health, let the individual choose. This is the essence of freedom. If it’s about children, let’s trust the parents.

This simple little system is essential to freedom. Without such standards, freedom is quickly lost.

The Level

So, let’s get specific. Do the measles meet the “danger to everyone” level in B or C above? No. So leave such health decisions to the parents. Same with Common Core. Of course, if Ebola is the issue, level B kicks in because it truly is a “direct danger to everyone.” It may even be level A, depending on the circumstances. But Common Core and the measles are nowhere near level A. Not even close.

In fact, this system of doing things at the right level, and only at the right level, is the key to maintaining freedom and applying wisdom on nearly every issue. For example:

-Seat belts? Level D.
-Drunk driving or text-driving? Level B. (It would be level C if people didn’t travel very much, but in our current world conditions, if every local area has a different law, far too many drivers will be confused and the laws will be ineffective at protecting the life and liberty of others.)
-Police using deadly force? Level B.
-Oversight of any use of deadly force? Levels A-D.
-Compulsory school laws? Level D only. Seriously, leave to families those things best handled by families.
-Dedicated study and wise oversight of all laws? Level D.

This isn’t just the Deeper level; it is the bedrock of freedom.

******************

odemille The Bedrock of Freedom: The Ben Carson vs. Rand Paul Debate by Oliver DeMille Oliver DeMille is the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestselling co-author of LeaderShift: A Call for Americans to Finally Stand Up and Lead, the co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.

Among many other works, he is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy, and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America’s Destiny.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

Share and Enjoy:
  • email link The Bedrock of Freedom: The Ben Carson vs. Rand Paul Debate by Oliver DeMille
  • printfriendly The Bedrock of Freedom: The Ben Carson vs. Rand Paul Debate by Oliver DeMille
  • pdf The Bedrock of Freedom: The Ben Carson vs. Rand Paul Debate by Oliver DeMille
  • facebook The Bedrock of Freedom: The Ben Carson vs. Rand Paul Debate by Oliver DeMille
  • linkedin The Bedrock of Freedom: The Ben Carson vs. Rand Paul Debate by Oliver DeMille
  • twitter The Bedrock of Freedom: The Ben Carson vs. Rand Paul Debate by Oliver DeMille

Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Education &Featured &Generations &Government &Leadership &Liberty &Politics &Prosperity &Science &Statesmanship

This is the Book! by Oliver DeMille

December 18th, 2014 // 6:47 am @

From the desk of Rachel DeMille….

196 Cover 706x1024 This is the Book! by Oliver DeMilleOliver writes a lot, and has published many popular and successful books. But from my vantage point, I could see that his upcoming book is very, very different from all the rest – especially in his mind. I’ve watched Oliver’s intensity and anticipation regarding this work, and wanted to give you a peek into the author’s point of view. He consented to a brief interview…

Rachel: What do you want people to know about your new book, The U.S. Constitution and the 196 Indispensable Principles of Freedom?

Oliver: [Chuckles quietly; then grows silent for a moment] This is the book. This is The One. I’ve been working on it for over two decades. It’s ready now, and it can change the world in powerful ways.

Rachel: So you would call it your “Magnum Opus”?

Oliver: Absolutely. Without question. These 196 Principles are not articulated so concisely or collected as such in any other work or body of work that I know of, and I consider them absolutely vital to the future of freedom in our time.

Rachel: I can see why you feel so strongly about this book. How did it come about?

An Important Disagreement

Oliver: To begin, I knew I was deeply moved about the cause freedom when I was very young—well before high school. During those early years my focus was on soaking up as many principles and ideas about freedom as I could. I heard W. Cleon Skousen speak in person on freedom when I was in high school, and I read his book The Making of America. As I listened to him, I knew I’d found my life’s mission.

Sometime shortly after this, the way I studied freedom took a turn. In my readings and as I attended classes, I realized something important: Not only is there a great debate in our society about whether or not we really want to emphasize freedom, but there are also some substantive disagreements about what does or does not promote freedom.

Rachel: That disagreement seems like a pivotal one.

Oliver: Absolutely. And understanding that disagreement reframes the debate over good policy and bad, current events, laws, appointments, regulations, elections, etc. It affects everything in our society.

With this understanding, I started a special file. Every time I came across an indispensable principle of freedom—something that is vital for freedom to flourish, something that directly causes decline when we don’t apply it—I copied it and kept it. I also included quotes and sources that supported these principles. Over the years the file grew into a shoebox, then a bigger box, then a file cabinet. Many of these notes are hand written in the margins and blank spaces of books from many genres.

What They Knew

Rachel: Clearly you’re not publishing a file cabinet full of notes…? How did you distill it down?

Oliver: No – and this is why it has taken me years to write it. I wanted to know as much as Jefferson and Madison about government, history, law, political economy, and freedom. Not in the modern academic sense of narrow specialization, but in the Founding Fathers model of broad and truly deep understanding. That’s a tall order, no doubt. It’s one many of us are still working on. It’s a lifetime calling. But our generation needs such people: Regular people who truly pay the price to study and understand freedom at the level the Founders did.

The question I had was clear: What are the essential principles of freedom, the indispensable things that simply must be applied if we truly want a free and prosperous society?

Some of the things I found were simple and direct, like principles listed in Skousen’s Five Thousand Year Leap or Bastiat’s little book The Law. Others were more obscure, like those found in the writing of Solzhenitsyn, Montesquieu, or Aristotle. Some were downright elusive—not because the Founding Fathers and other great freedom leaders didn’t teach them, but because we’ve stopped talking about them in recent decades.

I found some of the most important principles in the 20-volume collected writings of Thomas Jefferson. I found a lot in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers and Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, of course, and other great works like the writings of Blackstone.

The Hidden Principle

I found one hidden away in the writings of Patrick Henry—a principle of freedom that almost single-handedly determines whether or not a society will flourish or move into decline. But this principle is hidden from most moderns; almost nobody today knows it or realizes how truly vital it is.

I searched for the indispensable principles of freedom in every book I read, in every class I took, every seminar I attended, every class I taught, every discussion I led, every speech I gave. Some of the principles came from surprising sources. For example, I found one of the vital principles of freedom in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, and another in Owen Wister’s The Virginian. This was unexpected, but the principles are powerful.

I eventually put this list of indispensable principles into an outline and started writing this book. I wrote other books along the way, but I kept working on this one. Seemingly everything I learned influenced this magnum opus—a little or a lot. By 2005 I had it book ready. Or so I thought.

But I kept finding new principles as I read and taught, so I had to keep adding new material to the book. “This isn’t ready yet,” I realized. “I need to go re-read the great classics and make sure I haven’t missed any of the indispensable principles of freedom.”

I went back to the bookshelves and re-studied the great classics, all the Great Books and the Harvard Classics, the Annals of America set, the collected writings of many of the founding fathers, shelves of scholarly journal articles, court cases and commentaries, and the leading books on freedom through history, like the writings of Plutarch, Sydney, Cicero, James Wilson, Lord Acton, James Bryce (wow!), Calvin Coolidge, Churchill, Gandhi, Pufendorf, etc.

A Free Society

I pored through page after page, taking more notes, watching the file cabinet of ideas, quotes, and principles grow. In 2008 and 2009 I again prepared a manuscript, had it read by several excellent editors and thinkers, and got ready to publish. In the process I found a few more indispensable principles of freedom and included them. But finding even just a few more concerned me. “I need to be sure I get them all,” I told myself.

I knew I needed more time. This turned into five more years of close research, additional reading and re-reading of American Founding letters, newspaper articles, sermons, speeches, cases, documents, and more review of the greatest world classics on freedom. This was so much fun!

I wrote and rewrote. Edited, researched, added and cut. After four years of research and digging without finding any more indispensable principles of freedom, I knew the book was ready.

Rachel: So bottom line, give us the one-liner that explains what this book is about.

Oliver: Here’s what this book does: It outlines and explains what is necessary for a society to be free. That’s huge!

To Determine a Future

Everyone realizes that just knowing what makes freedom flourish isn’t enough. We have to apply these things—not just know them. But the first step is to know them, and sadly, in our day most people don’t.

If we don’t know them, we certainly can’t apply them. That’s why this book is so important. It clearly outlines what is needed to be a free nation. It outlines the 196 indispensable principles of freedom. Pure and simple.

If we know and apply these things, we’ll be free. If we don’t, we won’t.

This is powerful. It is real.

Rachel: Thanks, Oliver! Final thoughts for our readers?

Oliver: After over twenty-six years (not including the two years I lived in Spain serving a religious mission for my church) of reading, researching, debating, and analyzing history, current events, the principles of liberty, and the great classics, I’m so excited to put this all together in this important book. It’s been a labor of love: To bring the truly indispensable principles of freedom to the regular people who ultimately determine the future of any society.

The Need

I hope parents will encourage this book with every young person, and that any adult who cares about freedom will read it closely.

I love freedom. I believe it is the way God wants people to live in this world. It brings more happiness, prosperity, opportunity, and family success than any other economic or political system. I have dedicated my life to doing whatever I can to promote freedom—real freedom, not frustrating politics—in the world. I am so grateful to the many people, friends, mentors, writers, thinkers, leaders and others who have directly or indirectly helped clarify these 196 indispensable principles of freedom. They are incredibly powerful!

Again, if we use them, we can restore freedom to any society or nation. If we don’t, we can’t.

So, I repeat: This is the book. This is the one. We need our generation to read it. Anyone who cares about freedom, this book is dedicated to you.

This hardback, high-quality book retails at $ 27.95, but it is available right now at the special pre-print discounted rate of $13.95. To preorder Oliver DeMille’s new book, The U.S. Constitution and the 196 Indispensable Principles of Freedom, click here >>
******************

odemille This is the Book! by Oliver DeMille Oliver DeMille is the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestselling co-author of LeaderShift: A Call for Americans to Finally Stand Up and Lead, the co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.

Among many other works, he is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy, and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America’s Destiny.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • email link This is the Book! by Oliver DeMille
  • printfriendly This is the Book! by Oliver DeMille
  • pdf This is the Book! by Oliver DeMille
  • facebook This is the Book! by Oliver DeMille
  • linkedin This is the Book! by Oliver DeMille
  • twitter This is the Book! by Oliver DeMille

Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Book Reviews &Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Education &Entrepreneurship &Featured &Generations &Government &History &Leadership &Liberty &Mission &Politics &Statesmanship

The Law of Liberty

December 4th, 2014 // 2:53 pm @

When freedom is reduced for some, it is reduced for all.

Liberty Bell 253x300 The Law of LibertyAmerican founding father James Otis said in 1764, “The Parliament cannot make two and two, five…. Should an act of Parliament be against any of his [the Creator’s] natural laws, their declaration would be contrary to eternal truth, equity and justice, and consequently void.”[i]

One of the great natural laws we most need to understand today is the Law of Liberty, which says that freedom is truly indivisible because if you take it from some, it ultimately reduces the freedom of everyone. This natural law is sometimes ignored for the simple reason that it isn’t always obvious in the short term, just as the reality that the earth is round isn’t always clearly evident to the naked eye.

Because this law isn’t apparent unless a person understands it, generations of human beings have reduced their own freedoms because they hoped that reductions in liberty would only hurt “other” people. In the same way that government often gets away with spending on things that break natural laws because the citizens think it is spending Other People’s Money (OPM), we frequently give away our rights when we think they’ll only impact Other People’s Freedom (OPF).

One of the most famous discussions about this law came from Christian pastor Martin Niemoller in his recollection of how Nazism spread in Germany, and how few people did anything to stop its takeover of society. Pastor Neimoller is credited with saying:

“First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

“Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

“Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

“Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

“Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.”[ii]

This is an excellent description of what happens when we ignorantly violate the law of freedom, allowing others to lose their rights while justifying that they probably deserved it and hoping it will never reach the point where it hurts us or those we love.

Note that Pastor Niemoller eventually became the leader of a group of clergymen opposed to Hitler and that he was arrested and held in Sachsenhausen and Dachau prison camps for the crime of not being “enthusiastic” about Nazism. Good for him! That’s heroism. As Thoreau said, in a truly unjust society the only place for a really just man in jail. Niemoller was later released by the Allies in 1945.

When a person loses freedom because he or she has caused harm to another person, and arrest or imprisonment is needed to keep others safe or demand recompense for the harms to a victim, the loss of liberty is within the bounds of natural law. When a person is deprived of freedom for any other reason, it breaks natural law, and this hurts the entire society that allows such a violation of natural law.

Slavery is an obvious example. So is any kind of caste or class system where the laws and government treat a group of people differently because of their religion, race, gender, country of origin, beliefs, etc.

Those who truly understand freedom will stand up for the inalienable rights of all human beings, from all walks of life, because they realize that: “When others are free, then my own freedom is safer, and when others lose their freedoms my own freedom is always in jeopardy.”

The Law of Maturity

A corollary of the law of freedom could be called the law of maturity, which teaches the levels of understanding freedom. The levels of maturity include (from worst to best):

Extreme Immaturity: The desire not to be free, to leave important decisions to others and not have to live with the consequences of your choices and actions. The desire to be taken care of by someone else.

High Immaturity: The desire to be free when it suits you, but to leave many important decisions and the consequences of your actions to others. To get to do what you want, but have someone else fix any problems that arise from your bad choices and actions.

Immaturity: The desire to be free and for others to be free, as long as the others are like you (religion, race, gender, caste, same nation, or other similarities) or deemed to be “on your side,” and the desire for those unlike you or not “on your side” to not have the same benefits “because they don’t deserve them.” To have the government treat you freely, but treat “others” differently.

Low Maturity: The desire to be free and for all others to be free, and to be given forgiveness when you are asked to account for your failures, while simultaneously wanting justice to be applied to others.

Moderate Maturity: The desire to be free in all situations, to make your own decisions and live with the consequences of your choices and actions, and for others to do the same. To be free and accountable, and hope that others will do likewise.

High Maturity: The desire to be free and accountable and help all others enjoy the same. To take a stand and protect the inalienable rights and freedoms of all, including those who are different than you or even your enemies, and even if this requires great personal sacrifices from you and those you love.

In historical times most governments and nations have violated the law of freedom, which is a major reason that true freedom has been so rare in human experience. Governments and laws have withheld or taken away freedom from people based on their religion, beliefs, gender, race, ethnicity, nation of origin, disability, looks, words, ideas, friends, which books they had in their home, what religion they wanted to teach their children, and a number of other things that violated natural law.

And, through history, very few people have been willing to take an active stand for freedom when they were personally free but others were having their rights violated. This has occurred in too many ways and times to list, from the scared Christians who watched Jews slaughtered in Nazi Germany to the fearful Jews who watched Christians butchered in the Roman games, to otherwise good Americans who did nothing to stop the interment of patriotic Americans in the 1940s simply because they had Japanese ancestors or features.

Other examples include otherwise good Americans in the mid-19th century who let women be raped and men killed and children driven into the snow by American troops simply because of their Native American ethnicity, or the otherwise good Americans who allowed slavery and later segregation to flourish in the American south based entirely on the color of one’s skin.

Consequences of Breaking the Law of Liberty

Human history is full of such violations of natural law, and in every case the loss of freedom for the few has eventually decreased the level of freedom for all. When nations imprison their citizens because of their race, the same generation of officials always takes away the freedom of the majority in numerous ways. A government that allows slavery will always allow less freedom for the middle classes as well.

Find any government in history whose soldiers are allowed to rape and pillage with impunity, and you’ll find a central government that is working behind the scenes to increase government power and reduce the freedoms of the people—rich, median and poor alike. There are few, if any, exceptions to this principle in all of written history.

When a government is allowed to be unjust to one group, it establishes a precedent that all of us should carefully consider. Precedent is extremely powerful, either for good or bad. History has proven that even a good policy with a bad precedent will eventually lead to a bad policy.

For example, Caesar Augustus set a limit on taxes, but with this very action he created a precedent that the emperor had the power to establish tax levels. The Senate, which had the power to check this action, did nothing because the tax limit was low. But, naturally, later emperors drastically raised taxes and the Senate couldn’t do anything because they had allowed the precedent of the emperor determining tax rates.

Similarly, in classical Greece the Delian League allowed the great leader Aristides to single-handedly make numerous government decisions and set policies, because they trusted him. He turned out to be worthy of the trust, and the people flourished. A few years later he retired, and his replacements for many years afterwards abused the power of the office. The policy of allowing Aristides to make choices turned out well as long as he was in office, but the precedent of giving one man so much power inevitably backfired. This is one of the examples George Washington looked to when he refused to be king.

No matter how much a nation may think that it is okay to withhold freedom from any group of people (except in the case of crime), the precedent of doing so limits the freedom of everyone. The law of liberty is real. Any government that allows a loss of freedom for some is also planning or implementing additional ways to expand its power over other groups of people (or soon will do so).

Consequences Today

In our day, this should bring pause to any caring and wise citizen. A nation that allows the termination of unborn babies and withholds the freedom of opportunity from immigrants (not for defense, but on the basis of “keeping others out of our country”), is, according to the law of liberty, violating natural law in other ways.

This may be occurring in secret labs, the training of troops to go door-to-door and subdue a populace in its own nation, or in various other plans hatched behind closed doors, but the law of liberty guarantees that something like these things is happening. For example, it is natural that a nation that interred its patriotic citizens of Japanese descent was simultaneously establishing the biggest complex of secret government operations in all of history. Indeed, many of the same national leaders were in charge of both.

In fact, to know what level of secrecy is currently being applied by a modern government, those who understand the law of freedom only need to look at how much that government stands for the freedom of all versus withholding freedom from some groups—whatever the reasons.

Liberty and Justice Come From Indivisible Freedom

Freedom is indivisible in the long term, and only societies that are consistently spreading freedom to more people are trustworthy behind the scenes. Even more importantly, the attitude of the people is a clear indicator of the future of freedom. A nation of people that wants to withhold the opportunities of freedom from any group(s)—including immigrants—is likely to elect officials who will perpetuate governments based on secrecy and power rather than transparency and honest freedom for all.

The law of freedom is a wake-up call to all modern nations. When any group is being treated with suspicion by government or allowed to have lesser freedoms than the majority, the government is not to be fully trusted and the people’s freedoms are in jeopardy.

If this uncomfortable reality hits too close to home in your nation, you know that the law of liberty is probably being violated. The most effective and immediate solution is to look around, find a group that is being denied its rights and opportunities, and help take a stand for freedom—even if you aren’t part o this group. When freedom is unjustly lost for some, it is lost for all of us. Any injustice reduces our liberty.

 

(This article is an excerpt from We Hold These Truths to Be Self-Evident by Oliver DeMille.)

[i] Cited in Sigmund, p. 102.

[ii] Note that there is disagreement about the way this quote has been quoted and translated over time, and many believe that in the actual quote there were only four stanzas, not five, and that the fourth stanza in the longer quote included here was added later and not part of the original.

*******************

odemille The Law of Liberty Oliver DeMille is the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestselling co-author of LeaderShift: A Call for Americans to Finally Stand Up and Lead, the co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.

Among many other works, he is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy, and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America’s Destiny.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah

Share and Enjoy:
  • email link The Law of Liberty
  • printfriendly The Law of Liberty
  • pdf The Law of Liberty
  • facebook The Law of Liberty
  • linkedin The Law of Liberty
  • twitter The Law of Liberty

Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Generations &Government &Leadership &Liberty &Politics

SPECIAL REPORT Part II: Who I Want for President

September 15th, 2014 // 10:34 am @

Diverging Paths

Constitution We the People 1024x371 SPECIAL REPORT Part II: Who I Want for President

The good news is that the 2016 presidential election has the power to put America back on the right track.

The bad news is that same election could make things a whole lot worse for us.

If the United States votes for eight more years of a White House philosophy that believes in more big government, 2016 will be the year we officially endorsed the decline of America.

In a recent article I suggested that Rand Paul or Mitt Romney have a real chance in the next election. I received a lot of responses to this article—more than usual.

Some of them agreed, others showed support for these or different candidates (Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, etc.), and still others suggested that the Democratic party is our best hope.

In all this, nobody addressed my main point. It went something like this:

“Wouldn’t it be nice if we elected a president who actually believed in following the letter of the Constitution? How refreshing! What a great boost that would be for freedom—in the U.S. and around the world.”

Freedom President

I suggested that Rand Paul would likely be that kind of leader, and I’m convinced that Mike Huckabee, Mike Lee, and perhaps others would fit this mold.

Think about it! What a powerful concept: A president who reads the Constitution and simply follows it. Now that’s a truly great idea.

The problem is that presidents don’t do this anymore. Worse, the American people don’t even expect them to do it.

The truth is that most recent presidents would tell you they did follow the Constitution, but when they say this they’re talking about the Supreme Court’s definition of the Constitution. That’s not what I mean.

I’m referring to following the Constitution the way the American founders used the phrase: by reading what it says, and following it. Not by using Supreme Court rulings or Attorney General letters as excuses or grants of executive authority.

This is a really big deal. If we don’t read the document and just follow it,* we aren’t really benefiting from what the Constitution is all about.

And freedom will continue to decline.

Contrast Politics

For example, when President Obama announced major airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, he made sure to point out that he had the authority to order such military operations without any vote from Congress.

He called this following the Constitution, but it isn’t. The document is very clear: only Congress can vote for long-term military operations.

The president can act to stop a direct, immediate threat to the U.S. homeland, but anything beyond that requires a decision by Congress.

In contrast to Obama’s words, when Rand Paul was asked if the president needed Congressional authority for his long-term military plan, he responded that yes, this is exactly what the Constitution says.

It was refreshing to hear a top potential presidential candidate refer to the authority of the Constitution instead of the interpretations of the Court.

Sadly, Americans aren’t accustomed to hearing such words. Politicians refer to past precedents, the War Powers Act, Supreme Court decisions, earlier Congressional approvals that could be interpreted to apply in the current situation, and other policies—and all these distract from the real point.

The framers wrote the Constitution so the regular people could read and tell—with no help from experts—when their government officials were following it and when they weren’t.

False Authority and Failing Checks

It has become commonplace for the White House to simply ignore the Constitution, to intervene when and where it chooses, without regard to the document, and to claim that the Court gave it such power or that Congress allowed it such powers.

But the Constitution doesn’t give the Court or Congress the authority to grant the executive any powers. The Court can check the Oval Office, as can Congress, but neither have the Constitutional power give the Executive additional authority.

The people, not the Court, are the final experts on the Constitution. Presidents routinely pay little heed to the Constitution because the people let them get away with it.

The people keep electing candidates who openly say the role of the president is to go beyond the Constitution—especially in foreign relations, but also in domestic policy. As long as we keep voting this way, we keep losing more freedom.

Recent presidents from both parties have egregiously ignored the Constitution. And among the current potential candidates for president, it is commonplace to speak of following the Constitution and mean the modern, Beltway view of the president’s powers—ignoring the actual words in the document itself.

That’s why I’m so impressed when I hear Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee talk in a totally different way. Or Mike Lee, though he’s shown no interest in the 2016 presidency.

Again, wouldn’t it be great to elect a president who doesn’t consult Washington insiders but rather the pages of the U.S. Constitution when an issue arises.

Imagine a president who would tell Congress that we need serious military action but he won’t take it without their approving vote.

That kind of leadership is sorely missing in America, and one of the top causes of our decline.

Keepers Above the Law

One root of the problem is that most Americans today don’t really believe in limits on government. For example, just watch how the police behave in almost every cop-oriented television drama and movie.

They frequently don’t wait for a warrant, they smash in doors of homes and apartments with guns waiving and SWAT units swarming. The good cops, the best officers in these shows, are the ones who push the law to its furthest limits and even break it when they deem it “necessary.”

The more they ignore or circumvent the Constitutional guidelines and get away with it, the better cops they are. Or so they are portrayed.

I’m not saying that the Hollywood version of police actions is always accurate in real life (though the increased militarization of law enforcement is a serious, growing threat to regular citizens).

I am saying that these TV dramas and movies are a very real portrayal of how most Americans believe the cops are and should be.

This is what our culture has come to consider good police work—finding ways to sneak around or get away with just ignoring Constitutional limits, protections, and due process.

Vice as Virtue

Most Americans won’t say it in so many words, but they are used to thinking of police officers as above the law in many—if not most—situations, and of expecting the good cops to bend the “annoying” Constitutional limits and just do whatever is needed to go get the bad guys.

And if this is how they see the police, consider how much more they admire this same bravado in the President.

Of course, both parties whine when a president from the other party exerts unconstitutional influence or executive orders to expand his power. But they frequently defend their own party’s president in the same, or worse, abuses.

It’s literally endemic in our modern system. It bears repeating until we realize what a major threat this is!

Hawaii Five 0 2nd Season Cast 300x168 SPECIAL REPORT Part II: Who I Want for PresidentThe way our majority culture now sees it, the best cops and government leaders do whatever it takes, even bending or ignoring the Constitutional rules, to “do the right thing.”

Think of the most popular police dramas and movies—the main character(s) is always the “good guy” who breaks the Constitutional boundaries in service of the greater good.

NCIS, CSI, Blue Bloods, Hawaii Five-0, Law and Order, Chicago PD, Arrow, Bones, Castle, Criminal Minds, NCIS Los Angeles, Agents of SHIELD, Scandal, Covert Affairs, 24, The Blacklist, and many others, all follow this plotline.

These aren’t obscure programs; they are among the most popular in our era. One or more of them is almost always playing on American prime time, and our culture is inundated with their messages.

The Power of 2016

This is how we see government officials, and especially the government agents who carry guns or work in the Oval Office. Again, I’m not saying people openly support this view in polls; I’m saying it is now part of our gut-level cultural expectation.

A majority of Americans now think government agents can and even should routinely push and even break Constitutional limits.

Yes, some people watch cop shows or government dramas and think, “That’s terrible! How can our leaders consistently get away with just disregarding and even flouting the Constitution? They should be reprimanded and removed.” But such Americans are a small minority.

Most of the electorate considers such behavior by police and top executive officials as the norm, and as what is needed to get the job done.

When someone they personally know or identify with gets pushed around, they cry unfair. But when it’s just other people suffering at the hands of abusive government actions, most voters turn a blind eye.

Would I like something different, a president who reads the Constitution to see if he has the authority for a certain action and then realizes he doesn’t and chooses to stay within the bounds of that great document? You bet I would. The future of freedom depends on it.

The thing is, I think we actually have the power to elect such a leader in 2016. Watch what the potential candidates say. So far, Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee are excellent examples of leaders who talk a lot about following the Constitution and really stand for this approach. Regardless of political parties, that’s the kind of President we want.

                                                          

* Of course, the people have made changes to it over time, including the Amendments and the end of slavery and reduction of racism (there is more work to be done on this). Note that these changes were made by the people, not the federal government, and following them is in keeping with the people overseeing their leaders and holding them to the Constitution.

 

*******************

odemille SPECIAL REPORT Part II: Who I Want for President Oliver DeMille is the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestselling co-author of LeaderShift: A Call for Americans to Finally Stand Up and Lead, the co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.

Among many other works, he is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy, and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America’s Destiny.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah

Share and Enjoy:
  • email link SPECIAL REPORT Part II: Who I Want for President
  • printfriendly SPECIAL REPORT Part II: Who I Want for President
  • pdf SPECIAL REPORT Part II: Who I Want for President
  • facebook SPECIAL REPORT Part II: Who I Want for President
  • linkedin SPECIAL REPORT Part II: Who I Want for President
  • twitter SPECIAL REPORT Part II: Who I Want for President

Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Government &Information Age &Leadership &Liberty &Mission &Politics &Statesmanship

The New Ivy League by Oliver DeMille

August 27th, 2014 // 6:34 am @

The New Ivy League DeMille road to entrepreneurialism 1024x726 The New Ivy League by Oliver DeMille

The Dinosaur Reality

The day of turning a college degree into a ready job and high pay is over. That was then. The new economy is different now, and many graduate schools are taking note.

For example, The New York Times reported:

“On a spring afternoon at Michigan State University, 15 law students are presenting start-up proposals to a panel of legal scholars and entrepreneurs and an audience of fellow students. The end-of-the semester event is one part seminar and one part ‘Shark Tank’ reality show.

“The companies the students are describing would be very different from the mega-firms that many law students have traditionally aspired to work for, and to grow wealthy from. Instead, these young people are proposing businesses more nimble and offbeat: small, quick mammals [entrepreneurial businesses] scrambling underfoot in the land of dinosaurs [oldstyle mega-businesses].” (John Schwartz, “This is Law School?” The New York Times, August 1, 2014)

Many schools are increasingly emphasizing entrepreneurialism in a new economy where the traditionally educated law school graduate faces a dearth of jobs. “With the marketplace shifting, schools have increasingly come under fire for being out of touch.” (ibid.)

Professionals in the Basement

A surprisingly high number of law school and other professional school graduates are moving back home to live with parents, and those who do get jobs are finding the work stifling and unrewarding in an environment with a glut of professionals holding degrees.

Those who don’t like the cutthroat and grinding work are easily replaced.

In fact, a Forbes study recently noted that being an associate attorney is the least happy job in the nation. (See Psychology Today, July 2014) It has relatively high pay compared to most entry-level career paths, but the hours are extreme and the other rewards are minimal.

With the glut of attorneys in the market, a large number of law school grads are ending up as paralegals anyway—which seldom helps them to pay off their huge student loans. (ibid.) Medical careers are nearly as bad for most young people—at least for the first eight to twelve years.

A recent poll of college graduates showed:

“People who take out significant college loans score worse on quality-of-life measures, a trend that persists into middle age…. Even 24 years after graduation, students who borrowed more than $25,000 are less likely to enjoy work and are less financially and physically fit than their counterparts who graduated without debt.

For more recent college grads, the discrepancy is even more pronounced….

“About 70% of college grads have debt (Douglas Belkin, “Heavily Indebted Grads Rank Low on Life Quality, The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2014), and those with graduate or professional schooling have even more debt on average than those with a four-year degree.

“Catherine L. Carpenter, vice dean of Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, tracks curriculum across the country. She said schools are trying to teach their students to run their own firms, to look for entrepreneurial opportunities by finding ‘gaps in the law or gaps in the delivery of services,’ and to gain specialized knowledge that can help them counsel entrepreneurs.” (op cit. Shwartz)

A Return to Apprenticeship

Some of the schools themselves are turning more entrepreneurial as well. The Times reported:

“All law schools, including the elites, are increasing skills training by adding clinics and externships…. [T]he University of Virginia will allow students to earn a semester of credit while working full time for nonprofit or government employers anywhere in the world.” (Ethan Bronner, “To Place Graduates, Law Schools Are Opening Firms,” The New York Times, March 7, 2013)

This kind of non-traditional learning harks back to the time when most attorneys learned by apprenticing with practicing lawyers—usually with no formal law school at all.

A few law schools are also implementing innovative ways to help their graduates get jobs, or work in firms set up specifically for this purpose by the law schools. For example, Arizona State University set up a special nonprofit law firm so that some of its graduates would have a place to work and learn to practice law.

“[There is] a crisis looming over the legal profession after decades of relentless growth…. It is evident in the sharp drop in law school applications….

“[P]ost-graduate training programs appear to be the way of the future for many of the nation’s 200 law schools. The law dean of Rutgers University just announced plans for a nonprofit law firm for some of his graduates.” (ibid.)

Entrepreneurship and Life

Other innovations are trying to deal with the crisis.

“At Indiana University’s law school, Prof. William D. Henderson has been advocating a shake-up in legal education whose time may have come. ‘You have got to be in a lot of pain’ before a school will change something as tradition-bound as legal training, he said, but pain is everywhere at the moment, and ‘that’s kind of our opening.’” (op cit. Shwartz)

“‘This is the worst time in the history of legal education to go to law school,’ said Patrick Ellis, a recent graduate [of Michigan State University]. ‘I am not top of my class, not at a top-10 law school, but I’m confident I’m going to have a meaningful career because of this [entrepreneurial studies] program.’” (ibid.)

Entrepreneurialism is injecting life into many sectors of the economy. In fact, it always has. Without entrepreneurship, free economies cannot flourish. But when the economy is as sluggish as the new market today, entrepreneurs are the main hope.

Note that it’s not just law school grads who are facing a tough economy. Don Peck wrote:

“The Great Recession may be over, but this era of high joblessness is probably just beginning. Before it ends, it will likely change the life course and character of a generation of young adults…. The economy now sits in a hole 10 million jobs deep…[and] we need to produce roughly 1.5 million jobs a year—about 125,000 a month—just to keep from sinking deeper.

“Even if the economy were to immediately begin producing 600,000 jobs a month—more than double the pace of the mid-to-late 1990s, when job growth was strong—it would take roughly two years to dig ourselves out of the hole we’re in…. But the U.S. hasn’t seen that pace of sustained employment growth in more than 30 years…” (Don Peck, “Can the Middle Class Be Saved?” The Atlantic, March 2010)

In addition, to pay for college, many more students are staying home and learning in local schools or talking courses online. (See, for example, Tamar Lewin, “Colleges Adapt Online Courses to Ease Burden, The New York Times, April 29, 2013.)

And over half of college students who go away to earn their degrees have moved back home after graduation in recent years—they aren’t finding jobs, and home is their only option in many cases. (Harper’s Index, Harpers, August 2011).

Deep Holes Around the World

In fact, this problem is prevalent in Europe as well as the United States.

As one report noted:

“By the time the parents of Serena Violano were in their early 30s, they had solid jobs, their own home and two small daughters. Today, Serena, a 31-year-old law graduate, is still sharing her teenage bedroom with her older sister in the small town of Mercogliano, near Naples.” (Ilan Brat and Giada Zampano, “Young, European and Broke,” The Wall Street Journal, August 9-10, 2014)

With few jobs available in her field, she “spends her days studying for the exam to qualify as a notary in the hopes of scoring a stable job.” (ibid.)

The reason the European economies are struggling is the same as the American challenge–with one difference: the media is more open in saying what is really causing the problems in Europe.

For example, “[the young European’s] predicament is exposing a painful truth: The towering cost of labor protections that have provided a comfortable life for Europe’s baby boomers is now keeping their children from breaking in [to economic opportunity].” (ibid.)

Dead or Alive

In the United States, such protections include Social Security, Health Care laws, Government Pensions, other entitlements, and the debt necessary to maintain these programs—along with the high levels of regulation that hamper entrepreneurial ventures.

But why are people turning to graduate school to learn entrepreneurship, when the best entrepreneurs tend to learn their craft by application in the real market? It appears to be a matter of trying to avoid risk—of attempting to do what works in the new economy (entrepreneurship) while hedging one’s bets by still doing what used to work in the old economy (college degrees).

As one interesting article captured this theme: “College is Dead. Long Live College!” (Amanda Ripley, “College is Dead. Long Live College!” Time Magazine, October 18, 2012, cited in Allen Levie, “The Visual Tradition: The Coming Shift in Democracy,” unpublished manuscript.)

Both “college is dead” and “long live college” can’t technically be true at the same time, but today’s students and their parents aren’t sure which to believe. Still, the best road to entrepreneurship is clearly the path of actually engaging entrepreneurialism.

This is a scary reality for a generation that was raised to believe that school was basically the only route to career success.

Watching Results

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that as go the attorneys, so goes the United States. Today the cutting-edge trend in legal training is a huge influx of entrepreneurialism.

Ultimately, as another report put it:

“It used to be that college was the ticket to the top. Now graduates are starting from the bottom—buried by student-loan debt that has skyrocketed to a collective $1.2 trillion” in the United States. (Kayla Webley, Generation Debt, MarieClaire, June 2014) Today’s college students and graduates are coming to be known less as the Millennial Generation and more as “Generation Debt.” (ibid.)

This doesn’t mean that higher education is dead. It means that “hire education” is going to be increasingly judged by how well it works—meaning how effectively its users succeed as entrepreneurs.

As a result, a lot of “higher education” innovation and non-traditional types of learning—many of them informal, self-directed and hand-on-building-a-business—are beginning to flourish.

Those who successfully entrepreneur (in law and nearly every other sector of the economy) are going to be the successes of the future. Entrepreneurship is the new Ivy League.

*******************

odemille The New Ivy League by Oliver DeMille Oliver DeMille is the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestselling co-author of LeaderShift: A Call for Americans to Finally Stand Up and Lead, the co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.

Among many other works, he is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy, and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America’s Destiny.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • email link The New Ivy League by Oliver DeMille
  • printfriendly The New Ivy League by Oliver DeMille
  • pdf The New Ivy League by Oliver DeMille
  • facebook The New Ivy League by Oliver DeMille
  • linkedin The New Ivy League by Oliver DeMille
  • twitter The New Ivy League by Oliver DeMille

Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Business &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Education &Entrepreneurship &Leadership &Mini-Factories &Mission &Producers &Prosperity &Statesmanship

Subscribe Via RSS & Email

Click the icon on the left to subscribe in an RSS reader, or have new articles delivered to your inbox by entering your email address: