Sliding from Liberty to Serfdom?
Today as an amazing 70% landslide moved our nation into a generation of change we need to ask ourselves some important questions?
Study Question:
Q: what is liberty?
A: Liberty, the freedom to act or believe without being stopped by unnecessary force, is generally considered in modern time to be a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will.
Sources for Liberty: John Stuart Mill, in his work, On Liberty, was the first to recognize the difference between liberty as the freedom to act and liberty as the absence of coercion. In his book, Two Concepts of Liberty, Isaiah Berlin formally framed the differences between these two perspectives as the distinction between two opposite concepts of liberty: positive liberty and negative liberty. The latter designates a negative condition in which an individual is protected from tyranny and the arbitrary exercise of authority, while the former refers to having the means or opportunity, rather than the lack of restraint, to do things. John Stuart Mill. "On Liberty" 21-22. Oxford University. Retrieved on 2008-02-27.
Q: what are the safe limits for liberty?
John Stuart Mill offered insight into the notions of soft tyranny and mutual liberty with his harm principle.[1] Overall, it is important to understand these concepts when discussing liberty since they all represent little pieces of the greater puzzle known as freedom. In a philosophical sense, morality must supersede tyranny in any legitimate form of government. Otherwise, people are left with a societal system rooted in backwardness, disorder, and regression.
A: Mill says I should be free to do any work as long as it doesn’t do harm to the liberty of my neighbor. This sounds a lot like what both Jesus and ethicists call the “Golden Rule.” Many assign the imperative commandment of Golden Rule as instruction for a positive only form of reciprocity. A key element of the golden rule is that a person attempting to live by this rule treats all people, not just members of his or her in-group with consideration.
Q: as we study the way different parties alive in the political life of America what more should we understand about Mills and John Locke about what how we should safely define that harm criteria?
A: The harm principle is articulated most clearly in John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, though it is also articulated in John Locke's Second Treatise of Government and in the work of Wilhelm von Humboldt, to whom Mill is obliged and discusses at length. Mill believes an individual's welfare is his own concern, arguing that the sole purpose of law should be to stop people from harming others.
Judeo Christian Golden Rule
Within Christian circles, the ethic of reciprocity is often called the "Golden Rule". Christianity adopted the ethic from two edicts, found in Leviticus 19:18 ("Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.") and Leviticus 19:34 ("But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God"). Crucially, Leviticus 19:34 universalizes the edict of Leviticus 19:18 from "one of your people" to all of humankind.
Several passages in the New Testament quote Jesus of Nazareth espousing the ethic of reciprocity, including the following:
Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Luke 10:25-28 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. Jesus then proceeded to tell the parable of the Good Samaritan, indicating that "your neighbour" means a total stranger, or someone that happens to be nearby.
Defining “Citizens” with Liberty
Citizenship is membership in a political community (originally a city or town but now usually a country) and carries with it rights to political participation; a person having such membership is a citizen. It is largely coterminous with nationality,[citation needed] although it is possible to have a nationality without being a citizen (i.e., be legally subject to a state and entitled to its protection without having rights of political participation in it); it is also possible to have political rights without being a national of a state. In most nations, a non-citizen is a non-national and called either a foreigner or an alien.
Citizenship is the political rights of an individual within a society. Thus, you can have a citizenship from one country and be a national of another country. For example, a Cuban-American might be considered a national of Cuba due to his being born there, but he could also become an American citizen through naturalization. Nationality derives from either place of birth (i.e. jus soli), parentage (i.e. jus sanguinis), or ethnicity and religion (as in Israel). Citizenship derives from a legal relationship with a state. Citizenship can be lost, as in denaturalization, and gained, as in naturalization.
Citizenship status often implies some responsibilities and duties under social contract theory. "Active citizenship" is the philosophy that citizens should work towards the betterment of their community through economic participation, public service, volunteer work, and other such efforts to improve life for all citizens. In this vein, schools in some countries provide citizenship education.
Q: how did the idea of citizenship rise in history?
A: Historically, many states limited citizenship to only a proportion of their population, thereby creating a citizen class with political rights superior to other sections of the population, but equal with each other. The classical example of a limited citizenry was Athens where slaves, women, and resident foreigners (called metics) were excluded from political rights. The Roman Republic forms another example (see Roman citizenship), and, more recently, the nobility of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had some of the same characteristics.
Q: what are the responsibilities of free citizens?
• paying taxes (although tourists and illegal aliens also pay some taxes such as sales taxes,etc)
• serving on a jury
• serving in the country's armed forces when called upon (in the US even illegal immigrants must serve in case of a draft[7]).
• obeying the criminal laws enacted by one's government, even while abroad.
• Purely ethical and moral duties tend to include: demonstrating commitment and loyalty to the democratic political community and state constructively criticizing the conditions of political and civic life participating to improve the quality of political and civic life respecting the rights of others defending one's own rights and the rights of others against those who would abuse them exercising one's rights.
Q: how are true freedom lined up with the idea of being a full citizen of your land.
A: a free citizen is guaranteed the right to pursue his welfare and wealth only limited by his gifts and talents and the harm principle.
Freedom to “Speak” Attacked?
Q: can we define a state as being in liberty that has a low view of political speech?
A: Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to denote not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
A: The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Furthermore freedom of speech is recognized in European, inter-American and African regional human rights law.
Q: how should my freedom of speech be limited?
A: the do no harm limit states I cannot cry fire in a crowded place which causes panic and loss of life or health. Once I have elected someone to represent me in a public office they are given a special high level of protected speech for that term. Elected officials are responsible for carrying out their job as public servants. No one should be able to block their speech as they represent me publically.
Q: what is the historical background behind my right to speak?
A: In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[14] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[14]
A: he freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents, such as the British Magna Carta (1215) and "The Declaration of the Rights of Man" (1789), a key document of the French Revolution.[4] Based on John Stuart Mill's arguments, freedom of speech today is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas,
but three further distinct aspects:
• The right to seek information and ideas;
• the right to receive information and ideas;
• the right to impart information and ideas.[3]
A: Freedom of speech is crucial in any participatory democracy, because open discussions of candidates are essential for voters to make informed decisions during elections. It is through speech that people can influence their government's choice of policies. Also, public officials are held accountable through criticisms that can pave the way for their replacement. Some suggest that when citizens refrain from voicing their discontent because they fear retribution, the government can no longer be responsive to them, thus it is less accountable for its actions. Defenders of free speech often allege that this is the main reason why governments suppress free speech – to avoid accountability. However, it may be argued that some restrictions on freedom of speech may be compatible with democracy or even necessary to protect it. For example, such arguments are used to justify restrictions on the support of Nazi ideas in post-war Germany.
Q: how has free speech eroded recently?
A: Liberal democracies have varying approaches to balance the right of freedom of speech with other values and principles. For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary. Many liberal democracies recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule.[citation needed]
Mob Rule in American Elections?
Q: does a mob have any political right to take away their neighbor’s speech?
A: Mob rule: Ochlocracy (Greek: οχλοκρατία or okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of constitutional authorities. In English, the word mobocracy is sometimes used as a synonym. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it's akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the easily moveable crowd," from which the term "mob" originally derives.[1]
A: the enemy of democracy historically: The term appears to have been coined by Polybius in his Histories (6.4.6).[2] He uses it to name the 'pathological' version of popular rule in opposition to the 'good' version, which he refers to as democracy.
A: In ancient Greek political thought ochlocracy was considered as one of the three "bad" forms of government (tyranny, oligarchy and ochlocracy) as opposed to the three "good" forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy and democracy).
A: the fall of Rome had to do with the way undisciplined mobs ran through the streets upsetting business, government and the rule of law. Lapses in this control often led to loss of power, or even the loss of heads, of officials − most notably in the reign of Commodus when Cleander unwisely used the Praetorian Guard against a mob which had come to call for his head.
A: the fall of France was also associated with mobs: During the French Revolution, the mobs in Paris played a similar function, but were more carefully manipulated by political leaders who sensed that they had the power to dispose of monarchy entirely, as they did, eventually setting up a representative democracy (which in turn fell to Napoleon's model of semi-constitutional monarchy).
A: mobs were important in recent Russian history: the resistance to the attempted military coup in the Soviet Union in 1991 that led to the collapse of that state, are situations where it is possible that it was the "mob" which won the day due to defections by authority.
A: in recent German history Hitler used brown shirted mobs to get his way when he failed to get sufficient votes. His brown shirts took physical control of polling stations. As soon as he was safely in power elections were no longer needed. He was the will of God and the people.
Armed Black Panthers Guarding Polls?
A: in the recent 2008 election some inner city polling places were “guarded” by panthers armed with night sticks.
A: During the 2008 election, poll watchers found a pair of New Black Panther Militia members outside of a polling place in Philadelphia.[12] One of the two was a poll watcher, while the other was a Black Panther member who had brought a nightstick.[citation needed] A republican poll watcher Chris Hill stated that voters had been complaining about intimidation, while the DA's office stated that they had not been contacted by voters[13]. The Black Panther with the nightstick was escorted away by the police. According to Fox News, remaining member denied all reports to reporters, and even when shown the video tape he said, "I don't know what ya crackas talking about."[14][15]
Defining Serfdom
Government becomes our lord [Messiah]
Q: what is the difference between a free citizen and a serf?
A: a free citizen is guaranteed the right to pursue his welfare and wealth only limited by his gifts and talents and the harm priniciple. But a serf approaches his government as both owning him and caring for his well being.
Serfdom is the socio-economic status of unfree peasants under feudalism, and specifically relates to Manorialism. It was a condition of bondage or modified slavery which developed primarily during the High Middle Ages in Europe. Serfdom was the enforced labor of serfs on the fields of landowners, in return for protection and the right to work on their leased fields.
Serfdom involved work not only on fields, but various agriculture-related works, like forestry, mining, transportation (both land and river-based), crafts and even in production. Manors formed the basic unit of society during this period, and both the lord and his serfs were bound legally, economically, and socially. Serfs were labourers who were bound to the land; they formed the lowest social class of the feudal society. Serfs were also defined as people in whose labour landowners held property rights. Before the 1861 abolition of serfdom in Russia, a landowner's estate was often measured by the number of "souls" he owned. Feudalism in Europe evolved from agricultural slavery of the late Roman Empire and spread through Europe around the tenth century; it flourished in Europe during the Middle Ages but lasted until the nineteenth century. The Black Death broke the established social order and weakened serfdom.
History & Development of Sefdom: After the Renaissance, serfdom became increasingly rare in most of Western Europe but grew strong in Central and Eastern Europe, where it had previously been less common (this phenomenon was known as "later serfdom"). In England, it lasted legally up to the 1600s and in France until 1789. There were native-born Scottish serfs until 1799, when coal miners previously kept in serfdom gained emancipation. In Eastern Europe the institution persisted until the mid-19th century. It persisted in Austria-Hungary till 1848 and was abolished in Russia in 1861.[1]
Reasons for Choosing Serfdom?
Q: how did people historically get into serfdom?
A: A freeman became a serf usually through force or necessity.
A: during very hard times being a serf can look good to some. Often a few years of crop failure, a war or brigandage might leave a person unable to make his own way. In such a case a bargain was struck with the lord. In exchange for protection, service was required, in payment and/or with labor.
A: they can start as very strong labor unions that grow and grow until they are looked at as the workers supply. Some strong unions do all the hiring in some areas.
Q: were there any areas where serfdom did not exist?
A: In Finland, Norway and Sweden feudalism was not established, and serfdom did not exist.
Q: what benefits do serfs really get?
A: The usual serf (not including slaves or cottars) paid his fees and taxes in the form of seasonally appropriate labor. Usually a portion of the week was devoted to plowing his lord's fields (demesne), harvesting crops, digging ditches, repairing fences, and often working in the manor house. The lord’s demesne included more than just fields: it included all grazing rights, forest produce (nuts, fruits, timber, and forest animals), and fish from the stream; the lord had exclusive rights to these things. The rest of the serf’s time was devoted to tending his or her own fields, crops and animals in order to provide for his or her family. Most manorial work was segregated by gender during the regular times of the year; however, during the harvest, the whole family was expected to work the fields.
A: In addition to service, a serf was required to pay certain taxes and fees.
A: Within his constraints, a serf had some freedom. Though the common wisdom is that a serf owned "only his belly" — even his clothes were the property, in law, of his lord — a serf might still accumulate personal property and wealth, and some serfs became wealthier than their free neighbors, although this was rather an exception to the general rule.
Q: is serfdom returning in our post modern age?
A: Some economic and political thinkers have argued that centrally-planned economies, especially the Soviet collective farm system and other systems based on Soviet-style Communist economics, amount to a return to government-owned serfdom. This view was put most powerfully by Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom as early as 1944 and has since been adopted by others including Mikhael Gorbachev. In certain Communist countries, farmers were tied to their farms, either kolkhoz which were theoretically collectives, or sovkhoz which were state-owned, through a system of internal passports and household registration. They had to plant crops according to instructions from the central authorities, especially if they were on state-run farms. These authorities would then "buy" their agricultural produce at vastly reduced prices and use the surplus to invest in heavy industry.
This system existed in the USSR till as late as 1974 when the Soviet Government Decree #667 was put in effect. This decree granted peasants identification documents, with an unrestricted right to move within the country — thus detaching them from the piece of land where they had worked.
However, the Laogai camps, which are the application of forced labor by the Chinese government, constitute an integral part of China's economy and are viewed by some analysts as institutions of slavery.[10]
Praying for America
Father as we are drifting far from the vision of our founding fathers remember their prayers from across the centuries. They didn’t come here to get rich but out of English jails for holding home Bible studies. Many of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence sacrificed their homes, vast personal wealth, and even their families. They mutually pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor,” in order to give birth to this great experiment in freedom.
Our walls that once protected us and made us prosperous are broken down and trampled on by our enemies from within and without.
During our lifetime, in the name of pluralism, tolerance, and political correctness, we have witnessed the systematic dismantling of those spiritual walls and gates that form our nation’s most strategic defense system.
The first gate that is in ruins is our view of God. Almost without exception, our forefathers recognized the existence of a sovereign God who created this earth and Who has the right to rule over His creation. In their private and public lives, they reverenced and feared the Lord.
Today we worship a god of our own making--a cosmic genie who exists to fulfill our wishes, whose supreme job is to make us comfortable and happy, and whose laws are subject to the changing whims of each generation.
Our society has marginalized God and voted Him out of our collective conscience. Of course, in times of crisis, such as the tragedies in Littleton, Oklahoma City, and New York City, we can be persuaded to give Him a token nod--at least long enough to ask ‘Why?’ More than 2500 years ago, the Old Testament Jews asked that very question:
Why has the land been ruined and laid waste …?
God’s answer is clear: It is because they have forsaken My law, which I set before them; they have not obeyed Me or followed my law. Instead, they have followed the stubbornness of their hearts (Jer. 9:12-14).
The second gate that has been torn down is our view of morality. Of course, there have always been immoral individuals in our nation. But there was a day when you didn’t have to risk your reputation or your job in order to identify immoral behavior as immoral. Right was right; wrong was wrong. Our laws were predicated on the absolute, unchanging moral law of God. And we didn’t have to apologize for saying so. But all that has changed in a world where the notion of absolutes is rejected and relativism reigns.
The steady erosion of morality has left us vulnerable and defenseless against a host of attackers, among them, sexually transmitted diseases, chronic mental and emotional disorders, and senseless violence. A society that has lost its sense of right and wrong is a society with broken gates—a society that is vulnerable from within and without. A society that has lost its sense of right and wrong is a society with broken gates—a society that is vulnerable from within and without.
A third gate that is in shambles is our view of the family. Such essential virtues as honor, duty, loyalty, obedience, sacrifice, and chastity have gone by the wayside. In their place, we have substituted indulgence, greed, personal convenience and comfort, and self-gratification.
A crucial “glue” in earlier generations was a high view of the marriage covenant, Of course, not all people were faithful to their vows. But marital fidelity was still considered right and important.
Today our culture (assisted by no-fault divorce laws) has stripped the wedding vows of their significance and force. We don’t want to be bound to fulfill our promises—just free to pursue our personal happiness, regardless of the cost to our children, our future, or our national well-being.
A society that abandons God and His laws, that rejects moral absolutes, and that is willing to sacrifice its families on the altar of convenience, careers, and self, is a society whose gates are broken down.
Q: when things are hopeless what have earlier godly leaders done?
A: an unpopular republican named Abraham Lincoln did not despair. He did not invite us for an evening fireside with inspirational messages. He called us to an entire day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer. Read it I attached some of his call to the nation.
At the height of the Civil War, President Lincoln issued a National Proclamation calling for a day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer. I believe his words are as relevant today, as they were when they were first penned 136 years ago (1863):
We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown.
But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our heads, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own.
Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us.
It behooves us, then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.
How Do We Pray
Jesus shocked and surprised many of His listeners when He proclaimed our obligation to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” Nearly 2000 years later, the nature and extent of Christian involvement in the political process is hotly debated, but I think we can all agree that there are two aspects of Christian involvement in our government that are not debatable.
First, since we live (by the grace of God) in a constitutional republic, the duty and obligation of every Christian citizen is to cast an informed ballot on Election Day. This flows logically both from the mandate of our Savior and from the teachings of the Apostle Paul in Romans chapter 13.
The mandate to pray for our nation has both Old and New Testament roots. The Old Testament saints were commanded to seek the face of God continually. This was especially true in times of trouble. In the New Testament we are urged to pray “for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Timothy 2:2).
But it is risky business to assert that God is always on our side. Abraham Lincoln wisely responded to such an assertion by saying that the real question was whether we were on His side. That question is no less germane today. Before we ask God to come to the aid of our nation in troublous times, we would do well to ponder whether our spiritual indifference may be leading God to withdraw His protective covering. We are a nation who has killed more than 50 million of our own babies for our own comfort. Does this make God on our side?
Israel made that same mistake. They assumed their status as a chosen people protected them from their enemies. Yet God allowed them to be carried off into captivity. If God did not spare Israel from the heavy hand of chastisement, why should we in America expect less?
Prayer Language
Father you said from Rom 13:1 that even earthly powers are ordained by you regardless of their world view or ethics. We know that in the end all Governments will rest on your shoulders James 9:6. Yet in these past decades people have thrown aside your rule preferring to be their own authorities. Today with amazing false piety they are trying to set aside godly people Isa 5:23. The heart of even wicked kings are in your able hands Esther 1:10; Psalm 119.
Father we choose to bless your name forever. We call out on your Sovereignty to change times, seasons and remove and set up kings for even our impossible times Dan 2:20-21.
We trust in your hand alone to govern affairs of state that you can set aside the ungodly Dan 5:20-21, 23. We pray that your watchers by decree of your sacred Word will rule again Dan 4:17. Father God we want to remind you of your promises to those who are caught in these lands against their will in these confusing times for your protective mercy and grace Amos 9:8; Hag 2:21-22.
We pray Father today that you will change the hearts of men and women newly in power that they will suddenly desire from their hearts to allow their minds, hearts, emotions and spirits to be subject to your principles and will suddenly covet every good work Titus 3:1. We boldly pray for this knowing this is in fact your revealed will 1 Pet 2:13-15.
Father God you said in times like this when the ignorant and foolish subvert power that you could use our good behavior to silence them 1 Pet 2:15. Help us from our hearts to honor these new ungodly leaders 1 Pet 2:17 give us strength and the power of your grace to to have a proper response in confusing times. In your word you promised to give wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding Dan 2:20-21.
Father right now we need to you raise up righteous counsel for our new president and his staff in these confusing times. We are confident our enemy is around his council rooms Prov 25:5. Father this new president has the power to create courts so change his heart to suddenly by accident appoint some godly people who will be steeped in truth and justice. We pray also for our ungodly senate and congress change their hearts too. Help them to stop promoting evil on every side Rom 13:3-4. We pray for academia too that suddenly godly people will be allowed into our schools.
Father we approach you in intercession just as your servant Moses did in equally rebellious times Exod 32:10-11. The people today have a new golden calf as they always do bless us Father we have sinned. We remind you of the ancient prayers of our pilgrim fathers who called out to your throne that this new land would be a stepping stone for the gospel of Jesus Christ [Of Plymouth Plantation 1620, 25].
Our early fathers trusted you with their precious blood and lives to come into a holy contract between themselves and you. History reminds us of that reality as millions have come to Christ through various missionaries since that day. But Father we have a new generation who seem far from truth and justice as they deal with their neighbors. While promoting their own freedom they are not afraid to kill millions of babies. The hard earned wages of the weak are turned to spoils to promote these ungodly ways so we cry out Lord for your hand in confusing times. We pray Father you send an army of your angels to battle unseen for your people when they are oppressed.
