The Concept of Natural Liberty

Whether anyone who would consider such a thing takes the theological or
scientific view on the origin of mans nature, or a mixture of the two, it should be
recognized that both theology and science rely on the same faith a faith that truth has
a power and rectitude that is supreme.
1
This common faith in truth is born from nothing
but our common nature itself, so anyone who would say that man has no real nature, that
the illusion of mans nature is something that must be remade (by them), is forced to
deny the most important part of their self in an intellectual discussion, and so lose any
argument they win. We have faith in truth because of that ineffable inner voice called
conscience, an innate morality which can neither be measured directly nor denied.
Whether this voice comes from God, or is a natural outgrowth of human consciousness
and experience, it is the glue that holds any human group together and it is from here that
a discussion of natural law naturally begins.
It is from the peculiar character of the conscience of Western man that the most
fundamental notion of civil thought in the West was born: the liberal belief that, as Locke
says:
all men are naturally in a state of perfect freedom to order their
actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit,
within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending
upon the will of any other man.
A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is
reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more
evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously
born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same
faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination
or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any
manifest declaration of his will, set one above the other, and confer on
him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion
and sovereignty. (Locke, Ch. 2, Sec. 4)
2
The most profound positive expression of the above is found in the American
Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable 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, -- That whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
1
See How far we too are still pious, Friedrich Nietzsche, from The Portable Nietzsche, ed. Walter
Kaufmann (New York, NY: Penguin Books,1976), 448-450
2
John Locke; The Second Treatise of Civil Government; http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm ;
retrieved August 27, 2011
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as
to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
While others have pointed to the distinction between the habitually universalistic
language employed in these statements regarding equality and the actual beliefs people
like Jefferson had on racial distinctions as expressed in their writings, I would like to
discuss the actual and inherent philosophical implications of these distinctions for the
purpose of constructing a new model of thought on natural law, and by extension,
positive law.
It is important to observe two basic assumptions in the context of natural law that
bind the two grand statements above together and form the bridge between the natural
law at the foundation of our civil theory and the positive law expressed in the
constitution:
First, in the natural law context expressed by Locke, natural right dictates that
men are naturally in a state not only of freedom, but of equality, wherein all the power
and jurisdiction is reciprocal, and next, in the Declaration, that the natural rights of
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are secured in positive law by
Governmentsderiving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The fundamental logical link between these two expressions is power, not power
over men per se, but power over the liberty of men. In the first case this power is
expressed as being reciprocal and in the second consensual. While the writers of our
Constitution, ever mindful of the issues of reciprocity and consent, went on to enumerate,
define, and limit the powers of the positive law with regard to liberty, they failed to
adequately define liberty itself in the positive sense, or even in the natural, relying instead
on assumptions never expressed, especially regarding race. This is how slavery and the
four-fifths vote, such blatant contradictions to the statement that all men are created
equal, could be written into the constitution. It is my desire to correct this oversight as
far as possible with a discussion of what I observe as a necessary distinction in the
context of natural law between what I call civil liberty and natural liberty.
Civil liberty I define as the freedom allowed and upheld by law, and natural
liberty as the freedom of natural abilities and limitations. In the first case, civil liberty
affects the degree to which a man can act unobstructed by others; in the second, how far
he is bound by himself.
3
If natural law is the theory of the rational foundations of moral judgment
concerning the construction of human order, then the goal toward which that order is
ultimately directed can only be health, not liberty. Because liberty is assumed as a
characteristic of humanity in the context of natural law, it cannot be the goal to attain
what we already possess. It is the goal, however, of moral judgment and positive law to
preserve the health of what we are assumed to already possess, namely liberty, and to
order society according to the inclinations of nature so as to preserve and promote civil
liberty. The test of positive law is both ethical and physical: to apply enough force to
preserve the health of society without destroying civil liberty.
It is apparent in this that if a mans natural liberty is such that his behavior
infringes on the civil liberty of another that the civil liberty as defined by the positive law
has precedent, and the natural liberty of the one who offends and infringes on the civil
3
See Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book VIII
liberty of another becomes, by law, brought under the control of the body politic by:
fines, incarceration, loss of certain privileges, or in some cases, death. This infringement
on the civil liberty of another by the natural liberty of an offender does not have to be
intentional to be proscribed or punished. It can be the result of an impulse that cannot be
controlled, carelessness of thought or action, or even a simple lack of understanding,
since it is an assumption of liberal thought that all men possess a degree of self-direction
and autonomy to be responsible for their actions and the consequences of them.
These relationships between natural liberty, civil liberty, and governmental
authority can, like the natural laws of physics, be expressed in mathematical forms that
allow for a greater comprehension of their relationships. To this end, I would like to
break up the Concept of Natural Liberty into its component parts and express the
relationship of these parts to the whole by way of the following formula:
Intelligence (I) x Motivation (M) x Self Control (Sc) = Natural Liberty (NL)
It is obvious that if any factor in the above equation is zero, or close to zero, then
the product will be zero, or close to zero. For example, a person with gifted Intelligence
and a high level of Motivation but little or no Self Control is not going to manifest a high
degree of Natural Liberty; their degree of Natural Liberty will require the force of law to
be applied so their behavior will not infringe on the civil liberty of others, or to protect
them from themselves. This could also be said of someone who had high Intelligence and
Self Control but low or no Motivation, and of course of someone with high Motivation
and Self control and low Intelligence. These are natural and inevitable consequences of
the relationships between these basic and universal human attributes.
Now we can define the authority of the state in a similar manner.
There are two sources of authority in the world: reason and force. Anyone who
exercises authority has to have access to both. No one can convince and lead by reason or
inspiration at all times, nor can people be made to do something by force at all times. In a
democratic society the assumption is that authority should be based on reason, but even
the most liberal governments have occasion to resort to force. Conversely, authoritarian
regimes prefer arbitrary authority, but even the most repressive have recourse to rational
appeals occasionally, even if they are deceitful and represent choice where there really is
none.
This relationship can be expressed as follows:
Force + Rational Authority = Total Authority
Now, whenever Rational Authority is diminished, in order to maintain the Total
Authority, more Force must be brought to bear. When Force is diminished, if the Total
Authority is to be maintained, more Rational Authority must be introduced. All
possessors and exercisers of authority are subject to this rule as they pursue their ultimate
aim: maintaining or increasing the Total Authority.
These relationships between the components within Natural Liberty and Total
Authority are as inevitable as the ones for physical laws; for example, Weight = Mass x
Acceleration. While the potential for measuring social phenomena as compared to
physical elements is more limited, and the prospect for acquiring values for our
components confined to clinical rather than direct observation, these models that define
the relations of these fundamental human attributes to the notions of liberty and power
are verifiable by reason and are as immutable as any physical law. Understanding these
natural laws in this manner now allows us now to construct a definition and formula for
civil liberty.
Civil liberty is nothing but the freedom to act, think, and speak without arbitrary
interference.
To consider this mathematically we can first look at the following:
Government
People
Freedom =
If the People are made up of ten persons and the Government is made up of one
person, then the level of Freedom will be high. If the Government is made up of ten
persons and the People made up of one person, the level of Freedom will be low. To look
at it differently, if the People are made up of one person and the Government is made up
of one person, then the amount of Freedom is dependent on the relative Natural Liberty
of these two persons. If their Natural Liberty is equal, then Freedom is in a state of
equilibrium at a value of 1. If the person making up the People has a higher degree of
Natural Liberty than the person making up the Government, then the value of Freedom
will be between 1 and . If the Natural Liberty of the person making up the Government
is greater, the value of Freedom will be between 0 and 1. From this we can extrapolate
that as the ratio of People to Government increases, Freedom tends to increase, and as
Government increases relative to People, Freedom is diminished. This is a natural and
inevitable consequence of the relationship between people and government.
Now we can generalize these observations and define the first component of Civil
Liberty: the freedom to act, which I call Order.
Force
Liberty Natural
Order =
Order is the first and most basic requirement for any society, and the character of
that order changes as Natural Liberty increases and decreases, and also as the availability
of Force changes. As the value of Order moves from 1 the character of Order
changes from Limited Freedom to Absolute Freedom if the change is due to an increase
in Natural Liberty, and from Limited Freedom to Anarchy if the change is due to a
decrease in Force. As the value of Order changes from 1 0, as Force overtakes Natural
Liberty, the character of Order moves from Limited Freedom to Despotism.
Next we can define the freedom to think and speak, which I call Intellectual
Freedom:
Force
Authority Rational
Freedom al Intellectu =
This ratio between the two types of power used by a government determines the
level of freedom of expression: the more the government relies on Rational Authority, the
more Intellectual Freedom grows. As the government relies more on Force, Intellectual
Freedom declines. As the value of Intellectual Freedom changes from 1 the
character of Intellectual Freedom changes from Limited Intellectual Freedom to Absolute
Intellectual Freedom if the change is due to an increase in Rational Authority, and to
Abstract Pluralism if it is due to a decrease in Force. As the value of Intellectual Freedom
changes from 1 0 the character of Intellectual Freedom changes from Limited
Intellectual Freedom to Authoritarianism, as Force overtakes Rational Authority.
Now we can construct a formula for Civil Liberty as the freedom to act, think, and
speak relative to government interference.
Speak and Think to Freedom Act to Freedom Liberty Civil + =
Freedom al Intellectu Order Liberty Civil + =
Force
Authority Rational
Force
Liberty Natural
Liberty Civil + =
Lets rewrite the last expression to show all of its components and see what
happens to Civil Liberty when some of the various factors in our formula change.
Force
Authority Rational
Force
IMSc
Liberty Civil + =
First, it is important to note that both factors rely on a component of Intelligence
in the numerator: the Peoples Intelligence for Natural Liberty (Intelligence x
Motivation x Self Control) and Governmental Intelligence for Rational Authority. A
diminishment of the component of Intelligence in a society reduces both Order and the
Rational Authority available to deal with a reduction of Order; conversely, an increase in
Intelligence increases both Order and Intellectual Freedom, thus Civil Liberty is highly
dependent on Intelligence.
The effect of a diminishment or increase in either Motivation or Self Control can
have a significant effect on Civil Liberty, but a change in both can have an even bigger
impact than Intelligence. If Self Control and Motivation are diminished to a significant
degree, Civil Liberty will diminish as Force rises to compensate for the loss. This is why
morality was so often associated with Civil Liberty by our countrys Founding Fathers.
4
An increase of Force moves both the value of Order and Intellectual Freedom toward 0,
that is, toward Despotism and Authoritarianism, respectively.
A loss of both Intelligence and Self Control, which are highly correlated,
5
dramatically reduces Order, causing an increase in Force that overwhelms a more limited
Rational Authority.
The factor most important to Civil Liberty is Motivation. While Intelligence and
Self Control are considered on a positive scale from 0 , Motivation has to be
4
A collection of numerous quotes on this is available at The Washington, Jefferson & Madison Institute
website at www.liberty1.org/virtue.htm
5
Richard Lynn, Racial Differences in Intelligence, Personality and Behavior, In Race and the American
Prospect: Essays on the Racial Realities of our Nation and Our Time; Edited by Samuel Francis, PH. D;
(Mt Airy, Md.: The occidental Press, 2006) 77-84
measured as negative if it is turned against the Civil Liberty of others or against the
Rational Authority or Force of the government. Since Negative Motivation turns the
numerator of Order negative as well, this becomes Negative Order, and must be
countered by Force. If Motivation is directed against the Civil Liberty of another citizen,
this is Crime. If it is directed against the authority of the state it is Subversion. If a
citizens Motivation is directed toward, or in favor of, the citizens of another government,
or toward another government at the expense of his fellow citizens or his own
government, this is a form of Negative Order called Disloyalty. All these types of
Negative Order have extremely negative impacts on Civil Liberty due to the fact that they
require the use of Force to combat them. More Force means less Civil Liberty.
Now we will define the State (S) and its characteristics as they relate to Natural
Liberty.
First, we define Sovereignty. Sovereignty is Supreme Power in a state, thus:
Sovereignty (S
v
) = Total Authority (TA), if the value of Intellectual Freedom (IF)
is 1.
Referring back to the formula,
F
RA
IF = ; we see that if Intellectual Freedom is
less than 1, then Force is greater than Rational Authority. Since Supreme Power is a
rational concept, Total Authority maintained by a preponderance of Force over Rational
Authority loses its validity as Supreme Power and devolves to simple Total Authority.
Next, we will define a distinction between nation and state.
To define nation we will first look at the Merriam-Webster definition of nation-
state:
A form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous
people inhabits a sovereign state; especially: a state containing one as
opposed to several nationalities.
6
Thus a nation is not necessarily coterminous with a state. As Brent A. Nelson
explains:
the Greek word for nation, ethnos, which appears throughout the New
Testament and is translated as nation, indicates the nature of this vital core
of a nation. The word nation was adopted into English from the Latin
nationem, which is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.,
1989) as breed, stock, race, nation. Nationem in turn, is derived from the
Latin nasci, to be born.
7
Nation (N) is thus defined as a People, and a Nations relation to the state is
defined in terms of a Peoples Natural Liberty (NL
e
) relative to the components of the
Total Authority (TA). Thus:
6
www.merriam-webster.com; retrieved January 24, 2012
7
Brent A Nelson, Ph.D, America Balkanized: Immigrations Challenge to Government, (American
Immigration Control Foundation, 1984) p80
Nation (N) = A People
Natural Liberty of a People = (NL
e
)
,
where e denotes the ethnic identity of the
particular people.
Now that we have defined Sovereignty (S
v
), Nation (N), and the Natural Liberty
of a People (NL
e
), we can define the State in the special case of nation-state mentioned
above as a state containing one as opposed to several nationalities (S
e
).
Nation-State = The Natural Liberty of a People x Sovereignty
(S
e
) = NL
e
x S
v
(S
e
) = I
e
M
e
Sc
e
x (RA + F), if Intellectual Freedom (IF), the ratio of RA/F,
is 1.
If the ratio of RA/F is between 0 and 1, then S
v
devolves to TA (see above) and
the State still exists, but it exists as an illegitimate entity according to the rational
qualifications of Natural Law.
If NL
e
0, or if Total Authority 0, then the State ceases to exist.
Now we can define State in the case of a multi-ethnic society. For my example, I
will use the special case of a Multi-Ethnic State (S
me
) with four peoples or ethnic groups
(S
4e
).
S
4e
= [A(NL
a
) + B(NL
b
) + C(NL
c
) + D(NL
d
)]S
v
In the above, the capital letters A,B,C, and D denote the percentage of the overall
population of each ethnic group.
Now we can rewrite the above equation to show some more detail:
S
4e
= (AI
a
M
a
Sc
a
+ BI
b
M
b
Sc
b
+ CI
c
M
c
Sc
c
+ DI
d
M
d
Sc
d
) (F + RA)
The first thing to note is the importance of the relationship between the values of
A,B,C, and D. If the value of any of these factors is greater than all the others combined,
the value of S
4e
will tend toward that ethnic groups particular NL
e
, mirroring that NL
e
as
the number approaches 100. In this case, the character of the State is predominately
reliant on the IMSc of one ethnic group. In the other extreme, if all the groups share an
equal percentage of the population, the calculation of S
4e
becomes more complicated, not
just because there are more significant factors, but because different groups have
different Motivation relative to other groups. When the Motivation of one ethnic group is
directed against the Motivation of another group, this is a form of Negative Motivation
similar to the previously discussed Negative Motivation directed at the Civil Liberty of
one individual against another individual in the context of our discussion of Civil Liberty:
this is a form of Negative Order called Ethnic Conflict. Since Negative Motivation
between individuals and groups tends to be reciprocal, the value of S
4e
is highly
dependent on Motivation. Since Motivation is also a highly changeable phenomenon,
understanding the stability of this type of State necessitates a comprehension of its
effects.
To accomplish this we will first consider the case of a single ethnic state. The
Stability of a Single Ethnic State (St
se
) can be expressed as follows:
M
Sc
St
e
e
se
=
St
se
is most stable when its value is 1: when Motivation and Self Control are
equal. As St
se
goes from 1 , the character of St
se
changes from Stasis to Passive
Inhibition. As St
se
goes from 1 0, the character of Stability changes from Stasis to
Chaos. As with an individual, a balance between Motivation and Self Control is critical to
the stability and function of a State.
Now we can consider stability as it relates to a multi-ethnic state. The Stability of
a Multi-Ethnic State (St
me
) will be considered in the special case of the Stability of a
Three Ethnic State (St
3e
):
( )
3
2
1 1
3
+
|
|
.
|

\
| +
|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|

+
=
Sc Sc
M M I I
St
b a
b a b a
e
B A
B A B A
( )
3
2
1 1
+
|
|
.
|

\
| +
|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|

+
Sc Sc
M M I I
c a
c a c a
C A
C A C A
( )
3
2
1 1
|
|
.
|

\
| +
|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|

+
Sc Sc
M M I I
c b
c b c b
C B
C B C B
As can be seen, this is a much more complicated situation.
Each ratio represents the stability between two of our ethnic groups divided by the
total number of ethnic groups. The sum of these ratios is the average of these combined
stabilities.
Referring to the first factor in the first ratio: ( ) B A+ gives the proportion of the
total population the first two ethnic groups (A and B) account for in the whole State. This
allows us to assign the proper weight to this ratio relative to the other ratios.
Second,
B A
gives us the difference in size between our first two ethnic
groups. This is important because the closer two groups are in size to one another the
more likely they are to come into conflict, both because of increased likelihood of contact
and a higher degree of competition for resources. The larger the difference between the
sizes of any two groups the more stability between the groups.
Third,
I I b a

1
gives us a measure of the effect of the difference in Intelligence
between each ethnic group. This has to be considered because ethnic groups with
different levels of Intelligence will tend to canalize socioeconomically along ethnic lines,
increasing the likelihood of conflict.
8
As this difference increases, stability decreases.
8
Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, IQ and Global Inequality (Westport, CT.: Praeger Publishers, 2002):
27-47; Donald I. Templer and J. Philippe Rushton, IQ, skin color, crime, HIV/AIDS, and income in 50
U.S. states, Intelligence 39 (2011): 437-442; Edwin Rubenstein, National Data: January Jobs: Half of
New Jobs Go To Immigrants 96% (!) to Hispanics, February 3, 2012, www.vdare.com/articles/national-
data-january-jobs-half-of-new-jobs-go-to-immigrants-96-to-hispanics
Fourth,
M M b a

1
accounts for the impact of differences in Motivation between
our first two ethnic groups. As the difference in Motivation increases, stability
decreases.
9
Fifth,
|
|
.
|

\
| +
2
Sc Sc b a
B A
gives us the sum of the Self Control available to our first
two ethnic groups divided by two, for the average Self Control of the two groups.
Thus, each ratio in our formula gives us:
Combined size of the considered two ethnic groups x Difference in ethnic group
sizes x Effect of difference in Intelligence x Effect of difference in Motivation x Average
Self Control
(It is assumed in this equation that the difference in ethnic group size, the
difference in Intelligence, and difference in Motivation will never be zero.)
Now we can transform the equation algebraically to provide some additional
insight.
( ) ( )
+

+ +
=
M M I I
Sc Sc
St
b a b a
b a
e
B A B A B A
6
3
( ) ( )
+

+ +
M M I I
Sc Sc
c a c a
c a
C A C A C A
6
( ) ( )
M M I I
Sc Sc
c b c b
c B
C B C B C B

+ +
6
It is very important to notice that all the differences in Motivation and Intelligence
in the denominators are multiplied by 6; thus, the significance of differences in
Motivation and Intelligence detracts enormously from the Stability of a Multi-Ethnic
State (St
me
).
It is also important to note that by adding just one more ethnic group, the number
of ratios necessary to consider the Stability of a Four Ethnic State (St
4e
) doubles. Looking
at a sum of differences in ethnic group sizes shows this:
(A-B) + (A-C) + (A-D) + (B-C) + (B-D) + (C-D)
Managing the complexity of a State such as this is not possible without a high
degree of Intelligence and no small amount of Force, if at all.
10
It is also significant that adding one more ethnic group would cause all the
differences in Intelligence and Motivation in the denominators to be multiplied by 12!
Referring back to the formula for Order (NL/F or IMSc/F), keep in mind that as
Motivation becomes negative, the numerator of Order becomes negative and only Force
9
Alberto Alesina et al., Public Goods and Ethnic Divisions, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.
114, No.4 (1999): 1243-1284
10
The Pew Research Center projects the 2050 US population to be made up of the following four
significant components: White 47%; Hispanic 29%; Black 13%; Asian 9%: Jeffrey Passel and
DVera Cohn, U.S. Population Projections: 2005-2050, February 11, 2008,
www.pewhispanic.org/2008/02/11/us-population-projections-2005-2050/ (retrieved February 4, 2012)
is available to maintain Order. Referring back to our formula for Civil Liberty, remember
that as Force rises, Civil Liberty decreases.
It should be obvious from this that the more ethnic groups in a State the more
unstable it is and the less free it is.
Now that we better understand the relationships between liberty and power, we
can consider how current modes of thought and governance are contributing to the
problems we face today in our democracy.
While the limits of Intelligence, Motivation, and Self Control of children are
recognized as needing the benefit of Force to restrain them for their own protection and
the protection of others, and while they are not considered full members of the franchise
of democracy and have no right to vote for the same reason, no other group in society is
subject to the Force of law except as individuals. For example, we have curfews for
children but not for a race or sex. With the acknowledgment of significant racial
differences in Intelligence, Motivation, and Self Control,
11
and the undeniable tendency
of different ethnic groups in the same state to clash,
12
this leaves a functional gap in the
ability of the law in a liberal society to maintain Order and Intellectual Freedom in a
multi-ethnic state.
On the grounds that no one should be subject to the arbitrary power of another,
the tendency of certain racial and ethnic groups to exhibit Natural Liberty that clearly
interferes with the Civil Liberty and the right of other groups to Life, Liberty, and the
pursuit of Happiness must be seen as incompatible with current accepted and available
standards of governance. The hugely disproportionate relationships of perpetrators to
Crime victims in terms of race,
13
and the fact of White Flight from so many urban areas
made unlivable by the behavior of blacks and a largely illegal Hispanic population, both
indicate such clear and pervasive infringements on the Civil Liberties of White
Americans that the viability of our race itself on this continent is at stake. But in the
context of our current system, if the Natural Liberty of a racial or ethnic group is
deficient to such an extent that they contribute to Crime and other forms of Negative
Order disproportionately, yet their rights forbid the law from taking this into account,
then the Civil Liberty of the racial or ethnic group that abides by the law is diminished
twice: first by the Crime and Negative Order of the offender racial or ethnic group and
second by the Force of the State that both forces the victim to pay for the disproportionate
punishment needed to maintain a semblance of Order and also limits the ability of White
Americans to avoid the specter of this Crime and Negative Order by criminalizing the
freedom of association in the workplace, for business owners, and sellers and renters of
property! In this case, as it stands, White America is threatened, harassed, and victimized,
and its Life, Liberty and Happiness impinged upon by racial and ethnic groups of a
demonstratively different Natural Liberty. We are then imposed upon by Force with
excessive taxation for incarceration, overruled by the Force of elitist courts that abrogate
the Supreme Power of the People expressed by our vote with regard to illegal
11
J. Philippe Rushton; Race, Evolution and Behavior; 2nd Special Abridged Edition (Port Huron, MI:
Charles Darwin Research Institute, 2000) and
www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf
12
Tatu Vanhanen; Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism;, (Stamford, Connecticut.: Jai Press,
1999)
13
The Color of Crime; Second Expanded Edition; Oakton Virginia; New Century Foundation;
http://www.amren.com ; retrieved July12, 2011
immigration and affirmative action, and our complaints ignored by the very
representative government our own ancestors created! This arrangement between such
disparate Natural Liberties and the relationship of the government to the governed is
wholly inconsistent with the fundamental assumptions of liberal ethics.
The lower educational and socioeconomic outcomes of these same racial and
ethnic groups, that show no indication of mitigation despite years of continuing and
costly government programs and court-mandated preferences (Force) that harm Whites,
14
and the huge burdens of support for certain minorities in the form of taxation (more
Force) that fall primarily on Whites, are infringements on the Civil Rights of White
America that are moving the character of our Civil Liberty steadily and inevitably from a
healthy Order and Intellectual Freedom to Despotism and Authoritarianism. Even our
universities, the most hallowed halls of Intellectual Freedom, have been usurped by the
impetus of the all pervading Force necessary to prop up the image of non-Whites and
made into fortresses of Authoritarianism where Whites are not allowed to discuss the
causes and implications of their own destruction without censure.
15
A democratic discourse is only possible when the disagreements among
participants are reasonable, not functional. The attempt to reconcile the disparate Natural
Liberties of the races with incarceration, enforced diversity, and redistribution through
welfare and preferences has fostered a condition of negative reciprocity (Negative
Motivation) that is by nature anti-democratic and can only continue to deteriorate. As
John Stuart Mill states:
in practical matters, the burden of proof is supposed to be with those
who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition;
either any limitation of the general freedom of human action, or any
disqualification or disparity of privilege affecting one person or kind of
persons, as compared with others. The a priori presumption is in favour of
freedom and impartiality. (Mill, 134)
16
The fact that there are so many laws and policies, so much Force, designed to
create diversity and equality of outcomes among such different kind of persons,
and their utter failure to do so after so many years, is direct and compelling proof that the
genetic differences that account for the different demographic distributions in geographic
population centers, crime, and educational and socioeconomic outcomes in America
cannot be ignored or made to go away. Neither can they be redistributed. For the same
reason that natural rights are inalienable, they are also not transferable; children cannot be
14
Solutions for America: The Unsustainable Growth of Welfare, August 17, 2010; The Heritage
Foundation; http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/08/The-Unsustainable-Growth-of-Welfare ;
retrieved August 5, 2011 and Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks, Hispanics,
July 27, 2011; Pew Research Center; http://pewsocialtrends.org/2011/07/26/wealth-gaps-rise-to-record-
highs-between-whites-blacks-hispanics/1/ ; retrieved August 5,2011 and Minority men falling behind
academically, study finds, Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2011,
www.articles/latimes.com/2011/jun/21/nation/la-na-education-men-20110621 , retrieved February 5, 2012
15
Spotlight on Speech Codes 2012: The State of Free Speech On Our Nations Campuses,
www.thefire.org/spotlight/speechcodes/2012
16
John Stuart Mill; On Liberty; and, The Subjection of Women; edited by Alan Ryan (London: Penguin
Books, 2006)
endowed with a Natural Liberty beyond their capacity by edict or legislation, nor can
those limited by their genetic inheritance. The use of Force to try and achieve this
impossibility can only diminish Civil Liberty.
A society based on individual rights implies a mutual responsibility that is
concordant with the mutual rights each individual assumes. The racial differences in
Natural Liberty that have been shown to be immune to alleviation make participation in
such a mutual responsibility in our society impossible for certain groups:
We are not speaking of children, or young persons below the age which
the law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood. Those who are still in
a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against
their own actions as well as against external injury. For the same reason,
we may leave out of consideration those backward states of society in
which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage. The early
difficulties in the way of spontaneous progress are so great, that there is
seldom any choice of means for overcoming them; and a ruler full of the
spirit of improvement is warranted in the use of any expedients that will
attain an end, perhaps otherwise unattainable. Despotism is a legitimate
mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their
improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end.
Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to
the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free
and equal discussion. (Mill, 16)
17
The disproportionate need to be taken care of by others through welfare and
affirmative action, and to be protected against their own actions through incarceration,
obviously marks out certain racial groups for special consideration. Without the ability
of being improved by free and equal discussion, or to comprehend and maintain an
understanding and conformity to the mutual judgments and principles of behavior
necessary to the responsibilities of self governance, and without the ability to contribute
to the general welfare, participation in a society based on equal rights is not possible.
Free and responsible people are not dependent people; not dependent on aid or favor. For
the same reason that children, as a group, are not recognized as participants in the
franchise of governance, any other group, being deficient in the components of
Intelligence, Motivation, and Self Control necessary to function as citizens in a
democratic republic, and being a destructive detriment to the concord and Order of the
State, should also be excluded from participation. Since recourse to Despotism as
described by Mill above would be destructive to the Civil Liberty we are all committed to
protect, the only recourse available to protect the Civil Liberty of White Americans is
separation and the ordering of a new and different State. This conclusion is not the result
of fanaticism or extremism, but merely the logical consequence of natural and inevitable
relationships and liberal principles dedicated to the establishment of liberal concord.
The right of protection extended to children cannot be extended to a whole racial
or ethnic group without breaking the bond and commitment to liberty that holds a liberal
society together. The notion that universal equality can be achieved by Force must be
17
Ibid.
recognized as conducive to a Despotism and Authoritarianism that is destructive to the
Civil Liberty of all, not just Whites. Where equality before the law is not possible,
democracy is not possible. When the Supreme Power, that by the most fundamental
nature of democratic principles is supposed to reside in the people, was usurped to jurists
appointed for life, Sovereignty in America devolved to Total Authority and the State
became an illegitimate entity as submission to the Force of that authority trumped
everyones right to a healthy Order and Intellectual Freedom. This is why natural law
theory has become so unfashionable: the status quo and its ideologically authoritarian
temperament finds nothing more threatening than that there could be something born of
nature that could challenge their arbitrary dictates of enforced equality based on their
egalitarian assumptions. Natural law has gone out of fashion because it had to so that the
monster that bites with stolen teeth (Nietzsche, 161)
18
could survive. Objective moral
principles based on sound reason and nature can only conflict with the ambitions of the
current intelligentsia and their hubristic quasi-religious certainty that men can be
recreated in their image. But reason never goes out of fashion to the reasonable, nor
dignity to the dignified, who have faith in their individual intellect to comprehend the
truth, and faith to maintain what they have comprehended against the Force of
institutional dogma of the tyranny of illegitimate power.
It will be argued by some that the ordering of a new state dedicated to racial
separation could only be achieved through some manner of compulsion that would be
morally and ethically wrong. But even education requires compulsion: moral outcomes
are the measure of justice and improvement, not the ability to enforce compliance
passively. Ghandi recognized this, and saved his country and his people from a
destructive association that was perhaps less intractable than ours. The Declaration of
Independence defines Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as being supreme, and
counsels us to the proper measures for their protection:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness
In order to maintain the health and the ethical foundations of liberty, we
must recognize the reality of race, the importance of race, and the implications of
ethnic identifications as being functional components of the construction of
societies and states. The universalistic mindset assumes that each individual
conscience and consciousness has something compelling in common with all
other individuals: that they are equal. As I said at the outset in discussing the
phenomenon of conscience, I also believe that there is something important in
common in this regard, though far from equal. To the extent that all men desire
and respect truth there is a community of man that is possible. But it is also true
that this community of man is subordinate to the more intense and ancient
ethnic conscience and consciousness in any practical context. Any ethical
18
Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, from The Portable Nietzsche, ed. Walter Kaufmann (New
York, NY: Penguin Books,1976)
communities are also ethnic and racial communities, not communities of
philosophers, but something more profound: communities of competition and
survival motivated and formed by ancestral identification and inheritance, not
mere principals. Far from being a social construct, race was a fact long before any
principle could be applied to it: this by itself is a strong argument for its
consideration, but illuminated by the principals of natural law, the reality of race
and ethnic identification become foundational elements in the construction and
preservation of any state. A new and better state can be created if we recognize
this with courage and conviction: two attributes in which the Founding Fathers
were certainly not lacking.
The Concept of Natural Liberty offers an opportunity to reconcile the
precepts of traditional American political philosophy with the reality of racial and
ethnic differences and forms a solid logical and ethical foundation on which to
build a comprehensive political philosophy for a new American Right.