Liberty Forum

Trucking accidents can be devastating because of the very nature of these vehicles. At a speed of 80-90 mph, the impact between the truck and the other vehicle can be huge. When it comes to determining liability, there are a number of individuals who can be blamed for whatever injury that will be sustained.

Atlanta trucking accidents are unique cases for a number of reasons. To start with, the damage and injuries inflicted upon motorists in trucking accidents are severe, often resulting in catastrophic injury sometimes even death. It is estimated that approximately one in eight traffic fatalities involves a truck. The size and weight of tractor trailers are a significant contributing factor to the high fatality rate, as well as large blind spots, driver fatigue and, in some cases, the use of alcohol or drugs.

There are many federal regulations governing the operation of tractor trailers and their drivers, as well as requirements for the creation of certain records and log books. These regulations and documentation are vital to the prosecution of a trucking case. If you have been involved in a trucking accident, it is imperative that your attorneys be familiar with these regulations and use them to your advantage.

In reality, it all boils down to truck accident insurance. Depending on who is blamed for the accident, either a victim will be covered by the driver’s or the company’s health insurance plan. Again, the awarding of the insurance needs must meet certain conditions. This is where Cash, Krugler & Fredericks Atlanta trucking accident attorneys come in.

1, Cash, Krugler & Fredericks are the best truck accident attorneys in Atlanta and have helped secure over $56 million in settlements and judgments for our clientele.

2, Attorneys at Cash Krugler & Fredericks provide aggressive legal representation for settlement negotiation and trial representation.

3, Cash, Krugler & Fredericks excel in cases that involve motor vehicle crashes which are the leading cause of traumatic head injuries, injuries that often result in death or decades of slow and incomplete recovery.

On average, 116 people were seriously injured and 31 people were killed in Georgia highway accidents EACH WEEK from 2000 to 2006 and Atlanta’s injuries and fatalities from vehicle accidents increased from 68,243 in 2000 to 71,918 in 2006, a 5.38% increase. Also, from 2000 to 2006, 11,435 people in Georgia lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes, an average of 31 people dying in crashes each week.

Remember that an expert truck accident attorney should show you their certification for determining whether they are qualified enough to handle your case. You may even do a cross check by asking them pertinent questions in the context of your case. If you receive in depth answers, you know that the attorney is a qualified lawyer.

If you have been injured in a trucking accident, our lawyers are willing to meet with you and your family free of charge to discuss your options. To discuss your case with one of our attorneys or if you have any questions about Atlanta truck accident litigation, please feel free to use our Online Consultation Form, Email us or call our attorneys at 404-659-1710.

1. Moore, Alan. V for Vendetta. Vertigo Comics, 1988.

Back to top

Who Was Thaddeus Kosciusko?
R. Abraham Edwards

“The freedom and happiness of man…
[are] the sole objects of all legitimate government.”
-Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1810

Who was Thaddeus Kosciusko? In 1776 the young Kosciucko left Poland to join the American colonists in their fight against Great Britain, receiving a commission as officer of engineers. He was the first foreign officer to receive a commission in Washington’s army, and after the war he was granted 500 acres in Ohio near the Scioto River where the city of Columbus now stands. He was a man who knew far better than many today the need for political freedom, the importance of equality, the need for education, and the necessity of economic independence. After the war, Kosciusko returned to Poland, where he organized the Polish army in an unsuccessful revolt against the combined forces of Russia and Prussia. He died in Switzerland, banished from Poland, a man whom Jefferson once called “the purest son of Liberty”.1.

Of the four basic rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life seems the most rudimentary. In fact, a cursory reading of the document may cause one to think that the “right to life” is implicit; obviously, if one is in a position to be reading the Declaration of Independence, they have already been granted the “right to life”. It may be necessary to suggest, then, that the inalienable right to ‘life’ means more than the right to “be alive”. Existence is assumed. What then, is the meaning of the phrase the “right to life” and what connection does it have to the rights of liberty and happiness?

The right to life refers to far more than the right ‘not to be killed’. Nor does it refer to the right to eke out a miserable existence in anticipation of your ultimate and unavoidable demise. Living encompasses all things that your liberty allows you, all those activities that you pursue because of your liberty, including the free exercise of your mental faculties.

The phrase ‘right to life’ is one that has been adopted by the Pro-Life movement in their fight against abortion, and while it is aptly chosen, I do not believe that Jefferson had in mind the right to exist when he penned the words. Rather, I would suggest that life has a far richer definition, and that it is intricately tied with the other inalienable rights. Writing in 1774, Jefferson suggested that, “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.” One’s life and liberty go hand in hand. As liberty is threatened or removed, life is likewise left devoid of meaning. Jefferson, in a letter dated 1790, wrote that, “The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless.” In other words, the right to life is directly tied to the means necessary for its use, namely, our liberty. We should view any encroachment on our liberty as an encroachment on our very lives. Locke, writing in his Second Treatise of Government in 1690 made it very clear that our liberties and lives are bound up together.

“This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with, a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one….”

Just as I mentioned in a previous article that 2. in a sense, we are our rights, so likewise our liberties are simply the fullest and most natural extension of our lives. Recall the ringing words of Patrick Henry- the only two reasonable states for a man are liberty or death.

Furthermore, the natural desire of all men since our forefather Adam is to be free from any higher form of earthly power. The idea of placing oneself under the will or legislative authority of other men goes against our inherent inclinations. At the same time, our very nature relishes opportunities of placing ourselves in a position of power above the rest of society. We bind ourselves together under standing rules so that no man is subject to the “inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man.” 2.Sam Adams, in his essay “Rights of the Colonists as Men”, pointed out that “. . . all men have a right to remain in their natural state as long as they please, entering into society by voluntary consent. Every natural right, not expressly given up… remains. All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity.” Any government that fails to meet this standard is not simply depriving the citizenry of their liberties. It is depriving them of their very lives.

Finally, what does the right to life mean for the person who lives in impoverished circumstances, who has not the freedom to enjoy the good things of our culture due to economic constraints, social position, perceived discrimination, lack of proper education, or poor health? Is not the government thus required to step in and provide whatever is necessary for these people to experience their ‘right to life’ in the same way as the average citizen? Could the argument not be made for the need of governmental social services if these things would lead to a greater number of men and women experiencing lives of a higher quality? Since the right to life refers as much to the quality of life as to the fact of existence, do not more liberal social reforms seem warranted?

The voice of reason, however, cries out in protest. The flaw in the previous argument is that it looks at basic human rights, as do many social liberals today, from a completely backward angle. The inalienable human rights are not selective grants of governmental benevolence, but are inherent properties of each human being. We need to recognize these principles as essential parts of man, not gifts of the state. Unfortunately, many people in the world today view their liberties as precisely that, a gift of the state. Thus, it is logical for such a person to complain that the government has ineffectively provided for his right to life and happiness, due to the socioeconomic inequalities that exists in our culture.

This type of thinking is usually obvious, and typically is to be found when the levels of social inequality are particularly noticeable. After the resent destruction of New Orleans, for example, it was this kind of erroneous thought that blamed the government for not providing adequate financial assistance. It is often this kind of thinking that is behind cries of racism and discrimination. Anyone who believes the government exists in order to provide them with worldly comforts is certain to experience continual disappointment.

Thaddeus Kosciusko understood that life and liberty flow through the same veins. A man who risks his life to secure liberty for another is rare indeed. The sad irony of his life lies in the fact that he was successful in a foreign land, and failed in his own. May each of us have the same passion for securing today our rights to liberty…and life.

1. Adapted from “The Unusual Story of Thaddeus Kosciusko” Lithuanian Quarterly Journal of Arts and Sciences. Volume 32, No. 1 – Spring 1986.
2. John Locke, Second Treatise on Government 1690

Back to top

American Liberty
Jonathan D. Detwiler

Since the terrorist attacks in the fall of 2001, one primary object has been on the agenda of the executive branch- national security. Without much dialog on principles of liberty, the Patriot Acts, the espionage of private citizens, and preemptive war measures on the nation of Iraq have been necessitated as legitimate means to a impression of “national security”. How do these actions protect liberty? Although this essay will not seek to address these current issues specifically, before we can answer such a question we must first establish a definition of liberty.

To begin, I would title our definition as ‘American liberty’. The reason I do this is that there are other definable forms of liberty, not including the American form of liberty as established in 1776. The history and development of American liberty is a very long and involved study of philosophy and political thought spanning hundreds of years in Europe and America. Thus, in the context we find ourselves, I shall reduce it to two sources from which it derived significant influence: the English Common Law System and the Protestant Reformation

Even in these two sources, our study must be brief. The English Common Law system developed as the legal opinions of private judges in ‘common law’. These judgments were not always enforceable by the local magistrate, the convicted having the option to live outside of the law- an outlaw. Outlaws of course enjoyed none of the benefits of the law, even their life not being protected. The common law system saw its source as primarily being the laws manifest in nature and confirmed in the laws and principals found in the Christian Bible. Thus, as it was being developed judgments could not go against these precedents, although they could overthrow un-logical or contrary precedent. In 1765, Sir William Blackstone published a four-volume, Commentary on the Laws of England, which examines the common law system developed in England. These volumes became the foundation for the study of law and government in the founding period of America. As an example of his work, here is his definition of natural law: “This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, and all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately from this original.” 1

The protestant reformation helped to establish the growth of the common law. This is due to the fact that the reformation established the source of law as coming from the God of scriptures, this law consisting of fixed unchanging principles. The reformation also stressed that all individuals are equally responsible before the law of God, and mans law subsequently. This went against the philosophy that government, be it church or state, was above the law and could do as it pleased. Because of this understanding of the law, the reformation established the right to resistance of laws or governments that went against the higher principals and source of law. Government was a necessary function in society, but only to punish and restrain evildoers and lawbreakers.

Now let us turn and look at the historical implementation of the principles found in American liberty in the founding of America. In 1620, English Pilgrims aboard the Mayflower wrote the Mayflower Compact, which illustrates the right of the people to establish a government to serve liberty. They wrote “…[we] covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony…” 2

The Declaration of Independence of 1776 seeks authority for its law system as the laws of nature and natures god. It also sites the right of the people to establish government. “…all Men are created equal, [that] they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” 3 The Declaration makes use of the argument that governments that does not serve the purpose of equality before the law for all men can and should be overthrown to establish a government that accomplishes this.

Now that we have finished our introductory study of the establishment of American liberty in the United States, can we define it? Yes, but I believe that this definition can first be further articulated by studying the writings of the U.S. Constitution of 1787. This constitution created by the people of the federated states sought to provide representative government established on the rule of law. The government they established incorporated aspects of all three forms of government: the monarchical principle- executive branch; the aristocratical principle- judicial branch; and the democratical principle- legislative branch. As stated above, it was a federation of states joined together by common goals and joint protection. The Constitution was delegative, stating only the duties each member of the government was required to fulfill. It also included a bill of rights, which further defined another aspect of American liberty. We can see how these rights sought to protect the three principles of liberty:

Protection of Life: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Nor be a witness against himself, or be tried twice for the same crime. 4 He was innocent until proven guilty, had the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. 5 The right to a speedy and public trial with witnesses and counsel for defense, a jury of his peers, and according to the rules of common law. 6 The private ownership of military equipment for use in defense. 7

Protection of Liberty: Congress shall not establish a national form of religious exercise, freedom of speech, of the press and the right to assemble. 8

Protection of Property: The ability to copyright writing discoveries and ideas in science and the useful arts. 9 Soldiers shall not be quartered in any house. 10 The right against unlawful searches or seizures, private property taken only through due process and with just compensation. 11

Now I think our definition is complete. What is it that makes American liberty so unique? It is defined fully defined as follows:

American Liberty- 1. The belief that the source of liberty is found in law and that both acquire their authority in the God of scripture and the testimony of the laws of nature. This rule of law compels men to form governments to protect life, liberty and property. Governments that become destructive to these principals can be re-established to protect law and liberty. 2. The protection of life, liberty and property includes the following: right to life except through forfeiture through due process of law; innocence until proven guilty through a jury trial of ones peers; the right to private ownership of military equipment; freedom of religion, speech, the press and peaceable assembly; private ownership of property free from searches or seizures, without due process and just compensation.

Do you see now how unique and powerful American liberty is? These are the principles that nurtured and fed the growth and birth of liberty. American liberty did not come out of a vacuum. And unfortunately it does not continue indefinitely. Patrick Henry was an ardent believer in American liberty. You may remember the speech that he gave in 1776, in which he stated “give me liberty or give me death!” Freedom and liberty was so important to Patrick Henry that he was willing to face death than submit to chains of submission and slavery. And he and others sacrificed their all to establish liberty in America. Later in the ratification debates for the proposed constitution he again stressed the importance of protecting liberty by saying “shall liberty or empire be sought?” What did he mean? Simply, some of the tendencies of the proposed constitution leaned towards the establishment of an empire at the expense of liberty. It was because of this and his insistence that the Bill of Rights was added as amendments in 1789. This brings us back to the questions I raised in the beginning of this article. With our definition of American liberty we need to evaluate the tendencies and actual operations of our current government compared to the principles of American liberty. Do we truly live in a country based on American Liberty or the American Empire?

1. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. 1 pp. 41
2. Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, pp. 75-76
3. Declaration of Independence of 1776
4. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Amendment V
5. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Amendment VI & VII
6. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Article I, Section VIV
7. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Amendment II
8. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Amendment I
9. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Article I, Section VIII
10. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Amendment III
11. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Amendment IV

Back to top

More on Locke and the Logical
Conclusion of His Philosophy
Stephen Valentine Hodos

I was recently reading a copy of Friedrich A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom at a local coffee shop when I was approached by a stranger with an opinion. The man began by asking me how it was that I became familiar with Hayek. If you are not familiar with Friedrich Hayek, he was an economist of the 20th Century whose most popular work The Road to Serfdom was published just prior to the end of World War II. In The Road to Serfdom Hayek outlines the doom that awaits any nation which heads down the slippery slope of socialism. Back to the coffee shop. When I told the inquiring gentleman that I am a Libertarian he told me that I am “halfway there.” When I asked him what he meant by this statement he did not hesitate to explain. He told me why the war in Iraq is necessary to counteract the growing threat of terrorism that is a result of bourgeoning hostilities amongst middle-eastern Muslims. He went on to explain to me that some social programs will always be necessary to counteract poverty at home. While the conversation was cut short, I am sure that there are more issues at which my philosophy is only “halfway there” according to his self-proclaimed conservative ideology.

The question that begs to be asked is can we merge a democratic philosophy of government that is based upon the right to property with modern socialistic ideals without being inconsistent? The answer is no, we cannot. Do such inconsistencies have consequences? History will tell. If Hayek was right and justice prevails then we have sacrificed every bit of liberty that our government was intended to preserve for such concepts as social equity for the poor and misguided concerns for national safety. But let me ask another question: how is it that a “conservative” today could possibly come to such illogical conclusions? Before I answer this question, how about a very short lesson in political theory.

Prior to the American Revolution and at the outset of the birth of capitalism two men wrote two books in which two very different philosophies of government were outlined. The first was entitled Two Treatises of Government and was written (originally anonymously) by John Locke in 1689. The second, The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right was published in 1762 by author Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Locke, in his Second Treatise, outlines for us why it is that private property actually does exist in the first place and then goes on to conclude that the role of government is to protect that property. He states that “”the Commonwealth comes by a Power to set down, what punishment shall belong to the several transgressions which they think worthy of it, committed by the members of that Society”and all this for the preservation of the property of the members of that Society, as far as is possible.” 1 I am aware that this short excerpt does not provide for a full account of Locke’s philosophy. Nevertheless, the point is that Locke asserted that governments exist to protect the property of the governed. Now let us look at Rousseau’s position.

In The Social Contract Rousseau states that a democratic system presupposes certain things concerning how society should be ordered. He posits that democracy requires a large measure of equality in rank and fortune, without which equality of rights and authority cannot long subsist” and goes on to state that little or no luxury is necessary for the citizens of a democratic society because, according to Rousseau it corrupts at once the rich and poor, the rich by possession and the poor by covetousness.” Rousseau concludes his chapter on Democracy by stating “Were there a people of gods their government would be democratic. So perfect a government is not for men.” 2 While Rousseau tends to be unclear as to how he defines his terms I will assume that he would have considered the early American form of government for the people, by the people” to be a democratic one.

From such a brief account of the positions of both philosophers, which one sounds more in line with my friend at the coffee shop?

The point is that Locke’s philosophy of government being essentially libertarian is very opposed to any idea that government might restrict the property rights of its citizens seeing as it is the duty of government to protect that property. Contrary to this, Rousseau’s philosophy being essentially socialistic sees “equality in rank and fortune” as a necessary precondition to a democratic form of government. Rousseau is completely in line with modern socialistic ideology as well as both mainstream conservatism and liberalism wherein they all agree that the less fortunate in society have a right to some minimum amount of property guaranteed to them at the expense of the more fortunate. Such thinking is entirely problematic. Here is why. If the very government which is entrusted with preserving the property of its citizens is allowed to do with that property as it pleases and as it sees fit, whether it is for the “general welfare” or not makes no difference, it is no longer the property of the individual which the government is protecting it is the property of the state. What then is the property of the state? Anything and everything that it can get its hands on. From a ludicrous percentage of your paycheck, to your home, to your life!

Unfortunately, it is rarely considered to be extreme to want to merge such socialistic principles as were espoused by the self-professed conservative who I met at the coffee shop with such Libertarian principles as Hayek would have us uphold. Even more unfortunate is the fact that it is the person who is consistent in recognizing the logical consequences of such thinking who is considered to be extreme, if not old-fashioned. It is in an attempt to synthesize these two philosophies of government that a conservative, like the man I met at the coffee shop, is able to come to the conclusions that he holds to.

The purpose of this article is not to address my problems with any specific set of issues that currently comprise the platform of either of the socialistic parties running our country. Neither is my point to single out a well-intentioned stranger who had the mind to start a conversation. My point is to recognize the fact that unless we learn to distinguish between a philosophy of liberty and a philosophy of socialism, a Lockean philosophy of government and a Rousseauean one, all the good intentions in the world will not save our country from the impending doom that befalls those who accept the tenet that social equity comes before liberty.

1. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government; Peter Laslett, Cambridge University Press, 2004; p.324.
2. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract and Discourses; Everyman Press, 1993; p.240.

Back to top

On Property
R. Abraham Edwards

A thorough study of the political ideas surrounding private property being impossible under the constraints of time (and perhaps the reader’s patience), let it suffice us to make a logical examination of certain Lockean and Jeffersonian phrases which have shaped our present government and society.

John Locke, writing in his Second Treatise on Civil Government asserted that government exists because of property. Governments serve to protect property, and if I possess no property, then I have no need of a state. I do not require or benefit from prisons, police, armies, judges, rulers, or any of the machinery of government. The question is whether I have right to property.

If I do indeed have a right to property, then government becomes legitimate because those who own property certainly have a right to protect it. A legitimate government is one in which the governors work for the good of the governed, and not their own good. The people give their consent to be governed in the hope that it will result in justice throughout society. Locke then asserted that the government could be overthrown if and when the governor “makes not the law, but his will the rule, and his commands are not directed at the properties of his people, but to satisfaction of his own ambitions, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.”

Clearly, if a right to property exists, then property owners have a right to revolution. what, however, would we say about those who own no property? Have they no recourse if their rights are abridged? The American revolutionists certainly fought to protect the rights of property owners, but what of those who owned no property?

Perhaps it was in response to this dilemma (and the dilemma raised when ‘property’ comes to include other human beings) that Jefferson chose the term “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson’s wording seems more generous, but raises the question: Did Jefferson disagree with Locke’s thesis that there is an inalienable right to property? There are many today who own no property- are we to say that those people have no right to legitimate government? Perhaps there is a different way of understanding property that goes beyond houses, farms, and fields.

James Madison, in an essay dated 1792, defined property as “the dominion a man exercises over the things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.” this, then, is the normal way in which we think of property: my car, my house, my boat, my tractor, etc. Madison, however, was far from finished, and he continued his definition in a way that I believe is quite radical.

“In its larger and more just meaning,” Madison continues, “property embraces everything to which a man might attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to everyone else the same advantage. A man has property in the safety and liberty of his person, in the free use of his faculties, and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may equally be said to have a property in his rights.”

In short, Madison was saying that a man possesses property in the form of his opinions, in his religious beliefs, and in his liberty. each man, then, is a property owner, and each of us must needs determine of our government is the legitimate entity we have a right to.

“Government,” Madison declared, “is instituted to protect property of every sort, as well as that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government that alone is a just government which impartially secures to each man whatever is his own.”

The word “property” comes to us from the French word ‘propre’, which means “self”. our rights are inseparable from ourselves. In a sense we are our rights- they are our highest form of property. In this day and age we hear much about ‘rights’, and given the passion of some groups toward what they see as the usurpation’s of their rights, it may serve us well to ask a few probing questions in order to gauge the efficacy of our government at protecting our rights, our property:

Is the war in the Middle East helping to protect you property? Does the abortion trade in this country help to protect your property? Does the so-called ‘wall of separation’ between church and state serve to protect your property? Does a ban on smoking in public places serve to protect your property? Does banning Christian religious expression serve to protect your property? Does outlawing firearms serve to protect your property? Does the ‘No Child Left Behind act, or the Federal Board of Education serve to protect your property? Does the Patriotic Act serve to protect your property? Remember that the role of government is to protect property. Is it possible that it has strayed from that goal? Is our current government “impartially securing to every man whatever is his own?”

If the answer to the above question is negative, then we must take the logical next step and agree with Locke that our elected officials are not providing us with legitimate government and may be legitimately overthrown. I write this not to endorse revolt, per se, if my words seem radical to you, it is only a sign of how far our society has fallen the ideals of our Founding Fathers. Madison wrote that it was “imperative for the United States that it equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights.”

Tyranny exists. All fine words wither before a man such as Mao Zedong, who claimed, “power is in he muzzle of a gun.” Tyranny exists in those nations that have censored Madison’s revolutionary doctrine from their people, shielding them from the knowledge that it works in practice. While many in this once great nation remain passively apathetic to the usurpation of their rights, we should learn a real lesson from the young people of China and other nations who have shown that they are willing to fight and die for their property rights. If we are unwilling to do the same, tyranny will soon become very real to us, and the legitimacy of government will be purely academic.

Back to top

Is Liberty Unlimited?
Jonathan D. Detwiler

What exactly is Liberty? Can liberty be unlimited or is it limited? A look at the dictionary can help us answer these questions. One definition I found states that liberty is, “the state of being exempt from the domination of others or from restricting circumstances.” This doesn’t sound very good, are you free from the domination of others, or restricting circumstances? You name it; domination coming from others, a spouse, employer, parents, tax collectors, the government- the list goes on. And restricting circumstances, again, you can only spend as much as you make. Having to work itself is a restriction on your liberty. So you must admit that you do not experience unlimited liberty.

What if we could experience unlimited liberty? If you had unlimited liberty would this be a good thing? If you were a law unto yourself who would say that you couldn’t steal for an income, kill at will, whatever you wanted. This may sound okay at first, but what if everybody had this freedom? You would not be safe. True liberty would be destroyed and the result would be chaotic anarchy. Rousas J. Rushdoony says that “Man’s total liberty is always anarchy, and anarchy is the death of both law and liberty. Unless all men’s liberty is limited by law, no liberty is possible for any man.”

So when the founders talked about liberty and freedom what did they mean? In the writings of John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon in their book, Cato’s Letters they explained the unalienable right of liberty as:

“All men are born free; Liberty is a gift which they receive from God; nor can they alienate the same by Consent, though possibly they may forfeit it by crimes”
The right of the Magistrate arises only from the right of private men to defend themselves, to repel injuries, and to punish those who commit them; That right being conveyed by the society top their public representative, he can execute the same no further than the benefit of security of that society requires that he should. When he exceeds his commission, his acts are extra-judicial as are those of any private officer usurping an unlawful authority, that is, they are void”"

They say “Liberty” is the “power which every man has over his own actions, and his rights to enjoy the fruit of his labor, art and industry, as far as by it he hurts not the society, or any members of it, by taking from any members, or by hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys. The fruits of a man’s honest industry are the just rewards of it, ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity, as is his title to use them in the manner which he thinks fit: And thus, with the above limitations, every man is sole Lord and Arbiter of his own private actions and property.”

What Trenchard and Gordon are trying to point out here is that liberty is limited. Albeit they argue these limits are limited. Man is born free. Liberty is a gift, a right they cannot forfeit except through committing of crimes. They also point out that living in a society under government does not alter the right to liberty.
“The entering into political society is so far from a departure from his natural rights, that to preserve it was the sole reason why men do so; and mutual protection and assistance is the only reasonable purposes of all reasonable societies.”

One of the basic premises of the American system of liberty is that man’s liberty is under law. The purpose of the founding of the United States and for much of its history the goal of its justice system, has been to further liberty by law. If liberty is indeed under law, the it requires careful and conscientious legislation to maintain the social structure that promotes liberty best. The founders thought this could be accomplished by making the interests of those who govern and the governed the same. All parties with a vested interest in the preservation of liberty in the society would assemble and vote on it. This is the principle of representative government. The representative must live under the laws that they pass. Government must be limited so as to not encroach upon the liberty of man.

The restoration of true liberty means the restoration of true law. It is completely illogical and dangerous to think that freedom means the escape from law.

Back to top

If you have had any experiences buying glasses, you will agree that the procedure is so complicated that you may not know how to get the best deal at a relatively fair price. Also many glasses users are even not willing to visit a glasses store. Fortunately, with the rapid development of internet technologies, we can now buy anything 0nline and purchasing our glasses online is also practical.

ZenniOptical.com offers the Lowest Price Progressive Glasses available anywhere online. At ZenniOpticals, you will not see expensive or inexpensive brand names but our very own brand “ZENNI” guaranteed to give the best quality and satisfaction at very competitive prices.

We are the #1 online Rx glasses store anywhere on the internet and you don’t have to take our word for it. There are several reviews about our glasses line on the internet written by independent users, writers and critics. An example can be found at Eric’s Review of Zenni Optical

Of course, there is the question of whether the prescriptions provided by our online suppliers are correct and safe. You can get an affirmative answer from us. Almost the same as in any brick and mortar optical stores, you can also have a try on the visual effects of these glasses. The only difference is you can’t touch them while testing. The qualities of these glasses can also be assured in terms of UV-resistance, scratch-resistance, etc. After that, what you should do is to wait for the delivery of your pair of glasses.

Visit us today at ZenniOpticals and make a purchase. A trial will convince you.

If you are new to online gaming and looking for a place to play, the best thing to do is find the best online casino directory. A good casino directory will give you reviews of online  casinos, rankings, what they offer and what you can expect.

International-Casino-News is a casino site that has all kinds of information, including casino reviews and online casino bonus. We have the best online casino directory, reviews of gaming software, videos and books, we also have guides to casino bonus money and free casino games.

There are plenty of online casinos over the web. However, not all of these casinos offer great deals to their players. Surfing across the Internet, players will come across several online casino directories that list the best casino sites or the top ten online casinos. The question that arises in the players minds is which is the best online casino directory.

The concept of gambling and casinos has always been alluring. If you are looking to try your luck at earning easy money in the perfect deutsche online casino, International-Casino-News are the places to be.

We have the best Bankeinzug available anywhere online and You will have an option to save as a player or simply play for free. If you just want to know what an online casino feels like e.g, its sound, graphics, you can simply create a player account or you can simply play for free without having to register.

So what do you say? We encourage you to visit our directory if you want to find the best online casino reviews, directory listings and find the best online casino.

The demand for gold is constantly rising, mainly because everyone is realising in these economic times that the price of currency is falling and the price of gold and silver is rising continuously. It is estimated that the price of gold could break the $2,000 per ounce barrier.

As a general rule, gold prices rise when the stock market weakens. It’s no surprise then that just as the Dow Jones Industrial Average began it’s free-fall in 2008, the price of gold hit a record high!

Everyday there are commercials and signs all around about places where you can get cash for gold. Send them your gold and they’ll send you a check. Take a look around your home. Find bracelets, earrings, rings, tie clips, cuff links, picture frames and more, anything you see! Look at your old jewelery, like from a grandparent; it may be worth more only because of its manufacture date. That tangled mess of necklaces? Send them on and sell gold online!

While some of the luster may have disappeared from that old jewelry of yours over the years, if it is gold jewelery then it has value. Once again, this is because the value of gold on the market has risen significantly. That increased value leads to increased demand. It is this increased demand that makes even scrap gold highly desired in the marketplace.

Now is definitely a great time to consider selling your gold for cash. With the price of gold at an all-time high, you’ll get better prices than you could have at any other time in history!

We certainly don’t have the answer as to when the optimal time is for you to trade in your scrap gold for cash. We can, however, provide our professional opinion: Don’t Wait!!! You can get an extremely high price for your gold jewelry online right now…visit us today and take advantage of our amazing offers

Online buyers like Dave Ramsey are the best bet when you have gold jewelry to sell. You can use their services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and there are no shops to drive to or people to see. Sell your gold online and make fast cash for your unwanted pieces. Your old gold jewelry is probably sitting in drawers and jewelry boxes, collecting dust, so why not turn it into something fun? Take a vacation, buy new clothes or even pay off some debt with the money you can receive when you sell gold jewelry. It’s that simple!

Prepaid credit cards are much like the gift cards available from most high street chains, however, prepaid cards have a much wider acceptance, and can be used internationally. They are the same as credit cards, but without the credit. The majority of prepaid card providers offer cards embossed with your own name, and some are even CHIP & PIN cards.

Looking for the best value Prepaid cards available on the planet? then look no further. PreCash, Inc., a provider of cash alternatives to consumers and retailers since 1998, has just released its new line of reloadable prepaid credit cards that have no fees. The cards, which offer three pricing options for customers to choose from, are the most flexible on the market today.

There are many benefits of using a pre-paid credit card, regardless of your financial status and thanks to PreCash Chairman and CEO John Chaney, consumers not only have viable alternatives to credit and debit cards, but with flexibility and control, as well.

“No one else has something like this. Consumers are realizing that prepaid credit cards can be their best alternative to credit cards and bank accounts for everyday payment needs. Our Vision Platinum Card rewards the person who uses a prepaid card frequently with free transactions, and we have cards that work well for any user, regardless of how often they need it. We are the first to offer this much choice and control.”

Thanks to Precash, Customers can choose from three different Vision Prepaid Visa pricing plans, each with their unique benefits.

The Vision Platinum Visa Prepaid Card is the first prepaid card with free PIN transactions and ATM use. It’s for consumers who use a card for $1,000 or more worth of purchases each month.

The Vision Premier Visa Prepaid Card provides those who spend less than $1,000 per month with the benefit of direct deposit.

The Vision Preferred Visa Prepaid card is for consumers who need an alternative to traditional credit or debit cards and would like the benefit of loading the card at retail locations.

What’s important to remember about these cards is just how flexible they are. Not only are they transaction fee-free, which is a big bonus for prepaid cards, and not only can they be used anywhere where Visa credit or debit cards are accepted, but you can change plans as your needs change. PreCash has done everything possible to ensure that there is a plan out there for anyone needing a prepaid card. Said best by President Chaney, “Our approach can be boiled down to this: However you’re living, we’ve got the card for you.”

Vision Visa Prepaid Cards are issued by The Bancorp Bank pursuant to a license from Visa U.S.A. Inc. and may be used wherever Visa debit cards are accepted. The Bancorp Bank; Member FDIC.

In the aftermath of the devastating earthquake that struck Haiti in the past month or so, people and organizations worldwide used their cell phones to send text messages pledging more than $30 million for Haitian relief efforts, according to figures released Thursday by the Mobile Giving Foundation.

A number of relief groups have been added to the list of organizations that can receive text message donations from customers of the four main wireless carriers in the United States: Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile.

Many of the carriers — including the four largest in America — have vowed to expedite donations to the American Red Cross and to other agencies. Normally, it could take 30 to 60 days to transfer the contributions from customers, which will be added to their mobile phone bills.

Verizon Wireless recently revealed in its “second transfer in a week” that it has transmitted $4.84 million to the American Red Cross, “representing additional dollars pledged by texting customers to the Red Cross relief effort for Haiti.” A  transfer of $2.98 million was previously made.

Americans have been donating money via text messages in $5 and $10 amounts to help Haiti relief agencies.

The American Red Cross is the largest benefactor of the effort so far. Other organizations receiving $5 and $10 donations include the Yele Haiti foundation; the International Rescue Committee; the International Medical Corps; and the Clinton Foundation Haiti Relief Fund.

In a matter of days, the mobile giving campaign has become a popular and easy way to donate to relief efforts, with all four major carriers backing the text-messaging donation campaign, saying customers will not be charged for text-messaging mobile donations. Smaller carriers around the world are also involved in the program.