Send this article to a friend:


In Answer to Jefferson’s Question
Neal Ross

I know it may be asking too much of folks, but just for a few minutes I’d like to ask that they put aside their partisan ideologies; long enough to answer a couple of quick questions. The first question is relatively simple; What function/s does government serve that you absolutely could not live without? That’s all I ask; for you to name something that government does that makes its existence absolutely necessary for your survival/well-being. Now that you’ve done that, the next question is; Does the thing that you need government to do for you come at the cost of something that is taken from others; such as their income, or the deprivation of certain rights?

Now, if you were able to answer those two questions (with any degree of honesty) you may have come to a simple conclusion; regardless of your party affiliation, there is no real fundamental difference between the two political parties. The only difference between them is how they spend the money government steals from others, and which rights government decides should be infringed upon. Therefore, if you support government (regardless of which party happens to be in control of it at any given moment) you believe it is acceptable to steal from others to fund things they may disagree with, while depriving others of certain inherent and unalienable rights.

Does that pretty much sum up your political philosophy? 

As far as I’m concerned, there isn’t a damned thing government does that I could not live without; except possibly to provide for the defense of the nation from foreign attack; something along the lines of a Red Dawn type invasion, not what currently passes for national defense. In fact, my life would be a whole lot better if government would just go the way of the dodo and disappear entirely; leaving me, my rights, and my money alone.

You see, I’m not one to ask people to do things that I, myself, am not willing to do. So, I tried to answer those questions I asked of you, and there is not one service that government provides that I could not live without; so why in the hell do I need government to do it for me; or assume control over what is my responsibility in the first place? I know that there might be some who say, “But Neal, you’re drawing Social Security, and that’s a government program.” Yes, it is, but it is money they have been stealing from me ever since I began working; they’re just giving some of it back to me.

I think it says a lot about a person’s integrity that they expect someone else to do things for, or provide things that are essentially the responsibility of individuals to do for themselves. Nothing in life is free, so if someone asks that another do something for them, they are asking that someone give up their time, their labor, or their money to do something they should be doing for themselves; at least that’s how I see it.

Take, for instance, police protection. How many people think that society owes them the protection that the police supposedly provide them with; even though the Supreme Court has held that the police are not obligated to provide each individual with protection. What does it say about you, as an individual, that you will not accept that responsibility for yourself, but then you will ask others to put their lives on the line protecting you?

Furthermore, what does it say about you, as an individual, that you decry and demonize those of us who want to exercise that right; telling us we are taking the law into our own hands? If government gets the power it exercises from us, then how is it that we are told we cannot exercise that same power as individuals? If it is our natural right to defend ourselves, our rights, and our property (which our Founders believed it was) how can it be made a crime to do so by the entity that was ‘supposedly’ established to better secure our rights?

Can anyone answer that for me?

I just don’t understand how people can claim to be individuals, then not accept individual responsibility for their own wants and needs; it makes absolutely no sense to me. If I need food to survive, then it is my responsibility to provide it; not societies. If I want a car, a college education, health care, or any of the other things people ask of their government, then I alone should be responsible for providing for those wants/needs.

By the same logic society uses, if I was unable to find a girlfriend or a wife on my own, then they should be required to provide me with one from among their daughters. Sounds silly when you put it that way, doesn’t it? Yet that is how people think these days; the things they are unable to provide for themselves become societies responsibility; which is sheer nonsense.

Society would be a whole lot better if people would simply apply to their lives the motto found in Ayn Rand’s book, Atlas Shrugged: “I swear – by my life and my love of it – that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” Now I’m not saying that people should not help others, if they are so inclined. However, such help should be voluntary and be done by mutual consent.

Charity by voluntary consent is a virtuous trait. Charity by government mandate is theft; pure and simple; for it then becomes governments right to decide who is more worthy of your income than you are. If you believe in individualism, then you cannot believe in the concept that anyone be required to shoulder the burden of providing for others against their will. The moment you believe that it becomes societies responsibility to provide for the wants and needs of others, you basically have accepted that freedom of choice no longer exists.

That is why I oppose government; it no longer serves the function of securing the rights and liberty of those it governs. No matter which party gains control of the system, the system will be used to tax me to pay for things that I do not agree with; things that government should not be doing, as well as infringing upon my rights and my liberty. It does not matter that one party ‘may be’ less guilty of this than the other; they are still guilty of it; which makes them evil, and I will not tolerate an evil system deciding how I shall live my life, or how my money shall be spent!

So, while most people bicker and argue amongst each other over which party gets to control the system, my rights, my liberty, and my property continue to come under attack by a system I stopped consenting to over 20 years ago. People may say that times change, and government must change with them. That may be true, but there is something else people need to consider; something that is best explained by two quotes from Thomas Jefferson.

The first quote states:Time indeed changes manners and notions, and so far we must expect institutions to bend to them. But time produces also corruption of principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens to be ever on the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let the day be kept off as long as possible.” (Source: Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1821)

The second states: “Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.” (Source: Letter to Maj. John Cartwright, 1824)

So, while government may change with the times, my rights and my liberty remain constant, unchanging. You may seek to deprive me of them, and I will resist such deprivations to the best of my ability. I have always rebelled against authority when I believed it to be unjust; unfair. I did it with my parents; I did it in school; I did it in the military; and I continue to do it now.

The question you need to ask yourself is; am I the bad guy for standing up for my rights, or are you for asking that I give those rights up to make you ‘feel’ better; ‘feel’ more comfortable, more secure? In 1775, Jefferson wrote another letter, this time to William Small, asking, “Can it be believed that a grateful people will suffer [individuals] to be consigned to execution, whose sole crime has been the developing and asserting their rights?

Patrick Henry

Looking at society today, I would, unfortunately, have to say that the answer to Jefferson’s question is, yes. If that be the case, if the power of creating law to secure my rights, my liberty, my property has been twisted and perverted to such an extent that being free becomes a crime, then so be it; let them come for me. As Patrick Henry so aptly said, “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Besides, the way society is going these days, death would be a welcome release from the utter bullshit and insanity that I’m witnessing.

In closing, I don’t care who you vote for (I honestly don’t); if the person you vote for decides that I must give a portion of my income to pay for things I do not consent to, or surrender more of my rights and liberty for your comfort and security, then you (not the person you vote for) are my enemy; for it is by your consent that this system continues to exist. If people would all revoke their consent, then this system would become powerless; neutered by our virtual non-compliance.

As is, it survives because you give your consent to it; believing you can make things better at the voting booth, or by pleading with those you elect to respect your rights. No people have ever kept their freedom when they left it up to those who govern to decide the extent of their own powers. If you cannot make them respect your rights (by force if necessary) then you’ve already lost the battle…no matter which criminal organization happens to gain control of the system.





Neal Ross, Student of history, politics, patriot and staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Send all comments to: [email protected].

If you liked Neal’s latest column, maybe you’ll like his latest booklet: The Civil War: (The Truth You Have Not Been Told). Life continues to expand for this prolific writer and guardian of TRUE American history.


Send this article to a friend: