Freedom

Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others.

Liberty is defined as rights with responsibilities. Its opposite, License, is defined as rights with no responsibilities. Another word for License would be Anarchy, or a situation where there are no rules, rights, or privileges. The strong devour the weak; the powerful destroy the powerless. In the animal world, License is defined as "the Law of the jungle."

Those who love freedom must recognize that others have equal rights to their freedom as well, and that only by recognizing this fact will all be totally free. That means that all individuals must restrict their freedom to harm others, or none will be free to enjoy their rights to life, liberty, and property.

The Creator of man laid down some guidelines about the rights of others. These guidelines are written in the negative in at least six of the Ten Commandments. The guideline is written "Thou shall not . . . which means that all will be free if all men confine their activities to those which do not harm others.

America's founding fathers, when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, also wrote their guidelines in the negative: "Congress shall pass no laws . . . But these restrictions enable man to be freer because man's life would be free of governmental restraints.

Those who wrote the Constitution were concerned about the concept of equal rights. They were attempting to separate themselves from a monarchy as a form of government where certain individuals, the king and his court, had more rights than the common citizens. These individuals had superior rights because of their positions. Conversely, the common people had little if any rights. America's founding fathers were convinced that they would not allow this inequality to occur in this country as they wrote the founding documents.

They wrote it into the Constitution that all men were created equal, that the lowest had the same rights to Life, Liberty, and Property as did the highest. Modern man, through the misuse of government, passes laws to make men equal in all areas of their lives. This obvious misunderstanding of man's nature has caused much grief as long as man has been attempting to create government

The solitary man, alone in his environment, need not concern himself with rights and the need to create government to protect those rights. No one exists to plunder his goods or take his life. There is no need to protect his rights. They are secure.

It is only when another individual or groups of individuals join him in his solitary existence that concerns about rights become important.

Each of the inhabitants has an equal right to life, liberty and property. That right is protected as long as each inhabitant recognizes the equal right of the others. No individual nor any group of individuals has the right to take the life, liberty or property of another individual or group of individuals.

There is no question that any individual, or group of individuals, has the ability to violate the rights of any individual. The question being discussed here is whether or not the violator has the right to do so.

If each individual has the right to his life, liberty and property, and no one has the right to take these rights, then it follows that man must have the right to protect his rights. This right is called the Right to Self Defense. Each individual has this right in equal proportion to any other individual.

If each individual has the right to self-defense and each has it equally, then each individual has the right to pool his individual right with others so that all can protect their rights from those who come to violate all of their rights at the same time.

In other words, if each has the right individually, then all have the right collectively. Such collective poolings of individual rights to self-defense are called governments.

Men create governments when they pool their individual rights to self-defense to create an agency that has the collective right to protect both the individual and the collective body of individuals.

Men can only grant to government those rights they themselves have. If an individual does not have a right, it is not possible for that individual to grant that right to government. Government can only have those rights that each individual has.

These truths about human rights can best be illustrated by a brief and simple economic model based upon two assumptions about human nature: 1) All people consume equally; and 2) All people produce unequally.

Assumption #1 is not an absolute, obviously, since not all people consume exactly the same, but basically this statement is correct. Notice that the participants at a banquet are all given an equal portion, whether they are large or small, and each serving at a drive-in restaurant is the same size. So, for the sake of this discussion, it will be assumed that all people pretty well consume equally.

Such is not the case with Assumption #2. Each person, if given equal opportunity to produce his sustenance, would produce unequally. Some would produce more than others. Generally, the young, the energetic and the skilled would produce more than the old, the lazy, and the unskilled. The well would produce more than the infirm. But each would consume about the same. This means that some individuals produce more than they consume, while others consume more than they produce.

The author has constructed an economic model that will illustrate the validity of the concept of private property based upon these two assumptions.

There will be seven individuals in this economic model who have grouped themselves together on an island. These individuals will have no outside interference from other individuals.

Each individual, herein identified by a letter, produces at an unequal rate, and consumes at an equal rate. Hence:

Individual	Production	Consumption
A.	1,200	500
B.	750	500
C.	600	500
D.	400	500
E.	8OO	500
F.	250	500
G.	-0	500
TOTALS:	3,500	3,500

In this economic model, individuals A, B, and C produce more than they consume; D, E, and F consume more than they produce; and G is completely dependent on the rest of the individuals present on the island.

Individual G is willing but totally unable to produce. For the sake of this model, all individuals will be presumed to be functioning at their utmost capacity. There are no slackers. All are producing to their fullest extent possible. Also, there is no waste in this model. All goods produced are consumed.

That means that some individuals produce a Surplus, defined as an excess of production over consumption. (This is also defined as Wealth.) And some individuals produce a Deficit, defined as a shortage of production over consumption. This can be illustrated thus:

Individual	Production	Surplus	Deficit	Consumption
A.	1,200	700		500
B.	750	250		500
C.	600	100		500
D.	400		100	500
E.	300		200	500
F.	250		250	500
G.	-0		500	500
TOTALS	3,500	1,050	1,050	3,500

The important thing to recognize is that certain individuals, in this case, D, E, F and G, are dependent, in varying degrees, upon the rest of the individuals in this model. In fact, individual G is completely dependent upon the rest of the individuals, because if the others didn't exist, individual G would surely die.

A logical question to ask at this point would be whether individual G would have the right to prevent the others from leaving the island should they choose to do so. A similar question that could be asked is whether G would have the right to force the others to produce what individual G requires to maintain his existence.

These are real questions for all governments and individuals to ponder, and, as will be shown later, there are governments that have taken the position that individual G would have both the right to keep others within the environment and the right to force the others to produce for G's individual needs.

The next question that needs to be answered is whether the less productive individuals D, E, F, and G have a right to the surplus of individuals A, B, and C. There are governments and individuals that believe that this is indeed a right, and that governments are created to make certain that their individual needs are met, by distributing the surplus of the productive. These forms of government will be identified later.

There are, obviously, two positions on the question of to whom the surplus belongs. Those who hold that private property rights grant them the right to keep that surplus are obviously in disagreement with those who hold that the surplus goods belong to those who do not produce them.

There are only two methods by which the surplus of individuals A, B, and C can be divided: either with their consent or without it. Either the property belongs to those who produce it or it doesn't

Presume that the four individuals, D, E, F, and G, ask A, B, and C to divide their surplus voluntarily, and the latter refuse. Does that refusal grant the right to D, E, F and G to take the goods from them?

If property rights have any meaning, the answer must surely be in the negative. Does the right to property include the right to protect it from the plundering acts of those who come to take it by force? Does an individual have the right to protect his property against the acts of another individual? Does the individual have the right to protect his property against the acts of a group of individuals? Does the group have the right to protect their property against the acts of another group?

Realizing that the property of the productive A, B, and C cannot be taken from them by force, it behooves the less productive to find another way to acquire the surplus. Presume that they develop a new strategy. They call a meeting to discuss the question of the surplus, and all seven individuals attend. The question of how to handle the surplus is discussed and then acted upon, allowing the majority to decide how to divide the property. In this case, D, E, F, and G vote to divide the property equally, and A, B and C vote against it.

Do D, E, F and G have the right to vote away the property rights of the minority. Does it make it right because all were given an equal opportunity to express their opinion?

Does it make it right if they call the meeting a government? Does it make it right if the majority says that whatever the majority decides will be what the entirety will do? Does the minority have any rights?

If the majority votes to take the minority's property, what is it called?

It is called a Democracy!

Next, presume that the majority is able to create a government to take the surplus from the producers, and that the producers decide among themselves to only produce what they consume the next year, in this case 500 units apiece. Would the minority have that right?

That means that A, B, and C will only produce what they consumed the previous year, or 500 units apiece. The remainder of the people continue to produce what they did the year before. The figures for the second year will be as follows:

2nd Year:

Individual	Production	Consumption
A.	500	350
B.	500	350
Q	500	350
D.	400	350
E.	300	350
F.	250	350
G.	-0	350
TOTALS:	2,450	2,450

The surpluses and deficits become:

Individual	Production	Surplus	Deficit	Consumption
A.	500	150		350
B.	500	150		350
C	500	150		350
D.	400	50		350
E.	300		50	350
F.	250		100	350
G.	-0		350	350
TOTALS:	2,450	500	500	2,450

Notice that the total production dropped from 3,500 units to 2,450 units, a drop of 1,050 units. Each individual's share also decreased as well, from 500 units per person to 350.

Now does the majority have the right to force the minority to produce up to last year's productivity? Even if the majority tried, would the minority produce up to the standard that the majority expected of them? Will the use of force make them produce?

Last, would the majority have the right to keep A, B, and C in the workplace should they choose to leave it? Would they have the right to build a wall around the environment to make certain that they did not leave?

Certain socialists in today's world have taken just that position. "Iron" and "Bamboo" Curtains are the results of the majority's realization (or at least of the realization of the ruling class claiming to act on behalf of the majority) that they need the productive talents of the minority, and because of this needed production, the majority builds walls to keep the minority inside.

What then, should the incentive be to encourage production? Should it be the incentive of the government (fear) or the incentive of the market place (profit)?

The key to production is the incentive of the marketplace, the right to keep what is produced, the Right to Private Property! The right of the individual to better his life by producing more than he consumes and to keep what he produces.

This economic model has many illustrations in the world today. One is occurring today in the Soviet Union, where the basic philosophy that motivates the government is the proposition that whatever is produced in the society belongs to all in that society. However, even in Russia, there is a small percentage of the country where the individual can keep what he produces:

"According to the government's own figures . . . , private plots with a mere three percent of the nation's own acreage accounted for 30 percent of the gross harvest, other than grains, 40 percent of all cattle-breeding, 60 percent of the country's potato crops, 40 percent of all vegetables and milk, 68 percent of all meat products.

"Their fruit yields. . . are double those of state orchards for equivalent areas, its potato harvest per hectare two-thirds higher than on collective farms.

"Even in grain, which is a very minor element in the private sector, it produces one-third more per sown unit than an average socialized farm."

Why is just a small percentage of cultivated land area able to out-produce the remainder? It is because the producers can keep what they produce! The producer has the right to Private Property! Governments can not take what has been produced in this free market environment, for any reason.

People who are allowed to keep what they have produced will always out-produce those who have their production taken from them for the benefit of society. And no one can force the producer to equal his peak production in a free market.

Even Communist China has discovered the truth of this proposition, according to an article in Time magazine on the Jun Tan brigade. It is here that China allows the workers to keep for themselves all the produce over the government set quota.

The brigade's leader is quoted as saying:

"All the peasants feel happy. They work twice as hard as they used to because they know that if they work harder, they can make more money."

The article cited the results of China's experiment with the right to Private Property: "Its per-person annual revenue of $201 is well above the national rural average of only $91."

But even with these glaring examples of the wisdom of the right to Private Property, there are still those who wish to challenge this premise. One, for instance, is Nicole Salinger, who was quoted as saying:

"In France and some other countries it is being proposed that there be a specified differential between the lowest paid worker and the highest paid executive."

Another, noted American economist John Kenneth Galbraith, also wanted to limit man's rewards for his productivity:

"Sooner or later there will probably be some such rule. If a full-time assembly line worker in the United States got $12,000 a year, then a top executive would have a ceiling, say, five times as much, or $60,000. That is a living wage."

If the top executives of the nation were earning more than Mr. Galbraith or some government bureaucrat felt they should be earning, their wages would be reduced by some governmental edict. One can only wonder what Mr. Galbraith would do if any individual having his wages cut wished to leave his position because he felt he wasn't being rewarded adequately, especially if he were in a specialized field where only he had the experience or ability to perform the job. Perhaps Mr. Galbraith would use the force of government to require that he stay.

Another question unanswered by Mr. Galbraith is the question of what he would do if no one wanted to perform the job because no one felt the salary was adequate.

But Salinger and Galbraith and this economic model have not adequately answered the question of just how the society provides for individual G who is unable to provide for himself.

Basically, there are only two ways for the society to satisfy this individual's basic needs. Either method takes the surplus produced by the more productive individuals in the society and divides it, either: 1) Voluntarily, or 2) Coercively.

In other words, the society can either steal the surplus or they can ask the producers to share it voluntarily with the less productive. Sharing a surplus voluntarily is called Charity; sharing it through the use of force is called Welfare.

Just imagine the public outcry should one of America's charitable institutions choose to collect their needed revenues through the use of coercion: "Our needs are more than what you wish to give voluntarily. We will take what we need."

Every person so wronged could expect that the force of government would be used to require the charitable institution to return the stolen property. That is one of the functions of government: to right a wrong such as the taking of property by force.

Returning to the seven individual Economic Model, what is it called when D, E, F, and G join together to violently take the property of A, B and C?

It is called Stealing!

If each group, A, B, and C, and D, E, F, and G, were separate nations, and the latter came to take the former's property by force, the action would be called a war! In either case, the individuals and the nations wronged have the right to defend themselves against the attack on their property.

Individuals have the right to self-defense, and they can combine these individual rights to self-defense by forming a government that has the right to collective self-defense. Once governments have been formed, individual nations can join together to protect themselves from other nations. These nations have the right to hire individuals, called soldiers, to assist in the defense of the nation, just as individuals have the right to protect their life and liberty by hiring a "bodyguard."

Should war as a means of acquiring property fail, those who wish to acquire the property of others must design other strategies. One method that was devised was the use of the majority vote, already discussed. The use of a democracy is another method of taking property away from the minority under the guise of whatever excuse the minority would accept as valid

Notice that in such questions as are decided by majority vote, that whatever the majority decides is what the entirety gets. Notice that there is no question as to whether or not what the majority wants is right or wrong: the majority rules!

However, the question should never be who is right, but what is right Just because a majority decides what the action to be taken is, it does not necessarily follow that the action to be taken is correct.

Notice that there are no minority rights in a true democracy: the majority rules. Notice that if the government (in the name of the majority) decides to grant privileges just to a minority, then the majority must give up its rights. "Majorities do not determine right and wrong. Right is right though everyone votes against it, and wrong is wrong though all but God favor it."

Next, presume that the majority legitimizes its vote by declaring that they have created a government, and that all are bound to obey the decisions of the majority. It is proper to ask the inevitable question: where did the majority get this right?

People can only give to government those rights that they themselves have . Does an individual have the right to take from another? Do two individuals have the right to take from another group of individuals? Do three individuals have the right? Do a grouping of individuals, when acting in concert, have the right? Can a group of individuals get together, call themselves a government, and then grant that government a right that they themselves do not have? Even if that group is a majority?

Can man change the Commandment taken from the Ten Commandments, that reads: "Thou shall not steal!" and convert it to: "Thou shall not steal, except by majority vote!" Or to: "Thou shall not steal, except that portion of thy neighbor's wealth which exceeds thine own!"

Taking the property of another, no matter what the motive, is called stealing, no matter whether an individual, or a group of individuals acting through an agency they call government, commits the crime.

Another word for stealing is Plunder, and when governments legitimize the taking of another's property, it is called Legal Plunder. What happens when a government legalizes stealing?

"I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both."

How does this happen?

"The adoption of democracy . . . is fatal to good government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must produce chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise.

"You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution."

Is there any form of government that protects minority rights (or majority rights, for that matter) if Democracies are unable to do so?

Those who created the American government believed that there were indeed ways to accomplish this vital protection. They wrote in the 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 . . . "

There are, indeed, some "self-evident truths" in that short paragraph, and America's founding fathers were quite aware of them. One of these was the proposition that men were created equal, but were not equal. This means that men have equal access to their rights to life, liberty, and property, no matter what their social status, their color, their nationality, their sex, or their religion. It did not mean that all men were equal in ability or personal merit and that property should be divided equally amongst them.

This particular position was extremely important as the founding fathers had come from a monarchy as a form of government where certain individuals, just because of their position or social status, had superior rights to those born of "common" stock. It is quite apparent that the founding fathers were attempting to limit this concept of the European nobility.

Another "self-evident truth" in that paragraph was the recognition that man's rights were inalienable, which meant that other men, or other governments, could not tamper with them.

The founding fathers attempted to define what these human rights were: the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (They recognized that these were not the only rights of man, but that these were "amongst others.")

And lastly, that man creates governments to protect these inalienable rights.

James Madison has been quoted as saying that:

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own. . . . That is not a just government where. . . property . . . is violated by . . . seizures . . is violated by . . . seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest"

Two other examples of the concern about the rights of man can be found in the Virginia Bill of Rights, adopted on June 12, 1776, and the Alabama Constitution.

Article I of the Virginia Bill of Rights states:

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity;

"Namely the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Article 1 of the Alabama Constitution reads, in part:

"That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression."

Since government is the accumulation of individual rights to use force in the protection of individual or collective rights to life, liberty and property, great care should be exercised in the granting of power to the government The question is always just how much power can be granted to government before it, in itself, becomes an enemy of human rights.

George Washington addressed this problem when he stated: "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

President Washington likened the power of government to the power of fire: both were useful and necessary but both had the power to destroy. Both were dangerous to the individual.

The homeowner, anxious to warm his house, brings fire into the exterior walls, but builds a furnace wall around it so that it will not destroy his home. Obviously, the fire can be both beneficial and dangerous and man must learn its nature and protect himself against its consequences.

Those who create government must design some structure to keep the government within its proper confines for exactly the same reason: government also has the power to destroy not only the individual but the entire nation as well.

America's founding fathers attempted to contain the government's power to destroy the rights of the individual by use of the containing walls of the Constitution. This document was not intended to restrain the power of the people. It was intended to restrain the power of the government. Notice that government is restricted to the powers enumerated in the first three Articles of the Constitution: those that define the powers of the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial branches of the government. The purpose was to properly confine the power of government to those enumerated and those alone.

A parallel to the limitation of powers in the Constitution to those enumerated specifically can be found in the Property Insurance field. There are two methods of insuring real and personal property:

1. The "Named Peril" method; and
2. The "All Risk" method.

The former covers the property for damage by certain perils enumerated by the policy. For instance, the property is insured when damaged by a Fire, a Windstorm, or a Vehicle, etc., because those were included as coverages under the terms of the policy. For there to be coverage under the policy, the property would have to be damaged by a specific peril exactly described by the coverage part of the policy. If the property was damaged by an avalanche, it would not be covered, because Avalanche damage is not an enumerated peril.

Under the "All Risk" method, all losses would be covered unless the specific peril causing the loss was excluded by the policy. To see if a certain loss is covered, the policy holder would have to read the exclusions. For instance, in the above example, the damage to the property caused by the avalanche would be covered unless it was specifically excluded by the terms of the policy.

Governments are like the two methods of insurance: governments can either have enumerated powers (those specifically granted by the people to the government) or governments can have all power unless specifically prohibited by some document.

The former type is the government of free men; the latter is the government of slaves. Kings, dictators, and tyrants want all power in their hands; free men attempt to limit government to specifically enumerated powers.

It would be difficult to limit the powers of the government in the "All Risk" method: every conceivable instance where government was not intended to operate would have to be enumerated. The task of detailing the exact conditions where government could not operate would be impossible, especially if the intent was to limit the powers of government

America's founding fathers were aware of the difference between the two methods and attempted to limit government to a "Named Peril" form: they listed the exact powers they granted government. They spelled these out, specifying the powers exactly. Congress was granted the power "to declare war," "to coin money," to establish "post offices and post roads," and to "raise and support armies," amongst others.

As a further evidence that they were concerned about limiting the powers of government, they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. These were specific limitations on governmental authority. But the ultimate limitation on the power of the federal government was the 10th Amendment This read:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In other words, the founding fathers gave us a "Named Peril" form of government. They limited the powers of government to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Confirmation of this fact comes frequently from our Congressmen, although less often than before. One supporter of this limited power position stood up in the House of Representatives in 1814 and addressed the nation. He said:

"The Government of the United States is a Government of limited powers. You take by grant; your powers are special and delegated—that must be construed strictly.

"All powers not delegated are reserved to the States or the people. Your authority is defined—you take nothing by inference or application, except what may be "necessary and proper for carrying into execution" the powers expressly granted."

There are those, unfortunately, who believe that their power in the halls of Congress is nearly unlimited. Most cite the so-called "General Welfare" clause of the Constitution as the source of their supposed authority to legislate in all areas. This clause is contained in Article I, Section 8 and reads:

""The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . . " (emphasis added.)

James Madison, one of the three writers of the Federalist Papers which were written in an attempt to explain the new form of government to the American people, wrote this about the General Welfare Clause:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." (Federalist Paper #45)

And in Federalist Paper #41, Madison attempted to reply to a supporter of the broad interpretation of the General Welfare Clause who wrote:

"The power . . . to provide for the . . . general welfare . . . amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the. . . general welfare."

Madison wrote that those who felt that the General Welfare Clause gave an enormous grant of power to Congress were in "error," and that the supporter's idea was an "absurdity."

Yet this claim continues to be heard around the nation.

Hugh Williamson of North Carolina, a member of the Constitutional Convention, also took a position on the General Welfare Clause, when he wrote the following in 1781:

"If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their hands; they may establish teachers in every state, county and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads.

"In short, everything from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute objects of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.

"For every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the General Welfare."

Mr. Williamson was indeed a prophet before his time!

So America's founding fathers had concerns about the amount of power that should reside in the federal government. They attempted to limit that power by constructing a Constitution in such a manner that government had specific, defined, and strictly limited powers.

Frederic Bastiat, a French economist, statesman, and author, wrote during the years of the second French Revolution of 1848. He saw that the taking of one man's property for the use of another was an improper activity, one that he called Plunder. When government performed the same activity, they had the power to make it legal, and Bastiat called this form of stealing Legal Plunder. Government in his day had taken the power to do what the individual members of his nation couldn't do: take property from one to give to another.

He wrote the following in his classic book The Law:

"But how is this legal plunder to be identified?

"Quite simply: See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to persons to whom it does not belong.

"See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

"Then abolish the law without delay. If such a law, which is an isolated case—is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply and develop into a system."

Bastiat mentioned that Legal Plunder could manifest itself in two forms: 1) The taking of property by government from the individual it belongs to and the giving of it to someone it does not belong to; and 2) The granting of a privilege to one group at the expense of another.

Bastiat further went on to predict what would happen under this system of government:

"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose, that it may violate property instead of protecting it, then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder."

A truism about Legal Plunder can be stated thus:

"Government cannot give anything it first doesn't take from someone else. "

So government cannot be the great giver, as it has nothing to give. Governments can only take. But for those who demand that government should provide the people with their food, their housing, their education, their clothing, their medical care, their livelihood, and their recreation, there is already a governmental agency providing these services to certain of their fellow citizens.

These services are provided by government in a prison. There are two classes of citizens in a prison: those who provide the services and those who receive them. The persons who receive the services are not free to provide these services for themselves. Those who provide the services are free to come and go as they choose. Those for whom the services are provided are called Prisoners; those who provide the services are called Wardens.

It is also important to examine whether or not government exists to protect man from himself. John Stuart Mill addressed this question when he wrote:

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

"His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant

"He cannot rightly be compelled to do or forbear because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right

"These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he does otherwise.

"To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else."

So government does not exist to protect man from himself. It does not exist to re-distribute wealth from one group of individuals to another. It does not exist to grant privileges to one group over another. And it does not exist to operate in every situation envisioned by the mind of man.

Government simply exists to protect individual rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. That is its sole function.

Andrew Jackson summarized these sentiments quite well when he wrote the following:

"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing."