Showing posts with label liberty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberty. Show all posts

Thursday, June 25, 2020

The Choice Is between Freedom and Coercion


There are some things we think are self-evident, such as that we our endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which includes owning property).

But a whole lot of what was obvious, or self-evident, up until recently may not be so obvious today.

Here at the Spherical Model, we make the assumption that the good things we’re going for are freedom, prosperity, and civilization—rather than the alternatives of tyranny, poverty, and savagery. The choice seems obvious.

And yet there are many people who literally do not value freedom. It may be that they’ve had it redefined out of existence, like so many other truths. But I thought we might do a bit of awareness raising on freedom today.

Here’s how I define terms, using my 1980 Webster’s Dictionary combined with my words: 

Freedom: absence of hindrance, restraint, confinement, repression. In the political sense, it is ownership of one’s own life and the production of wealth and property that results from one’s use of life and effort. A government should protect the freedoms of life, liberty, and property; it does not grant these things, but protects them from infringement. A government that takes life, liberty, or property unjustly—when the person has not unlawfully infringed on those rights of another person—that is a tyrannical government, which is the opposite of freedom.
Political freedom means living in a society in which our God-given rights are protected rather than infringed. These would include freedoms of belief and expression, such as freedom of religion and freedom of the press, as well as freedoms of property and security, such as freedom from illegal searches and seizures and the right to bear arms.
Liberty: synonym of freedom. It is ownership of one’s own life, to pursue as one chooses, and to enjoy the fruits of one’s efforts. No person or government or other entity owns a person or controls how the person pursues happiness.
And yet, in today’s world, we have a rising generation that favors a change from our system of freedom to a tyranny they might call socialism, without knowing what that means either.

There’s another term that is useful here: Agency. Sometimes we combine it with the word free, as in free agency. You’ve probably encountered it when sports professionals leave a team and become free agents, open to a contract with another team. That might be the limit of how you've used it. But it implies the ability to choose. So you can see that agency is related to liberty.

There are various words we use as opposites to the ability to choose: coercion, oppression, tyranny.
When you look at a political ideology, you can simplify the search for the good and true by looking at its closeness to freedom, liberty, ability to choose—or by how dangerously close it is to coercion, oppression, tyranny.

·         Do you get to believe what you choose to believe?
·         Do you get to choose your profession and way of life?
·         Do you get to speak your opinions freely?
·         Do you get to associate with people you choose to associate with?
·         Do you get to enjoy the fruits of your own labors?

It wouldn’t be very convincing to offer you a truthful opposite, such as: “Wouldn’t you rather believe what we the powerful tell you to believe?” Or “Wouldn’t it be better for you if we the powerful decided what work you were allowed to do and for what pay?” Or “Wouldn’t it be better if you were allowed to speak only the words we the powerful told you to?” Or, “Wouldn’t it be better for all of us if you gave us all your earnings and we the powerful dole them out to those we favor?”

No, it has to be done more subtly than that:

·       Let’s stop others from believing things that we believe are just wrong—shut down churches, political groups, nonprofits, businesses, schools, or any individual or organization that does or says things we don’t like.
·       Let’s stop others from making a living in ways we don’t like—like using fossil fuels, or maybe just because the business owners believe things we don’t like.
·       Let’s cancel or coerce others to make them stop hurting us by saying things we don't believe—because their words are violence.
·       Let’s take the money from the rich and give it to the poor, like us, who are more deserving.
You get the idea. To someone with some enlightenment, the “progressive” or “woke” or “socially just” way is pretty dark. It takes away individual choice. It oppresses individuals. It rules over people tyrannically. If that’s OK with you as long as they’re on your side, not only is that evil of you, but it’s also just a matter of time until the powers-that-be come after you for some perceived infraction.

It’s a continuation of a very old war—a war that predates earth history. It’s a war between good and evil, between light and dark. I told this story here.   

Let me tell another old story that maybe we can apply. Versions of it show up in fantasy literature all the time. It’s from the Book of Revelation, the last book in the Bible, chapter 13 mostly. But I’ll be retelling it in a slightly more narrative form.

"La Bete de la Mer" tapestry in France, depicting
John the Revelator observing the dragon and the sea beast
image from Wikipedia


There is an evil force, in the form of a dragon, who is a scourge to all the earth. He is an enemy to light, goodness. He doesn’t build; he destroys. Chaos and coercion are his right- and left-hand weapons. He controls two monsters, hideous in form and function, who do his bidding. One monster comes up from the depths of the waters over all the earth. She is filthiness and all the worldly evils, and she rides and controls the powers of rulers and organizations over all the earth. She seduces them with power, and brings them together in secret oaths, so that they simultaneously threaten and support one another in their schemes to amass greater and greater power, buying and selling the souls of men.
The other monster comes up from the earth. Its form appears much less dangerous than the dragon, but it speaks with the tongue of the dragon. It voices the dragon’s words, which are lies. Some call it the false prophet. Another interpretation might be propaganda. It can be found flowing out of ivory and other towers, in and through the airways—redefining in the dragon’s lying lexicon what is “good” and persuading people to worship the dragon, along with his beasts.
The dragon and his forces will eventually lose in their efforts to harm and destroy all the people of the earth. Bur for now the dragon marshals his forces, stirring them up to larger and louder attacks, knowing his time is short.
What does it mean? Revelation, told in a sort of symbolic dream form, can be confusing. But suppose it does say that there will come a time when the organizations of the earth make secret agreements with one another in an effort to amass power? Is that happening? I don’t think it’s a conspiracy theory; it's not theory. You might try checking these out for a sample: here, here, herehere, and here.

And about that propaganda monster—that seems like a good explanation of how:

Rioters tear down statue of
Father Junipero Serra in CA
screenshot from here
·       Religion becomes “bad,” but lasciviousness and licentiousness become “good.”
·       Treating all lives as equally valuable becomes “racist,” but favoring a particular race above all others is “social justice.”
·       An elderly friend who suggests florists who could help service a same-sex “wedding” when her religion prevents her becomes “intolerant,” but taking away that woman’s business and savings for so doing is done in the name of “tolerance.”
·       Speaking reasoned opinions with data to back them up becomes “hate speech,” but shouting down a speaker for even holding different opinions is supporting “free speech.”
·       Honoring a free nation and its flag is “hateful,” but disrespecting the flag and tearing down monuments is understandable, considering the circumstances.

You get the idea. Look at the news. Almost every story will provide an example.

The lies appeal to a certain uncivilized human characteristic: selfishness. If they’re working on you, or on someone you know, selfishness is an underlying factor, often disguised as “this makes me feel virtuous,” so you won’t look carefully enough to notice the lies.

Whether or not these are the times described in Revelation, the description seems fitting for today. We may not know how each episode will turn out, but we do know how the story ends.

In the meantime, let’s see how much loving truth-telling we can do to rescue those who might want the light of freedom, prosperity, and civilization if only they could see it.

Thursday, October 6, 2016

What Freedom Looks Like

It seems natural to me that people would want to enjoy freedom. I don’t mean leisure time activities, or having great wealth so you don’t have to work. I mean freedom to make decisions about your own life and how you’ll spend it.

So I am puzzled by the large numbers of the population who choose less freedom. What is it they believe they are getting?

I don’t know the answer to that question. But I am always looking for better ways to explain the Spherical Model goals of freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

Back in January I wrote a post defining freedom, liberty, and some related words. It included a quote from Lincoln, showing he had thought about the definition of freedom, well enough to look at all sides and come to a conclusion based on principle. That truth was known in 1864, so it ought to still be known today.

I recently came across a piece written by Frenchman Benjamin Constant in 1816. This was in the decades following the American Revolution, the French Revolution and their various attempts at self-rule, and British movement toward a more representative parliamentary rule. The whole of the piece was on comparing the then-modern definition of liberty to the ideas used in ancient societies, which excluded individual rights. In the piece he has a description of liberty—a synonym for freedom—that I think we can still find useful.

I have used only Benjamin Constant’s words, but I turned it into a bullet-point list to make it easier to grasp:

First ask yourselves, Gentlemen, what an Englishman, a French-man, and a citizen of the United States of America understand today by the word “liberty.” For each of them
·         it is the right to be subjected only to the laws,
·         and to be neither arrested, detained, put to death or maltreated in any way by the arbitrary will of one or more individuals.
·         It is the right of everyone to express their opinion,
·         choose a profession and practice it,
·         to dispose of property, and even to abuse it;
·         to come and go without permission, and without having to account for their motives or undertakings.
·         It is everyone’s right to associate with other individuals, either to discuss their interests, or to profess the religion which they and their associates prefer,
·         or even simply to occupy their days or hours in a way which is most compatible with their inclinations or whims.
·         Finally it is everyone’s right to exercise some influence on the administration of the government, either by electing all or particular officials, or through representations, petitions, demands to which the authorities are more or less compelled to pay heed.

If that is freedom, which we mainly agree we want, then why do so many people want government that will take, by force, wealth from some and arbitrarily give it to others?

Why are there speech codes to prevent free speech on school and college campuses?

Why are there unelected government officials deciding how a person can use his own property, if a puddle gets called a wetland, or a particular creature is found upon the property?

Why are people compelled to buy insurance, at ever higher rates, regardless of their health or willingness to pay for care out-of-pocket?

Why are business owners being compelled to violate their own religious practices, or else be forced out of business?

Why did my school district get threatened with a lawsuit (by someone not even in the district) for having an opening prayer at its board meetings?

Why are people blacklisted, or have their property defaced, for supporting one particular candidate or another, or for belonging to a particular party, or holding the beliefs that our country was founded upon?

Why are people being forced to share bathroom or locker room spaces with people of the opposite sex?

Why are certain officials allowed to break the law with impunity while the rest of us are prosecuted?

Why is there so much indoctrination and enforcement in education, at such high cost for such poor results?

Why are states being forced by a bare majority of unelected judges to redefine marriage away from what it has been for all the millennia of recorded history?

Why is government outlawing entry-level jobs that bring in less than $15 in value per hour?

The questions could go on. On one side of the spectrum—the liberal elite, the progressives, the socialists, or whatever you want to call them—people are in favor of coercion, manipulation, and tyranny. In Spherical Model language, they are all for southern hemisphere tyranny and against freedom—although they are often just fine with libertine licentiousness.

On the other side of the spectrum—the Constitutional conservatives—people are in favor of northern hemisphere freedom, prosperity, and civilization, based on principles.

There is no point to compromise. Example: Say you have a very bad house guest who is found with the good silverware, falling out of his sleeve as he says goodbye at the door. Instead of returning it, he unabashedly keeps all the pieces still awkwardly up his sleeve and says, “I’ll just take this fork, and you can keep that knife.” When someone is taking our freedom, that is what compromise looks like. It’s not acceptable.

The appropriate response would be to detain the guest, recover all of your silverware, warn all of your friends—and possibly call the police to prevent the guy from stealing from others. In order to do that, you have to have a concept of what is right, what you own, and what civilized behavior requires of guests. For most people, that’s pretty clear.

So, with recovering our freedom, maybe we could use some righteous indignation. Maybe we need to speak up and remind everyone what freedoms God endowed us with--and stop giving in to that thief pretending to be your guest, who requires even more of you after you notice the thieving.

Monday, January 11, 2016

Self-evident Good and Evil

There are some things that ought to be self-evident. Our founders identified a few of these:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that 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….
And yet, even though these are self-evident, our president and a large number of people miss the obvious. They don’t recognize the God who gave us our life and the rights that go with being His children. They don’t recognize the equality of each of us, and give special privileges to some and prevent others from enjoying their life, liberty, and property.

Today I want to talk about what is right and wrong, or good and evil—things I think are self-evident, but that many selves are ignoring the evidence of.

The impetus to write about this comes from a video clip of news people on PBS discussing the presidential campaign, using the word Satanic to describe Ted Cruz [on Youtube, and also found here].
PBS News Hour, photo from here

Judy Woodruff is the host. She is speaking with David Brooks, writer for The New York Times, and David Corn, writer for Mother Jones. Woodruff asks Brooks to comment on the Republican presidential race.

Judy Woodruff: What’s going on over there. Is anybody making any headway among that group?
David Broooks: Yeah, Ted Cruz is making headway. There’s… You begin to see little signs of liftoff. Trump’s sort of ceilinged out. Carson’s collapsing. And Cruz is somehow beginning to get some momentum in Iowa and elsewhere. And so people are either mimicking him, which Rubio is doing a little by adopting some of the dark and Satanic tones that Cruz has. And so…
Judy Woodruff: Let me just ask you, what did you just say?
David Brooks: If you watch a Cruz speech, it’s like “We’ve got this enemy,” “We’ve got that enemy.” “We’re gonna stomp on this person,” “We’re gonna crush that person,” “We’re gonna destroy that person.” It is an ugly world in Ted Cruz’s world. And it’s combative, and it’s angry, and it’s apocalyptic.
David Corn: Well, it’s actually, if you go to a speech from his dad, who’s a pastor, evangelical, Rafael Cruz, it actually is Satanic. I watched this speech in which he said Satan was behind the Supreme Court decision to legalize gay “marriage.” So it’s not too…
David Brooks: OK, well, I withdraw the Satanic…Ted Cruz.
David Corn: Sometimes it’s metaphorical, but sometimes it’s literal.
David Brooks: Mephisophelian, maybe, but it’s dark, and combative, and, frankly, harsh. He gets some jokes in at the beginning, but then it’s just, “We have enemies. We’re in an apocalyptic situation. We’re on the edge of the abyss. You need a tough guy to beat that back. That’s his personality. That is not Marco Rubio’s personality. He is a sunny optim….He’s been running the youthful optimism campaign. But he’s beginning, to prevent Cruz from getting liftoff, to mimic that, sort of get a piece of that. I personally think that’s a mistake, because in authenticity almost never works. And so if Rubio starts to go like Cruz, he just doesn’t look like himself, and that bothers me.

I’m not sure how to get a transcript of everything Ted Cruz says and then do a word search and check for tone, but I wouldn’t use those same words to describe him. I would say resolute, strong, bold, firm, really smart, good-humored, and optimistic. He inspires hopefulness in me. And he scrupulously avoids tearing others down, so I don't know where Brooks gets that.

I’d also need evidence from everything Marco Rubio has said. I don’t think he’s being anything but the real Marco Rubio, which is both articulate and serious. I don’t think he’s doing any Cruz mimicking.

These commentators’ use of the word Satanic was just a metaphor, from people who comment about politics-as-a-game. It’s fluff and unimportant. And also happens to be inaccurate. But it reminded me of this scripture from Isaiah chapter 5:

20 ¶Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
We’ve seen that switch vividly, especially the past decade. The following verse is also pertinent:

21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
I don’t have a lot of patience for politics-as-a-game. I recognize that swaying people’s opinions is necessary in the process of finding leaders worth supporting. But it ought to be that every voter studies the Constitution, studies the issues, studies the candidates, and uses wise discernment. That’s what I expect of myself as a good citizen.

But, since we’re in a world where some really bad stuff is going on, and we have media elites who sort of miss that and zero in on political speech they don’t like and call that Satanic, I thought I would offer as a service this list of actual self-evident evil:

·         Killing people because you don’t like what they believe.
·         Killing people because they aren’t of the same ethnicity (skin color, etc.) as you.
·         Killing people because you want their land.
·         Killing people because you see yourself as superior to them.
·         Killing people because you want their stuff.
·         Killing people because their existence is an impediment to you and your goals.
·         Killing people because their existence is an inconvenience/annoyance to you.
·         Killing people because you consider yourself to be their judge, jury, and executioner.

Are you with me so far? It should be self-evident that killing innocent people is evil. Plus we have that big commandment among the Ten that spells it out. And yet—there are jihadists who are going around killing innocent people. They’re a fringe, but they’re a leading cause of terror and murder in the world.

And then there are those who think a woman’s “right” to “choose” to kill the innocent unborn child she conceived trumps any right the child should have. So, if you’re thinking this, ask yourself, when did the evil of killing innocents stop being self-evident for you?

So that covers life. Next we’ll deal with self-evident evil related to liberty:

·         Kidnapping people.
·         Enslaving people for sex.
·         Enslaving people for work.
·         Forcing people to do your bidding.
·         Forcing people into a line of work against their will.
·         Forcing people to work without just compensation.
·         Forcing people to do things that are illegal.
·         Forcing people to do things that go against their conscience.
·         Forcing people to spend their earnings the way you prescribe.

The first few seem self-evident, and yet there are people who do them. If you’re one of those people who think everyone gets to decide on their own standard of good and evil, then you can’t say what they do is bad—even when they do it to you or someone you love. So maybe you should rethink that. Because if you think it’s all right for some people to coerce others, even if you don’t, then where do you draw the line, and why? (Consider the bakers and florists and photographers.) When did these deprivations of liberty stop being self-evidently evil to you?

Next we’ll deal with self-evident evil related to the pursuit of happiness, which we’ll shorten here to property rights:

·         Taking what belongs to others to use for yourself.
·         Taking what belongs to others to deprive others from having what is theirs.
·         Destroying what belongs to someone else to deprive them of what is theirs.
·         Taking what belongs to others to transfer to whomever you decide should have it.
·         Using up what is commonly owned by a group you’re in without agreement from the group.
·         Hoarding/hiding what is commonly owned by a group to prevent others from using it.
·         Cheating people out of just compensation for an exchange of property.
·         Lying to prevent someone from gaining something you want to own.
·         Lying about the value of something to get more than you deserve in exchange for it.
·         Lying about work you claim to have done to get pay you haven’t earned.

There’s a reason life, liberty, and property are related. If you take someone’s property, you are depriving them of the fruits of their labors. That means you are forcing them to have worked without compensation—which is slavery. You have used up part of what life consists of: their time. Decent people, good people, see the connection and earnestly strive to be honest in their dealings. It isn’t less evil when it is a government that does these things.

There’s more. When we talk about good and evil, the Ten Commandments is always a good starting place. They include valuing God—who has granted us our life and our rights to live as free people—and valuing family, life, and truth. Some of those things fit in the categories above. But let's add a few broken commandments that ought to be self-evidently evil:

·         Breaking the covenant of marriage by committing adultery, abuse, addiction, or abandonment.
·         Breaking the covenant of marriage for trivial reasons.
·         Engaging in sexual relations without intending love and commitment.
·         Engaging in sex outside of marriage.
·         Producing pornography.
·         Viewing pornography.
·         Failing to provide a secure, loving home for your children.

If you were born in the last few decades, you might not have known these things were self-evidently evil. Media tells you otherwise. But media is produced, in large part, by people whose sense of decency was long ago forfeited—people who are “wise in their own eyes” and prefer to call it evil to disagree with them, or even to sound disagreeable. And then they ignore, or extol, the behaviors that lead away from civilization.


Woe unto them. And woe unto us if we heed them.

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Defining Freedom

This past week or so, law blogger Eugene Volokh wrote two pieces about the word freedom, and how we use that word, and its synonyms, differently: Freedom and Hypocrisy, on December 28, and “We All Declare for Liberty.”

The point of Volokh’s first piece is that calling each other hypocrites when we are really just using different definitions is polarizing rather than helpful. And that is worth considering. He followed up with a reminder of a similar discussion by Lincoln in 1864:
Volokh shared this image in his piece,
from the Library of Congress


The world has never had a good definition of liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in need of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing.
With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty and tyranny.
The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty. Hence we behold the processes by which thousands are daily passing from under the yoke of bondage, hailed by some as the advance of liberty, and bewailed by others as the destruction of all liberty.— Abraham Lincoln, in his Address at a Sanitary Fair, Baltimore, Apr. 18, 1864
One thing about truth is that it is timeless. Lincoln’s words could have just been spoken.

Volokh’s pieces got me thinking, because I use freedom (and liberty, as a synonym) as one of the three main things we’re trying to restore and retain in the Spherical Model—freedom, prosperity, and civilization. So I thought it might be worth defining the way I use the term, plus maybe some related terms. I’m combining my favorite 30-year-old Webster’s dictionary with my own words.

Freedom: absence of hindrance, restraint, confinement, repression. In the political sense, it is ownership of one’s own life and the production of wealth and property that results from one’s use of life and effort. A government should protect the freedoms of life, liberty, and property; it does not grant these things, but protects them from infringement. A government that takes life, liberty, or property unjustly—when the person has not unlawfully infringed on those rights of another person—that is a tyrannical government, which is the opposite of freedom.

Political freedom means living in a society in which our God-given rights are protected rather than infringed. These would include freedoms of belief and expression, such as freedom of religion and freedom of the press, as well as freedoms of property and security, such as freedom from illegal searches and seizures and the right to bear arms.

Liberty: synonym of freedom. It is ownership of one’s own life, to pursue as one chooses, and to enjoy the fruits of one’s efforts. No person or government or other entity owns a person or controls how the person pursues happiness.

Libertine: originally from Roman society, a libertine meant a freed slave, but in our day it is a person who leads an unrestrained, sexually immoral life.

License: implies violating the usual rules, laws, or practices—taking some privilege not generally allowed because of its possible harm to other individuals or the entire society. Some licenses are legal—such as a driver’s license. A person becomes free to drive with the license, or permission, after proving ability or qualification.

Licentious: disregarding accepted rules and standards, morally unrestrained, lascivious.
I don’t use freedom to refer to doing whatever one wants without suffering the consequences; that is licentiousness. That is what a libertine does, rather than a lover of liberty.

When I use freedom, it is in relation to the God-given rights—those things we are born with, granted by God, not by some government or other entity. I do not include things that are nice to have, but not naturally given, such as freedom from want, or entitlement to have food, clothing, shelter, education, and other things that must be provided to a child by someone else, preferably parents, until the child becomes capable of self-providing those things.

If someone is entitled to those things, then someone else is required—enslaved—to provide them. If the parents provide these things, that is part of the agreement taken on when the couple choose to conceive a child to bring into the world; they choose to provide, so they are not enslaved. But the neighbor down the street didn’t bring that child into the world and isn’t required to use up his life in providing that child’s comfort.

What happens when parents cannot, or do not, provide? Shouldn’t the larger society step in and provide those things? In a civilized society, yes, people voluntarily provide for the needy, when they can. That is charity, or philanthropy. When government forces the confiscation and redistribution, even to those needy that we would sympathetically choose to help, that government is not being charitable, but tyrannical.

The Political Sphere
When government uses force to “do good” that is not government’s limited role of protecting life, liberty, and property, there will be unintended consequences, usually exactly the opposite of the stated “good.”

In the summary to the political sphere section of the Spherical Model, “The Political World Is Round,” I ask several questions to determine whether a considered policy will lead toward freedom or toward tyranny. One of these is to make use of the Bill of Rights:

Does the policy infringe in any way on the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights? Does the policy infringe on the free exercise of religion or try to establish a particular sect as a state religion? Is political speech hindered? Does the policy infringe on the right of citizens to bear arms? Does the policy constitute an illegal search or seizure? Does the policy deprive a person of life, liberty, or property when the person has not committed a crime for which that deprivation is the just sentence? Does the policy try to claim for government a power that was not specifically granted in the Constitution? etc. If the policy infringes on the God-given rights, then government cannot take that power without usurping power from the people.

We get the most freedom, prosperity, and civilization when we live the principles in all three spheres simultaneously. We limit government to protecting our God-given rights of life, liberty, and property. We exchange the results of our labor freely, within a free market economy that includes voluntary charity. We grow civilization when a critical mass of us worship God, who gave us our rights, and we value family, life, property, and truth—values you might recognize from the Ten Commandments.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Voice of the People

Long ago, in a faraway kingdom, there lived a good and wise king[i], who loved his people. He led them in righteousness, and served them well, as his father had before him.

Often during his reign there was peace. But as the kingdom grew, a new generation arose that did not believe the long-held social practices, and disregarded the righteous laws to give themselves pleasure. Among the young rebels were the sons of the king himself, four of them. And their best friend, the son of the high priest of the church. The parents were heartbroken.
But a miracle happened, and the sons saw the error of their ways, and sought to repair the damage they had done within the kingdom. And many regarded their sorrow and repented with them.
The sons of the king asked if they could go on a quest, to the north, to teach the ideas of love and peace that they had discovered unto the barbaric people who had waged war on them from time to time through the centuries. If they could bring them the peace within, they could bring peace between the nations.
The king was anxious about his beloved sons going so far, among such a bloodthirsty people. But the word of God came to him, and assured him good would come of the quest, and the sons’ lives would be kept safe. So they parted.
The king waxed old. He would need to pass the crown to a successor. He and trusted advisors searched the kingdom for a suitable successor, but the king was agitated. Whoever they chose, he feared contentions would arise, leading to anger, separations, even war. It could destroy the souls of many of his beloved people.
He brought his concerns before the people. He said, “Now it is better that a man should be judged of God than of man, for the judgments of God are always just, but the judgments of man are not always just.” He said, “If it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments—even as my father did for this people—then it would be expedient that you should always have kings to rule over you.” He reminded them that he, himself, as king, had labored to serve them, had judged them according to the laws of God—that there should be no stealing, plundering, murdering, nor any manner of iniquity, or else they would be punished according to their crimes.
But a wicked king, he warned them, can cause great iniquity to be committed among his people, to their destruction. Such people fall into bondage. “And ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood. For he has his friends in iniquity, and keeps his guards about him. And he tears up the laws of those who have reigned in righteousness before him. And he enacts laws according to his own wickedness, and he destroys anyone who disobeys his laws. He will send his armies against any rebels, to destroy them.”  Such a king destroys civilization among his people.
So he proposed a brand new way. He said, “Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them from God.”
And he gave them his reasoning. “Now it is not common that the majority voice of the people desires anything contrary to what is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire what is not right. Therefore, this shall be your law—to be governed by the voice of the people.”
Their thriving would depend on the righteousness of the people, instead of the righteousness of their king. He warned them, “If the time comes that the voice of the people choose iniquity, then the judgments of God will come upon you with destruction, as has happened with other ancient peoples in this land.”
He set up a system for the judges: “Now if you have judges that do not judge you according to the law, you can cause those judges to be judged of a higher judge.  And if your higher judges do not judge righteously, you shall cause a small number of your lower judges to gather together, to judge your higher judges.”
He declared, “I desire that this land be a land of liberty, and every man may enjoy his rights and privileges alike, so long as the Lord sees fit that we may live and inherit the land, yea, even as long as any of our posterity remains upon the face of the land.”
His declarations went out to the people, and they gave up their desire for a king to rule over them. They assembled themselves together in bodies through the land, to cast in their voices concerning who should be their judges, to judge them according to the law. And they rejoiced because of the liberty which had been granted unto them.
The people lived in peace for some time. But not as long as hoped.
It happened that corruption came within not many years. Lawyers found that they could make more money if they stirred people up to go against one another before the law[ii]. And some of the judges could be bought to rule against the rightness of the law.
Always there continued to be strife between the righteous church members and the nonbelievers. The corruption was mainly among the nonbelievers. Laws needed to be declared to protect the believers from persecution for their beliefs. That helped for a time. But pride and corruption spread even among the churchgoers, which was a stumblingblock for sincere seekers of truth and goodness[iii].
The system of government by the voice of the people—democracy, in the form of elected judges and written law—lasted for about a century, which is the common length of time for self-government experiments to last.
About a quarter century into the reign of the judges, a group arose to alter the law. They didn’t want to change just a few tiny points in the law; they wanted to throw out the government by judges, ignore the voice of the people, and reinstate a king[iv]. It was those of “high birth” who wanted a monarchy, so they could institute privileges for themselves, and power and authority over the people. They didn’t like equality before the law.
For a time the voice of the people settled the matter, because the people voted to maintain their liberty. But war from outside came to the land, and the dissenters, the kingmen, refused to fight. They were put in prison to be dealt with according to the law. The swiftness of the justice did away with the kingmen faction entirely.
But the war continued for many years. The military leader was a strong and righteous man. He put up a flag to remind them of what they fought for: “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children.”[v]
The good and righteous people succeeded in fighting off the invaders. But there was corruption within the land, secret societies that conspired together in secret theft and murder, for the purpose of gaining wealth and power. The spread of this plague of corruption led to the eventual end of the reign of the judges[vi]. The people separated into tribes, each according to their family relations. Some tribes worked among themselves in righteousness, but many more did not, and they fought one with another, vying for power over one another. And there was war and chaos throughout the land, which only a return to righteousness could resolve.
What do we learn from this kingdom’s story?
·         It is better to be ruled by the voice of the people than by a monarch.
·         Liberty is the blessing of a righteous people who self-rule according to longstanding laws of righteousness.
·         Corruption from within is a greater danger than invaders from without
·         Judges and government leaders ignoring the written law cannot be tolerated, if liberty is to be maintained.
·         Most of the time, the majority will choose right, but a minority will be choosing wrong.
·         When the majority chooses unrighteousness, destruction follows.
This story of the voice of the people is different from our nation. But it could be a cautionary tale for us, or for any people who love liberty. I think the principles apply:
·         It is better to have self-rule, rather than monarchy or other forms of tyranny.
·         Usually the majority chooses right, especially when written long-standing laws are in place to protect our liberties.
·         It could happen that leaders go astray, and that judges go wrong, but those can be corrected—if the people are diligent in holding them accountable. But if corruption is allowed to spread, eventually a majority chooses to disregard the law and make new laws that support tyranny and savagery.
·         If the corruption isn’t rooted out—if a majority of the people are not righteous, if they do not insist on maintaining their freedom to live in righteous liberty—then the government of the people will decay into chaos and tyranny, which is the common lot of mankind.
We have had too much of the decay. It’s time to reject the pressure of the libertine and return to the laws of liberty.


[i] This is my retelling of a story from The Book of Mormon. The kingdom is called Zarahemla, and the king is Mosiah, son of King Benjamin. The story of beginning the reign of the judges is found in Mosiah 29, which is estimated to have taken place about 92 BC. The location is unknown, but somewhere in the Americas, probably within Central America. Some quotes in the story are paraphrased; see the scriptures for actual quotes.
[ii] Alma 11:20
[iii] Alma 4:10
[iv] Alma 51
[v] Alma 46:12
[vi] 3 Nephi 7:2, around AD 30.