"Freedomvrights.com
Writings and Publications by Joseph B. H. McMillan
The Ten Principles of Freedom: Principle 5
& the Equal Freedom Principles.
(An extract from The Ten Principles of Freedom: A Presentation of the Ten
Principles to the Founding Fathers …)
by
Joseph BH McMillan
Joseph BH McMillan (JBH):
Gentlemen, I concluded the last part of my presentation by setting out the
basis of Principle 5. That is, that the perpetuation of human life on earth
through the union of a man and a woman to create new life is the only
discernable purpose of human life on earth. I should stress again, however,
that this purpose of human life on earth is distinct from any purpose each
person may find for his or her own life on earth. So it does not mean that
those who are unable to produce offspring can have no purpose to their lives.
The only discernable purpose of life is that which defines our obligations in
life, and thus determines the entire concept of ‘morality’.
But before I demonstrate what
obligations flow from the only discernable purpose of life, I’d like to make a
few observations on the interaction between Principle 5 and the Equal Freedom Principles.
First, no person, group of
people, or government, can force another person to form a union with someone
they don’t want to form a union with, and likewise, neither can anyone force
another person to fulfill the only discernable purpose of life by creating new
life. That emerges from the application of Principles 1 and 2, and prohibits,
amongst other things, forced or arranged marriages, and, of course, rape.
The converse of that, however,
is that those who do not wish to enter into a union to create new life cannot prohibit
others from entering into such a union, and more importantly, no one, including
government, must undermine or otherwise denigrate the fulfillment of the only
discernable purpose of life. That provides for the sanctity of the union to
create new life in order to perpetuate the human species.
Further, no person, group of
people, or government can circumvent the prohibitions that emerge from
Principles 1 and 2 by claiming that some law, or custom, or even religion,
vests in them some special authority to compel others to enter a union without
their consent, or to enter into a union with someone they don’t want to enter
into a union with. And likewise, no person, group of people, or government, can
‘redefine’ the only discernable purpose of life by claiming that some law, or
custom, or religion vests in them an authority to compel others to ‘recognize’
a different purpose of life, or to undermine or denigrate the only discernable
purpose of life. This latter prohibition prevents governments, for example, or
activist groups, from claiming that some ‘law of toleration’, or ‘social
justice’, or ‘equality’, demands that other ‘lifestyle choices’ be regarded as
‘equally valid’ to the fulfillment of the only discernable purpose of life. I
shall demonstrate later how the elevation of other ‘lifestyle choices’ to
‘equality’ with the only discernable purpose of life has the effect of
undermining and denigrating that purpose of life, and how that in turn leads to
a breakdown in society, which in turn has given rise to the myriad of social
problems we face today, including soaring divorce rates, rampant abortion,
promiscuity (even from a very young age), juvenile crime, drug and alcohol
abuse, teenage pregnancies, and so on.
Principle 3 expands on the
application of Principles 1 and 2 in respect of the only discernable purpose of
life. It prohibits any person, or government, from compelling any other person
to assume the obligations which attach to those who create a new, unique and
exclusive human being. But it also has the reverse effect. When someone creates
a new life, the obligations which attach to that act are that person’s alone,
together obviously with the person they created that life with. Thus, when a
man and a woman create a new life, but are unable to meet their obligations
towards that life, they cannot expect others to assume those obligations on
their behalf. Neither can government impose on some people an obligation to
assume the obligations of those people who are unable, or unwilling, to honor
their own obligations.
There is also a further
consequence of this Principle. Principle 3 is not a blanket prohibition against
obligations attaching to human beings - it is subject to individual consent.
Yet, consent is not only given by an express ‘agreement’ to consent to an
obligation attaching to any particular person, but can attach to a person
simply by virtue of that person’s actions. And that is precisely what happens
when two people engage in the act the natural consequence of which is the
creation of a new human being. If that act creates a new human being,
obligations automatically attach to the two people who engage in the act. Those
who engage in the act thus consent to those obligations attaching to them by
virtue of consenting to engage in the act itself.
Once the act creates a human
being, therefore, those who were involved in the act, the natural consequence
of which is the creation of life, cannot invoke Principle 3 to refuse to meet
their obligations towards that new life.
Thus, where someone does consent
to engage in the act which attaches obligations in respect of the natural
consequence of the act, a new human being, they also consent to honor those
obligations. That is, those who engage in the act to create new life undertake
an obligation to fulfill the obligations which arise from their actions. More
importantly, however, they also consent not to betray any of the obligations
that attach to the creation of new life.
Are you with me Gentlemen?
Founding Fathers (FFs): We are!
JBH: Good! Now, the converse of
that must necessarily follow. Once obligations attach to two people who create
a new life, no person, group of people, or government must interfere with, or
undermine, the ability of those two people to fulfill their obligations,
especially since the obligations towards the new life they create are the most
fundamental obligations that can attach to any human being. What this means is
that government, for example, can have no authority to impose additional obligations
on those who create new life which may frustrate their performance of those
obligations. And especially, government can have no authority to impose an
obligation on one set of people (who have themselves created new life), to meet
the obligations of another set of people who have done the same, but who are
unable or unwilling to honor their own obligations. If anyone does wish to
assume some of the obligations others have towards the life they create, that
is a matter for their own conscience. It does not vest in them an authority to
impose obligations on others without their consent. The exercise of compassion
is a matter for individual conscience, not collective compulsion.
Principle 4 has a similar
effect. It prohibits any person, or government, compelling one person to labor
for another. Yet, once any person partakes in the act the natural consequence
of which is the creation of life, and whether or not that was the intention,
that person immediately assumes the obligations which attach to that
enterprise. The parents of that child thus assume an obligation to labor for
another; the new life they create. Their consent to assume the obligation to
labor for that life is derived from participating in the act, irrespective of
the motive or intention behind that participation.
This assumption of obligations
reinforces the prohibition in Principle 4 – it means that no person, group of
people, or government, can interfere with the obligations parents have to labor
and acquire property for the life they create, by compelling them to labor for
another person, or by compelling them to surrender property to another person,
at the expense of the life they have created. It is for the parents to decide,
and them alone, what level of labor and property they consider necessary to
fulfill their obligations towards the life they have created, subject only to
those additional obligations which they freely assume under these Principles.
Taken together, therefore,
Principles 1 to 4 prohibit any person being compelled to assume the obligations
of creating new life, or being compelled to create new life with someone they
do not want to create new life with. But I should caution here again that it is
the act itself that attaches obligations, not the motive or intention behind
the act. As I shall demonstrate in the next stages of the presentation, the
simple fact of participating in the act, the natural consequence of which is
the creation of human life, attaches obligations on those who engage in the
act. In fact, as I shall show, even the contemplation of entering into a union
to create new life, or contemplating the act itself, attaches obligations. So
where two people engage in the act, and a new human being is the result, they
cannot claim that because that was not their intention, they should not be
bound by the obligations which attach to them as a result. That is just
commonsense, and we recognize the phenomenon in virtually every other walk of
life. Hence, when someone gets into a motor vehicle, they recognize that
certain obligations attach to them in the conduct of that vehicle. If they
drive recklessly and kill someone, it is no defense to say that they had no
intention of harming anyone; that they just wanted a bit of fun . The
obligation attaches once they get behind the wheel, and even before they get
behind the wheel – because they need to satisfy others that they are competent
to be behind the wheel in the first place.
On the other hand, Principles 1
to 4 provide for what can best be described as the ‘sanctity of the family.’ No
one, and especially not government, can interfere with the obligations people
assume by creating new life, and neither can anyone, including government,
impose obligations on the parents of children, without the parents’ consent,
which tend to interfere with, or limit, the ability of parents to meet the obligations
they assume by creating new life. And government certainly cannot apply the
labor of some parents for the benefit of other parents.
Now remarkably, Gentlemen, you
did not mention the family anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, the
Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, never mind define what it is, identify any
obligations which attach to that institution, or prohibit government from
interfering in the parental exercise of those obligations. And that has given
the courts carte blanche to invent its own definition of family, define what
obligations attach to it, and interfere at will with the obligations that
attach to the creation of new life.
But the danger is even more
profound. You did say that Congress shall have the ‘power to lay and collect taxes’ for, amongst other things, the ‘general Welfare of the
James Madison (JM): “We can see
that. But I did say that we ‘have staked
our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments.’ But, as you have
already pointed out, the courts then used the First Amendment to turn that on
its head.
JBH: That’s my point, Mr
Madison. If, as you say, you staked the future on the Ten Commandments, why did
you not set out some principles, based on those Commandments, by which
government, and the courts, should be bound? Or why not simply make government
bound by the Ten Commandments themselves – that would have been considerably
better than government by mob-rule.”
JM: “Hindsight, dear boy,
hindsight!”
JBH: “Well, anyway, in the next
part of my presentation I shall return to the other obligations that flow from
the only discernable purpose of life, following roughly, the categories I
identified earlier.
NEXT: The Ten Principles of Freedom: Principles 6 and 7, and the Source of Obligations.
Copyright © Joseph BH McMillan 2007 All Rights Reserved
Joseph BH McMillan is the author of Freedom v. A Tyranny of Rights. This article is an abridged extract of his forthcoming book The Ten Principles of Freedom.
Click here to purchase Freedom v. A Tyranny of Rights from Amazon.com.
Home | Articles | Books | Biography | Contact
Copyright©Escaping Books, S.L. and Joseph B.H. McMillan,2007