The 28 Principles of Liberty: Principle 15


“The Highest Level of Prosperity Occurs when there is a Free-Market Economy and a Minimum of Government Regulations.”

Having a good idea of what was possible with setting up a political and social structure based on natural law, the founders sought for natural law for the market place as well. In 1776 the book “The Wealth of Nations” came out. It was not easy reading, but became the watershed between mercantilism and the doctrines of free-market economics. It fit the experiences and thinking of the Founders.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “In political economy, I think Smith’s Wealth of Nations the best book extant.”

There was no where on earth that these principles were being practiced by any nation of any consequence. The United States was the first people to undertake the structuring of a whole national economy on the basis of natural law and the free-market concept described by Adam Smith. Among other things, this formula called for the Following:

1. Specialized production: Let every person or corporation of persons do what they do best.
2. Exchange of goods takes place in a free-market environment without governmental interference in production, prices or wages.
3. The free market provides the needs of the people on the basis of supply and demand, with no government imposed monopolies.
4. Prices are regulated by competition on the basis of supply and demand.
5. Profits are looked upon as the means by which production of goods and services is made worthwhile.
6. Competition is looked upon as the means by which quality is improved, quantity is increased, and prices are reduced.

There are four laws of economic freedom:

1. The freedom to try.
2. The freedom to buy.
3. The freedom to sell
4. The freedom to fail.

By 1905 the United States had become the richest industrial nation in the world. With only 5% of the earth’s continental land area and merely 6% of the world’s population, the American people were producing over half of almost everything, clothes, food, houses, transportation, communications, even luxuries. It was a great tribute to Adam Smith.

The Founding Fathers agreed with Adam Smith, that the greatest threat to economic prosperity was the intervention of the government into the economic affairs of private businesses and the buying public. Historically, governments have tried to do this through fixing prices, fixing wages, controlling production, controlling distribution, granting monopolies, or subsidizing certain products.

There are four legitimate areas of responsibility which properly belong to the government.

1. Prevention of illegal force in the market place to compel purchase or sale of products.
2. Preventing Fraud in misrepresenting the quality, location, or ownership of the item being sold or bought.
3. Preventing a Monopoly that eliminates competition that results in restraint of trade.
4. Preventing Debauchery of the cultural standards and moral fibers of society by commercial exploitation of vice pornography, obscenity, drugs, liquor, prostitution, or commercial gambling.

George Washington said, “Let vigorous measures be adopted; not to limit the prices of articles, for this I believe is inconsistent with the very nature of things, and impracticable in itself, but to punish speculators, forestallers, and extortioners, and above all to sink the money by heavy taxes. To promote public and private economy; encourage manufacturers etc.”

After 1900, these principles were lost in the shuffle. Many prominent and influential leaders began to lose confidence in the system. These included wealthy industrialists, heads of multi-national banking institutions, leaders in the academic world, and some of the more innovative minds of the media. The same restlessness was taking hold of similar circles in Europe.

There were many organizations that were demanding that the government get involved in the redistribution of wealth. Many of the problems of the time were created by the very individuals that were demanding a new system. The new system would involve extensive government regulation and outright expropriation of major industries and natural resources. This greatly accelerated the idea of a strong centralized government with regulatory power over every aspect of the marketplace.

By the 1920’s debunking of the Founding Fathers was in full swing. Discussion of the Constitution being obsolete was discussed openly. The ideas of Adam Smith were referred to as out of date, or ancient.

John Chamberlain eventually came to realize what was going on, what the intellectual leaders were doing. They were deliberately tearing down the founders and the free-market economy in order to create a void that they could fill with there new formula. And it was the very economic nostrum that was the very toxin that the Founders had warned about. Chamberlain states that before Franklin Roosevelt that we had the Republic, meaning that the checks and balances were in place, and after 1933 we began to be centralized and there were interventionist controls of industry. That prior to that America had been hallowed out in the Twenties because the colleges ceased to teach anything important about our heritage. You had to be a graduate student to even catch up with the” Federalist Papers” or “The wealth of Nations.” He states that is generation was the ignorant generation. He said that the depression began their education, but the first book in economics that they read was Marx’s “Capital.” They had nothing to put against it, and it laid the foundation brick by brick for Keynes.

W. Cleon Skousen mentions that he too had a similar experience of trying to find America’s roots coming less then a decade behind Chamberlain. He states that the Founders had been relegated for about 25 years at this point. Many had their eyes opened after reading “The Socialist Tragedy,” which explained what socialism had done to Europe. Max Eastman wrote “Reflections on the failure of Socialism,” explaining what socialism had done to America and the world in 1962.

The Founders determined that they would make the American dollar completely independent of any power or combinations of powers outside of the American people. They gave the exclusive power to issue and control money to the people’s representatives, the congress and forbade anyone else from meddling with it.

Not only was congress responsible for issuing the money, but it was to see that is purchasing power remained fixed. In other words, the value of the money was to remain steady and reliable not only in the United States but in relation to foreign money. All money was to be coined in precious metal. Paper notes were to be a promissory note, or a promise to pay in gold or silver. The States were to make certain that they did NOT allow debts to be paid except in terms of gold or silver.

Washington stated, “We should avoid the depreciation of our currency; but I conceive this end would be answered, as far as might be necessary, by stipulating that all money payments should be made in gold and silver, being the common medium of commerce among nations.”
If you are not yet familiar with our monetary system, studying about Fractional banking would be a good start. Jefferson, forsaw that the banks would inflate the economy by loaning out fictitious paper money, with no assets behind it. This would boom the economy and once the financiers had lured borrowers into a precarious situation, they would call for a bust and foreclose on the properties for which the bank had virtually furnished NOTHING. The financiers that gained control of American finance built the economy on debt instead of wealth.



Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln all tried to get the monetary program turned around so that congress would issue its own money and banks would required to loan on existing assets rather then use fictitious money based on merely a fraction of their assets. At one point when it seemed to be catching on, the London Times came out with a frantic editorial stating:
“If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origins in the North American republic during the late war of that country (the civil war), should become indurated down to a fixture, the that government will furnish its own money WITHOUT COST. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

In close, I leave you with the words of Thomas Jefferson toward the latter days of his life, “We are overdone with banking institutions, which have banished the precious metals, and substituted a more fluctuating and unsafe medium..These have withdrawn capital from useful improvements and employments to nourish idleness..These are evils more easily to be deplored than remedied.” On another occasion he also said, “We are completely saddled and bridled, and…the bank is so firmly mounted that we must go where it will guide.”

The Great Depression of the 1920's

The 28 Principles of Liberty: Principle 14


“Life and Liberty are Secure Only so Long as the Right to Property is Secure”

Under English common law, significance was attached to the unalienable right of possessing, developing and disposing of property. Land and the products from it were considered gifts from God, and were to be cultivated, beautified, and brought under dominion. Psalm 115:16 says, “…Even the heavens are the Lord’s: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.”

John Locke pointed out that the human family originally was given the earth as a common gift and they were given the capacity and responsibility to improve it. Locke said, “God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience.” He also pointed out that men were commanded to subdue it and have dominion over it in Genesis 1:28.

Since dominion means control, and control requires exclusiveness, private property rights became an inherent aspect of being able to subdue the earth and bring it under dominion. Without private individual property rights, it would have been completely legal for someone to come and take the property that another had cultivated, taking the fruits of their labor. And even then, without property rights, someone stronger then he could come and take the property from him.

If there were no property rights, four things would occur, that would frustrate the Creator’s command to multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it, bring it under dominion.
If the example above occurred, then it would completely destroy the incentive of an industrious person to develop and improve more property.

The industrious person would also be robbed of the fruits of his labor. This would also encourage bands of robbers to be tempted to go around the country and confiscate by force and violence all the good things that others had painstakingly and frugally acquired.
Until finally leaving men to exist on a level of hand -to -mouth survival because if they had gained any property of significance, they would be robbed.

Locke also pointed out the fact that property is an extension of a person’s life, energy, and ingenuity. So, to destroy or confiscate such property is to literally attack the life of that individual. When an individual has cultivated a farm, created a thing of beauty, or secured a wage for their labor, they have literally projected their very being, the very essence of their being, the very essence of their life into that labor. The work of our hands and the labor of our bodies belong to us.




Locke also brings up an important question, If all things were originally enjoyed in common with the rest of humanity, would and individual have to get the permission of every other person on earth before he could call certain things his own? Locke has said, “That Labour … added something to them (the acorns or apples) more than Nature, the common mother of all, had done, and so they became his private right. And will any one say he had no right to those acorns or apples he thus appropriated because he had not consent of all mankind to make them his? If such consent as that was necessary, the man would have starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him….It is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state Nature leaves it in, which begins the property, without which the common gift of God is of no use. Thus this law of reason makes the deer that property of the Indian that hath killed it; it is allowed to be his goods who hath bestowed his labor upon it, though, before it was the common right of every one.”

It is important to recognize that common law doesn’t make property sacred, but only the right which someone has acquired in that property. Justice George Sutherland of the U.S. Supreme Court once told the New York State Bar Association:

“It is not the right of property that is protected, but the right to property. Property, per se, has no rights; but the individual, the man, has three great rights, equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to his life, the right to his liberty, the right to his property. These three rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty is to still leave him a slave.
Abraham Lincoln also said, “Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable, is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence…I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good.”

Early American colonists have much to say on this topic because it was a critical issue leading to the Revolutionary War. The effort of the Crown to take their property through various kinds of taxation without their consent was denounced as a violation of the English constitution and English common law. They often quoted John Locke, “The supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent. For the preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that property by entering society, which was the end for which they entered into it.”
John Adams saw private property as the most important single foundation stone undergirding human liberty and human happiness. He said, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. PROPERTY MUST BE SECURED OR LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST.”

As we have pointed out earlier, one of the worst sins of government, according to the founders, was the exercise of its coercive taxing powers to take property from one group and give it to another. In our own day, when the government has imposed upon us a multiple trillion dollar budget with a portion of it directly coming from “transfer payments” from the tax paying public to the wards of the government, the following words from James Madison may sound strange:
“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…This being the end of government, which alone is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

In the early years of the American courts it was held unlawful to take property from one group and transfer it to another and completely outside the constitutional power delegated to the government. It was not until 1936, that the Supreme Court began to distort the meaning of the general welfare clause and started to permit the distribution of federal bounties for the poor and the needy. Before this time, it was completely prohibited.

The Supreme Court had declared, “No man would become a member of a community in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry. The preservation of property, then, is a primary object of the social compact… The legislature, therefore, had no authority to make an act divesting once citizen of his freehold, and vesting it in another, without a just compensation. It is inconsistent with the principles of reason, justice and moral rectitude; it is incompatible with the comfort, peace and happiness of mankind; it is contrary to the principles of social alliance in every free government; and lastly it is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.”



Dr. Ludwig von Mises made this observation, “If history could prove and teach us anything, it would be the private ownership of the means of production as a necessary requisite of civilization and material well-being. All civilizations have up to now been based on private property. Only nations committed to the principle of private property have risen above penury and produced science, art and literature. There is no experience to show that any other social system could provide mankind with any of the achievements of civilization.”

A question yet remains, if it corrupts a society for the government to take care of the poor by violating the principle of property rights, who will take care of the poor? The answer of those who built America seems to be “Anybody BUT the federal government.”

Americans have never tolerated the suffering and starvation which has plagued the rest of the world, but until the last generation help was given almost exclusively by the private sector or on a community or state level. In his day, President Grover Cleveland vetoed legislation designed to spend federal taxes on private welfare problems. He stated that there was no warrant for such an appropriation to be found in the Constitution and that government should not be in the position to extend itself to the relief of individual suffering, which is not related to public service or benefit. He felt that this type of expansion needed to be resisted that the lesson be enforced that “Though the people support the government the government should not support the people.” He mentioned that friendliness and charity always came through fellow-citizens. Creating systems like this he said, would weaken our national character.

The 28 Principles of Liberty are adapted by Charity Angel from W. Cleon Skousen's book "The 5000 Year Leap" and are sponsored by Fragrant Smoke, your place for incense and incense burners.

The 28 Principles of Liberty: Principle 13


“A Constitution Should be Structured to Permanently Protect the People from the Human Frailties of their Rulers.”


At the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers had to answer the following question: “How can you have an efficient government, but still protect the freedom and unalienable rights of the people?”


The Founders had much more confidence in the people then in the leaders of the people, especially if those leaders are trusted, even if those leaders were themselves. They felt that the greatest of all danger arises when the people so completely trust a leader that they feel no anxiety to watch him and what he is doing. The Federalist: A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States (Modern Library Classics)Alexander Hamilton wrote, “For it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that people are commonly most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those toward whom they entertain least suspicion.”


Over two hundred years of American history have demonstrated the wisdom of the Founders in proclaiming a warning against the human frailties of their elected or appointed leaders. Every unconstitutional action has been justified because it was for a ‘good cause.’ Every illegal transfer of power from one department to another has been excused as ‘necessary.’ The expansion of the government in Washington is in direct result of trusting political leaders. Thomas Jefferson used all the force that he could muster by tongue and pen when he wrote: “It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights; that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go…In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, BUT BIND HIM DOWN FROM MISCHIEF BY THE CHAINS OF THE CONSTITUTION.”


The Real George Washington (American Classic Series)George Washington also made this very clear. The Founders saw the government as a very volatile instrument of explosive power which must be harnessed, by an strictly interpreted Constitution, or it would destroy the freedom it was designed to preserve. He Said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”



Additionally, James Madison: Writings: Writings 1772-1836 (Library of America)James Madison said, “It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices as Constitutional chains should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?....If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. But lacking these, in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: YOU MUST FIRST ENABLE THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL THE GOVERNED; AND IN THE NEXT PLACE OBLIGE IT TO CONTROL ITSELF.”


And this is what the Constitution is all about, providing freedom from abuse by those in authority. Those who say that the Constitution is obsolete just because social and economic conditions have changed do not understand this. The Constitution was designed to control something that has not changed, and that is human nature. Therefore, the original A Glorious Standard for All MankindConstitution will never be obsolete.


The Founders also knows that the loss of freedom comes through gradual erosion of constitutional principles, and it not always so obvious that the people detect it. Madison stated, “I believe there are more instances of abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations…This danger out to be wisely guarded against.”


In 1785 Madison stated that it is right to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. Having prudent jealousy was the first duty of citizens and one of the great characteristics of the The Revolution: A ManifestoAmerican Revolution. The Freemen of America did not wait for usurped power to strengthen itself, they acted, and because they acted, they avoided the consequences that come when denying this principle.



You might ask, where will abuse leaders encroach, where are they likely to attack? Are their some basic rights which aggrandizing politicians seek to destroy first? The Founders said there was. And the Founders said we should especially concentrate on the preservation of one particular right because all other rights are related to it. We will discuss this in principle 14.


The 28 Principles of Liberty are written by Charity Angel, and are adapted from W. Cleon Skousen’s book “The Five Thousand Year Leap ” Learn more about the 28 principles of liberty at http://theprinciplesofliberty.com/

Educate Yourself!! Buy Your US Constitution Study Suite NOW!!

The 28 Principles of Liberty: Principle 12


“The United States of America Shall be a Republic.”


When you recite the pledge of allegiance, you state the very government structure that was the Founder’s favorite theme. “And to the REPUBLIC for which it (the flag) stands.” There are several reasons why the Founders wanted a republican form of government verses a democracy. A democracy requires the full participation of the masses of the people in the legislative processes of the government. This has never worked because the people are too occupied or distracted by their daily tasks, that they do not take the time necessary to properly research and study the issues, participate in extensive hearings each time a vote is taken. The Greeks tried to use democracy many times at all levels of government, only to have it end in tyranny each time.


A democracy becomes less and less efficient as the population increases. A republic governs through elected representatives and can be expanded indefinitely. James Madison wrote: “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in the lives as they have been violent in their deaths…. A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”


Madison also pointed out that an expanding country like the United States could not possibly confine itself to the limitations of a democracy, but must rely upon a representative or republican form of government to protect the interests of its people. To make his position even more clearly, Madison gave this definition of a republic: “We may define a republic to be…a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.”

During the early 1900’s a war of ideology began and the word democracy was one of the victims of it. The average American will throw around the word democracy to describe our traditional Constitutional republic. It was the Founders hope that we, as their descendants, would maintain a clear distinction between the two. This war began in New York in 1905 when 100 people met together to create the ISS, the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. Sixty chapters were established from coast to coast on college and university campuses. One of the directors explained that the ISS was set up to “throw light on the world-wide movement of industrial democracy known as socialism.”


Socialism is defined as government ownership or control of all the means of production, for example, farms, factories, mines, natural resources, and industries, as well as the means of transportation, communications and the instruments of commerce. This is not democracy in the classical sense at all, clearly; however it is the antithesis of the free-market economy of a republic.


They had a really catchy slogan at that time that caught the attention of 100’s of men and women who later went on to be big names in government, press, radio, television and motion pictures. “Production for use, not for profit,” was the phrase of the day.


Due to the negative connotations that were associated with the word socialism and socialist, the ISS changed their name to “The League for Industrial Democracy.” This way they could give the appearance to the people that as everything became nationalized by the government, that it would then be the property of ‘all the people’. There were movements at the time that tried to stop this ideology from reaching the minds of the people. Even the U.S. Army had a training manual that defined the differences between a democracy and a republic. Despite the efforts of many, the press and school books pushed forward and continually identified the United States as a democracy. President Wilson added to this confusion when he was promoting World War I to ‘make the world safe for democracy.’ President Wilson was surrounded by many of the very first recruits of the ISS, and it appears that they encouraged the adoption of this slogan, which has continued today in the message to ‘spread democracy around the globe.’


A review of the roster of the early ISS members will reveal that by the 1930’s the more brilliant young leaders of the movement from WWI had risen to some of the most prestigious positions in politics, press, publishing houses, radio, academic circles, teacher-training colleges, the National Council of Churches, and just about every major center of opinion molding influence. However, they were not all united in what they desired for The United States. Some wanted the people to consent to socialism, become democratic socialism, others wanted a mixed system with some socialism and some free-enterprise, and some were not happy with it at all and started to return to the principles of the founding fathers, and a few were drunken with the idea of power by force and violence and became leaders of the Communist Party movement. However, all of them still refer to the U.S. as a democracy.


Following World War II, something happened. All of the socialist, communist nations were on the verge of collapse despite the fact that the U.S. had spent tens of billions of dollars to prop them up. Many of them had poor reputations because of the violence, torture and starvation tactics that they had used against their own people. So socialism lost its luster, but many of the American people continued to refer to their Constitutional republic as a democracy. And eventually are likely to call the United States a ‘democratic republic’ as they lean more and more to the thinking of the founders, which was a term used by the followers of Thomas Jefferson.


Samuel Adams pointed out that the founders tried to make socialism unconstitutional. Therefore, to adopt socialism, respect and support for traditional constitutional government would have to be eroded and then emasculated. It would not surprise anyone to learn, that those that wanted to have democracy identified as the American system, also were anxious to have Americans believe that their traditional Constitution was outdated, or even worse obsolete.

When W. Cleon Skousen was in his college days, it was popular in political science to point out that the Constitution was written some two centuries ago by people who were 95% farmers. Now, they say that we live in an industrial society and that the needs of the people can no longer be accommodated under the system provided by the U.S. Constitution. Not only did certain teachers teach this, but U.S. senators also proclaimed it. Occasionally, even the president would say it. Is there any validity to these statements? Principle 13 will address this question.

The 28 Principles of Liberty are written by Charity Angel, and are adapted from W. Cleon Skousen’s book “The Five Thousand Year Leap
” Learn more about the 28 principles of liberty at http://theprinciplesofliberty.com/


Educate Yourself!! Buy Your US Constitution Study Suite NOW!!