At the end of Book 3, I had this note: Everyone is miserable. Look at the Elites - they are miserable too because they know someone else will conspire to take all that they gained away from them. Every level suffers.

Over and over again I see only miserable people when it comes to socialistic governments. On the sides of many pages I have written the name of many dystopias. It is like the are all trying to show us that any form of government besides a enlightened, extended, commercial, limited, representative, federal, democratic republic (The U.S. Constitution and the 196 Indispensable Principles of Freedom by O. DeMille p. 100) will not work the way people hope it will. It took a lot of experience and trial and error to get to creating what the US Founders did.

In Book 9 (around lines 585) we are asked what are we filling our selves and our society with? Are we focusing on only of the parts of man (desire, action, reason)? and society?

I feel that as a society we are only focusing on the 'desire' of things or some would say equity for all but overall we have missed the boat because that is only one part of our being. To be balanced and whole we need all 3 parts combined. Trying to separate things out into castes and pretending to call it balanced is not right any more than only focusing on 1 or 2 of the traits that make us a human or a community. Until we unify the 3 traits as best as possible as an individual and a society we will be miserable in the end because we are incomplete. There will not be justice in the state if there are caste systems. Justice will occur when all the people are able to live their mission. When everyone is equal before the law and do not and can not infringe on the rights of others. Any other state is a shadow or an illusion. 

"These people, who had experience on their own hides twenty-four years of Communist happiness, knew by 1941 what as yet on one else in the world knew: that nowhere on the planet, nowhere in history, was there a regime more vicious, more bloodthirsty, and at the same time more cunning and ingenious than the Bolshevik, the self-styled Soviet regime. That no other regime on earth could compare with it either in the number of those it had done to death, in hardiness, in the range of its ambitions, in its thoroughgoing and unmitigated totalitarianism-no, not even the regime of its pupil Hitler, which at that time blinded Western eyes to all else.....Even in 1943 tens of thousands of refugees from the Soviet provinces trailed along behind the retreating German army-anything was better than remaining under Communism" (p. 342)

I have read other books that support this idea: Mao, Wild Swans, and Red Scarf Girl.  I don't think this is a way to provide equality for all unless you mean that some of the elites will decide how much everyone else will suffer, so that we can all have the same amount of stuff (nothing) and not voice our complaints.   For communism and the gulags to continue, they just need other people's money. 

I really hope that it does not get to this point:
"All you freedom-loving "left-wing" thinkers in the West!  You left laborites! You progressive Americans, German, and French students! As far as you are concerned, none of this amounts to much.  As far as you are concerned, this whole book of mine is a waste of effort.  You may suddenly understand it all someday - but only when you yourselves hear "hands behind your backs there!" and step ashore on our Archipelago. (p. 468)"

Are we that stubborn that we will refuse to listen to the voices of those who have suffered from oppressive governments?  

Are we so willing to give away the freedoms we have so that government can decide what we can and can't do?

Are we afraid of liberty, freedom & choice just as George Bernard Shaw says: "Liberty means responsibility.  That is why most men dread it."

After reading Volume 2, the biggest takeaway for me was that America is founded on the principles of religion and education. 

“The Americans show, by their practice, that they feel the high necessity of imparting morality to democratic communities by means of religion”.
And
“I do not know whether all the Americans have a sincere faith in their religion, for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions.”
Yet according to Paul Johnson’s A History of the American People, we have allowed this foundation to disappear.  The “authority of the state, and notably the courts-and especially the Supreme Court-did everything in their power to reduce the role of religion in the affairs of the state, and particularly in the education of the young…”   In many cases, there is hostility to religion and morals, just as there is hostility by some towards those who see the education system as a harmful place to send their children. 
Democracy in America, published a long time ago, may be challenging to read, but I believe it can show us the way to reestablish a culture of freedom as we focus on building families and communities that adopt a different perspective on religion and education.  If we can look at the moral laws that Christianity teaches and bring them back into the home and community, it could change everything. 
The family is the foundation of a community; if we start fixing the family, we will fix the community around us.  Learning to build a family culture will take work and energy; that is true, but starting to educate ourselves in the great classics will help speed the process along.  In Volume 2 of Democracy in America, the author compares the European way (aristocracy) and the American way (democracy) of doing things.  Looking at each side and picking the best of both worlds will build incredibly strong families and communities.  Reading books that share the family culture will give us much to discuss and practice.  If we don’t focus on building a family culture that promotes freedom and education, we will find ourselves more and more enslaved to the culture around us that tells us that we need leaders to direct us.  That we need to go back to an aristocracy, or worse, a tyranny.  

Premises of Communism
I have just finished reading The Naked Communist by W. Cleon Skousen.  I think this book does a good job of introducing what Communism is and also gives brief histories of the people who influenced and promoted Communism.   One of the areas that I have been pondering a bit more is the ‘Major Premises of Communism’ from the author’s point of view using the writings of those that promoted it (I won’t provide the quoted source below, just the premise.  if you would like to know who said each statement, please see the book for more information).
Major Premises of Communism:

1.  Everything in existence came about as a result of ceaseless motion among the forces of nature. 
2. Human beings are only graduate beasts.
3. There is no such thing as innate right or wrong
4. That all religion must be overthrown because it inhibits the spirit of world revolution.

 
 
I think that another premise should be included, or maybe it fits under #2, and that is the belief in human nature.  This worldview believes that humans should start as a blank slate.  I have been listening to the book: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker. If you believe that man is born as a blank slate than that would also mean that you can fill that slate with information or experiences that will program the mind to create a perfect society; A classless society that promotes universal peace and prosperity.  It would make creating the perfect mind, child, or society a little bit easier if we were just trained to be what is wanted or needed.  Having a complex innate human nature means that not everything is trainable.  Society could / would have flaws that demand correction by the Dictator of the Proletariat; therefore, there would always be a need for government.   Can Communism ever reach its goals without blank slates?   

This book goes really well with the essay "The Law"  by Bastiat.  The author actually uses many quotes from the essay.  

One of the quotes that I like from the Law is:  "The law is collective force organized to oppose injustice." A very concise and clear definition of what law should be. When you take this definition to the introduction of the Declaration of Independence you have a clear idea of what injustice is.

There is also a clearer set of explanations of the 5 Laws of Decline that are in the book LeaderShift.   Along with this idea (laws of decline) is listed the 6 duties of society. 

As I ponder what my biggest take away is, I keep coming back to the idea that all good government MUST start in the home.   There are two basic ways to set up your family system - through persuasion or force.  Depending on your personal beliefs you will practice and teach either the ideas.    In our homes we learn to balance the ideas of chaos (no force) and coercion (absolute force).  The only way that we will be able to have a home of harmony and agreement is to education our self in many areas and then practice those ideas.  We need to know when and how to use persuasion and force correctly and in ways that promote our personal growth and freedoms along with how to keep harmony in the home.   Once we are able to establish harmony in our home we can then take those principles to society and help society to establish justice.   In our home we create rules or laws to help us establish safety and justice.  It is the same with society, laws are just a bit more complex since it involves more people and different beliefs (which is why written, clear laws are so important in societies).   For government to be truly justice it must begin in the home and then move out toward the community.

I have been reading John Locke's "Concerning Civil Government, 2nd Essay" and "A Letter Concerning Tolerance" this week. Very good reading. Here is just one of the many nuggets from "Concerning Civil Government", Chapter 9: the power of the society or legislative constituted by them can never be supposed to extend farther than the common good, but is obliged to secure every one's property... (#131)”.

More Thoughts on Locke’s Essays
As I was reading the Declaration of Independence again last night a section caused me to think and question what is meant. The sentence: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness".
In the past I read right on over that without once questioning it. Yesterday, I questioned what was the intent of safety? Today so many laws or orders have been given in the name of "safety" that I really struggle with the idea that we should have all this regulation to keep up "safe". What was the original intent? Can you really keep people safe? How? When have things gotten out of balance? The idea that comes to mind as I studied the wording of the Declaration is that Safety AND Happiness are to balance each other. This leads to another question: How is that balance measured and achieved?
 According to Ebenstein & Ebenstein (Great Political Thinkers), the Declaration is "pure Locke" and many of the main ideas of the Constitution and Declaration are based on Locke’s ideas. Therefore, I turned back to Locke in order to find his definition of safety. In Concerning Civil Government he writes: "...the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom" (Chapter 6, #57). He continues: "The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property; (Chapter 9 #124)......the power of the society or legislative constituted by them can never be supposed to extend farther than the common good, but is obliged to secure every one's property... (#131)”.
 Whenever Locke talks about safety and security in either "A Letter Concerning Toleration" or "Concerning Civil Government, Second Essay" it seems to be in connection with protecting the property and labors of man and to protect or deliver the people from "subjection of a foreign power" (Concerning Civil Government, Chapter 19 #217). In Locke’s writings he always talks about the limits that should be placed on the government. The idea that the law should be applied equally to all, that it must not be oppressive or based on personal whims, that the consent of the people need to be involved and that the legislature must not transfer its lawmaking power to anybody else. (Great Political Thinkers p. 432)
When you take all of this into account and refer back to the statement in the Declaration, I can see that government’s foundation should be for the Safety and Happiness of the people. I think without understanding the ideas that Locke taught and the extremely important idea of that he stated were necessary to protect the people these ideas can be taken and abused as they have been in recent years by our government officials. We the people have forgotten that we do not have to consent to all the government says. And that it is our job to make sure that the government does not overstep its powers. Many of the changes that have occurred in the last year have not been laws set up by the legislature but by the judicial and executive branches. And because we have not followed the pattern set up by our Founding Fathers both the safety and happiness of all people are out of balance.  The law is not being applied equally to all, is based on personal whims and is oppressive to some.  It is also not law; it is based on orders that have not been voted on.  Unfortunately that is because we the people have consented to follow past orders and judgments setting a precedent that said it was okay for other officials outside of our elective representatives to determine laws.  If we had all read John Locke’s writings in High School, would we have a different government then we do today?

As I read the Five Thousand Year Leap (FYL) the idea that I feel is the most important issue is principle #1 and 2.  You can’t have principle #2 without the idea that there is a natural law and a  divine law that we are obligated to understand and follow.  As I read further and further through the book, my thoughts kept returning to principle #2.  If the people are not a virtuous and morally strong people then freedom is not likely to exist. You can have good kings and bad kings.  You can have other government system that are good and bad.   But when you have a group of people that do not believe in the ideas of private and public virtue others will always take over the government. 
 
Quoting from FYL p. 235: "The centralization of political power always destroys liberty by removing the decision-making function from the people on the local level and transferring it to the officers of the central government.  This process gradually benumbs the spirit of "voluntarism" among the people, and they lose the will to solve their own problems.  They also cease to be involved in community affairs.  They seek the anonymity of oblivion in the seething crowds of the city and often degenerate into faceless automatons who have neither a voice nor a vote". 
 
I am guilty of that; I have left problems of the community for others to deal with.  Of course, I was not taught differently so I am not overly surprise that I am not involved more in the community.   But returning back to the idea of a virtuous and moral people.  The miraculous part of the American Government is that by setting up the government with many layers that check and balance each other within each layer and by each layer you can delay the collapse of the government longer.   When the spirit of public virtue is not as strong, when people are turning to the government to fix their problems, there are still checks in place to slow down the centralization of the power, so the people still have some liberties.  All of the principles after #1-2 are needed to deal with the conditions where the people are not strongly virtuous and moral. 
​
What an amazing document the Declaration and Constitution are when you take in light how long they have held together a people that has slowly been neglecting its responsibility toward themselves and their neighbors.

I was trying to think about what it was that I gained from reading this book another time.  I noticed as I was reading this book the idea of bent v. broken and that reminded me of the type of books we read.  I noticed that the story is about leaving morals behind for science.  Leaving behind the pure, the simple, and even the advances we have for the sake of progress and science. That is a pattern that has seen before.  The thing that really struck me was connected to a talk that I listened to by Oliver DeMille on Natural Laws.  The topic was about looking for how books relate to the 12 Natural Laws.   When I went to see how many Natural Laws that CS Lewis referred to I was a bit surprised...there were many!


Quick notes about the 12 Natural Laws (Natural laws = revealed law and scientific law)
​1.  Law of Supremacy - What is supreme?
2.  Law of Authority - Who protects the law?  Reason for the government?
3.  Law of Limits - Do the laws protect natural law? inalienable rights?
4.  Law of Delegation - What do we do when we see wrong?  Do we delegate our responsibility?
5.  Law of Force - What type of force is the government using?
6.  Law of Decline- When we violate natural law it leads to a lack of respect to people and law leading to disdain.  Do we see hateful actions?  **Law of the Harvest
7.  Law of Power (Power v. Energy) - Who is trying to dominate?  Where are the gaps in power?
8.  Law of Gaps - Do we create/keep gaps in government power or do we eliminate gaps?
9.  Law of the Vital Few - Few ordinary people who do extraordinary things - Who do we choose to lead us?
10.  Law of Liberty - Who is losing power?
11.  Law of Economy - Power at the lowest level - Who is responsible for our duties and rights?
12.  Law of Progress - Need the freedom to grow & progress - Who controls our actions - You or someone else?