Appearing on Fox Business with Judge Andrew Napolitano a few nights ago was US Marine and renowned liberty activist, Adam Kokesh. Napolitano was filling in for Lisa Kennedy, who normally hosts the self-named show, which is known as the most freedom-supporting opinion show on national TV. Never one to give a boring interview, Kokesh enthusiastically told the judge that he is running for the Libertarian Party’s nomination for president and that his platform is a simple one: Abolish the entire US government on day one and then resign. Napolitano playfully pushed back and made the Marine defend his position. “America is too good for this government”, said Kokesh. Does his presidential platform have a legitimate basis, though?
In response to an increasingly controlling British government, the men who created the United States of America drafted a formal ‘Declaration of Independence’ and delivered it to their government. The document explained that governments ought to serve a primary purpose of protecting individual freedom, not usurping it:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –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 effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Of course, this document speaks for itself. It simply explains that individuals who believe in freedom ought to take it upon themselves to leave their authoritarian government. Let’s break down the key parts of the Declaration’s first two paragraphs to help explain Adam’s point even more clearly, though:
“…to dissolve the political bands…”
This phrase clearly indicates that secession and independence are absolutely moral, legal, and often a necessary defense against an abusive government.
“…which impel them to the separation…”
Again, this phrase indicates total support for secession and independence by the very men who created this country. Massive historical evidence further proves that the founders supported secession and independence.
“…We hold these truths to be self-evident…”
The founders considered it ‘self-evident’ that every person knew right from wrong and freedom from tyranny. When I’m optimistic, I believe that every individual must believe that they own themselves and that they aren’t government property. Far too often, I feel like many people have been so thoroughly conditioned that they believe that politicians in the government rightfully own them.
“…that all men are created equal…”
Of course, modern US politicians are considered lords while we peasants are abused increasingly every day. This is very far from the relationship that our founders envisioned between citizens and political leaders.
“…certain unalienable Rights…”
The founders are referring to natural human rights, which could never be taken away from any individual, no matter what, even if 99% or 51% or 48% or 3% voted to strip a person of those natural rights, among which are the right to property, the right to self-defense, and the right to pursue happiness.
“…to secure these rights…”
The government was created for the primary purpose of protecting our natural rights, also known as ‘unalienable rights’ and ‘natural freedoms’.
“Consent of the governed”
Notice that it does not say “…consent of the majority of the governed…”, nor does it say “…consent of the plurality of the governed”. Therefore, we must assume that the founders of the US created the US government with the premise that a government could only legitimately exist and govern a group of individuals in a nation with support from each individual. Of course, few people in the US actually consent to being governed by US politicians, and nearly all of them despise the federal government. A recent poll found that only 35% of Americans think that the US is headed in the right direction. Keep in mind that our current president was elected with less than 26% of eligible voters supporting him. Think about that. Less than a fifth of the individuals in the US voted for someone, and that man is now our king. Due to the US government no longer possessing the ‘consent of the governed’, they no longer are a legitimate government. Arguing otherwise would indicate that you support mob rule.
“…it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”
This phrase is very clear and does not really need much explanation. The founders strongly supported abolishing unjust governments by any means necessary, including by revolution.
While some might argue that the modern US Government does not consider the Declaration of Independence to have any legal authority, it is impossible to argue against this fact: If not for the Declaration, the US government – and the constitution that created it – would never have come to exist. Responsible Americans ought to consider the advice of our forefathers as we seek refuge from an increasingly abusive authoritarian regime. Americans are becoming quite open to various forms of secession and independence from DC politicians. If the founders were alive, they would surely support Adam Kokesh’s platform of abolishing the US government over the perpetual cycle of increasing abuses against Americans by politicians and increased laws and taxes created by those same politicians under the guise of ‘helping abused Americans’. If you held an investment property for revenue purposes and it drained your bank account instead of growing it, you would eventually get rid of it. If you paid a doctor to make you feel better and he consistently made you sicker, you’d eventually look for another doctor. If something has a primary purpose and consistently fails to serve that purpose, it should be discarded. It is indisputable that the US government was created for the primary purpose of protecting our individual freedoms. Being that the US government does not protect those freedoms – and is the greatest threat to those freedoms – it no longer serves its purpose.
