A Majority of One

From time to time we see negative publicity about herbs and supplements claiming that they are “unregulated.”  Ignoring the fact that herbs and supplements are regulated (and rather heavily I might add), I'd like to address this whole idea of “regulation” being a good thing.  Why should government regulate everything in the first place?  It's almost as if most people think it is a mortal sin for any industry to be free of stifling government regulations and bureaucracy. 

In fact, I think that's one of the big problems with our economy.  Government regulations and red tape make it increasingly difficult for innovative people to form small businesses and believe it or not, most new jobs come from small businesses, not from big corporations.  But that's a side point to the main topic I want to discuss.

It seems to me that the majority of people want a carefully managed and controlled society.  They don't want to make room for things that are too innovative or controversial.  Things should be “proven.”  Unfortunately, most people's idea of proof is not based on reason, logic or even research, but on “consensus of opinion.”  I think that's a dangerous attitude.

Of course, it is “risky” to be controversial.  After all, someone might take offense.  However, the whole idea of the first amendment rights of “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press” was to ensure lively disagreement.  People need their thinking challenged.  Sure, if we openly and publicly express our opinions and beliefs, the ministers of the orthodoxy might heap ridicule and criticism upon us.  They don't like people who don't subscribe to their “hole-ly” (i.e., full of holes) order, but so what?

Benjamin Franklin

One of my favorite books is entitled, Fart Proudly: Writings of Benjamin Franklin You Never Read in School, edited by Carl Japikse.  After reading this set of essays it would be clear to anyone that Benjamin Franklin wasn't afraid to be controversial or to express controversial opinions.  The book gets its title from an essay in which Franklin proposes that scientists find a way to make farts smell pleasant, so that a person in relieving themselves of a little gas might put the perfume of roses or some other pleasant smell in the room.  A novel idea don't you think?

Anyway, towards the end of the book, Mr. Japikse has an imaginary dialog with Mr. Franklin about the state of the country today.  Here is part of that dialog.

Franklin says, “Do you want the truth—or do you want the comfort of falsehoods and flattery?  The truth of the matter, my dear friend, is that in Modern America, you do not any longer even have the freedom to fart!”

Japikse responds, “I beg your pardon.”

“You see what I mean?  You live in a sanitized society—a society that is so afraid of offending anyone that it is no longer possible to speak freely, a society so determined to prevent any kind of harm that it denies liberty to everyone.”

After elaborating on this point Franklin continues, “In my day, we were not afraid to fart—or to talk about it.  We were not afraid to take risks, either.  We did not envision a country where everyone was protected from every possible harm; quite the opposite, we envisioned a country where everyone had every possible chance to succeed.  Somewhere along the way, I guess, we have lost the courage to fart.”

Frankly, like most people, I've lived much of my life afraid to follow my own convictions.  While I've always been diplomatic, it goes deeper than diplomacy.  I've often been afraid to follow my own convictions because I wasn't absolutely sure that my point of view was “right.” 

60% Convictions

That's why I was impressed with a thought-provoking essay entitled Acting on Sixty-Percent Convictions from the book Everyday Miracles by E. Forrester Church.  The essay was one of the things which has helped me have the courage to believe in my convictions even though I am aware of the possibility that I might be “wrong.” 

In the essay, Church points out that “Most of us have sixty-percent convictions.”  That is, most things we believe in we are not 100% sure of.  So, most of us don't act on our convictions because of our uncertainty.  However, even not acting is an action.  When I refuse to risk acting on my 60% conviction, by default I am favoring the opposite choice.  I'm siding with my 40% non-conviction.  Church reminds us, “We do more by inaction to foster the things we oppose than we do by our actions to nurture the things we support.”

Truth is not determined by public opinion polls, anyway.  When anyone makes a “new” discovery, they learn a “new” truth.  When that happens, they are “right” about that matter and everyone else in the whole world is “wrong” or at the very least uninformed about that subject.  In other words, one person can be right about something and everyone else in the world may be wrong.  Majority opinion does not equal fact.

Just as I was writing this article I watched the movie on the life of Gandhi for the second time.  The story of this man's life awoke in me a renewed determination to follow my own convictions.  Gandhi did not use violence or force, but by simply standing true to his beliefs gave birth to a nation and influenced the whole world.  The fact that his fasting could stop a civil war impressed me greatly.  What a great change one person can make if he or she will quietly stand true to his or her convictions.

Freedom of Choice in Health Care

I've decided to stand firm in my conviction that it is ridiculous for the FDA or any government agency to prevent nutritional information from being published because it does not conform to the “consensus of scientific opinion.”  Something is not true because the majority of researchers believe it is true.  The whole idea is a complete farce, especially when scientists, doctors and researchers all attend schools which teach the same orthodox doctrine.  The consensus is artificial.  It is created by the closed circle of a controlled educational system.  Scientists believe what they are taught to believe, just like the rest of us.

I am also going to stand true to my conviction that vaccines are harmful, even if the government carries forward with its plans for a national immunization law which would make parents guilty of “criminal child neglect” if they failed to vaccinate their children.  By the way, under this proposed law, religious belief would not be considered a defense.  That's scary, because it denies our first amendment rights of freedom of religion. 

Just because the vast majority of people hold the opinion that vaccines prevent disease does not make it a fact.  There are plenty of intelligent people (including doctors and researchers) who have voiced concern over the possible long-term dangers of vaccines.  In fact, if the American people were allowed to read the ingredient panel on the vaccines they put into their children, they would likely have some serious second thoughts about complying.

Meanwhile, I feel like Gandhi did—the government can put me in jail, they can beat me or they can even kill me, but they can never force me to comply with a law which violates my conscience.  My rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religious conviction do not come from government.  They are God-given rights, secured (not granted) by the constitution.

I'm alarmed and deeply concerned by what I see happening in our government in the guise of “health” care.  However, I also know that one person of great conviction can make a difference.  What I am hoping is that many of us with the same convictions will band together and just “say no to drugs” including compulsory immunizations.  What I am hoping is that enough Americans will “wake up” and realize that our rights to make our own choices are being taken from us in the name of “protecting us.”

Freedom is Something You Were Born With

One of the heroes that inspires me in my courage to stand up for my 60% beliefs is Utah Phillips, a folk singer and master story teller who passed away a couple of years ago.  One of the stories Utah Phillips tells is about the Spokane Free Speech movement.  Below is a link to youtube where you can hear Utah telling this story.



In this story Utah Phillips makes this comment, “Freedom is something you are born with and when someone comes along and tries to take it away from you, the degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free.” 

Our government was founded on the idea that God gave us inalienable rights.  An inalienable right is something that can't be made alien to you.  In other words, no one has the moral right to take it away.  The constitution doesn't grant us our right to freedom of speech, God does. 

As this story illustrates, this doesn't mean that other people are going automatically respect your rights.  In fact, there are may people who feel morally justified in trying to take them away.  What it means is that God gave you the moral right (and responsibility) to defend your right. 

Today, we are letting government trample all over our rights.  Our government is not supposed to be based on majority rule, because the majority may be wrong.  The individual is the sovereign in a republic and that's the way it should be.  One person is a majority when they are in the right. 

How free are we?  How willing are we to resist when someone tries to take away our rights?  How willing are we to be that "majority of one" who stands up for what is true, even when others won't stand with us?  These are issues I've had to examine in my own soul and I would encourage you to do the same.