LIL Correspondence with Cory Burnell

Hi Josiah,
I believe I meant to provide you with an article about our plans for the SCLA, but I failed to do so. Are you still interested in one?

I have a call scheduled for Monday with Chris Golden, a paleo-conservative in the Greenville GOP, to discuss the potential of bringing paleo-cons together in an alliance. I'll include that discussion as well as my findings from my recent two weeks in SC in the article.

Also, great to see all the activism you're doing for the Taylor campaign. I thank you very much!

Blessings,
Cory


Thanks a lot, Cory! Yes, I would very much like an article on the SCLA.

Nearly everyone I have talked to about the possibility of paleo-conservative co-operation and co-ordination has essentially said it can't be done; "we won't support you, but go ahead and try anyway" is the attitude. So finally you are someone with a like vision who appreciates the concept and can work to fulfill it. Praise God!

The major issue I have seen as critical to an ability to organize pro-freedom organizations into a winning team is giving them a common goal. We will only do that by re-directing their definition of freedom itself. Since you have touched on this subject before, you will understand this idea perfectly.

Many groups seem to view freedom as simply the ability to do anything one wishes as long as one does not harm this ability of others. I agree with this general definition. However, it is impossible to know just what freedom is if there is no common standard to judge it by.

How does one determine what is a violation of freedom? By justice. How does justice judge? By the law. What ultimately determines law? There must exist what our Founders termed "unalienable rights" endowed on us by a common Creator if there is to be any true kind of liberty.

By applying the Decalogue as these unalienable rights, "tyranny," "evil," and "unlawful" gain fully consistent definitions, as do "liberty" and "freedom." After all, the Decalogue was written to protect liberty. What could be termed its' "Enacting Clause" states: "I am the LORD your God which have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage;..." Examples of unalienable rights in the Decalogue include "Thou shalt not kill," Thou shalt not steal," and "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy."

Government is not to enforce the Decalogue; however, it is to protect us and "secure our rights." Government should properly thus be enacting statutes to make certain that our rights are not violated, and our ability to keep God's law is not infringed.

The right to keep and honor God's law is in fact the greatest of all rights, and no one can rightfully force us to disobey it.

It is important to note that the phase "secure our rights" points again to the fact that the rights must be pre-existent. Rights are not created by majority vote or dictatorial whim. Here is where the line is drawn between Libertarians and paleo-conservatives; the Libertarian will not allow for an acknowledgement of any pre-existing Creator or universal Law. Their kind of liberty thus falls apart. It is not a consistent sort of liberty.

What I have come to see true liberty as is simply this: The absolute supremacy of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.

So now I understand the famous songwriter:

America! America! God mend thine every flaw;
Confirm thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law!



Your friend,
R. Josiah Magnuson

P.S. If you want, you can view a whole list of quotes on this subject here. Thanks!