Episode 430: Tom DeWeese Interview – ESG and Property Rights

See the link for the video of ‘Tom DeWeese Interview – ESG and Property Rights’ at Rumble or YouTube

I enjoyed my Tom DeWeese Interview as we covered the influence of ESG (environmental, sustainability and governance) as it relates to property rights, which include businesses.Property Rights

For those that do not know Tom, he has been in the fight since the 70’s regarding property rights and the attacks of environmentalism on those God given rights. He is the Founder of The American Policy Institute, which has the mission of protecting and defending the ideals of limited government intrusion in our lives, as envisioned by our nation’s founders.

Specifically from the website,

As Founding Father John Adams 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.” That is exactly what we are seeing happen across the United States as private property is being taken by unlawful use of eminent domain and other policies, in the name of climate change and environmental protection. APC’s mission is to protect private property from any policies that threaten its existence. As rancher and activist Wayne Hage said several years ago, “If you don’t have the right to own and control private property, then you are property.”

To highlight this even more, Sam Adams on January 20, 1772 wrote two-hundred and fifty-two (252) years ago, on the very date of this program broadcast:

Mr. Locke says, that the security of property is the end for which men enter into society; and I believe Chronus will not deny it: Whatever laws therefore are made in any society, tending to render property insecure, must be subversive of the end for which men prefer society to the state of nature; and consequently must be subversive of society itself.

Every law and bureaucratic rule in regard to sustainability as well as the illegal alien invasion is ‘subversive of society itself.’

Join me in this conversation with Tom, which include a focus on ‘Freedom Pods.’

Sam Adams Wisdom

Compilation of Sam’s writings commenting on Property:

June 29, 1771

We have reason to believe that the American Colonies, however they may have disagreed among themselves in one mode of opposition to arbitrary measures, are still united in the main principles of constitutional & natural liberty; and that they will not give up one single point in contest of any importance, tho’ they may take no violent measures to obtain them. – The taxing their property without their consent, and thus appropriating it to the purposes of their slavery and destruction, is justly considered, as contrary to and subversive of their original social compact, and their intention in uniting under it: They cannot therefore readily think themselves obliged to renounce those forms of government, to which alone for the advantages imply’d or resulting, they were willing to submit.

September 9, 1771

“The supreme power says Mr. Locke, is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary, over the lives and fortunes of the people – 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 by entering into society, which was the end for which they entered into it. Men therefore in society having property, they have such a right to the goods which by the law of the community are theirs, that no body hath a right to take their substance or any part of it from them without their consent. Without this, they have no property at all: For I have truly no property in that, which another can by right take from me when he pleases, against my consent” – These are the principles upon which alone, the Americans founded their opposition to the late acts of parliament. How then could governor Bernard with any colour of truth declare to a minister of state in general terms, that “the authority of the King, the supremacy of parliament, the superiority of government, were the objects of the attack?” Upon the principles of reason and nature, their opposition is justifiable: For by those acts the property of the Colonists is taken from them without their consent.

October 7, 1771

“Is it possible to form an idea of slavery, more compleat, more miserable, more disgraceful, than that of a people, where justice is administer’d, government exercis’d, and a standing army maintain’d, at the expence of the people, and yet without the least dependence upon them? If we can find no relief from this infamous situation” – I repeat it, “If we can find no relief from this infamous situation “, let the ministry who have stripped us of our property and liberty, deprive us of our understanding too; that unconscious of what we have been or are, and ungoaded by tormenting reflections, we may tamely bow down our necks, with all the stupid serenity of servitude, to any drudgery which our lords & masters may please to command”

December 23, 1771

Mr. Locke has often been quoted in the present dispute between Britain and her colonies, and very much to our purpose. His reasoning is so forcible, that no one has even attempted to confute it. He holds that “the preservation of property is the end of government, and that for which men enter into society. It therefore necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be suppos’d to lose that by entering into society, which was the end for which they enter’d into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own. Men therefore in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that no body hath the right to take any part of their subsistence from them without their consent: Without this, they could have no property at all. For I truly can have no property in that which another can by right take from me when he pleases, against my consent. Hence, says he, it is a mistake to think that the supreme power of any commonwealth can dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure. The prince or senate can never have a power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the subjects property without their own consent; for this would be in effect to have no property at all.” – This is the reasoning of that great and good man. And is not our own case exactly described by him? Hath not the British parliament made an act to take a part of our property against our consent? Against our repeated submissive petitions and humble representations of the hardship of it? Is not the act daily executed in every colony? If therefore the preservation of property is the very end of government, we are depriv’d of that for which government itself is instituted. – Tis true, says Mr. Locke, “Government cannot be supported without great charge; and tis fit that every one who enjoys a share in the protection should pay his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with their own consent, given by themselves or their representatives.” Chronus will not say that the monies that are every day paid at the custom-houses in America for the express purpose of maintaining all or any of the Governors therein, were rais’d with the consent of those who pay them, given by themselves or their representatives – “If any one, adds Mr. Locke, shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his own authority & without such consent of the people, he thereby subverts the end of government.”

Thank you to all who are subscribers to the program. Please share the newsletter and subscribe to the Rumble or YouTube channel.

References:

1. See the American Policy Center website for all the resource, articles and books.

This Weeks News Articles Resources

1. Meet the Thought Policeby CJ Hopkins

2. Increasing Psychopathic Behavior Is A Sign That Society Is On The Verge Of Breaking Down – by BY TYLER DURDEN

3. How Moderna Came Up With A Vaccine Against Vaccine Dissent – by Lee Fang Via RealClear Wire

4. DISCUSS: Davos 2024 Gets Underway

5. Global War on Food and Dissent: Renewed Farmer Agitation in India Amid Crackdown on Media Freedom – by Colin Todhunter

6. Using Force Against Mexican Drug Cartels: Domestic and International Law Issues – by Ashley Deeks, Matthew Waxman

7. Elections will soon be a quaint relec of the past, says globalist Klaus Schwab, who points to AI as the coming King of Democracy

Interested in Historical Truth?

Sign up to receive awesome content, every week.

Comments Off on Episode 430: Tom DeWeese Interview – ESG and Property Rights

Filed under Radio Program Archives

Comments are closed.