While the State is a pernicious and coercive collectivist concept, the "nation" may be and generally is voluntary. The nation properly refers, not to the State, but to the entire web of culture, values, traditions, religion, and language in which the individuals of a society are raised. It is almost embarrassingly banal to emphasize that point, but apparently many libertarians aggressively overlook the obvious. let us never forget the great libertarian Randolph Bourne's analysis of the crucial distinction between "the nation" (the land, the culture, the terrain, the people) and "the State" (the coercive apparatus of bureaucrats and politicians), and of his important conclusion that one may be a true patriot of one's nation or country while- and even for that very reason- opposing the State that rules over it.
(from The Irrepressible Rothbard)
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Monday, February 07, 2005
Freedom and Coercion
Freedom is the absence of government coercion
~ Dr. Ron Paul
Every time congress passes a new law no matter how seemingly noble or necessary liberty is restricted as a result. Everytime the federal government strikes down the consitution and violates the 4th Amendment freedom is eroded at its core. Do airport security screeners (read: federal agents) rummaging through your personal belongings in your bags come to mind anyone? That's why the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights. To limit the power of the government so that it won't be dangerous to the preexisting natural rights of the people. The word preexisting is important here. Natural rights are something we are born with. The government does not give me the right to free speech, or the right not to have my home searched against my will. Those rights were given to me by my Creator when I was born into this world. The government was instituted to protect those rights, nothing more. When I think of the U.S. government the way it exists today I am reminded of a quote from Thomas Jefferson stating, "government, big enough to give you everything you need, strong enough to take away everything you have."
Obviously most American's aren't ready for a third party just yet, or they would have voted for the libertarian party presidential candidate in much larger numbers in 2004. I happen to believe that the road to freedom is going to be won through the spread of ideas. So spread the good news of what freedom really has to offer. It offers a world of liberty and peace unknown to the current generation of Americans who have been living in a state of siege under the big government Bush administration.
~ Dr. Ron Paul
Every time congress passes a new law no matter how seemingly noble or necessary liberty is restricted as a result. Everytime the federal government strikes down the consitution and violates the 4th Amendment freedom is eroded at its core. Do airport security screeners (read: federal agents) rummaging through your personal belongings in your bags come to mind anyone? That's why the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights. To limit the power of the government so that it won't be dangerous to the preexisting natural rights of the people. The word preexisting is important here. Natural rights are something we are born with. The government does not give me the right to free speech, or the right not to have my home searched against my will. Those rights were given to me by my Creator when I was born into this world. The government was instituted to protect those rights, nothing more. When I think of the U.S. government the way it exists today I am reminded of a quote from Thomas Jefferson stating, "government, big enough to give you everything you need, strong enough to take away everything you have."
Obviously most American's aren't ready for a third party just yet, or they would have voted for the libertarian party presidential candidate in much larger numbers in 2004. I happen to believe that the road to freedom is going to be won through the spread of ideas. So spread the good news of what freedom really has to offer. It offers a world of liberty and peace unknown to the current generation of Americans who have been living in a state of siege under the big government Bush administration.
Deadly Force
It occurred to me tonight that so many Americans still have absolutely no concept that government is backed up by deadly force. The government funds all of its activities through taxes. Taxes are not paid voluntarily by the people that fund the government. That money must be taken in the form of taxes. If the money that funds the government was paid voluntarily by the people then it would be called donations not taxes.
Now back to the deadly force part. This occurred to me when I was discussing the campaigning of politicians with a friend the other day. I told my friend that when a political candidate asks you for their vote, they are in fact asking you for the authority to use deadly force over the people to accomplish their goals. My friend laughed when I said the words deadly force. I asked my friend why they would laugh and explained that I was not joking. I don't know why most people just don't seem to understand the difference between the private sector, which is the voluntary sector and the public sector, which is the government sector, or the coercive sector.
I further explained to my friend that when a car dealership for example sells cars it must persuade people to come give it money in exchange for a car. By contrast when the government wants to build a new road or create some new program, you do not have the ability to say, "no thanks, I don't think I'm going to pay for that." See what happens when you stop paying your property taxes for a while. Eventually an agent from the IRS will contact you either by phone or in person giving you deadlines as to when you need to have your back taxes paid. If you do not pay by the deadline then the government will take your house from you. If you refuse to leave your property then the guns come out. Men with guns will come forcefully remove you from your property. If you attempt to resist the invaders you will be shot and killed. This is no joke and it does happen in America.
Now back to the deadly force part. This occurred to me when I was discussing the campaigning of politicians with a friend the other day. I told my friend that when a political candidate asks you for their vote, they are in fact asking you for the authority to use deadly force over the people to accomplish their goals. My friend laughed when I said the words deadly force. I asked my friend why they would laugh and explained that I was not joking. I don't know why most people just don't seem to understand the difference between the private sector, which is the voluntary sector and the public sector, which is the government sector, or the coercive sector.
I further explained to my friend that when a car dealership for example sells cars it must persuade people to come give it money in exchange for a car. By contrast when the government wants to build a new road or create some new program, you do not have the ability to say, "no thanks, I don't think I'm going to pay for that." See what happens when you stop paying your property taxes for a while. Eventually an agent from the IRS will contact you either by phone or in person giving you deadlines as to when you need to have your back taxes paid. If you do not pay by the deadline then the government will take your house from you. If you refuse to leave your property then the guns come out. Men with guns will come forcefully remove you from your property. If you attempt to resist the invaders you will be shot and killed. This is no joke and it does happen in America.
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Hardball
Tonight I was watching Hardball with Chris Matthews who was discussing President Bush's so called privatization of social security plan. The guests were of-course two partisan political hacks, one from the right and the other from the left. The leftist fellow was of-course arguing that to allow workers to take a small portion of the burdensome 15 percent social security tax and to invest that privately in the stock market would be disastrous for our elderly people, but most of all dangerous for "society." My favorite point came when host Chris Matthews, and I must give him props for this question, asked the democrat to consider a hypothetical scenario. The question asked was whether or not the democrat would have, given the opportunity at the age of eighteen to twenty something, kept his social security tax in the current system only to receive a 3 percent return at best, or invest a portion in a stock market fund where over his working life he might average as much a 10 to 15 percent. His response started off by stating that if he only cared about himself, then of-course he would have invested privately. He then went on to scare the older generation again and mutter famous leftist mantras about the good of society.
The point here is this, leftists have zero respect for THE INDIVIDUAL. And when I speak of leftists I am speaking of 99.9 percent of politicians, republicans included. The new right is only right by name. They are very left according to historical standards. The politicians love to talk in terms of groups i.e.: blacks, women, minorities, upper class, lower class, white collar, blue collar, etc. The worst nightmare of the left would be for individuals to storm Washington demanding their lost individual rights back. The politicians have taken those rights and turned them over to the collective i.e.: social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, corporate welfare, etc. The politicians need for those various groups to be dependent on the state for their every desire. That is how they can ensure their reelection year after year after year. The reason the politicians classify people into groups is because groups are easier to control and lead than individuals. What the left, and 98 percent of the new right for that matter, fail to realize is that the more freedom individuals have to look out for themselves, the more prosperous most people will become. One important aspect about the new right is that they pay lip service to individual rights and smaller government during election season, but they never walk the walk once elected. As the dominant party in Washington they hardly talk of shrinking the size of government any more. Which goes to prove one point. They will say what they need to say to get elected, but once in power they will use that power to pursue their hidden agendas.
When people are free to pursue their own free will and do something that they do best, the division of labor is most balanced and resources are allocated in the best manner possible. Free will creates prosperity. That is how the U.S. became the most prosperous nation in the world. The government was very weak and small in the beginning of our history and it allowed people to conduct their lives in a manner consistent with their own beliefs and values.
Is the president's plan for social security good for the advancement of liberty? It appears to be a step in the right direction, but if it passes it will probably end up causing more destruction than prosperity simply because the government will be administering it. In order for people to be able to retire with true 10 to 15 percent gains on their investment the government needs to get out of the retirement business and leave free will alone to run its course. I simply can't see how, given its track record, the government can fix this broken, fraudulant program called social security. The government can't elliminate poverty no matter how much money it dumps on that issue in its massive war on poverty that gets bigger every year. The government can't stop illegal drugs from coming into this country no matter how much money it dumps into that wortlhess war it has created costing more than just millions of dollars per year, but also the loss of thousands of innocent lives per year due to gang disputes over drug turf.
Will some people invest poorly and not have a nest egg to retire on. Yes, some will make foolish mistakes. However, if government did not take so much from the productive individuals, charities and non-profits would easily be able to fill the needs of the few who found themselves in dire straits. Americans are already the most generous people probably in the history of the planet. If the average American did not have almost half of his income seized by the government each year, he would be free to help out his family members, friends, or neighbors in a time of need, or donate to his church or favorite charity in a way he has never been able to do before. That is the kind of America I am optomistic I will see in my lifetime.
The point here is this, leftists have zero respect for THE INDIVIDUAL. And when I speak of leftists I am speaking of 99.9 percent of politicians, republicans included. The new right is only right by name. They are very left according to historical standards. The politicians love to talk in terms of groups i.e.: blacks, women, minorities, upper class, lower class, white collar, blue collar, etc. The worst nightmare of the left would be for individuals to storm Washington demanding their lost individual rights back. The politicians have taken those rights and turned them over to the collective i.e.: social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, corporate welfare, etc. The politicians need for those various groups to be dependent on the state for their every desire. That is how they can ensure their reelection year after year after year. The reason the politicians classify people into groups is because groups are easier to control and lead than individuals. What the left, and 98 percent of the new right for that matter, fail to realize is that the more freedom individuals have to look out for themselves, the more prosperous most people will become. One important aspect about the new right is that they pay lip service to individual rights and smaller government during election season, but they never walk the walk once elected. As the dominant party in Washington they hardly talk of shrinking the size of government any more. Which goes to prove one point. They will say what they need to say to get elected, but once in power they will use that power to pursue their hidden agendas.
When people are free to pursue their own free will and do something that they do best, the division of labor is most balanced and resources are allocated in the best manner possible. Free will creates prosperity. That is how the U.S. became the most prosperous nation in the world. The government was very weak and small in the beginning of our history and it allowed people to conduct their lives in a manner consistent with their own beliefs and values.
Is the president's plan for social security good for the advancement of liberty? It appears to be a step in the right direction, but if it passes it will probably end up causing more destruction than prosperity simply because the government will be administering it. In order for people to be able to retire with true 10 to 15 percent gains on their investment the government needs to get out of the retirement business and leave free will alone to run its course. I simply can't see how, given its track record, the government can fix this broken, fraudulant program called social security. The government can't elliminate poverty no matter how much money it dumps on that issue in its massive war on poverty that gets bigger every year. The government can't stop illegal drugs from coming into this country no matter how much money it dumps into that wortlhess war it has created costing more than just millions of dollars per year, but also the loss of thousands of innocent lives per year due to gang disputes over drug turf.
Will some people invest poorly and not have a nest egg to retire on. Yes, some will make foolish mistakes. However, if government did not take so much from the productive individuals, charities and non-profits would easily be able to fill the needs of the few who found themselves in dire straits. Americans are already the most generous people probably in the history of the planet. If the average American did not have almost half of his income seized by the government each year, he would be free to help out his family members, friends, or neighbors in a time of need, or donate to his church or favorite charity in a way he has never been able to do before. That is the kind of America I am optomistic I will see in my lifetime.
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Who or What is he?
If he didn’t know that his plan to "liberate" people who hadn’t asked to be liberated, to bring democracy to people who hadn’t asked for democracy, would lead to the deaths of thousands of people, he is not only incompetent and unfit to hold office, he is surely psychopathic and needs to be incarcerated.
Only a psychopath would stand in the midst of thousands of security guards and speak of "the force of human freedom."
Only a man so insulated from the real world by palace sycophants, by little Napoleons filled with utopian fantasies, and by callous, ambitious schemers to whom the lives of others mean nothing – only a man so insulated could possibly speak of "the expansion of freedom in all the world."
Only a man with no link to reality could start a war that destroys lives and families and then say, "Every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth."
Only a snake oil salesman can rain missiles and bombs on other countries and then say that no "human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies."
Only a man divorced from human reason can imprison people – possibly for life – without due process of law and then say that "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."
Only a liar can proclaim that he will decide which countries must be remade and then say, "No one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave."
Only a devious schemer can announce a goal of "ending tyranny in our world" while he is imposing a new tyranny in his own country – our country.
So you tell me: what kind of a President do we have?
And what has he given us other than wars, fear, and a state of siege?
-Harry Browne
Only a psychopath would stand in the midst of thousands of security guards and speak of "the force of human freedom."
Only a man so insulated from the real world by palace sycophants, by little Napoleons filled with utopian fantasies, and by callous, ambitious schemers to whom the lives of others mean nothing – only a man so insulated could possibly speak of "the expansion of freedom in all the world."
Only a man with no link to reality could start a war that destroys lives and families and then say, "Every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth."
Only a snake oil salesman can rain missiles and bombs on other countries and then say that no "human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies."
Only a man divorced from human reason can imprison people – possibly for life – without due process of law and then say that "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."
Only a liar can proclaim that he will decide which countries must be remade and then say, "No one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave."
Only a devious schemer can announce a goal of "ending tyranny in our world" while he is imposing a new tyranny in his own country – our country.
So you tell me: what kind of a President do we have?
And what has he given us other than wars, fear, and a state of siege?
-Harry Browne
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Is there a problem with freedom?
Should the fact that if I become injured by not wearing a seatbelt or sick from eating and smoking too much, and become a burden on taxpayers, determine whether I'm free to not wear a seatbelt or puff cigarettes and gorge myself? Is there a problem with freedom? I say no, it's a problem of socialism. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO MORAL CASE FOR GOVERNMENT'S TAKING ANOTHER AMERICAN'S EARNINGS, THROUGH TAXES, TO CARE FOR ME FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER. Dosing so is simply a slightly less ofensive form of slavery. Keep in mind that the essence of slavery is the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes or benefit of another.
-Walter Williams
-Walter Williams
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
The Bush Tax Cuts
Many conservative friends of mine support president Bush and the Republican party based on values and the tax cuts passed by the Bush administration. It really is sad that very few of the issues dealing with values, i.e. gay marriage will actually be dealt with this year by congress. What will happen this year will be the passage of more and more government programs and more and more spending to fund these new and bigger programs. To my conservative friends I say that the tax cuts MEAN NOTHING IF THE SPENDING DOES NOT STOP! Because the money for the spending must come from somewhere if not through direct taxes, then through the hidden inflation tax of the government printing press. When the government prints money to pay for its' boondoggles it devalues all the money held by everyone. This is one of the dirty little secrets of the new right. They will give a puny tax cut here and there, but they will continue to spend like a drunken sailor running up huge deficits and inflating the money supply so as to debase all the dollars held by everyone. This hurts primarily the poor and middle class. Yes, inflation is caused by government. They cause inflation simply by inflating the money supply. President Bush is no small government conservative, he is a big government, taxing conservative who thinks he can live your life for you better than you can. So I ask you who owns your body? You or presidend Bush? More on that later.
Friday, November 19, 2004
Government Schools
I must say that the reason I claim to know what you were taught in government schools is because I was likewise educated in government schools. I don't know why my parents allowed me to be educated by the government, but they did and as a result I will try my hardest to keep my child or children out of the hands of the government for his or her education. Why in the world would anyone send their kids to the government to be educated? What type of marketing/survival skills could possibly be taught by an organisation that relys on force and fraud to survive? Answer: none at all. Since the government needs the people to be dependent on it in order to ensure its' own future, it needs people to be stupid and worthless when it comes to competing in the market place. Why in the world would the government want teach you that your can enter the market place and rise as high as your determination permits when the government has everthing to lose from that idea. Governments need a citizenry that is dependent upon them for their every need in order to remain legitimate in the eyes of the people. If the people realize that they can manage their own affairs without government infringement on their lives then they will withdraw their consent from the government and finally realize true liberty.
Thinking of Government
A simple way to think of government is to consider government as any other business or organization. There is only one exception that separates the government from every other business. Can you guess what that exception that happens to be. FORCE. Yes, only the government has the ability to use force to accomplish its' goals. All businesses in the private sector must use different types of marketing techniques to persuade individuals to conduct business with them. Only government can use force in the market place to conduct its' business. Force to generate revenues through taxes imposed upon the individual whether he or she consents to the tax or not. This is a very important concept to graspt. The private sector is the voluntary sector, while the public (read: government) sector is the coercive sector.
This may be a point of view you have never heard of before. That is ok, this point of veiw is the non-statist view. Most of what you were taught in public (read: government) school was from a statist point of view.
This may be a point of view you have never heard of before. That is ok, this point of veiw is the non-statist view. Most of what you were taught in public (read: government) school was from a statist point of view.
"Constitutional Chaos"
I bought a really wonderfull book by Judge Andrew Napolitano called, "Constitutional Chaos." Judge Napolitano presents story after story about government agents repeatedly and habitually breaking the law and getting away with it. Police officers lying under oath to convict innocent people to jail. Narcotics agents creating crime where crime was difficult to find by falsely posing as private citizens and finding others to start up meth labs with, then only to turn around afterwords and arrest the individuals they entered into agreement with. That's right. In one particulare story a government agent knocks on an innocent man's door posing as someone who has the connections to get ahold of a very hard to get ingredient of methamphetamine. The man agrees to start up a lab with the help of the agent, of-course not knowing the man is working for the government. The agent from the government actually at one point aides in the process of making the drug and then buys some of the drug for himself. After this lab has been going for a few weeks the agent returns with other government agents to arrest the man for illegally make meth in his home. The lengths the government will go to in order to create crime, to create reason for more of their intruding agencies to exist is outrageous and must be stopped.
I reccomend this book to all who do not fear the U.S. government simply because thier personal rights have not yet been violated. The time to rise up is now not later, because by the time they come for you there may not be anyone else left to speak out against their (government's) wrongfull actions.
I reccomend this book to all who do not fear the U.S. government simply because thier personal rights have not yet been violated. The time to rise up is now not later, because by the time they come for you there may not be anyone else left to speak out against their (government's) wrongfull actions.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
I think the population in the country lack character out of ignorance. They don’t know anything differently. They think what is, is what was supposed to happen. They think the government is supposed to take care of them. Give me a house if I need it. Give me food stamps if I need them. Give me medical care if I need it. They are not deliberately evil. They have lost their way, lost their concern and lost their character.
It is felt that if someone needs something, they can get help from government. They never ask the question who in thunder is the government! They assume that government has that money to give. They separate the government from where the source of the wealth comes from and that, of course, is the people who do things, and produce things. The government is nothing more than some group that is stealing from the producers. They are willing to use government to steal and think it is proper.
- Dr. Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/johnston6.html
It is felt that if someone needs something, they can get help from government. They never ask the question who in thunder is the government! They assume that government has that money to give. They separate the government from where the source of the wealth comes from and that, of course, is the people who do things, and produce things. The government is nothing more than some group that is stealing from the producers. They are willing to use government to steal and think it is proper.
- Dr. Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/johnston6.html
Thursday, October 14, 2004
The Republicrats and the Two party Monopoly
My favorite line, and I'm paraphrasing here, "listening to President Bush talk about fiscal responsibility is like listening to Tony Soprano talk about law and order," said John Kerry. I got a great laugh out of that coming from the so called most liberal senator in Washington. Of-course he is absolutely, positively 100% right. Mr. Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill passed by congress. Government has grown about more under 4 years of the Bush administration than under all 8 year of Clinton. When is the GOP going to actually live up to its' failed promises if smaller government and stop wealing and dealing our rights away? When are they going to fullfill Ronald Reagons promise to abolish the Department of Education and the Department of Energy? Those are just a couple of examples of empty promises, bait and switch tactics, to hook the voters into supporting and endorsing them. Both parties are equally guilty of trying harder each year to run your life for you. They do not believe you are responsible enought to take care of your own affairs, to be free from your families biggest burdon... TAXES. The American people live in slavery disguised as freedom. Most Americans working the first four months of the year just to pay for our overbloated big government before they can beging working for themselves is all the evidence you need to know we are slaves of the government. Should you decide to not pay your taxes, you will see what happens. Eventually the guns will come out. Men with guns from the government will come to take you away. You are a slave. Don't get me wrong about America. We still live in the freest society perhaps in the world and we are all very lucky to be here, but what is going on in other parts of the world is not the stick with which I use to measure the freedoms we are losing over here.
On election day I see only two sensible choices. To send a message to the two party monopoly, a message that will really resonate with them. Vote libertarian or don't vote at all. Because if you vote for the two party monopoly, then you have no right to complain and the horrible things that they do will be done in your name with your stamp of apporval.
On election day I see only two sensible choices. To send a message to the two party monopoly, a message that will really resonate with them. Vote libertarian or don't vote at all. Because if you vote for the two party monopoly, then you have no right to complain and the horrible things that they do will be done in your name with your stamp of apporval.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Debate Round 2: Who can best controll your life?
I wish for one second that candidates would speak the truth. Just for one question I wish they would say, "Charlie, in this particular area I would be the best man to dominate, intimidate, and control the lives of the American people." Why don't they speak honestly to the viewers and forget about the same old mantras we keep hearing over and over again. If I was able to ask a question at that town hall style debate tonight, I would have simply asked either man what qualified him to run my life instead of me. By what right, by what standard does he claim ownership over my body? Too listen to George Bush talk about apointing justices that would uphold the Constitution was laughable. Mr. Patriot Act I and II. John Kerry came out swinging against the Patriot Act, then admitted to voting for it, then claimed it was necessary for our security all within the confines of the same thought. A little known fact among the sheeple is that all members of congress who voted for the Patriot Act voted for it before reading a single word in it. Of-course that kind of business in Washington has become commonplace. The Constitution has become a document that "lives and breathes" (read: doesn't really matter any more).
Friday, October 01, 2004
Democracy
We’ve been taught to believe democracy is synonymous with liberty; the truth is they aren’t always compatible. Democracy is based on majority-rule, which, ultimately, amounts to mob-rule. I can’t hope to explain this any better than Jonah Goldberg, who wrote that, “in its purest form,” democracy means “51 percent of the people can pee in the cornflakes of 49 percent of the people.”
In other words, majority-rule means the rights and opinions of those in the minority can be tossed in the garbage like so many hanging chads before them—all in the name of the greater whole. And when I refer to “those in the minority,” I don’t necessarily mean ethnic minorities, though that’s certainly one example. But I am also talking about economic minorities here—rich and poor alike. And I am talking about any other types of minorities you can think of. It doesn’t really matter which group you choose. When I say “those in the minority,” it even includes those in the majority who are forced to cater to those in the minority—which is where political correctness often comes in.
http://www.readjdm.com/main/jdm/more/195/
In other words, majority-rule means the rights and opinions of those in the minority can be tossed in the garbage like so many hanging chads before them—all in the name of the greater whole. And when I refer to “those in the minority,” I don’t necessarily mean ethnic minorities, though that’s certainly one example. But I am also talking about economic minorities here—rich and poor alike. And I am talking about any other types of minorities you can think of. It doesn’t really matter which group you choose. When I say “those in the minority,” it even includes those in the majority who are forced to cater to those in the minority—which is where political correctness often comes in.
http://www.readjdm.com/main/jdm/more/195/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
