Time to start thinking about getting off the grid.
The Gunslinger
Joebama American citizens 2024 print
2 years ago
Showing posts with label Liberty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberty. Show all posts
Friday, March 23, 2012
British Progressive Society
Check this out. You'd better duct tape your head before you do....to keep it from exploding all over the place. Messy.
Who the fuck ARE these people?
Coming to (or already at) a government school near you. Get your children OUT of there!
I'm starting to think the best thing we can do to insure a free future is start our own private schools. All the smart politics in the world will not succeed if the people are stupid, psychologically damaged, ill-educated, dependent sheep.
The Gunslinger
Who the fuck ARE these people?
Coming to (or already at) a government school near you. Get your children OUT of there!
I'm starting to think the best thing we can do to insure a free future is start our own private schools. All the smart politics in the world will not succeed if the people are stupid, psychologically damaged, ill-educated, dependent sheep.
The Gunslinger
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Labels of Defeat
Do Republicans need another lesson, a refresher on what "Conservative" means?
Sigh.
Rick Santorum wants to use the power of the State to banish pornography from the Internet.
How is it possible that he thinks that is a "Conservative" position?
Oh, yeah...because idiots like him, every Liberal, "journalist"—and most English dictionaries—define "conservative" as...
"straight-laced"
"intolerant"
"boring"
"traditional"
"repressed"
"uninspired"
"old-fashioned"
"hide-bound"
"unadventurous"
"stick-in-the-mud"
"restrained"
"plain"
"low-key"
"demure"
"moderate"
"buttoned-down"
"understated"
"cautious"
"conventional"
"conformist"
"reactionary"
You can't fix that. That's why we need another word for it. "Libertarian", as much as it is tainted by some pretty silly notions about foreign policy, etc. is still a better word for what "Conservatives" actually are: Believers in small, limited government and maximum liberty for the individual.
It's going to be a lot easier to rehabilitate the term Libertarian than redefine Conservative, trust me.
When I tell people I'm a Conservative, they almost always assume I'm a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, a hardcore Christian believer in Creationism who wants to reinstitute Slavery and force all women to get pregnant every time they have sex. They further assume I play golf at the country club, and would walk over starving children on the street to get to my limousine.
They are conditioned to hate me immediately. (I live on the San Francisco Peninsula).
When I say I am a Libertarian, they don't blink an eye, they nod and smile, because they seem somehow to know that Libertarians don't want to use the power of government to control them.
They feel we can peacefully co-exist...they're response is mild and open. We can talk. I have a chance to convince them of the righteousness of small, limited government. They will listen to me.
This may not be true everywhere, I really am in the Belly of the Beast...but with the persistent and ubiquitous biased MSM reportage, it must eventually get just as confusing elsewhere.
Of course it's stupid, wrong, erroneous and ridiculous. But it is what it is. And we can spend all our time pushing that rock up the hill trying to change everyone's perception of "Conservative"...or we can start identifying ourselves with a term that more properly defines who we are, and what we stand for, and what we believe in.
We really have to get a handle on this, because it limits our ability to get our message across...one that Liberals are actually open to as long as they don't think we are like them—prepared to use the guns of the State to force our diktats down the throats of our fellow citizens.
Rick Santorum calls himself a Conservative, but when he talks of banning pornography...he's just a Liberal in a grey suit.
And I don't trust him.
The Gunslinger
Sigh.
Rick Santorum wants to use the power of the State to banish pornography from the Internet.
How is it possible that he thinks that is a "Conservative" position?
Oh, yeah...because idiots like him, every Liberal, "journalist"—and most English dictionaries—define "conservative" as...
"straight-laced"
"intolerant"
"boring"
"traditional"
"repressed"
"uninspired"
"old-fashioned"
"hide-bound"
"unadventurous"
"stick-in-the-mud"
"restrained"
"plain"
"low-key"
"demure"
"moderate"
"buttoned-down"
"understated"
"cautious"
"conventional"
"conformist"
"reactionary"
You can't fix that. That's why we need another word for it. "Libertarian", as much as it is tainted by some pretty silly notions about foreign policy, etc. is still a better word for what "Conservatives" actually are: Believers in small, limited government and maximum liberty for the individual.
It's going to be a lot easier to rehabilitate the term Libertarian than redefine Conservative, trust me.
When I tell people I'm a Conservative, they almost always assume I'm a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, a hardcore Christian believer in Creationism who wants to reinstitute Slavery and force all women to get pregnant every time they have sex. They further assume I play golf at the country club, and would walk over starving children on the street to get to my limousine.
They are conditioned to hate me immediately. (I live on the San Francisco Peninsula).
When I say I am a Libertarian, they don't blink an eye, they nod and smile, because they seem somehow to know that Libertarians don't want to use the power of government to control them.
They feel we can peacefully co-exist...they're response is mild and open. We can talk. I have a chance to convince them of the righteousness of small, limited government. They will listen to me.
This may not be true everywhere, I really am in the Belly of the Beast...but with the persistent and ubiquitous biased MSM reportage, it must eventually get just as confusing elsewhere.
Of course it's stupid, wrong, erroneous and ridiculous. But it is what it is. And we can spend all our time pushing that rock up the hill trying to change everyone's perception of "Conservative"...or we can start identifying ourselves with a term that more properly defines who we are, and what we stand for, and what we believe in.
We really have to get a handle on this, because it limits our ability to get our message across...one that Liberals are actually open to as long as they don't think we are like them—prepared to use the guns of the State to force our diktats down the throats of our fellow citizens.
Rick Santorum calls himself a Conservative, but when he talks of banning pornography...he's just a Liberal in a grey suit.
And I don't trust him.
The Gunslinger
A 236-Year Run?
I know it's blogs like this where you find the apocalyptic conversations and predictions...and there are a lot of very nice people (some of them are my friends) who just don't think any of that is likely, feasible or probable. They believe America will somehow muddle through as it always has, and the cycle will continue back around, or the pendulum will swing back...or whatever metaphor is convenient.
But here's the deal:
When the Supreme Court takes on the Øbamacare forced-mandate-on-individual-citizens it will be the critical moment for America.
If the SCOTUS decides that the mandate is unconstitutional, we're cool. Øbamacare falls apart and we return to some semblance of normalcy.
But, if they decide that it is legal, WE ARE SCREWED. And the SCOTUS will have abandoned the Constitution, the Rule of Law, Freedom, The Founders, and the Idea of America.
And the United States of America will be over. Dead. Done. Kaput.
If the government can mandate that you must buy healthcare, simply because you are alive, it can force you to do anything it wants, using the same argument: (1) it is good for the collective or (2) it is good for the individual.
Once that power is claimed by the State, individuals will have no defense against it on any ground whatever.
Every one of our civil rights will have been stripped away in one fell swoop.
By that reasoning, religion, speech, gathering, due process, gun rights will all be subject to the determination of the State as to whether they are "good for the collective" or "good for the individual"... and will be permitted or forbidden as decided by the whim or preference of our masters.
Others will make more refined arguments using fine points of law, and will no doubt understand them far better than I do, but that will not alter the fact that once the State can force you to buy something just because it wants to...it can do whatever the hell it wants by using the exact same reasoning...and legal precedent will have been set for the end of liberty and the flowering of tyranny.
On that day SCOTUS decides this one case, America will survive or America will die.
Yeah, it's that important.
The Gunslinger
But here's the deal:
When the Supreme Court takes on the Øbamacare forced-mandate-on-individual-citizens it will be the critical moment for America.
If the SCOTUS decides that the mandate is unconstitutional, we're cool. Øbamacare falls apart and we return to some semblance of normalcy.
But, if they decide that it is legal, WE ARE SCREWED. And the SCOTUS will have abandoned the Constitution, the Rule of Law, Freedom, The Founders, and the Idea of America.
And the United States of America will be over. Dead. Done. Kaput.
If the government can mandate that you must buy healthcare, simply because you are alive, it can force you to do anything it wants, using the same argument: (1) it is good for the collective or (2) it is good for the individual.
Once that power is claimed by the State, individuals will have no defense against it on any ground whatever.
Every one of our civil rights will have been stripped away in one fell swoop.
By that reasoning, religion, speech, gathering, due process, gun rights will all be subject to the determination of the State as to whether they are "good for the collective" or "good for the individual"... and will be permitted or forbidden as decided by the whim or preference of our masters.
Others will make more refined arguments using fine points of law, and will no doubt understand them far better than I do, but that will not alter the fact that once the State can force you to buy something just because it wants to...it can do whatever the hell it wants by using the exact same reasoning...and legal precedent will have been set for the end of liberty and the flowering of tyranny.
On that day SCOTUS decides this one case, America will survive or America will die.
Yeah, it's that important.
The Gunslinger
Friday, March 02, 2012
I Love Ms. Smith
...not her real name :-)
She's even more paranoid than I am. Calls herself the Privacy and Security Fanatic.
Check her out.
The Gunslinger
She's even more paranoid than I am. Calls herself the Privacy and Security Fanatic.
Check her out.
The Gunslinger
Monday, October 31, 2011
He Didn't Just Make Beer!
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams
(I submit that as used here, "wealth" means "government handout", which parallels "servitude" in the next clause. Loving wealth, in general, is not antithetical to Liberty! And all our Founders knew that.)
The Gunslinger
Are We Still This Man?
"And when at last this rebellion compelled the British Government to use the only power that any Government has -- force, used with general consent -- and British troops moved into Boston to restore order, Americans did not consent. They stood up and fought the British Regulars.
"One man began that war. And who knows his name?
"He was a farmer, asleep in his bed, when someone pounded on his door and shouted in the night, 'The troops are coming!'
"What could he do against the King's troops? One man. If he had been the King, that would have been different; then he could have done great things. Then he could have set everything to rights, he could have made everyone good and prosperous and happy, he could have changed the course of history. But he was not a King, not a Royal Governor, not a rich man, not even prosperous, not important at all, not even known outside the neighborhood. What could he do? What was the use of his trying to do anything? One man, even a few men, can not stand against the King's troops. He had a wife and children to think of; what would become of them, if he acted like a fool?
"Most men had better sense; most men knew they could do nothing and they stayed in bed, that night in Lexington. But one man got up. He put on his clothes and took his gun and went out to meet the King's troops. He was one man who did not consent to a control which he knew did not exist.
"The fight on the road to Lexington did not defeat the British troops. What that man did was to fire a shot heard around the world, and still heard...
"That shot was the first sound of a common man's voice that the Old World ever heard. For the first time in all history, an individual spoke, an ordinary man, unknown, unimportant, disregarded, without rank, without power, without influence.
"Not acting under orders, not led, but standing on his own feet, acting from his own will, responsible, self-controlling, he fired on the King's troops. He defied a world-empire.
"The sound of that shot said: Government has no power but force; it can not control any man.
"No one knows who began the American Revolution. Only his neighbors ever knew him, and no one now remembers any of them. He was an unknown man, an individual, the only force that can ever defend freedom."
-- from THE DISCOVERY OF FREEDOM: Man's Struggle Against Authority by Rose Wilder Lane, daughter of, and secretary to, Laura Ingalls Wilder, and powerful thinker in her own right THE DISCOVERY OF FREEDOM was voted among the top 100 non-fiction books of the 20th Century in the Modern Library readers' poll, with hundreds of thousands of votes cast, once posted HERE.
"One man began that war. And who knows his name?
"He was a farmer, asleep in his bed, when someone pounded on his door and shouted in the night, 'The troops are coming!'
"What could he do against the King's troops? One man. If he had been the King, that would have been different; then he could have done great things. Then he could have set everything to rights, he could have made everyone good and prosperous and happy, he could have changed the course of history. But he was not a King, not a Royal Governor, not a rich man, not even prosperous, not important at all, not even known outside the neighborhood. What could he do? What was the use of his trying to do anything? One man, even a few men, can not stand against the King's troops. He had a wife and children to think of; what would become of them, if he acted like a fool?
"Most men had better sense; most men knew they could do nothing and they stayed in bed, that night in Lexington. But one man got up. He put on his clothes and took his gun and went out to meet the King's troops. He was one man who did not consent to a control which he knew did not exist.
"The fight on the road to Lexington did not defeat the British troops. What that man did was to fire a shot heard around the world, and still heard...
"That shot was the first sound of a common man's voice that the Old World ever heard. For the first time in all history, an individual spoke, an ordinary man, unknown, unimportant, disregarded, without rank, without power, without influence.
"Not acting under orders, not led, but standing on his own feet, acting from his own will, responsible, self-controlling, he fired on the King's troops. He defied a world-empire.
"The sound of that shot said: Government has no power but force; it can not control any man.
"No one knows who began the American Revolution. Only his neighbors ever knew him, and no one now remembers any of them. He was an unknown man, an individual, the only force that can ever defend freedom."
-- from THE DISCOVERY OF FREEDOM: Man's Struggle Against Authority by Rose Wilder Lane, daughter of, and secretary to, Laura Ingalls Wilder, and powerful thinker in her own right THE DISCOVERY OF FREEDOM was voted among the top 100 non-fiction books of the 20th Century in the Modern Library readers' poll, with hundreds of thousands of votes cast, once posted HERE.
Friday, October 28, 2011
A Rant...
I wrote this in a huff...to someone who continues to play the "party" game, where membership in a political party is more important than the survival of the nation:
Not bad for an angry rant, if I do say so myself.
The Gunslinger
It really isn’t about Republicans and Democrats, gentlemen. Both can be, are, and have been anti-American, big-government, greedy, fat-cat idiots.
It’s about Conservative/Libertarian, i.e., small, constitutionally limited government, versus big-government & their crony fat-cat corporate blood-suckers (of whatever persuasion)...using government to benefit themselves at the expense of others.
It is unfettered POWER of government gone amok that is the problem. And THAT is what is wrong with Obama and all his “progressive” minions...and other liberal idiots. They, BY DEFINITION, see government as a tool they can control and use to their own benefit, and punish those they disagree with.
Conservatives/Libertarians understand that as George Washington said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
There are, no doubt, Republicans who would like to use big government to advance their personal/social/religious/monetary agendas. That is antithetical to Conservatism. Conservatives—whether Democrat or Republican—are, BY DEFINITION, against any government grown beyond the limits delineated by the Constitution.
That is the ground we have to fight on...between those that believe government is the solution....and those that know government is the PROBLEM.
The government needs to get out of the pockets of ALL Americans. It needs to stop taking the rightful property of those that earn it...whether rich, poor, middle-class, Republican or Democrat.
It isn’t about what letter is after your name. It’s about whether you want to be a free citizen or a serf.
And ALL Americans used to know that.
Not bad for an angry rant, if I do say so myself.
The Gunslinger
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Food for Thought
I didn't cook it, I just serve it here as a public service:
This is important because the SCOTUS will either affirm our individual rights against a tyrannical government, or consign us to servitude, depending on how they rule on Obamacare and the "individual mandage" Because, if the Federal Government can make you buy medical coverage, they can pretty much make you do anything.
Will we have Freedom Affirmed or will we have Revolution? I think those are the only rational alternatives. I don't know about you, but for me, slavery is not an option.
The Gunslinger
We have certainly centralized from the Federal system originally envisioned by the Framers. But I don't think one can completely blame the Court for that. The nation made a deliberate decision in the wake of the calamatous Civil War to change our institutions from a more decentralized union of States to a national Republic. That was the clear import of the Amendments enacted to the Constitution in the Antebellum period. The 13th through 15th Amendments took away the states' powers to deny any of their citizens rights that were viewed as "national" rights; the 16th gave broad new taxation powers to the national government; the 17th specifically removed from state legislatures the power to name Senators, who would be more indebted to state interests. All of these were deliberate efforts to forge a unified national government.
One can bemoan the trend, but it's hard to blame on the Court. In its further defense, the current Court has been moving steadily toward an envigoration of state power vis-a-vis the federal government, but the antebellum amendments will prove a check on returning the balance to its original design.
This is important because the SCOTUS will either affirm our individual rights against a tyrannical government, or consign us to servitude, depending on how they rule on Obamacare and the "individual mandage" Because, if the Federal Government can make you buy medical coverage, they can pretty much make you do anything.
Will we have Freedom Affirmed or will we have Revolution? I think those are the only rational alternatives. I don't know about you, but for me, slavery is not an option.
The Gunslinger
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Liberty & Libertarianism
I've been trying to get my "conservative" friends to understand this point for some time. I don't think I'm a Conservative. And I don't think the Tea Party movement is a Conservative one. I think, like Reagan, that what we call libertarianism is at the heart of our politics...and at the root of the Founders' vision.
The Gunslinger
“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer, just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals…The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
—President Ronald Reagan
The Gunslinger
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Seeing Through You: DHS & TSA
Hiding might be the hardest part!
Good God, y'all! Can we immediately defund these two agencies? I'd rather have buildings bombed than these guys running roughshod over the rights of the people.
This is serious Big Brother here.
Big Government = No Liberty
The Gunslinger
Good God, y'all! Can we immediately defund these two agencies? I'd rather have buildings bombed than these guys running roughshod over the rights of the people.
This is serious Big Brother here.
Big Government = No Liberty
The Gunslinger
Asshole Anti Gay Bigots Win
One observation I hope I don't have to explain:
They are not the defenders of decency. They should be the defenders of Liberty, as nastily as that can manifest itself.
Eight to one....good on them!
Now we just have to figure out a legal way to fuck those bastards up good.
Of course, I am NOT advocating violence. That would just be wrong.
How 'bout we start by refusing to identify them as any sort of "Church", Baptist or otherwise?
"Drooling Inbred Scumbags" might be a more reasonable moniker.
Now we just have to figure out a legal way to fuck those bastards up good.
Of course, I am NOT advocating violence. That would just be wrong.
How 'bout we start by refusing to identify them as any sort of "Church", Baptist or otherwise?
"Drooling Inbred Scumbags" might be a more reasonable moniker.
The Gunslinger
Friday, November 19, 2010
Creating Popular Culture
I live in California. The only state to go "blue" in the 2010 elections....that is, the Democrats actually INCREASED their numbers in the legislature, and the rehash bad acid trip that was the first Jerry Brown governorship, has been vomited all over us yet again.
Nicely played Meg. Not much of a surprise there. Seriously. Could there have been a less impressive candidate? The longer she talked the worse she got.
Like the man said, why go for Liberal Light....when you can have the real thing.
California is Detroit.
California is a battered wife.
California has Stockholm Syndrome
All those are true. But the real deal is that Liberals everywhere have been fooled by the simple expedient of the Left switching Labels and convincing Liberals to buy into the lie hard enough that they never questions the stupidity of it.
Here's what I mean.
Picture your bathtub faucets. One handle is labelled "HOT" the other "COLD".
Now...imagine those labels switched so that the HOT label is over the cold tap, and vice versa.
Now, further imagine that you have been told, since you were in kindergarten, by Left wing teachers, Hollywood and television that you can only get nice hot water from the tap labelled HOT...and that horrible nasty freezing water is all that comes out of the tap labelled COLD.
Now...when you turn on the tap labelled HOT...considering it's actually the cold water tap, obviously, only cold water is going to come out. But you have been consistently and unremittingly brainwashed into believing that the tap labelled COLD will only give you even colder water, so you never, never, never even try it.
Now, if you could be convinced to just try turning on the tap labelled COLD, you'd find that it was really HOT water....and that the labels had just been switched just to fool you, and you'd find that the label COLD in actual practice - in the real world - was good, warm and toasty, and just what you always wanted, while that knob labelled HOT that you always defaulted to, even though it never really gave you what you really wanted....was always big fat intentional lie!
That's what's going on with most of our Liberal bretheren.
Most of them believe in freedom, they've just been convinced by the Left that the Left is the defender and preserver of freedom.
And they've further trashed the real defenders of freedom so that most Liberals won't even give us a listen; they've been trained to believe that we are enemies of freedom.
And that is our problem.
When you talk to liberals, they go on about "FREEDOM", and believe the Right is all about curbing it. It's a shocking realization to hear them.
Yes, it's true that they generally mistake "libertinism" for "liberty", and when they talk about "Freedom" they almost always mean Gay Marriage, Abortion, and Legalizing Pot. (Sex, drugs and Rock & Roll)
But the point is, they DO value freedom, and it's our job to use that knowledge to drag them to the Dark Side because we learn to speak their language, understand their confusion, and clarify it for them in a way they can accept and understand.
I'm considering getting a tattoo...
More...
The Gunslinger
(Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll)
Nicely played Meg. Not much of a surprise there. Seriously. Could there have been a less impressive candidate? The longer she talked the worse she got.
Like the man said, why go for Liberal Light....when you can have the real thing.
California is Detroit.
California is a battered wife.
California has Stockholm Syndrome
All those are true. But the real deal is that Liberals everywhere have been fooled by the simple expedient of the Left switching Labels and convincing Liberals to buy into the lie hard enough that they never questions the stupidity of it.
Here's what I mean.
Picture your bathtub faucets. One handle is labelled "HOT" the other "COLD".
Now...imagine those labels switched so that the HOT label is over the cold tap, and vice versa.
Now, further imagine that you have been told, since you were in kindergarten, by Left wing teachers, Hollywood and television that you can only get nice hot water from the tap labelled HOT...and that horrible nasty freezing water is all that comes out of the tap labelled COLD.
Now...when you turn on the tap labelled HOT...considering it's actually the cold water tap, obviously, only cold water is going to come out. But you have been consistently and unremittingly brainwashed into believing that the tap labelled COLD will only give you even colder water, so you never, never, never even try it.
Now, if you could be convinced to just try turning on the tap labelled COLD, you'd find that it was really HOT water....and that the labels had just been switched just to fool you, and you'd find that the label COLD in actual practice - in the real world - was good, warm and toasty, and just what you always wanted, while that knob labelled HOT that you always defaulted to, even though it never really gave you what you really wanted....was always big fat intentional lie!
That's what's going on with most of our Liberal bretheren.
Most of them believe in freedom, they've just been convinced by the Left that the Left is the defender and preserver of freedom.
And they've further trashed the real defenders of freedom so that most Liberals won't even give us a listen; they've been trained to believe that we are enemies of freedom.
And that is our problem.
When you talk to liberals, they go on about "FREEDOM", and believe the Right is all about curbing it. It's a shocking realization to hear them.
Yes, it's true that they generally mistake "libertinism" for "liberty", and when they talk about "Freedom" they almost always mean Gay Marriage, Abortion, and Legalizing Pot. (Sex, drugs and Rock & Roll)
But the point is, they DO value freedom, and it's our job to use that knowledge to drag them to the Dark Side because we learn to speak their language, understand their confusion, and clarify it for them in a way they can accept and understand.
I'm considering getting a tattoo...
More...
The Gunslinger
(Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll)
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Humans and Freedom
During a long drive home last night from an event at which we heard Dick Armey and two of his gang at FreedomWorks speak (it was interesting...but mostly a book tour stop)...I mentioned to my friends that, "Liberty is the highest human value".
I said that other values like love, compassion, charity are NOT the highest, because without Liberty, they cannot be expressed properly.
You see, Love, Compassion, and Charity are not merely "feelings". They are behaviors. And without the freedom to act in the world as you wish, you cannot express these values. As "feelings" they are just expressions of an inner desire an inner landscape. Without actions, they don't exist in the objective world. They are merely subjective artifacts.
Does that makes sense?
I said that people—Human Beings—require Liberty to live fulfilled, truly Human lives.
I said Human Beings "NEED" Liberty.
And they argued.
They said human beings only "need" food, water, shelter. They said a "need" is the minimum necessary to keep you alive.
I said they're describing the "needs" of a clam, perhaps...but not of a Human Being, who is not just a biological unit, but has an intellectual and a spiritual dimension as well. And that all three need to be "nourished" in order to produce a true Human Being.
I said that in essence they were saying that even consciousness wasn't a "need". After all, a person in a vegetative state can "live" for years if given food, water and shelter.
But I'd hardly call that "living".
Now there was one more point I tried to make that neither of my friends seem to understand.
Here's my second point: All human beings want Liberty!
I contend that most people will choose freedom when they are faced with concrete limitations on their freedom in their immediate experience - even while they may intellectually argue abstractly that safety or security is superior to freedom...talk of things like "freedom from want", or "freedom from danger or risk".
My friends say otherwise. They think most people are sheep and will choose safety over freedom.
I say no [sane] human being will choose a prison cell even if it means plenty of food, water, shelter. Even if we add health care, alcohol, recreational drugs and sexual partners—almost every human being will choose freedom rather than that prison cell.
I would stipulate that some people will initially choose the cell...thinking they made a great deal, but that in the end, they will know they have chosen badly and repent...and seek freedom.
And I think the multi-generationally poor in the inner cities are a perfect example of that. I think they made the initial choice to accept the prison (plantation) cell, with the promise of free food, water, shelter...but are experiencing the rage and frustration of the un-free. I think they are rebelling against their choice, and seeking freedom. They just don't have the vision or the vocabulary to describe it correctly.
Their anger, even if expressed in racial terms is merely their Human Nature exerting itself, and their violence and anger are symptoms of the un-free wanting freedom; of having accepted imprisonment for the sake of security. It is what many of the arrogant in the Liberty Community consider the quintessential "SHEEP" violently rebelling against their serfdom.
So, yeah, I think human beings "need" freedom, even if they don't know it. They cannot reach their potential, or lead fully human lives in the absence of freedom. And no matter who they are, or how they express their dissatisfaction, they always rebel against tyranny.
Lest anyone misunderstand, there are always exceptions...there will always be individuals who will opt for safety over freedom. But let's stipulate that these exceptions prove the rule rather than otherwise.
The Gunslinger
(Zombie Killer, Waxing Philosophical)
I said that other values like love, compassion, charity are NOT the highest, because without Liberty, they cannot be expressed properly.
You see, Love, Compassion, and Charity are not merely "feelings". They are behaviors. And without the freedom to act in the world as you wish, you cannot express these values. As "feelings" they are just expressions of an inner desire an inner landscape. Without actions, they don't exist in the objective world. They are merely subjective artifacts.
Does that makes sense?
I said that people—Human Beings—require Liberty to live fulfilled, truly Human lives.
I said Human Beings "NEED" Liberty.
And they argued.
They said human beings only "need" food, water, shelter. They said a "need" is the minimum necessary to keep you alive.
I said they're describing the "needs" of a clam, perhaps...but not of a Human Being, who is not just a biological unit, but has an intellectual and a spiritual dimension as well. And that all three need to be "nourished" in order to produce a true Human Being.
I said that in essence they were saying that even consciousness wasn't a "need". After all, a person in a vegetative state can "live" for years if given food, water and shelter.
But I'd hardly call that "living".
Now there was one more point I tried to make that neither of my friends seem to understand.
Here's my second point: All human beings want Liberty!
I contend that most people will choose freedom when they are faced with concrete limitations on their freedom in their immediate experience - even while they may intellectually argue abstractly that safety or security is superior to freedom...talk of things like "freedom from want", or "freedom from danger or risk".
My friends say otherwise. They think most people are sheep and will choose safety over freedom.
I say no [sane] human being will choose a prison cell even if it means plenty of food, water, shelter. Even if we add health care, alcohol, recreational drugs and sexual partners—almost every human being will choose freedom rather than that prison cell.
I would stipulate that some people will initially choose the cell...thinking they made a great deal, but that in the end, they will know they have chosen badly and repent...and seek freedom.
And I think the multi-generationally poor in the inner cities are a perfect example of that. I think they made the initial choice to accept the prison (plantation) cell, with the promise of free food, water, shelter...but are experiencing the rage and frustration of the un-free. I think they are rebelling against their choice, and seeking freedom. They just don't have the vision or the vocabulary to describe it correctly.
Their anger, even if expressed in racial terms is merely their Human Nature exerting itself, and their violence and anger are symptoms of the un-free wanting freedom; of having accepted imprisonment for the sake of security. It is what many of the arrogant in the Liberty Community consider the quintessential "SHEEP" violently rebelling against their serfdom.
So, yeah, I think human beings "need" freedom, even if they don't know it. They cannot reach their potential, or lead fully human lives in the absence of freedom. And no matter who they are, or how they express their dissatisfaction, they always rebel against tyranny.
Lest anyone misunderstand, there are always exceptions...there will always be individuals who will opt for safety over freedom. But let's stipulate that these exceptions prove the rule rather than otherwise.
The Gunslinger
(Zombie Killer, Waxing Philosophical)
Monday, July 05, 2010
A Reason for Hope?
How Europeans Invented the Modern World.
(It's a wonder American Thinker isn't afraid to even print those words in that order..
....oh....the RACISM of it all!)
What's most interesting to me is the following sentence at the very end of the article:
Since there is nothing less practical or able to deal directly with the material world as it really is than a Progressive, and since they are over-represented in exactly those areas that are less successful in actually "transforming" worlds: philosophy, science, politics, academia, media, and almost not represented at all in those fields that have proven to be the most effective in transforming the world: engineers, craftsmen and entrepreneurs....I am filled with something like hope.
Nice for a change.
The Gunslinger
(It's a wonder American Thinker isn't afraid to even print those words in that order..
....oh....the RACISM of it all!)
What's most interesting to me is the following sentence at the very end of the article:
"Thus the world was transformed -- not by philosophers, scientists, or politicians, but by engineers, craftsmen, and entrepreneurs."
Since there is nothing less practical or able to deal directly with the material world as it really is than a Progressive, and since they are over-represented in exactly those areas that are less successful in actually "transforming" worlds: philosophy, science, politics, academia, media, and almost not represented at all in those fields that have proven to be the most effective in transforming the world: engineers, craftsmen and entrepreneurs....I am filled with something like hope.
Nice for a change.
The Gunslinger
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Fringe becomes mainstream on both ends?
I think this might actually be good news.
People seem to be waking up. Hope it's not too late.
48% See Government as Threat to Individual Rights.
That's creeping up to half. It's not just a few crank Libertarians and Anarchists anymore...
The Gunslinger
People seem to be waking up. Hope it's not too late.
48% See Government as Threat to Individual Rights.
That's creeping up to half. It's not just a few crank Libertarians and Anarchists anymore...
The Gunslinger
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Springsteen didn't mean to, but he got it right...
Well, we bursted out of class
Had to get away from those fools
We learned more from a 3-minute record, baby
Than we ever learned in school
Tonight I hear the neighborhood drummer sound
I can feel my heart begin to pound
You say you're tired and you just want to close your eyes
And follow your dreams down
Chorus:
Well, we made a promise we swore we'd always remember
No retreat, baby, no surrender
Like soldiers in the winter's night
With a vow to defend
No retreat, baby, no surrender
Well, now young faces grow sad and old
And hearts of fire grow cold
We swore blood brothers against the wind
Now I'm ready to grow young again
And hear your sister's voice calling us home
Across the open yards
Well maybe we'll cut someplace of own
With these drums and these guitars
'Cause we made a promise we swore we'd always remember
No retreat, baby, no surrender
Blood brothers in the stormy night
With a vow to defend
No retreat, baby, no surrender
Now on the street tonight the lights grow dim
The walls of my room are closing in
There's a war outside still raging
You say it ain't ours anymore to win
I want to sleep beneath
Peaceful skies in my lover's bed
With a wide open country in my eyes
And these romantic dreams in my head
Once we made a promise we swore we'd always remember
No retreat, baby, no surrender
Blood brothers in a stormy night
With a vow to defend
No retreat, baby, no surrender
I guess we don't get to sleep beneath peaceful skies....with romantic dreams in our heads. Not our lot. Not our destiny.
Too bad. So sad. Sucks to be us.
The war is raging on the streets of our country, and I did promise—when I was young—to never retreat or surrender in the face of attempts to limit my freedom.
And Goddamnit!... forty fucking years later...now, dappled with age spots and arthritis....I'm called on to honor that promise.
At least I have a lot more guns now than I did then.
The Gunslinger
(Rebel with a cause)
Monday, May 24, 2010
Not new, but always appropriate...
It is the
VETERAN,
not the preacher,
who has given us freedom of religion.
It is
the VETERAN,
not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.
It is
the VETERAN,
not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.
It is
the VETERAN,
not the campus organizer,
who has given us freedom to assemble.
It is
the VETERAN,
not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is
the VETERAN,
not the politician,
Who has given us the right to vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
