The Hypocrisy of Civil Discourse
“…nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberty by any pretences of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery, and cowardice.”
John Adams (1765)[1]
There is a politeness, a delicacy, a decency - perhaps what might today be called a “political correctness” - that is nothing more than the hypocrisy, chicanery, and cowardice that Adams warned of. It is both mistakenly practiced by the innocent and maliciously utilized by the guilty. It is an evil falsehood masquerading as a noble truth. It is a rotten vice disguised as an exalted virtue. It is one more device of the tyrant used to persuade the people to enslave themselves. Like so many of the mantras repeated ad nauseum by our political machine, it is universally accepted as wisdom when in fact it is the most ludicrous logical fallacy.
It is the erroneous axiom that all opinions should be respected.
Already the reader is experiencing a conditioned repulsion similar to that felt by the religious fanatic when confronted with what he believes to be some great heresy. From the time we are old enough to understand (perhaps before), we are taught that it is the ultimate ignorance, arrogance, or stubbornness not to respect all opinions. Our minds are enriched and our reasoning powers sharpened by considering different perspectives. It is only the fascist or the despot that does not grant to all people that they are “entitled to their opinion.” Often polite adversaries will conclude that they “agree to disagree.” Other costumes that this fraud may don are “civil discourse,” “spirited debate,” and “diverse perspectives.” In the well-mannered company of yuppie pseudo-intellectuals, it is at the very least impolite and may even approach grotesqueness to deny anyone the right to their opinion, no matter what that opinion may be.
Having been raised Cheektowaga, N.Y., I am grateful that I have been provided with no more manners than the bare minimum that I need to survive. Therefore, I will speak the unspeakable and let the reader either confront the truth or retreat in horror. As a warning to the politically correct, what follows is not suitable for the overly accommodating or the timidly polite.
There are some opinions to which you are not entitled.
You are not entitled to the opinion that you may use the threat of violence (government) to prevent me from doing what I please, provided that I harm no one else.
You are not entitled to the opinion that the government may use my tax money and risk my life to prosecute wars of aggression.
You are not entitled to the opinion that you may extort the fruits of my labor in order to provide yourself or someone else with healthcare, retirement benefits, or other stolen property.
You are not entitled to the opinion that you may use the threat of violence to prevent voluntary exchanges of property between free individuals (a.k.a. “economic policy”).
You are not entitled to the opinion that the coercive power of government can be used for anything other than the protection of my life, liberty, and property.
To put the above statements more succinctly, you are not entitled to the opinion that you have the right to make me a slave, whether fully or by some degree. THIS is the underlying assumption supporting all of these opinions.
I suppose that you could answer this entire argument with the sickeningly passive-aggressive refrain, “we will just have to agree to disagree.” I do not agree to disagree. You are either ignorant of our relationship or trying to obfuscate it, so let me make it perfectly clear. If you hold one of the aforementioned opinions, you have openly declared a state of war to exist between us. You have become an aggressor and have given me every right to defend myself by whatever means necessary in order to prevent the crimes which you have stated that you intend to perpetrate against me. You have made a threat of violence which I have no reason to believe that you will not carry out if I do not take immediate action to prevent it.
There are only two reasons why I respond with words at all, instead of action. One, I have a genuine wish to resolve differences peacefully, if they can be resolved in such a manner. I do not wish for nor condone violence, nor do I condone any violent rebellions against our American government. However, these principles do not eliminate my own instinct for self-preservation, nor will they prevent me from defending myself. Two, since the triumph of democracy over republicanism has given tyrannical power to your majority; it has occurred to me that the odds are too great against me in defending my rights against your acts of aggression, however justifiably. Therefore, I may have to capitulate to your tyranny until such time as I have a more reasonable hope of success in defending myself.
However, let there be no mistake about what our relationship is. You are the criminal and I am the victim. You are openly engaged in acts of armed theft, violence, and enslavement against me. I will no longer allow you to hide behind quaint sophistries to characterize this relationship as a mere “difference of opinion.” Do not insult my intelligence by misrepresenting your declaration of war as “civil discourse” or “spirited debate.” Perpetrate your crimes if you feel you must, but at least have the decency to acknowledge them. Be warned of the risks that accompany your actions.
[1] Adams, John A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law 1765
- Tom Mullen's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 449 reads
It's easy for you to commit to. In 10 years you'll still be beautiful, but I'll be...well, I guess I have nothing to lose. LOL!
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
LOL! I hate when new comments get lost on page 10, so I always "disembody them."
I'd like to let you off that easy, but you say this:
"Assuming there is limited government already, as in the hypothetical situation in my previous post, I would let the would-be plunderers speak. Given that they had no special protection or government support, the debate would be fair, and as you pointed out, reason demands that the collectivists should lose."
Now, make your argument assuming THERE ISN'T limited government, which there isn't. Make it also assuming that the government is making its decisions purely based upon public opinion polls (Clinton actually admitted this), without regard to any principles of individual rights. THis is the reality that we live in. Based upon those assumptions, how would you answer?
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
>>"Now, make your argument assuming THERE ISN'T limited government, which there isn't. Make it also assuming that the government is making its decisions purely based upon public opinion polls (Clinton actually admitted this), without regard to any principles of individual rights. THis is the reality that we live in. Based upon those assumptions, how would you answer?"
I have a bad habit of editing and re-editing my posts. I think you may have missed this part, so I'll post it again here (the second paragraph is the more pertinent one):
I would like to debate the question of democracy some time. My feeling is that if there are not a majority of people in this country who understand the value of liberty, we will never be free, and that if this is the case it will not be not an indictment of democracy or of human nature, but rather an indictment of what our moral character has become as a result of years of socialist propaganda. If we ever do become a libertarian republic again, it will be because we have understood that socialism doesn't work, something our forefathers had not yet learned (which is why we became so vulnerable to it in the 1930's when it was all the rage). I think the knowledge we have now would protect us from that particular form of tyranny for at least a couple of generations... and then, who knows, maybe history would repeat itself. It does seem to me though that in many ways we do learn from our mistakes and that there is historical progress in a broad sense...
As for where we should go from here, my feeling is that we do have to work within the parameters of democracy. We have to convince a majority of Americans that limited government is the best option. And I believe we CAN do this. An armed revolution or any kind of top-down libertarianism, even if it were successful, could only maintain itself by continued violence, if the people are not with us. Is that the kind of America you want? Where the libertarian leader is a king or an emperor and we have to imprison collectivists?
I just thought it was qualified by the earlier statement "assuming there is limited government." My next question would be how long do we work within the parameters of democracy? 10 years? 20? 80 years? If 80 years or more is the case, and as an atheist that does not believe in an afterlife, why do you feel you have an obligation to sacrifice your entire existence trying to convince people to stop attacking you? Do you not have a right to defend yourself the first minute you are attacked? Is not using persuasion really a generous gesture on the part of a free individual who has been attacked, rather than a responsibility?
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
>>"how long do we work within the parameters of democracy?"
Ballpark, about 10 years, this being the low point, and working gradually upward from here Let's see where we are at in the next election, and we'll have a better idea of how we are doing. I mean we have only just started here with BTM. We haven't given education and persuasion enough time to work, in my opinion. We haven't yet reached enough people. So many people are still ignorant, and the field is wide open. Do you remember how Milton Friedman popularized free market capitalism in the 80's and early 90's? That was just him and a handful of others-- brilliant people, admittedly... There has been a backlash; that can be expected. So now we need to push back. There are many of us, and we are highly motivated, so there is a good chance we can be successful.
I think people will be receptive to our message of freedom, especially if we do our job with the right kind of pizazz, if you know what I mean. I work in animation, and I am trying to change the kinds of values we transmit to children, for example... I may have to set out on my own to really accomplish this, if I can't influence the way things are done at the studio where I work. But there are people within the mainstream who are moving in that direction already. Brad Bird, who created The Incredibles, the Iron Giant, and Ratatouille, is very much in line with the freedom and personal responsibility message, and his films are hugely popular among both children and adults. There is so much yet to be done, there are so many possibilities; I can't even begin to list all the ways we can get our message across.
Ten years. Give us ten years before you reach for your rifle.
Locke goes on to say that the right to kill the thief exists in the moment of his declaration of war, when there is not time to appeal to the law without sacrificing your own life, but that once the immediate threat is over, and an appeal to the law is possible without losing your life, then the right to kill is given up, and you must appeal to the law to prosecute the thief.
However, all of this reasoning is based upon the premise that government's purpose is to protect your life, liberty, and property. When there is a democratic government (which is what we now have, not a republic), and the government/law IS the thief, then I would argue that you have reverted to a state of nature (a state with no government), and that the people/government have put themselves into a state of war with you when they declare that they will risk your life by invading other countries, steal your money for welfare programs, or infringe upon your liberty with police state tactics.
This was the conclusion that the American colonists came to in the 18th century. The British governmetn was as much their government as the federal is ours. When the colonists had exhausted their efforts to reason with the government - when the other side refused to reason and instead exercised arbitrary power over them, the colonists felt that there was nothing left to do but fight.
One of the purposes of this article was to wake people up to the idea that the opinions they feel entitled to, and their refusal to reason (as liberty is the only conclusion when reason is employed) is not something that gives them unlimited ability to oppress people for as long as they want. Individuals will suffer evils "while evils are sufferable," but at some point the time to stop trying to reason with people that refuse to reason comes, and since they are attacking you and refuse to listen to reasonable pleas to cease and desist, "pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism," then the time for "civil discourse" is over.
I have on many occasions debated people who walk down the road of reasoned debate with me, but when they become aware that their position is untenable, that their position requires the initiation of brute force against me while mine requires no force at all, they begin shouting over me and refusing to listen anymore, so afraid are they that the assumptions of statism that they have put so much faith in are wrong, even evil assumptions.
This is the point to which we have come. Having abandoned the concept that there are some individual rights that even the majority cannot vote away, the majority can now vote itself whatever it wants. No matter how reasonable the argument against such slavery, the majority will simply refuse to listen or shout you down if they do not wish to hear it. This is the horrifying face of democracy that inspired Madison to call it "the most vile form of government" and to say that democracies "have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Having said all of this, I am interested in how you would answer your own questions. I believe the answers are there in Locke and in the founders' writings, but that there is a natural reluctance to go where they obviously lead.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
>>"Having said all of this, I am interested in how you would answer your own questions. I believe the answers are there in Locke and in the founders' writings, but that there is a natural reluctance to go where they obviously lead."
Was that addressed to me? If so, here goes:
Assuming there is limited government already, as in the hypothetical situation in my previous post, I would let the would-be plunderers speak. Given that they had no special protection or government support, the debate would be fair, and as you pointed out, reason demands that the collectivists should lose.
If they refused to concede their points, one of two things could happen: either they would go home peacefully, grumbling for sure but basically impotent, in which case I would leave them alone; or they might decide to reach for their muskets-- in which case I would be justified in responding with force.
I suspect such debates would take place from time to time, people being, as they are, always partial to the idea of getting something for nothing, but ultimately no harm would come of them. No one would be enslaved.
I would like to debate the question of democracy some time. My feeling is that if there are not a majority of people in this country who understand the value of liberty, we will never be free, and that if this is the case it will not be not an indictment of democracy or of human nature, but rather an indictment of what our moral character has become as a result of years of socialist propaganda. If we ever do become a libertarian republic again, it will be because we have understood that socialism doesn't work, something our forefathers had not yet learned (which is why we became so vulnerable to it in the 1930's when it was all the rage). I think the knowledge we have now would protect us from that particular form of tyranny for at least a couple of generations... and then, who knows, maybe history would repeat itself. It does seem to me though that in many ways we do learn from our mistakes and that there is historical progress in a broad sense...
As for where we should go from here, my feeling is that we do have to work within the parameters of democracy. We have to convince a majority of Americans that limited government is the best option. And I believe we CAN do this. An armed revolution or any kind of top-down libertarianism, even if it were successful, could only maintain itself by continued violence, if the people are not with us. Is that the kind of America you want? Where we have to imprison collectivists?
Here is the relevant passage from Locke. Regarding Kelvin's analysis regarding "the defense must fit the threat," I believe that legal precedent's may be more limiting than Locke would have it. Ultimately, there can be bad laws AND misguided judicial decisions (see The New Deal), but philosophically, the individual has rights that the laws merely try to defend.
Of particular interest in this discussion is the last few lines of Section 18 below.
Sec. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.
Sec. 18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
Since the proper role of government is to safeguard your liberty, and if you define an endorsement of collectivism as an attempt to enslave you, would it not then be the case that government has a right to prevent people from endorsing collectivism?
By your account a libertarian state may outlaw certain political parties and certain forms of speech, or am I taking it too far? If so, which of your premises have I misunderstood, or in what way is my reasoning faulty?
and made some bold statements of principle. I like this style and article a lot. Although, I do agree with kjkorslund that everyone is entitled to possess their own opinion - I think (and i may be mistaken) that Tom was saying that there are certain types of opinions when held (namely, those pertaining to making other people slaves in some degree) wherein force is presumed. That is, you cannot separate the implied threat of force from the opinion since the opinion can not be carried out without force. So, if you believe that you have the right to plunder from me in order to give to someone else you deem needy or wanting, the threat of violence (even if carried out by a third party government agent) is implied and therefore I would have the right to take preventative actions to protect myself.
Note that the types of opinions listed are of a certain variety. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on subjective matters. What is the prettiest color? Who is the greatest football player? Who was a better live music act, Pink FLoyd or Led Zeppelin? But the opinions expressed above in Tom's article are not purely subjective - as they have real world consequences on real people. That is, the opinions are not just opinions - but more like directives. There is a qualitative and practical difference between my opinion of weather vegetarianism is a worthwhile endeavor for me to pursue and the opinion that you may use the threat of violence (government) to prevent me from doing what I please, provided that I harm no one else.
To use the vegetarianism example, there is a major difference between 1) Vegetarians are smart and 2) Vegetarianism must be mandatory on everybody. The 1st example is just an opinion, the second is also an opinion, but of a different type. Sure, you are entitled to have that 2nd opinion, but once I become aware of it I can take it to mean that you intend to force me to change my eating habits and I can respond accordingly.
(Note: I don't mean to imply that I am speaking for Tom, as he can speak more than adequately for himself, i was just making a comment on 'opinions.')
I wonder how that would translate into policy. If Tom were in charge, would socialists and other collectivists be prohibited by law from campaigning in elections, because they are advocating theft? How would freedom of speech be affected?
Americans have fallen prey to some bad ideas about the function of government, but I think the way to fight these ideas is not through censorship, but by countering them with better ideas. I think people need to feel free to speak their minds without fear of violent retaliation, but also without the benefit of special protection. What we really need is a free marketplace of ideas. Then we will know that the good ones merit their success, that they are legitimately the best. By all means, take off your (verbal) boxing gloves and be impolite if necessary, but don't use force to silence people.
Just like you can't force democracy on foreign countries, you can't force liberty on Americans... I mean you can try, but it won't work. Without a wide base of good honest people that understand the issues, we don't stand a hope in hell of ever being free in this country. We can succeed at this. The majority of Americans are productive people who would be better off keeping the money they now pay in taxes and taking care of their own retirement, health care (which would be a lot cheaper in a truly free market), children's education, disadvantaged neighbors and friends etc... These people far outnumber the net beneficiaries of government redistribution. All that is preventing the great majority of Americans from realizing they are better off with limited government is the following:
A/ A lack of confidence in their own ability to take care of themselves and their families, because they have gotten used to using one or another of the government programs
B/ a lack of understanding about how the economy actually works, and
C/ A misguided belief that collectivism helps the poor and the disadvantaged.
We here at Liberty inc. have a product to sell, and we need to get out there and do it. Talk to all your friends and neighbors, educate people, make videos, spread the word far and wide-- and for goodness sake, don't get into any fistfights, okay?
though, if the majority silences the minority (and I think we can safely claim that our position is the minority position) or puts sufficient roadblocks in the way of us getting our "opinions" to the marketplace of ideas to see if they deserve the respect that we feel they do deserve, an alternative needs to be considered and if necessary implemented. I am not saying this alternative is violence.
Non-violent civil disobedience may have to be utilized. Adam Kokesh, for example, got himself into the RNC for John McCain's speech and made a 'statement' on behalf of Iraq Veterans Against the War that was seen by as many people as were watching that program. A few tens of millions people?? Either way, it didn't cost him or his organization a singe cent to reach that many people. Of course, the few seconds of exposure likely in itself did not change anyone's mind. But it may have peaked some interest and maybe someone looked further into the issue to see what the soldiers' grievances are and now sees McCain as the lying scoundrel Washington politician that he is.
Not to be dramatic, but Dr Paul feels (and I agree) that there is a sense of urgency to what we are doing. That is, the once slow/gradual process of loss of liberty and government growth & lawlessness is becoming a rapid process (post 9/11) and given the accumulative effects of both the long term loss of liberty and the more recent rapid loss of liberty, we are getting close to a point of no return (or have already passed it depending on one's perspective). Americans cannot allow that point to be reached or if already here, allow it to continue.
If we are marginalized and trampled upon to the point where violence is seen as a possible last resort, is the blame to be rested on our shoulders? Theoretically at least, as Tom notes, we are actually the victims. Our lashing out against the repression that is foisted on us can and should be considered self-defense. In the criminal law, you are only allowed to defend yourself with actions that would otherwise be considered crimes (assault, battery, etc...) in proportion to the threat you are facing. Thus, if someone threatens to squirt you with a water gun you cannot hit them over the head with a shovel. If they threaten you with a real gun (deadly force) and you reasonably fear for your life you can use deadly force to prevent harm to yourself. Here, in the political context, the threat of tyranny is what we need to defend ourselves against. What level of response is proportional or reasonable to combat that? I feel for many circumstances and situations, words alone are not a sufficient defense. And we likely don't have time to wait for everybody else to just "come around."
>>"Here, in the political context, the threat of tyranny is what we need to defend ourselves against. What level of response is proportional or reasonable to combat that? I feel for many circumstances and situations, words alone are not a sufficient defense."
A lot of it is about image. If we are still on the fringes, that is because we are not appealing to enough people, but sites like BTM are changing that, by harnessing the talents of so many creative communicators. Words are necessary, but you are correct to say that they are not sufficient. We need images too, and music. We need good movies, both fictional and documentary, giving compelling accounts of the value of freedom. Liberty-themed video games, why not? Entertaining publicity stunts and clever acts of civil disobedience, for sure... If everyone individually puts their best effort into what we are trying to communicate, I am certain we can get the public on our side-- after all, we are the best and the brightest are we not? We come from all walks of life. We understand our neighbors and their basic values and we know how to appeal to them. On the other hand I'm pretty sure it won't help our image, or contribute to our cause, if we go around blowing up buildings and stuff like that.
Distribution need not be a problem. We have people working on that too. And bottom line, the entertainment business still puts profit above ideology. They can't keep pushing collectivist ideology forever; if that is not what the public wants, the media will have to respond.
is well thought out and makes very solid points- if maybe a bit optimistic?? (or maybe I'm just being overly cynical?) I am sure there is a compromise between the positions that would leave violence as a completely theoretical and unnecessary last resort. And i of course would hope that we can be successful without any pain being suffered by anyone.
However, just for fun. Let me change the question(s): What did the founders do when they felt the evil hand of tyranny creeping up on them? And were their actions against said tyranny justified in proportion to the threat they felt they were facing?
The Declaration of Independence seems to suggest a possible answer:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm
Thanks for the reply Claire.
>>"What did the founders do when they felt the evil hand of tyranny creeping up on them? And were their actions against said tyranny justified in proportion to the threat they felt they were facing?"
In addition to the magnitude of the action the founding fathers were contemplating and the seriousness of the threat they were facing there is a third factor to consider: the availability of some other recourse. You can only consider yourself to be in a state of war with an aggressor (and thus in a position legitimately to use force against him) if there is no higher authority governing both of you. That was indeed the case in the 1770's but it is not the case today. We have a constitution. That is our higher authority, and it still holds power. As outlined in that constitution we have a democratic process for selecting our government, and I would argue that we have by no means exhausted the democratic avenues we can use to attain our goal.
How old is Break the Matrix? How long ago was it that hardly anyone had even heard of Ron Paul? We are just starting out here, Kelvin. Give us a chance to win over the American public in a peaceful, civilized manner before you give up on democracy and the rule of law.
Is this the same constitution that says the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers as layed out in Art 1 sec 8 ? The one that says that the powers not specifically granted to the federal government in said article, are reserved to the States or the People respectively? The one that says that the government cannot trespass into our homes, lives, papers & effects without probable cause and without a warrant? The one that says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law?
Let's see: The federal government is not a government of limited powers, but is rather a government of unlimited powers that has gone unchecked from the judicial branch since the 1920's at a minimum. The tenth amendment is effectively dead, so you can forget about the delegation of power to the people and the States. The 4th amendment is at a point of near death, and for all intents and purposes does not protect you from arbitrary intrusion into your home, email, phone, mail, cars, financial, hospital and credit information, etc... Habeus corpus has been rescinded, eminent domain abuse is rampant, and it is increasingly becoming harder and harder to protect your own liberty due to constitutionally treasonous court rulings and federal regulation in complicity with the Legislative branch who has been a willing enabler of every abuse mentioned above.
Political repression and suppression of 1st amendment protected speech and journalistic activity just took place on a massive scale at the RNC and to a lesser extent the DNC. This isn't the typical MSM whitewashing and cherrypicking of stories to keep us distracted - this is outright jailing of people, the theft and destruction of all their equipment, notes, computers and cameras. This is authoritarianism exhibit A. Everything i noted above is Exhibits B-E. There is quite a compelling and damning case to be made that the constitution itself is only marginally existent. So I will not be resting much hope on it. The constitution is only a document - ideas - that needs for it to be of any value people who are willing to abide by it and seek guidance and counsel from its instructions. We haven't had that in a very very long time. What we are experiencing today is the result of this fact.
Just to play devil's advocate, it seems like you are making the assumption that the freedom movement is something new. The clearly recognizable line in the sand came in 1913, with the establishment of the income tax, federal reserve, welfare state, world war machine, etc. It was fought tooth and nail by the (real) Republicans, but they lost. The Republicans fought the New Deal tooth and nail, but lost. Goldwater tried to revive the spirit of freedom in the 1960's, and got slaughtered in the election by one of the worst welfare statists of all time (LBJ). Even Reagan, who said a lot of nice things, was completely controlled by those around him to ultimately make government bigger.
This is not a new fight, it has been fought throughout the past 100 years and the people have consistently chosen legal plunder over justice. We are in the end stages, and if anything, this small, grassroots movement inspired by Ron Paul is a last stand for freedom, before the light totally goes out.
Now that I've cheered you up, are you still holding to 10 years? :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
>>"it seems like you are making the assumption that the freedom movement is something new."
Of course I haven't assumed that. But freedom fighters really had their work cut out for them at the beginning of the last century. Remember that by the 1930's communism looked really good to a lot of people. The Soviet Union was the envy of many of our leaders and intellectuals for its military power and command economy, and ordinary Americans did not yet have any evidence of the downside of communism. Maybe at the time the loss of liberty seemed like a small price to pay for ending poverty and achieving dominance in the world. What is different now is the amount we have learned about economics, and the very clear failure of communism and socialism (which is taking a bit longer, admittedly).
More and more people are getting to the point where they realize that all this government is making them poorer, not richer (we can certainly help spread this awareness). And there are good and honest politicians like Ron Paul who will respond to the wishes of the people and that we will have the opportunity to vote for in future elections.
You may think everything has to collapse before the American public comes around, because people don't tend to think long-term and until the point of collapse it will be in the immediate self interest of the majority to preserve the status quo or to demand more socialism. I disagree. I think that if we can sufficiently discredit the ideology of collectivism we can get people to understand that it is both in their immediate and their long term self interest to limit the power of government. Ideology is the main problem IMHO.
Now that I've cheered you up, are you still holding to 10 years? :)
Yes. Let's give this a shot. I don't expect perfection right away. What I do want is to see America moving in the right direction. I want inflation to stop and my taxes to go down. I want us to dismantle all our entitlement programs and reduce government department by department. If that starts to happen significantly within the next ten years I will be happy-- and as long as we continue in that direction, I can live with some imperfection. Can't you? Does it really have to be all or nothing right away?
Something came up on Miss Green Live tonight about what do we do if general martial law goes into effect? My immediate response was that "all bets are off" and our immediate priority would be self-defense.
After thinking more about it, I am struck by a couple of things. First of all, there is no federal authority to suspend the Constitution, which is precisely the effect of general martial law. Secondly, my personal interpretation of any action taken to suspend the Constitution would therefore amount to the federal government having issued a formal declaration of war against its citizens.
So, yes... at that point, all bets would be off and we would be compelled to protect ourselves in whatever way necessary.
"It is the erroneous axiom that all opinions should be respected."
This I can agree with - opinions do not need to be respected, only the right to hold them.
"There are some opinions to which you are not entitled."
Here is where we part ways, Tom. I agree with the sentiment, but it goes too far to say people can't even hold an opinion. Ideas are a product of a man's mind, they are his property, so a man's thoughts and opinions are rightfully his, no matter how twisted they may be.
Ideas cannot strip me of my rights, my property, my life - only actions can. I may not like the views held by my neighbors, but until it is clear they intend to violate my rights, I have no right to defend myself using force.
Let me illustrate with 3 examples:
a) I say to you, "The earth would be better off if all humans were dead"
b) I say to you, "My job would be so much easier if you were dead, Tom"
c) I say to you, "I'm going to *expletive* kill you Tom!" as I pull out a weapon
If I understand your article, you'd feel justified in defending yourself in cases (b) and (c), whereas I only believe (c) justifies self-defense. Is this a fair assessment on my part?
!
I should probably clarify, the examples I gave are purely hypothetical. I don't really want to kill Tom ;)
before I hid under my bed for 7 hours! :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
:)
the gloves are coming off,
I agree that political correctness is used to cloak the criminal acts suggested in much public policy, etc.
The underlying truth is so powerful -- the idea behind it--- that it takes over a decade of public school, billions in PR $, and a perpetual onslaught from the media to keep it buried.
but they can't take you out, right? Do you have those conversations with your wife in the car on the way to a dinner party where she asks you please not to talk about politics tonight? In any case, I am glad to hear that you prefer to resolve political disagreements verbally, because I like these thought provoking essays of yours and I fear that it might be difficult for you to write them from prison.
I also suspect that you can do more damage with your words than with your fists...
There are certain opinions I don't tolerate either (all of those you outlined above, and more), but my feelings about those who hold them run more toward pity than anger, and my tactics are more Socrates than Tae Kwon Doh (probably due to my instinct of self-preservation). Funny, though, regardless of how gentle I try to be when arguing my point I end up making enemies left and right.
Oh well... So be it.
You're just wrong about the war, the empire, the police state, et al. lol. R
Just don't sic Tom on me, okay? ;-)
But seriously... Is that what you think I represent? The police state? I must be failing miserably to get my points across.
I'm no cheerleader and I'm no politician, so I won't ignore what I think is wrong in order to further the cause. For example I get annoyed by the implication that there will be no negative consequences if we "just walk right out" of Iraq, but that is not to say that I am for the war. I just think we need to consider all the potential consequences of our actions, for example, in this case, the impact of our immediate withdrawal on the people of Iraq. Then we can talk about how to weigh those consequences against others-- but I don't want you to pretend that everything will be hunky dory for the Iraquis after we pull out. Remember that if it weren't for us the Iraqui people wouldn't be in this situation. I can also raise the issue of our responsibility to do what we can to clean up the messes we make etc... And again, I realize it's just one part of the discussion, to which you may have some answers, but I think it is a part you can't just ignore because it doesn't feel good to think about it.
Another thing that is bothering me of late here is this resolute determination not to pass judgment on Russia for invading Georgia, perhaps for fear that such a judgment would constitute an endorsement of US intervention. Again, I just wanted to point out, lest we forget, the many ways in which Georgians would be far worse off under Russian rule-- which is NOT to say that I think we should get involved, only to make sure that in our desire for non-intervention to be considered the most perfect policy, we are not closing our eyes to the truth that there is such a thing as tyranny and oppression in the world, and that most of it does NOT come from the united States..
This website is about freedom isn't it? I just don't think we should ignore oppression in other parts of the world... Islamic theocracy, for example... Whole other can of worms. No one here will touch that with a ten foot pole. Anyhow, my point is that even Ron Paul could not possibly be completely neutral about how he deals with every head of state. Some, those who actually represent their people, are to be trusted more than others who oppress their people. Even if we practice non intervention we still have to pass judgment on other governments. There is no way around that.
Hope you understand me a bit better now. If not, so be it.
but I also believe strongly that we've all had plenty of time to learn by now that the Iraq war has been (and continues to be) a massive disaster that is not worth the expenditure of a single additional dollar of American debt money or the waste of a single additional life-- Iraqi or American. It's been a misguided exercise in imperialism from the start, Claire, and (respectfully) I think you don't fully recognize the evil and corrosive effect this endless war is having. The terrorist boogieman is the excuse that our so-called leaders use for their growing civil liberties crackdown here at home, and continuing the war provides an ongoing opportunity for police state wrongdoing, both at home and abroad. R