Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death
Posted by freedomforall 5 months, 2 weeks ago to Philosophy
Excerpt:
"It is not easy to take one’s independence back from those who have taken it away, for they will not give it back. Frederick Douglass understood this. He said a man gets exactly the amount of tyranny he is willing to abide.
If you have tired of abiding it, then stop abiding it. If a committed-enough minority of Americans decides to do just that, perhaps in the not-so-distant future Americans will be able to celebrate their independence again.
As opposed to what has become the Farce of July."
------------------------------------------------------
D.C. is much worse than King George ever was.
NIFO
"It is not easy to take one’s independence back from those who have taken it away, for they will not give it back. Frederick Douglass understood this. He said a man gets exactly the amount of tyranny he is willing to abide.
If you have tired of abiding it, then stop abiding it. If a committed-enough minority of Americans decides to do just that, perhaps in the not-so-distant future Americans will be able to celebrate their independence again.
As opposed to what has become the Farce of July."
------------------------------------------------------
D.C. is much worse than King George ever was.
NIFO
remember what Patton said "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
Statism has psychologically manipulated you into a certain belief system to keep you in their mental slavery.
It is one thing to put on uniform and provide security services to someone. But it is quite a different thing to forcefully do it by charging arbitrary amounts of money for it and preventing competition from existing.
The state is a protection racket. What do you think would happen if you decided that they are charging too much for their 'service'? What if you decided that you want to get the same service from a competing entity? It will be war. You see, they are not protecting you so that you could do what you are doing right now. That's what they want you to believe. They are only protecting you from not being their slave.
I would respect these people only under the condition that they must provide their service voluntarily and not prevent competition from existing. Additionally, I would not provide them with any more respect than I would a farmer, a baker or a mechanic. It is just a service for god's sake, what's with the religious fervor?
Government without adequate limits (and punishment for exceeding limits) has power and will use force to make people do whatever government wants, aka involuntary servitude, slavery.
Do you contend that all such power resides in each individual?
Why does it have to be a guy with special privileges? Why can't it be anyone that is willing and able to do it, provided that the law is followed? Most people wouldn't want to do it but would be more than willing to pay someone to do it. This is where you let the free market determine the price for such a service and allow it to weed out corruption, fraud, etc.
from a huge (really huge) set of questions? Keep the terms in office short so that the official returns to live in the societal environment he helped create. However "lobbying" for such a system does worry me. Just some thoughts -- one could spend a lifetime thinking about these issues. I read many interesting ideas here in the Gulch.
There is a solution: allow the people needing the service to select their provider and to pay for it voluntarily.
Any other way to do it requires the application of violence (to enforce the thing) and that's not kosher in my view. Just stop the violence and all these problems you speak of go away.
If the masses are too lazy to vote with their dollar and would not care about the corruption going on with their service provider then lord have mercy on us all.
However, I don't think the masses will act this way in my scenario. Trading freedom would not even going to be a choice. Any law would have to be formally proved first, which isn't going to happen because giving up freedom (becoming a slave) is not something that is even allowed by logic, at least by the line of reasoning that I imagine would back the whole thing. So, I don't think they would even be presented with the option. There is no voting in my system, so, a majority can't simply vote to push anything on the minority. Still, any attempt to force the loss of freedom would result in the unwilling customers switching providers. The new provider will go to war against the former one if they continue their shenanigans.
One additional protection would possibly be the fact that there are going to be more behaving security providers than the occasional non-behaving one. So, if a war was to break out between a couple of them, the behaving ones are going to join the right side and try to make money by bringing the misbehaving agency to 'justice'. The misbehaving one is probably not going to have too many friends just because of the questionable nature of their actions. So, the result would be a humiliating defeat of the misbehaving organization. Unless everybody suddenly becomes corrupt and conspires, which I guess is possible... In that case we are going to be fucked... and we would actually be in the same situation we are now (states preying on humanity). Though it is hard to see how corruption on such a great scale can all the sudden occur if these agencies would continue going around putting it down all the time.
I think the problem that you have is that you are also brainwashed. You should first figure out exactly the reason why I am disparaging them. I am sure if you are a reasonable person, you would eventually agree with me. By the way, the reason is they are actually helping in the enslavement. They are also accepting funds that were gained by larceny.
The state has NEVER been non-corrupt. The whole idea of the state is evil. Volunteering levels are easy to restore with some application of brainwashing, gaslighting and bit of false flaggery.
I guess I did try to give you guys a bit of your own medicine, didn't I? lol.
Although maybe not. It depends on what reasonable actually turns out to be... I meant to point out that, assuming my reasoning is correct, another person that invests the time into following the same reasoning will eventually reach the same conclusion: that what is really going on at the root of government/state is enslavement and that the state brainwashes its subjects into willingly obeying.
I would be interested in discussing and debating the details, if anyone cares.
Anarchy /ăn′ər-kē/
noun
1) Absence of any form of political authority.
2) Political disorder and confusion.
3) Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
By the way, I take offense at that definition. Such garbage statist propaganda. Just because there is no criminal gang running everything doesn't mean the result is 'disorder', 'confusion', etc.
That mutual cooperation is what led to the concept and formation of governments.
Have you thought out what an anarcho-capitalist society would look like? If so, would you care to share?
I am not against cooperation on equal terms. I am against 'fake' cooperation where one party has more privileges than the other, which is slavery.
The history of government from my point of view is this:
1. Agriculture and animal husbandry required that human nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes settle down. By the way, they were not cave dwelling, that's made up nonsense.
2. Settling down made them sitting ducks for predation, whereas before that was not possible due to them moving randomly across vast distances.
3. Criminal gangs appeared that started to prey on the settled tribes (out of tribes themselves and other tribes).
4. Warlords appeared that controlled areas and kicked out competing warlords.
5. These warlords later came up with excuses for their behavior, this is where statist propaganda started to appear, with warlords calling themselves kings and such.
6. There were rebellions, which caused the warlords to come up with more ingenious ways to control their subjects, such as brainwashing, etc.
7. Eventually new more efficient systems of organization of the state appeared, such as democracy, etc.
Of course I have thought about the society I would want to live in. I would love to share, but there are a couple of problems:
1. I did not yet finish fully developing all the aspects of it
2. There is not enough space in this post to explain it in great detail
In summary, the society would be voluntarist, no violence or fraud would be allowed except in defense against such. There would be no voting. Laws would be derived logically by academia or something similar (possibly financially supported by security companies). There would be no made up laws but only those that can be proven to follow from basic universally accepted axioms. Laws would be directly tied to damage caused by one party to another. Laws would be considered universal and eternal, except when discovered and proven to be incorrectly derived. Security services/law enforcement would be provided by private companies. Some cost of enforcement would be paid by law violators (as is reasonable). The security services will want to go after criminals because they would be paid for doing so by the criminals themselves (after capture). There would be no prisons, only labor camps, no punishment but repayment of damage. There would be no death penalty. Judges would be arbiters, there would be no case law. There would be no borders, except where reasonable, such as around your property. There would be no war except between security companies when irreconcilable disagreement occurs regarding law proof. Such things would be rare and only occur when a security company goes rogue, which would be highly unlikely. There would be no taxes, only insurance-type payments to your favorite security provider/etc, unless you can do that yourself and don't need the service or you like living life on the edge.
By the way, I actually don't like the term 'anarcho-capitalist'. I would prefer other terms, such as 'free market absolutist' or 'somebody not wanting to be a slave'.
Lascaux in southern France https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/310 ? Both made up nonsense. Really, Did they live in Condos?
If you don't grow food yourself, the availability of wild food is low (especially farther from the equator). So, you have to move once you deplete the local area. Caves can't be moved so you have to leave the cave.
Caves don't exist everywhere, only in some places. So, how could they have been cave dwellers if caves are rare and far apart?
They probably made movable structures of tree branches and animal skins (as modern nomadic tribes do in Siberia for example).
https://www.sciencealert.com/we-have-...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...
https://www.science.org/content/artic...
https://www.sciencealert.com/8000-yea...
Our ancestors were Cave-Dwelling Hunter-Gatherers for a really long time before they figured out how to farm crops and become ranchers
I guess it doesn't matter for my point of view what to call these hunter-gatherers. I would be more interested in you attempting to disprove my ideas about statism.
Your ideas as expressed above are not grounded in logic nor reality. When I free up some time, I'll review them.
Think of how much could have been avoided if only they'd listened to him.
America
Land of the coward
And home of the slave
I hope I was wrong -- we will see.
Hope he picks a strong presidential material running mate this time around.
Me dino was quietly considering Pence to be a Mr. Bland from the get-go.
Never imagined he'd backstab Trump like a RINO coward.
Out of curiosity just looked him up. He was born an anchor baby of Hindu Indian parents in Cincinnati and I'd vote for him as POTUS if he ever won a primary. Would I ever vote for him in a primary? That would depend on who the other candidates are and what I know about them.
I'm a MAGA dino who is accursed of the racism what D.E.I. Democrats really are.
More likely he'll choose a former Democrat socialist female from ultra-socialist Hawaii
(that will gain nothing in electoral votes at all and who will betray Trump's supposed
goals at every opportunity.)
His choice for VP may cause me to vote for NOTA.
There is the possibility that he will realize that if he does choose a "former Democrat socialist female" it will embolden the demopublicans to more fiercely attack him -- a "reverse" KH effect -- chuckle!
(Me dino mimicking Sean Connery's James Bond after he knocked a bad guy into a bathtub filled with water and tossed a switched-on hairdryer in after him. Can't recall which flick).
The second problem with that quote is that it seems to imply that liberty can be given. Bullshit. Liberty can only be taken away. So, it should be 'Don't enslave me or I kill you'.
Except, even that is a bit of a miss. I would maybe try other options first, such as persuasion, conflict avoidance and finally enslavement of the offending party. Why kill them when you can put them to work doing something useful? Maybe after a while they will finally give up on their delusions and be more cooperative.
anyone wanting power is ipso facto not qualified to have it
(not a fan of douglas adams as he hated Reagan the Great and Thatcher the Damn Good)
What did you learn from the experience?
My main competition was Trump-impeachment leader, Zoe Lofgren, who is still there throwing hate at Trump. Dems never leave until they get tossed.
A local TV station gave all candidates 5 minutes of "meet the Candidates" time. This was mine:
https://youtu.be/1R6at4VNtwA
I hadn’t watched it in a while. I do better on a teleprompter than Biden’s older material, such as his 2022 SOTU that offered: freedy-loving nations, the Russial ruble ruble, clonfict with Russian forces, health pregremiums, and our ecomedy. Or his modern D-Day remembrance in Normandy, referring to the difficulties set up by “Field Marshal Rommie.”
Yes, voters are 'nuts' when the votes are counted fairly.
Pat Paulsen
If elected, I will not serve.
If impeached, I will not resign.
If convicted, I will not be jailed.
If jailed, I will not ?
BCR
"If jailed, I will not ?"
I "quoted" from memory BUT in my "lame" defense, much time as passed since I last saw Pat perform.
i'll be very benevolent (to those i like)
you can trust me, i'm not like the others
BTW, FFA, no nuking DC if i am in charge
:-)
LOL
:-)
All punishments for crimes should be 10x-100x when committed by someone in elected office, or appointed into office by an elected body!
There should be a division of the IRS that AUDITS Every Elected Official, every year. And any UNEXPLAINED outsized gains by said people are taxed at a 250% (Pelosi would be poor as a church mouse)
my first appointment is FFA for the one selecting targets for nukes
on second thought, i first must move our new government out of DC
Everyone worth anything is already out. ;^)
then i can be a dictator
you know, like biden did
:-)
My soccer buddy texted a video of Chelmsford Minutemen stopping ins a parade, and firing a volley of muskets. This would have been a massive approval morass, except black powder rifles are not firearms Federally (ATF-totalitarians) or in the Peoples Republic of MA.
I more or less figured it out at a certain level back then, and just thanked history for what went down and created this nation and the ideals it embraced. However, I could then see that Massachusetts was on the path of stupidity and left. Have been looking for that place ever since. A Gulch? After trying New Hampshire, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, and then Nevada again and with the passage of 50 years, the realization that we are there again on the Green and at the Bridge is all too real. And no one is too old if the cognizance is there.
The war is inevitable—and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace—
but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!
The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!
Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle?"
I wish they were all as inclined to fight tyranny to regain our freedoms as those who signed the Declaration 248 years ago.
needing another conflict against the same tyranny.
Turning the other cheek to tyranny for the past 160 years
has solved nothing and given the tyrants more and more power.
The tyrants use force against American people constantly and
now won't even allow peaceful demonstrations against their actions.
Do you have a rational and peaceful solution to remove such
unconstitutional tyranny today?
back then people could mostly fend for themselves, except in big cities.
today such a war would have millions starving as food shipments broke down
medicines would be in short supply
would be ugly, like an EMP attack
Or we shut our pie hole and and resign ourselves to slavery, both economic and physical if the election is stolen a second time.