Natural Rights Versus Political Rights
November 13, 2019 at 2:33 pm #127704
I posted this link at the end of the “I have your Solution for Fixing Government” thread. There was a question of a simple rallying cry, to which I suggested Gun Rights or Property Tax. What about Natural Rights?
- This topic was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Max.
November 13, 2019 at 8:15 pm #127739herbertParticipant
Appeals to supernatural powers are not going to convince rational people. Any argument that relies on the existence of a supernatural God turns away younger generations, and more rational people, to the advantage of the left.
The appeal to natural rights is most often repeated alongside the revisionist fantasy that the founders gave a damn about human rights, God-given rights, equality, or the liberty of anyone but their own aristocratic class. The US constitution was crafted as a hodge podge of instrumental concessions to the various cultural and regional tribes of the original 13 colonies to purchase their loyalty.
Any new constitution, if it is to gain mass support and endure for more than a generation must be so conceived, with pragmatism and instrumentality at its core.
Any attempt to defend the current constitution must demonstrate its practical value to the various tribes that comprise the current US population, with greater emphasis on appealing to the younger generations whose votes will determine the future, both directly and through the institutions they respect. Those institutions are secular, primarily universities, and not churches.
Parties are coalitions, and the Republican party has burdened itself by allying with religion. When the older, more religious generation dies off, the Republican party must take the opportunity to steal non-religious liberty-minded voters from the Democrats. There are potentially millions of voters who will switch sides, and it is by removing religious influence from the Republican party platform that we can most realistically and rapidly halt the move towards greater statism.
The second and concurrent step, is to put an end to the fantasy that “heroes” in uniform are defending freedom. It is this fantasy, pushed by the regime and those in uniform, that leads to the belief that civilians no longer need effective means of self-defense. Believe the propaganda and you will believe that heroes in the military defend your freedom, heroes in the police and judiciary ensure justice and safety at home, and heroes in government make prudent economic and civil decisions solely with your best interests at heart.
There are no heroes, and there are no gods. That is the only foundation upon which a rational, broadly appealing, and enduring constitution can be built.
November 13, 2019 at 11:49 pm #127765
@herbert – Thank you for taking the time to leave your input. This does however illustrated why “we can’t have nice things ” in terms of any sort of agreement on anything philosophical. The point was to look for something simple that people can get behind, and natural rights seemed to me to be a contender.
‘Natural Rights’ are not in fact a religious thing. Philosophical thought in the enlightenment would often describe them as being ‘natural’ in as much as they came from ‘a creator.’ In this way, many of the founders were deists and in fact this nation was not founded as ‘one nation under God’ at all. Despite being a largely Christian nation at the time. Language talks of ‘endowed by your creator’ etc.
Thus natural rights are simply ‘rights’ that people generally consider a vital basis for life. In a Hobbesian ‘state of nature’ there are no rights, and they only begin to exist once people band together to defend them. Thus rights are essentially meaningless unless defended. They really come from societal / cultural agreement.
Thus, we talked about gun rights being a thing we can get behind. But gun rights are only a thing due to the agreed natural right to self-defense. Self-defense is a natural right becasue it is needed to protect others such as life and liberty.
Now of course Socialists would try to change these definitions, in the same way they will interpret the Constitution differently, by including such things as health care and welfare in as ‘rights.’
Natural Rights does not have to be a religious thing coming from ‘supernatural powers.’ In fact they are the opposite, in that as born men we are endowed by our ‘creator’ (i.e. we are born, by whatever means you believe that we got there), with certain rights, which we can consider inalienable if we can agree on them.
From a brief google search, her is a piece on natural rights:
When the authors of the U.S. Declaration of Independence spoke of all people being endowed with “unalienable Rights,” such as “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” they were confirming their belief in the existence of “natural rights.”
In modern society, every individual has two types of rights: Natural rights and legal rights.
Natural rights are rights granted to all people by nature or God that cannot be denied or restricted by any government or individual. Natural rights are often said to be granted to people by “natural law.”
Legal rights are rights granted by governments or legal systems. As such, they can also be modified, restricted or repealed. In the United States, legal rights are granted by the legislative bodies of the federal, state and local governments.
The concept of a natural law establishing the existence of specific natural rights first appeared in ancient Greek philosophy and was referred to by Roman philosopher Cicero. It was later referred to in the Bible and further developed during the Middle Ages. Natural rights were cited during the Age of Enlightenment to oppose Absolutism — the divine right of kings.
Today, some philosophers and political scientists contend that human rights are synonymous with natural rights. Others prefer to keep the terms separate in order to avoid the mistaken association of the aspects of human rights not typically applied to natural rights. For example, natural rights are considered to be beyond the powers of human governments to deny or protect.
Jefferson, Locke, Natural Rights, and Independence.
In drafting the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson justified demanding independence by citing several examples of ways in which England’s King George III had refused to recognize the natural rights of American colonists. Even with fighting between colonists and British troops already taking place on American soil, most members of Congress still hoped for a peaceful agreement with their motherland.
In the first two paragraphs of that fateful document adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, Jefferson revealed his idea of natural rights in the often-quoted phrases, “all men are created equal,” “inalienable rights,” and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Educated during the Age of Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, Jefferson adopted the beliefs of philosophers who used reason and science to explain human behavior. Like those thinkers, Jefferson believed universal adherence to the “laws of nature” to be the key to advancing humanity.
Many historians agree that Jefferson drew most of his beliefs in the importance of natural rights he expressed in the Declaration of Independence from the Second Treatise of Government, written by renowned English philosopher John Locke in 1689, as England’s own Glorious Revolution was overthrowing the reign of King James II.
The assertion is hard to deny because, in his paper, Locke wrote that all people are born with certain, God-given “inalienable” natural rights that governments can neither grant nor revoke, including “life, liberty, and property.”
Locke also argued that along with land and belongings, “property” included the individual’s “self,” which included well being or happiness.
Locke also believed that it was the single most important duty of governments to protect the God-given natural rights of their citizens. In return, Locke expected those citizens to follow the legal laws enacted by the government. Should the government break this “contract” with its citizens by enacting “a long train of abuses,” the citizens had the right to abolish and replace that government.
By listing the “long train of abuses” committed by King George III against American colonists in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson used Locke’s theory to justify the American Revolution.
“We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.” – The Declaration of Independence.
November 13, 2019 at 11:56 pm #127766
I disagree with Jefferson in his assertion of his idea of natural rights in the often-quoted phrases, “all men are created equal,”
All men are not created equal, but the idea is that they should be so in front of the law. In American we have a clear situation where elites are not equal in front of the law, which is clear tyranny.
I have a small confession in that Philosophy has always interested me. I may be the knuckldragger here but I studied it at school and once went for interview at New College Oxford, after passing the OxBridge exam, to look into studying PPE (Philosphy, Politics and Economics). There was a plan at the time for me to be a barrister. I also went on interview to various places in London for that. I did, however, have other ideas. Now here I am. How did that happen, exactly?
November 19, 2019 at 2:33 am #1284781776republicParticipant
“Appeals to supernatural powers are not going to convince rational people. Any argument that relies on the existence of a supernatural God turns away younger generations, and more rational people, to the advantage of the left.”-
I think you missing the point and as a result trying create something new. You have good intentions though, based on the rest of your post, sir.
So why is this appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world was made by the American founding fathers.
Could you imagine now, lawmakers will start appealing to the Almighty in their legal documents?
It might be perceived as an insanity by some, as offensive by others and certainly as a violation of church and state separation preached by mainstream media.
One thing we can be sure of – Mass hysteria will be faked and spilled all over the social media controlled by the left. The legal document with this kind of wording will be doomed of being accepted on a Federal Level from the get go. This very fact tells us, how far off the contemporary state of America is from the initial intent of her founding fathers.
However there is a hope:
The notion of the Supreme Judge of the World that founding fathers appealed to (last part of the Declaration) is crucial to understand.
Because if your rights (Natural Rights) do not come from the Creator, they by definition come from government and could be taken away by government.
At that point when The Declaration was constructed they could not appeal to anybody else but Supreme Judge of the World. The interesting part is what this appeal was all about?
The founding fathers appeal for the rectitude of their intentions. They did not appeal to The Almighty
to make a miracle and grant them independence. (this is would be stupid)
Rectitude of our intentions – is opposite to political correctness.(it is not my definition)
“Rectitude of intentions” means to do what is right when its hard and do it, and do it not for yourself but for the people and God. (Volume of books written on the subject; catholic and Jewish writers did the best job to describe what rectitude of intentions meant in 17-18 centuries. Don’t just google it, read books :)
I could summaries this forum such as a Search for Rectitude of our intentions – most of us trying to find the same answer today.
So I do believe we are in good company (Founding Fathers asked for the same thing. The act was up to them though.)
As they did by signing the document, pledging each other their lives (we can talk covenant, oath etc. )
That’s why the declaration of independence is not just as a religious document, it’s a legal document first. But this legal documents acknowledges:
1. Unalienable (Natural) Rights come from the Creator.
2. Appeals to the Supreme Judge of the World.
3. All people are created equal in eyes of The Creator. (this is were equality ends and Liberty and pursued of Happiness starts) – this concept was developed later , it is on every quarter – American Trinity (God, Liberty , E Pluribus Unum)
People have to understand that Equality without Liberty is socialism. You could not legislate equality. We equal in front of The Creator period.
E Pluribus Unum – Out of many one. (Out of many states one nation; out of many backgrounds – a new citizen) Forget where you came from, now you are an American. American values first , not multiculturalism. Teach youth to be proud to be an American.
All of these are great values to be united around, people just forget them or greatly misunderstood.
2A derives from them.
to bear arms – is the right;
“well regulated militia” – means
to be trained – is personal responsibility. If we want to keep our freedom.
November 14, 2019 at 12:46 am #127772
The Natural Rights vs Political Rights works well for me. How that can be used as a rallying cry is outside my expertise.
I tend to think what will end up rallying people is an event!
This event hasn’t happened or at least isn’t known yet.
When you check off the various things that are wrong or true abuses of power in my opinion we already have sufficient cause.
What we lack is a sufficient motivation for action.
The political advocates of tyranny had been surprisingly patient and they were certainly winning the propaganda battle.
Fortunately in my opinion they fell for their own propaganda believing they had sufficient people. Then one setback and many lost their minds!
Will they push just a little too far?
Whether through ignorance or just the right amount of goading, we may have an opportunity.
Will it be enough?
November 14, 2019 at 1:32 am #127776
I tend to think what will end up rallying people is an event!
I think this is true, because successful calls to action are typically appeals to emotion.
This is what it comes down to, and has been a critical component in any fight against a western democratic government, since about 1776. The effect of public opinion is a relatively recent phenomenon, in the course of human socio-political history
November 14, 2019 at 3:21 am #127788
Yet, this wasn’t the express point, which was the idea of finding a simple rallying cry. It may well get kicked off by an event, but what then? What unites? What is the cause? Without that, total chaos.
What is the simple manifesto?
What is the simple cause Libertists can agree on? We have seen already, even in this thread, that what I would have assumed are simple concepts are not, and will cause division.
November 14, 2019 at 3:24 am #127789
November 14, 2019 at 3:54 am #127793
Maybe someone can come up with something that catches on.
I tend to think the only thing that will break the division will be blood in the streets.
Viral videos of a “I will not comply rally massacre.”
It’s kind of sad, but that’s what I think it will take.
November 14, 2019 at 12:57 pm #127848
Yeah, similar to what Joe said, I don’t think many people will take action, until they are personally threatened, whether that means physical threat, financial threat, etc.
From a game theory perspective, the expected payoff needs to be recognized as higher than what they currently have (or don’t) along with the probabilities of different COAs. When you factor in people’s current lives- things just aren’t desperate enough. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, just the “why” of the current state.
I’m not a fan of american thinker. But with that said, I don’t think natural rights exist. Rights are determined by might and consensus. Now, might doesn’t make right, but at the same time, violence (physical/political/economic/etc) is a currency that transcends culture and even time.
- This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by JohnnyMac.
November 14, 2019 at 1:02 pm #127850
I keep coming back to Heinlein here, so forgive the redundancy, but I believe he comes as close as anyone to describing the state of human affairs.
I believe you have no rights, past what you are ready and willing to enforce, at a moment’s notice. The only rights you have are what you make for yourself. And even then that may not be enough. If you are stranded on a raft in the middle of the ocean, and a big storm comes up, you can shake your fist at the wind and rain, all you want, and demand the right to live; but the ocean doesn’t care and will kill you anyway. No natural rights there.
You can also rail at the political sit and demand all the rights you want; the ruling elite doesn’t give a shit and will ground you under their heel. Your natural rights be damned. They’ll tell you everything they do is for your own good, but I think we all see through that little fairy tale by now.
Western civilization has been a nice little experiment in human rights; communism is merely another form of tyranny masquerading as human rights; I think the only thing natural is power, raw, naked power. We play this charade of equality and freedom; we see the ruling elite talk shit about it, then piss all over these ideas; we just buy more ammo, and say boy, just you wait, one of these days.
You can shake your fist at the sky, and demand your natural and/or political rights ’til the cows come home. But until you pick up your rifle, nobody gives a shit. Disclaimer: In no way, shape, or form am I calling for an armed insurrection. Just stating facts, as I see them, for your consideration.
November 14, 2019 at 1:21 pm #127854
Ok, I don’t think we are getting anywhere with responses. I appreciate the responses, but it is not about the link to American Thinker, which is for interest purposes, it is about a philosophic discussion and trying to lead to a rallying call. Thus this is somewhat frustrating. It is also frustrating that so few will chime in.
The idea raised in another post was to find a common ground that people can rally to. We have already seen that ‘the right’ is like herding cats with a propensity to disappear off into multiple arguments and never agree on anything.
Granted rights do not really exist unless they can be protected. But it is a case of agreeing what those rights should be. Unless you can protect it, you have no right to self defense, no gun rights, no rights to liberty or property. So what to protect? We are currently facing the main argument that rights do not exist because they are in the process of being taken away. Of course, this leads to the point that to protect, you have to risk, and thus if you want rights you have to be prepared to fight / die for them. Otherwise, seek safety and have no rights. That is where America is right now.
So what is the simple rallying call? Guys, this is not about how a collapse starts as some of you keep repeating. Clearly there would be some sort of event if chaos was to ensue. Granted. But now is the time to agree on some basics, not after an event. Guys, I’m not talking about what may lead people to break with the current situation, what may propel them. I am talking about common ground both now and after. We have often talked about what we might end up with after a collapse, and it may be more tyranny. Is there a simple rallying call that Libertists can use both for propaganda and to form common cause?
Sadly, we are missing the point of this discussion. That in itself is an issue. If I cannot communicate my point and simple request here, then what hope is there on a larger scale?
So, I throw it out there one more time, and hope for some responses. Or I crawl back into my tactical hole.
What is a simple ‘manifesto’ for Libertists to use to communicate the idea of Liberty to people, both now and after an event?
Is it Rightful Liberty? Is it Natural Rights? Is it low Taxation? Is it Gun Rights (derived from a natural right to self defense? What can nuggets out there simply understand and that is appealing to them?
- This reply was modified 2 months ago by Max.
November 14, 2019 at 2:26 pm #127862PinkyParticipant
God -> natural rights -> right to self defense, protect my family, etc. gun rights are part of that until we have 40W Plasma rifles or whatever comes next.
As described, “political rights” are BS. I don’t get them from any government and certainly not any politician. They come from God.
November 14, 2019 at 2:48 pm #127867
I think that the natural rights thing, as Herbert stated, will fail in the chasm between belief. Unless we can have natural rights without God, but this is going to be a sticking point between Christian and non-religious people. That in itself makes such a thing a divisive rallying cry. It probably underscores also divisive issues in the ability of the ‘the right’ to unify. Commies have tyranny to unite under. ‘The Right’ cannot get it together.
It may be possible to go downstream of God on this one, and simply talk of the right to self-defense, which plays with gun rights.
But so far we cannot even get it together on this forum. No wonder we are individuals all sat on our own porches. I am not a religious man, although brought up and confirmed as a Christian. I am happy to fight for Liberty, but I will not fight for a Theocracy.
Those that know me know that although not religious, I acknowledge both the good and the bad that Christianity has brought to the development of western civilization. I would rather, however, talk of Norse / Saxon Gods. Not because I actually believe or worship them, but because they are a true part of my ancestry. Of which I am very proud,
Oh, and as an aside.; It’s OK to be white. And proud of your heritage in the development of Western Civilization. To the Left: Don’t fucking tell me what I can and cannot say, or be proud of.
November 14, 2019 at 3:11 pm #127872
OK sorry for the rant and missed point. What can we all rally around. Well, I would say:
Freedom. The freedom to do whatever the fuck you want, as long as it doesn’t get stupid and impact negatively on others. Freedom based on your ability to insist upon it, even to protect it with deadly force. Freedom based on your ability to support yourself and not be a drag on society.
A community, society, a tribe if you will, that makes a social pact to stand together, and protect each other, especially to protect each other’s loved ones, if we are not present. A society that believes in individual freedom, but realizes in order to protect that from others, you need a group of like-minded individuals, not a lone wolf. So certain curbs to your ultimate freedom may be required, as the case may be. But agreed to by all.
A society based on merit, not special interests, or other bullshit. Everyone pulls their own weight, as much as possible. Those that can’t are taken care within the group, but not lionized or put on a pedestal.
A society based on self-sufficiency, as much as possible. But also in close cooperation in things that really matter, like the common defense.
A society that preserves it’s culture in legends told to children, that emphasize courage, honor, loyalty, and hard work.
To reestablish the small town or village ethic, where very little is required of an outside source or larger government, for anything but the basics such as defense from outside, larger threats.
To re-link any “rights” as it were, with responsibilities. No free lunch.
I guess what I’m really saying is to go back a very de-centralized society, where the local is the main emphasis, and very small centralized “federal” control. Not relying on others to do all the work for you, but providing for your own needs, in as much as possible, and trading out specialized services within the community as required.
Yes, this would requires some serious sacrifices, some might call it a real step back-ward. But maybe that’s what we need. Maybe it’s about time to try and start reversing this “globalization” taking place, and start to re-focus on the local.
I know this is a ramble, but. Trying to innumerate “rights” without responsibilities, and without a social context is difficult. Obviously generations have been brought up being told how special they are, without much merit, and how “entitled” they are, to everything that can be given them, with no responsibility for providing it. If a re-set is possible, this all needs to be shit-canned.
Freedom, based on your ability to provide it, protect it, and pass it on to others. Everything done at the lowest possible level, with minimal government control, as required. Self-sufficiency as much as possible, hard work, and cooperation within the group as required. A return to the basic, “tribal” societies, as it were, where your “rights” are intertwined with your responsibilities.
We basically started out this way, but then we slowly began centralizing everything, until you have the mess we have today. So yeah, de-centralize, go back to the tried and true basics, and start again.
November 14, 2019 at 3:45 pm #127874
Your post = Rightful Liberty.
November 14, 2019 at 4:03 pm #127878
November 14, 2019 at 4:22 pm #127882
To clarify blood in the streets, as in my hypothetical “I will not comply rally massacre.” example will not be enough to motivate people to fight.
It’s what it will take to rally them to do anything!
The original “Bundy Ranch” didn’t get people showing up in droves until video of people being manhandled went online.
Consider “Ruby Ridge” and “Branch Davidians,” those events were only sufficient to get some organizing.
One a young boy and mother killed the other 76 killed, 19 of those children.
Let’s look at the climax of the “Bundy Ranch” event a firecracker or vehicle backfire could have started a gunfight. Or one lone nut!
Remember in April 19, 1775 the initiating shot is still unknown. In hindsight, one lone nut or something else?
November 14, 2019 at 4:34 pm #127883
True that by your example you have shown the US population will do nothing in the face of egregious tyranny. Only if it affects them directly. Do we need to wait on a rallying slogan until something specific happens? It has to affect people in a way that motivates them.
So, Virginia, what if they legislate 2A away? Does that become personal to enough Virginians that they don’t see it as someone else’s problem? In which case, 2A based slogans are a rallying cry?
Or in VA gun control is somehow averted, but we face massive socialist tax hikes. I already read somewhere that of you paid $300 this year, expect $1000 next year on property tax. So taxation / property tax might be it?
I need to write something on Rightful Liberty, because I don’t think it is what many think it is.
November 14, 2019 at 4:53 pm #127884
Do we need to wait on a rallying slogan until something specific happens?
It’s not that we need to wait, but that it may take more than a slogan to gain traction.
Consider that most of the modern Wars the U.S. has been involved in were based on deceit to gain public support. Historically we’re slow to action.
So, Virginia, what if they legislate 2A away? Does that become personal to enough Virginians that they don’t see it as someone else’s problem?
That’s the million dollar question! The answer we will find out all too soon.
I already read somewhere that of you paid $300 this year, expect $1000 next year on property tax. So taxation / property tax might be it?
Taxes seem to me to be something people complain about, but do little to change. Probably too many renters too ignorant to see that it affects them.
I need to write something on Rightful Liberty, because I don’t think it is what many think it is.
Again too many are ignorant and current propaganda teaches otherwise.
November 14, 2019 at 5:42 pm #127887
Ultimately what we are about to learn is Virginia different?
Are the Socialists making a mistake?
Consider the post-birth abortion proposal, they believed that was something people were ready for.
Are Virginians different from other Socialist conquests? Despite the demographic change that has occurred, are the core values of Virginians so diluted or will they live up to their historical roots?
We will see.
November 14, 2019 at 8:51 pm #127917AnonymousInactive
Y’all just jumped straight into theory and didn’t even invite me? Shame!
Really the difference between the right and the left regarding rights theory is often between negative and positive rights. Kinda surprised the article itself didn’t note the distinction.
Negative rights are generally those we’d consider “natural rights”, such as the right to self-defense, freedom of speech, or freedom of movement. Positive rights include the right to health care, the right to education, the right to housing, etc. Negative rights require non-action from others – you’re not allowed to stop someone from worshipping freely or speaking openly. Positive rights require action from others – you pay for someone to get health care or housing, you have to bake the cake, etc. There are some positive rights in US law (for example the right to a jury trial, which demands others to participate in a jury) but they’re more a feature of post-WWII European law. Roughly speaking, negative rights arose out of the Enlightenment, positive rights grew out of the later socialist and progressive movements.
Personally I regard most “negative rights” as natural rights, and “positive rights” that do currently exist as state privileges, but not legal rights. In a less statist society “positive rights” are mostly services that should be guaranteed through the non-governmental sector, be they private businesses, cooperatives, mutual aid networks, whatever. To paraphrase Bastiat, it’s not that I don’t want everyone to have an education, health care, etc., it’s that I don’t want the state to control it.
Diz is pretty spot on, I’ve described generally the same system previously, if in different terms. My individual liberty is absolute until it infringes on the ability of others to also live freely, higher levels of government should only concern themselves with matters that individuals, businesses, cooperatives, and local communities can’t handle. Perhaps my time among leftists has rubbed off on me and makes my style of writing difficult to access.
We already agree that collective action to maintain individual liberty is necessary in community self-defense or political organizing, beyond that what does collective action among the right look like to provide a political alternative to progressive demands for federal control of public welfare? I’ve made suggestions based on what I’ve learned from social anarchism and my experiences in Rojava but it seems like too far of a leap to many right-wing folks without that experience. Probably a bit outside of the scope of this conversation but a thought.
Herbert is correct to be critical of religious appeals to natural rights, Max is also correct that the Founders themselves were mostly Deists and that talk of a generic “Creator” was intentional – there were already too many denominational divides in the Colonies to endorse any specific brand of Christianity even before the rise of a large non-religious population. To me, my natural rights are the same as those any other freely-living organism would enjoy, even a deer or a bear has a natural right to bray wherever it wants or defend itself, whether that Creator is God, Ahura Mazda, the Great Spirit, the Big Bang itself, whatever.
As to what a rallying cry among the right would look like, I’m not sure, there really aren’t even many unifying rallying cries among the left, right now it’s against Trump and fascism but before Trumpism the left was as disorganized as the right is, and is only marginally more organized today.
The stereotype of the political right is that they only care about the rights they personally value (defending gun rights while tolerating the PATRIOT Act), while ignoring infringements against those who don’t look or think like them. (Think the silence over Philandro Castile’s shooting – he was a CCW holder but also black.) Not to start an argument over that stuff but what messaging would break that cliche? Simply saying “Individual liberty!” sounds selfish to outsiders, perhaps “Liberty and justice for all?”
Max is an egoist! Max is an egoist!
Explains some things!
(I agree with the statement, just busting your balls)
November 14, 2019 at 9:18 pm #127929
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Ok that’s great. We have a forum subsection devoted to this. However, there is a huge problem with this. Essentially, the idea is that you are limited by the equal rights of others. In a homogenous community that is pretty straughforward and common sense. Basically, do no harm.
However, in a world of crazy people such as today, the very meaning of this can be warped. I will use an example such as gun rights: it seems self evident to me and to you that having guns is essential to the natural right to self defense. However, a leftist would claim that by having guns, you are doing harm. They would probably also claim all sorts of other crazy stuff such as having guns is racist etc.
The other aspect to this is that you have to tolerate people you don’t like. They have rights like you have rights, and in the same way your rights are not allowed to harm theirs. Thus things you don’t like, such as lesbians getting married and having turkey baster babies etc. You could probably claim that drag queens reading stories in school classrooms is harming the children. They could claim that you being a white priviledged gun owner is equally as bad.
Thus, Rightful Liberty is great as a guiding principle, but it simply does not work in clown world. You have to have some sort of basic agreement on what your community should look like. And basic standards.
Thus I would conclude that Rightful Liberty is an excellent guiding principle, but you have to live in a community where you will not be attacked for your basic values. This is essentially the problem in clown world America right now. Virginia just became clown world, and we can expect a whole world of shit coming down the pike that is against classic American values.
I am neither of the right or the left. I am a rational libertist.
November 15, 2019 at 2:20 am #127961chant8tonesParticipant
Before the demographic and cultural transformation of the US we wouldn’t necessarily need to appeal to rights as if it were a concept accessible to any rational person (as liberalism would have us believe), but we could at least appeal to the “rights of Englishmen” as understood by the founders and in traditional American culture and rhetoric.
- This reply was modified 2 months ago by chant8tones.
November 15, 2019 at 7:16 am #127988herbertParticipant
I see the direction this thread is taking, and I will add my comments, though they are not what you want to hear. I post it here because it refers to some other posts above.
I do not need gods or heroes to look up to, foundational myths, special labels, or membership of exclusive cliques; and I don’t recommend we rely on them. I am more than happy to throw the myth of the noble Founders in the trash where it rightly belongs if it helps to build a stronger cross-party coalition, or eases my ostensible allies’ heads from their backsides.
The immigrants who founded the colonies and the young United States were hoping to build their own tribal enclaves along feudal lines. They “acquired” land and resources at the expense and existence of the natives, and labor at the expense of other peoples’ dignity and liberty. They were the original FSA who set the tone for all that followed. Any justifications by the Founding Fathers for rebellion against the Crown on moral grounds were hollow, as demonstrated by their disregard for human equality in practice. Window-dressing proclamations of piousness do not conceal this.
Promoting these people as paragons of virtue limits the appeal of the modern cause of liberty. They were self-serving tyrants who offered the promise of liberty to some, as a payment for the use of the masses as cannon fodder. “Fight for us, and your children will be free” is a timeless message, now being used by the left to appeal to fence-jumpers and ethnic minorities.
The advantage the Founding Fathers had was the lack of transparency into their actions and motivations, provided by the social stratification and general illiteracy of the day. It matters not that the Constitution is open to interpretation when only those who wield wealth and power have the ability to read it.
Any future constitution, whether based on natural rights or otherwise, needs to withstand scrutiny from a broad ethnic, economic, and social background. It is to our disadvantage to appear bigoted or biased towards any particular race, gender, religion, or socioeconomic cohort.
One of the strongest pillars of our ideology, and a fundamental difference between us and our enemies is our regard for equality before the law. More effort needs to be made to promote the Constitution, any constitution, as a means to this end. Every instance where this principle is infringed, especially where members of the regime are favored at the expense of citizens, needs to be remonstrated as a grievance that affects everyone unjustly. Questioning the legitimacy of using firearms to defend ones family is one of the most egregious current violations, while those who seek to place restrictions on the peasantry are chauffeur driven in armored cars and live in homes protected by guards armed with superior weapons.
As a general vision of what liberty means, DiznNC covered most of the bases. Most importantly, from an electoral perspective, he mentions magnanimity to the weak and downtrodden, which is a sticking point for most reasonable people across the political spectrum. I don’t believe in small tribal villages, and “communities” sticking their nose into my business. I’m not a people person, so I prefer faceless organisations, large and small, as far away as possible until I want to engage with them. Our ancestors knew tribal village life better than we do: they didn’t like the reality as much as some today like the fantasy. But for those who wish to live this way, either permanently or temporarily, it ought to be possible to establish smaller semiautonomous settlements, akin to the Indian reservations. I would support semiautonomous villages as suitable to be included in a libertist party political platform.
Other cross-party conceptions of liberty:
1. Greater individual stewardship of mind and body, moderating prohibitions on euthanasia, abortion, antisocial knowledge or beliefs, the right to self-defense, recreational and medicinal drug use, and organ transfer (by donation or sale).
2. Greater protections of individual privacy, to include the right to total privacy inside the home and in shielded communications.
3. Equality before the law for all adults, which necessitates an expansion of the court system and public aid, to give those accused of crimes proper due process. Currently 95% of felony convictions result from the defendant accepting a plea bargain, often to avoid bankruptcy facing the Leviathan in court.
4. Greater meritocracy in determining access to opportunity and progression within society as a whole. Many professions are off limits to those who hold the wrong opinions. Ideological discrimination is the means by which the left controls access to the institutions of influence and authority.
5. An end to the use of the police as a revenue generation agency to end nuisance intrusions into everyday life.
In a nutshell, we have to appeal to a coalition whose preference is for greater personal liberty and greater meritocracy, while managing social welfare to ensure that it offers greater equality of opportunity and does not devolve into expectations of equality of outcomes.
The left today is more expert at shaping and articulating the narrative, not just of their own platform, but the public vision of what America was, is, and ought to be. (They are hypocritical tyrants who are adept at public relations and organization, and handing out stolen property to their supporters; much like the Founders.)
One of the reasons they are successful is because they attach falsehood to truth, as though it were a natural continuation of the narrative. They rightly condemn the barbarity of the past, and make no attempt to whitewash the realpolitik of the Founders and subsequent generations. By doing so they have earned the trust of academia, the professions, the aspirational, and the aggrieved. To control the future we must be honest about the ills of the past and the present, without regard to friend or foe. You don’t need to care about these people, but we need to separate them from the Democratic Party to obtain their votes.
Many of those on the left are liberty-minded women and minorities who are turned away from the Republicans by religiously inspired laws and general hostility from current Republican supporters and representatives. Changing the name of the party, or renaming the ideology will not change this. The name can stay, but the platform needs to evolve.
It is a fruitless endeavor trying to win the support of a majority of people by appealing to a single factor. Any narrow definition of “us” is insufficient. We need to recruit more extensively at the margins between right and left, across economic and social dimensions.
The shortcut is to take the current Republican platform and make a few modifications. These few things alone will bring millions of desirable Democratic voters to the Republican Party:
1. End the objections to abortion rights within their current extent.
2. End the prohibition on recreational drugs.
3. Level the educational playing field by removing the financial barriers to entry, so that children from disadvantaged backgrounds can rise socially and economically if they are capable of doing so.
4. Legislate and enforce greater environmental protection.
5. Optional stretch goal. Reform healthcare to remove unnecessary complexity and costs.
Notice that the first 4 are not visionary, nor difficult to achieve. Only instrumental promises hold any value to the majority of people. Hot air has been oversold for decades, and nobody wants to buy it.
The state, its policies, and the justifications for its legitimacy must be entirely secular. If we remain shackled to an unpopular theocracy, we tie ourselves to a sinking ship.
The third policy objective, a meritocratic system that separates a child’s outcomes from the undeserved influence of luck or the sins of his parents is something that rational and decent people should support. Where a child is born should not determine where it can go as an adult.
The Hard Reality:
The population of the United States will soon exceed 400 million. We need at least 200 million, preferably the most useful, well educated, and wealthiest to be on “our” side, broadly defined. This means capturing a larger share of the university educated, across a wider set of disciplines. While the economic hard-left and freakshow left will never be our allies, those who are currently left-aligned for social reasons are open to inducement. It is the social conservatives who we are allied with who make this difficult. They must be rehabilitated or purged if they do not die within the next two election cycles.
Provided the line can be held for one generation, we can inherit a ready-made party and rebuild it as the party of liberty, justice, merit, and accountability.
We are rightly known as liberals. Liberal is not pejorative. Those who kowtow to the socialists by allowing them to despoil the name of the most noble of ideologies demonstrate their weakness and their cowardice. We are the liberals, not those who are correctly known as socialists. When the socialists call themselves Lords, our weaker allies will bend over backwards to call them Lord at every opportunity. The socialists are not liberals, nor will they ever be Lords.
When challenged by either socialists or conservatives, I explain what liberalism has given us, and why it is neither a pejorative label nor a label that socialists have any right to use. Ultimately in the long-term, there is no better banner to march under than liberalism.
There is no siren song that will appeal to all. There are certainly not 200 million people who care about philosophical distinctions, nor even 20 million.
The only absolute the Founders cared for was absolute victory. There can be few moral absolutes if we seek the same. When the war against the left is over, we can fight among ourselves for the better slice of the cake.
One final point:
One of the core reasons the modern moralizing conservatives and their “libertist” allies cannot hold-on to the Republic is because they are in denial about the level of savagery and skullduggery employed to create it. We are dragged down with them, and some of you share their delusions.
The founders, and later the Founders, were savage, treacherous, and hypocritical. Theft, murder, enslavement, and rape on an enormous scale were their pastimes. They were sociopathic enough to do all of these things while maintaining a pious and unperturbed exterior, and a morally righteous self-image. Are those who are easily upset by minor events today, savage enough to defend the Republic they built? Clearly not.
There are tens of millions of Americans who decry people like George Soros or Bernie Sanders as the devil incarnate, yet simultaneously worship the founders as paragons of decency and virtue. This false dichotomy is ridiculous, and turns off marginal recruits to the cause. It is a secular alternative to religion that needs to die. Stop crying about modern-day lightweight tyrants, while lionizing a fantastical revision of the Founders.
This Republic was not built by fantasists. It cannot be held by fantasists. And it cannot be rebuilt by fantasists. Whatever form our resurrection takes, whether it is democratic or otherwise, hardheaded realism is needed to measure the threats, derive the solutions, and follow through however personally difficult it may be.
Go and rewatch the video of the Christchurch shooting. A calm, calculated, and self-righteous massacre of innocent people labeled as “other”. That is a glimpse of who the founders were. They were worse.
I am not troubled by what they did, though I disapprove of much of it. I am troubled by the lack of open-eyed realism of my ostensible allies. We have fallen to where we are today because of the weakness of previous generations of fantasists who preferred to daydream rather than confront reality. I promote the reality of the founders because I want real results, not more fairytales.
November 15, 2019 at 12:21 pm #128004
I see the direction this thread is taking, and I will add my comments, though they are not what you want to hear. I post it here because it refers to some other posts above.
That’s a long post and needs some digestion, which will have to wait as I am getting ready for the Night Ops class. However I am curious as to your meaning on the above quote?
What’s wrong with Libertist? It’s new so you don’t like it? Probably easier than trying to steal back Liberal? No?
You have a pretty savage take on the founders. I get some of it, but not the extent that you hate them. Washington immediately putting down the Whisky Rebellion says a lot to me. I have no great objections to most of their enlightenment philosophy. Comments on the current reality of rightful liberty posted above.
I object to your objections to community. It is essential and is what is missing. Sounds like you want to be a rugged individualist, which is frankly balls and limits your survivability.
I’m not a Republican. I only vote that way in opposition to the left. I wasn’t looking for a fix to the whole parry, but what the hell, have at it!
Thank you for taking the time to post detailed thoughts. I hope more jump in.
November 15, 2019 at 6:11 pm #128041dave37Participant
I disagree with your premise that the way forward is to compromise with the left, in order to win over more voters. The Republican party has been doing this as long as I have been alive, and all they have done is alienate their base, while giving the left everything they want. I’m still waiting for all those “naturally conservative” black and Hispanic voters to start voting for conservative candidates.
In a multi ethnic society, people vote for their tribe, not for issues. The only people in America who don’t are whites, because they still believe in the America that existed 50 years ago.
The Republicans can increase their share of the vote all they want, and the Democrats will just import another 50 million loyal voters from the third world. As seen in Virginia a couple weeks ago, and coming soon to a red state near you.
Your whole strategy is the one “conservatives” have used to conserve nothing at all.
HEAT 1 2017
Intro to CQB 2017
Texas HEAT 2 2018
Operation TeaSinker 2019
Combat Leader Course 2019
November 15, 2019 at 7:51 pm #128049hellokittyParticipant
I like Veterans and I go to church sooo…I’ll just train.
HEAT 1(CTT) X 3
HEAT 2 (CP) X1
November 15, 2019 at 8:06 pm #128052gatlinggunParticipant
My humble opinion is that liberty is rapidly dying and probably won’t soon be reanimated in my lifetime. As a pendulum swings, it must complete its arc. That arc is currently swinging toward complete hard tyranny.
It seems to me that all of the debate about the nature of liberty, governmental systems, rights, etcetera is tilting at windmills. Don’t get me wrong, I’m well read in most of these subjects and like a good debate.
But the only question that remains for me is:
How do I live as a free man under the present system? How do I live as a free man under future complete tyranny?
November 15, 2019 at 8:22 pm #128054AnonymousInactive
I agree with your policy proposals, these kind of issues of individual autonomy/liberty should be something we advocate the government stay away from just as much as we insist they stay away from our guns, that could convince the fence sitters that conservatives actually mean “Don’t Tread On Me” for issues beyond guns. Even I was a bit dumbstruck with this recent push to ban all abortion, there are a lot of us who consider whether a fertilized egg is a person to be an open enough question that the state shouldn’t be involved. IMO Christian extremists may be a bigger threat than racial extremists in a boogaloo.
I also agree that the Founders were very hypocritical to push liberty for themselves while destroying the liberty the natives had already created. That being said a good chunk of the pro-liberty community has much less mixed feelings about our founding mythos, those topics may be good conversation starters with the left but it’s not good messaging for our in-groups. Avoid going so far as the left does regarding our revolution and throwing the baby out with the bath water. Many of us have ancestors who fought in the revolution and you don’t want to offend potential supporters, especially the Southerners with their honor culture.
Some of us here (including myself) would be considered classical liberals, in the US the progressives stole the term liberal so the classical liberals stole the term libertarian from the social anarchists. Max likes “libertist”, I don’t care so much as long as we share common ideals. I’ve worked alongside outright socialists when we’ve had shared goals. Names and labels are less important than actions.
Black voters became a liberal bloc because the conservatives stood in the way of desegregation, black folks don’t vote for Republicans because they’re convinced the GOP hates them. Remember that black voters were a Republican bloc up until FDR, then they were split until Nixon implemented his Southern Strategy. Up until Trump Hispanic voting trends were much more split and similar to white voting patterns until the GOP took a hard line on any kind of immigration and Trump started making racially-charged statements about Latinos, of course we want strong borders but taking that out on DACA kids doesn’t convince anyone conservatives aren’t assholes. As much as people vote for “tribe”, yes, the GOP is becoming a tribal bloc of rural white voters, which will make them irrelevant at the state and federal level.
The GOP wrote up a report detailing a strategy forward to bring Latinos and other minorities further into the party like fifteen years ago, instead the party ignored those suggestions and now they risk devolving into a white nationalist party. I just saw video of Charlie Kirk of TPUSA being heckled by supporters of a Holocaust denier wearing MAGA gear. Y’all just saw how quick Virginia flipped, perhaps we’ll see Texas flip in the next ten years, then we’re done nationally.
Racial bloc voting is a result of paranoia over control of higher government institutions. I live in Baltimore, it’s been something I’ve seen all my life firsthand; white folks are in the minority here. The only way to address it is decentralization so communities directly govern themselves and folks aren’t worried about politicians using higher levels of government to play racial revenge politics.
We have/had a multi-ethnic system that works in Rojava/North Syria based on community governance, even though the Kurds started it it gave enough autonomy to the Assyrians, Arabs, etc. they embraced it in earnest. Kurds are now a minority in the SDF, Arab SDF units are fighting Turkish-backed Arab FSA as we speak to defend Kurdish and Assyrian villages because they like the liberty they have in the Autonomous Administration, a number of overseas pundits thought the SDF Arabs might defect to their fellow Arabs of the FSA but that hasn’t been the case.
Regardless of whether the big fucking mess we’ve all inherited is worth conserving, being a “conservative” is pointless if you have no plan to conserve anything beyond stockpiling guns and hoping for the boogaloo, which is seems too many on the right are placing all their bets on.
November 15, 2019 at 8:54 pm #128058
I really am not sure why people are talking about the GOP / Republicans? Policy proposals? None of this was ever supposed to fix the GOP. Making shit way too complicated. I only ever vote GOP to block the alternative and give us more time. I should have just voted for Hillary.
The point is we are in an unholy mess and the GOP is not the solution. There is no way out of our current tyranny because the whole thing is shot through from the beginning.
Here is the dilemma: none of us want the boogaloo, because we are raising families and we simply don’t know hwat the result will be. We certainly don’t know what the result will be when there is a nation of 300 plus million assholes and no one on the ‘Libertist’ side can agree on basic shit. The flip side of that is that there is no changing any of this without a reset. That option is the ‘only way out is through’ option.
This is the basic dilemma that faces all Libertists. We are not going to see our freedom returned to us. We are going to see increasing tyranny. There is no electoral way we can vote our way out of this. The purpose of this thread was to try and attempt to find some common ground, but it has devolved into bickering about items such as the founders and how to fix the GOP. I honestly don’t give a fuck about the founders – I give a fuck about now.
Virginia is the latest push towards the boogaloo, which although we joke about, none of us really wants. It is the end of any comfort and civilization that we have. But it may happen, due to these leftist assholes.
Anyway, I only care about my children and their future. If there is gonna be a fight, make it my fight. Sick and tired of the tyranny in this country, and the idiocy on all sides. Stupid people just gotta stupid.
I suggest that your answer is to train. If you are not training both PT and team tactics, you are a fucking moron. I’m headed out to run the Night Ops class right now. If you are on this forum and not training at MVT, then you are a fool.
November 15, 2019 at 8:55 pm #128059
Well, as a card-carrying old bitter clinger, my way forward through this current morass does not hinge on re-building the republic, rather a return to my ancestor’s way of life, which evolved around a local-regional model vs some grand national scheme. So I am perfectly content to congregate with people of my own kind, meaning folks that are as self-sufficient as possible, but still loosely organized into a small society, for the common defense of all, and other things as may be necessary.
The fact that the demographics of this country have changed so dramatically in the past few years is certainly a challenge, if your goal is to include every tom, dick, and harry into your scheme, for some kind of national coalition. But that is not my goal. In fact I am looking for the antithesis to that goal. I want to dis-engage from all this national bullshit, go off and do my own thing, with like-minded individuals. This country has become so fractured, with so many different ways of thinking, that finding consensus in all this mess is virtually impossible.
I am no longer pledging allegiance to the republic; it is virtually non-existent at this point. So many different people are involved, with viewpoints so diametrically opposed to mine, that it has become untenable to support and to defend any longer. Max said it best when referring to the clown world this country has become. Without some basic moral values or ethics we can all agree on, how can you agree on any system of government that is fair and balanced for all. When we can’t even define what fair and balanced might even look like. I am basically a white, middle class, conservative, with Judeo-Christian values. I was brought up with a fierce love of country, with firearms being a natural extension of that policy, to serve and protect the people. What I see today are whole generations of folks that basically hate everything I stand for. So what’s the point?
Apologies for the thread drift.
November 15, 2019 at 8:59 pm #128060
We posted at the same time Diz. +1 for your comment. I agree. I just want to live with me and mine, preferably in a Liberty community of decent folks who think like I do. Fuck the rest of the clowns. I have no obligation to anyone or anything of these clowns.
This thread finally caught up with me and pissed me off, after my attempts to be reasonable.
November 15, 2019 at 9:52 pm #128064PinkyParticipant
somebody smarter than me said it, it’s about your “clan” or your “me and mine” or whatever you want to call it. Time to find them and make sure they are all on the same page.
November 15, 2019 at 10:34 pm #128071AnonymousInactive
For those of us who aren’t deep in the country, consensus-building is a concern, not all of us can move to Appalachia. Clearly one should focus on their own hometowns, discussions about consensus-building beyond partisan lines are more relevant to those of us in contested or hostile territory or in-event when those already establishing authority in rural areas might butt up along those urban and suburban areas where demographics and politics tend to shift.
If we’re talking about an extended boogaloo going over years or a decade there will be coalition-building at regional or national levels, if you seek to clam up and not engage other groups your little faction will get slaughtered and displaced by those who did form coalitions and your people subject to the latest fads in tyranny, maybe y’all Virginians will witness the newest paradigms in Maoist theory.
Talk about the Founders is mostly relevant to messaging, if things go hot every revolutionary movement has made appeals to past national history to bolster their legitimacy. Even the communist revolutionaries of the 20th century made appeals to traditional notions of homeland and country, very few didn’t. Some could be described as explicitly nativist, such as the Khmer Rouge. (Obviously a very shitty and extreme example of a movement.) That’s why I said Herbert’s take on the Founders could come off as a bit extreme to the people we’d need on our side. Honestly I’m only a constitutionalist so far as nobody can form consensus on anything better, I’d take another whack at the Articles if it were up to me. To paraphrase Spooner, the Constitution has either authorized our current government to exist, or has been powerless to prevent it.
Even if all of us here fully expect things to end in violence and chaos and none of our proposals were to be taken up, it’s worth being able to say we did propose solutions and were ignored and brutalized, that force was a last option and not simply Y’all-Qaeda having a tantrum with firearms. (I referenced this in the “You Think You’re Ready to Fight Tyranny?” thread.) I really don’t give a shit about the GOP beyond the Democrats being even more statist (both parties are statist, in different aspects), but if there is to be some unified “libertist” messaging it’s useful.
I believe Diz and I mostly agree on what a “libertist” society would look like, beyond that Herbert and I are basically going on regarding policy proposals in the interim. I’m not sure any of this stuff is mutually exclusive, a community-based system is going to look different in mountain West Virginia than it does in suburban Maryland because local needs are different, that’s the point. Of course nothing Herbert or I suggest will become law, it’s more about narrative. Will Democrats successfully impeach Trump? Of course not, but a consistent narrative rallies support for them.
Sorry for my contribution to the thread drift.
November 16, 2019 at 1:44 am #128084
No offense to our urban brethren, but, my intention is to be as far away as possible from any urban shit-hole that might be a threat to me and mine.
The whole point of why we go to MVT and train is to prep[are for possible times when urban hordes might migrate out and threaten our enclaves. I think it is unwise to discount our little communities as easily over-run by sheer numbers of ass-clowns.
FYI, there are communities in certain states that have plans to blow bridges and isolate their areas from people even getting into where they are. If the MSR’s leading into these areas are unpassable, and you are surrounded by rivers, you can control your destiny. This is but one example.
In my neck of the woods, there is a whole underground of folks that have been doing “Robin Sage” exercises for decades. To say they are familiar with U/W is a huge understatement. Any group of folks trying to move in on them are in for a very rude awakening.
For more info, look up the American Redoubt.
I don’t think most folks realize the depth of dis-enchantment and the preps underway in certain areas of the land. Not the idiot preppers you see on tv shows, I’m talking about the real deal.
November 16, 2019 at 8:38 pm #128184wheelseeParticipant
Life imitates art far more than art imitates life – Oscar Wilde
Tell me, why should I trade 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away? Mel Gibson, Patriot
As Max has already stated above, review the irony of the Whiskey Rebellion.
Also review what Diz said re: government manipulation to wage war – Gulf of Tonkin, Battleship Maine, etc.
Would also be worthwhile to review the Treaty of Paris (1783). Note that it specifically stated “independent states”. This is LONG gone……
November 17, 2019 at 2:11 pm #128260
Well I think it’s high time to bring back a few independent states.
When we talk about framing a government, and at what level, consider this. A Pashtu tribesman doesn’t give a flying fuck about lines drawn on a map, whether he is inside some “nation-state” designated as Pakistan, or Ass-Crackistan. It has zero effect on him personally, in his daily life (well until the Outsiders come to call). His whole world revolves around his tribal identity. Nation sates have come and gone, but his tribe doggedly remains. Think about that for a moment. He doesn’t care a wit what the world at large calls his area, or who has so-called sovereignty over it; he totally ignores all this and merely goes about his business.
He lives a pretty austere existence, but I would submit he is one of very few true freemen in this world. So in the end, what is more important to you, a few baubles and trinkets, or your freedom? The problem at this point is we have become slaves to our possessions and way of life. It’s been way too easy, for way too long. Instead of being taught the toughness and self-sufficiency of our ancestors, we have been taught fine possessions and money are what’s most important.
I think the key principle to what we are discussing here is to define a core of principles, a “tribe”, as it were, can rally around, and then frankly not give a flying fuck about what everyone else is doing. The world has gone insane and there is no accommodating all this crazy, even evil, if you will. What we need to be doing is separating ourselves from it, and forming our own clans. Unfortunately that is extremely difficult at this point as well.
November 17, 2019 at 4:05 pm #128271wheelseeParticipant
Diz nails this.
Think prior to 1860. For the most part, those in the south did not relate as Southerners but rather as from their individual states. Review Robert E Lee’s reason for turning down Lincoln’s offer as General of the army of the Potomac. Hint – he refused to fight against “my Virginny”
Since the 1830s, Texicans have self-identified which is rapidly losing its identity. How many Texans identify as such versus as “American”?
Even within a state there are differences. Southern LA is filled with Cajuns, with a proud heritage, despite the US policy of speaking English only in school (since overturned but my grandmother was forbidden to speak it in school, so lost the language). North LA is more kin to Arkansas and Mississippi – dirt farmers.
Freedom starts first in one’s mind and heart.
“Just because you have silenced a man does not mean you have converted him” source lost to the recesses of my brain…..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.