Posts Tagged ‘liberty’
Thursday, April 9th, 2009
To The Governments & People of Earth:
We claim the right to exist, and we will defend it. We do not seek to overthrow anything. We do not seek to control anything. We merely wish to be left alone.
All we ever wanted was to live in peace with our friends and neighbors. For a long, long time we bore insults to our liberty; we took blows, we did what we could to avoid injury and we worked through the system to get the offenses to stop. That has now changed. We no longer see any benefit in working through the world’s systems. At some point, working within a system becomes cowardly and immoral; for us, that point has arrived. Regardless of the parties in power, their governments have continued to restrict, restrain and punish us. We hereby reject them all. We hereby withdraw from them all. We hold the ruling states of this world and all that appertains to them to be self-serving and opposed to humanity.
We now withdraw our obedience and reclaim the right to strike back when struck. We will not initiate force, but we do reserve the right to answer it. We did not choose this—it was forced upon us.
To The Governments of Earth:
You are building cages for all that is human. In the name of protection, you have intruded into all areas of human life, far exceeding the reach of any Caesar. You claim ultimate control of our property and our decisions, of our travels and even our identities. You claim ownership of humanity far beyond the dreams of any Emperor of any previous era. Understand clearly: We reject your authority and we reject your legitimacy. We do not believe that you have any right to do the things you do. You have massive power, but no right to impose it upon us and no legitimacy. We have forsaken you. We are no longer your citizens or your subjects.
Your systems are inherently anti-human, even if all their operators are not. We are not merely angry young people. We are fathers and mothers; aunts, uncles and grandparents; we are business owners and trusted employees; we are mechanics and engineers and farmers. We are nurses and accountants and students and executives. We are on every continent.
This is not a burst of outrage; this is a sober declaration that we no longer accept unearned suffering as our role in life.
For long decades we sat quietly, hoping that things would turn around. We took no actions; we suffered along with everyone else. But after having our limits pushed back again and again, we have given up on your systems.
If our fellow inhabitants of this planet wish to accept your rule, they are free to do so. We will not try to stop them. We, however, will no longer accept your constraints upon us. From now on, when you hurt us, we will bite back. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone and you can continue to rule your subjects. We are happy to live quietly. But if you come after us, there will be consequences.
You caused this because of your fetish for control and power. The chief men and women among you are pathologically driven to control everyone and everything that moves upon this planet. You have made yourselves the judge of every human activity. No god-king of the ancient world ever had the power that your systems do.
You have created a world where only the neutered are safe and where only outlaws are free.
To The People of Earth:
We seek nothing from you. We do not want to rule you and we do not want to control you. All we wish is to live on earth in peace. As always, we will be helpful neighbors and generous acquaintances. We will remain honest business partners and trustworthy employees. We will continue to be loving parents and respectful children.
We will not, however, be sacrificial animals. We reject the idea that others have a right to our lives and our property. We will not demand anything from you, and we will no longer acquiesce to any demands upon us. We have left that game. We reject all obligations to any person or organization beyond honesty, fair dealing and a respect for human life. We will shortly explain what we believe, but we are not demanding that you agree with us. All we ask is that you do not try to stop us. Continue to play the game if you wish; we will not try to disrupt it. We have merely walked away from it.
We wish you peace.
To Those Who Will Condemn Us:
We will ignore you.
We welcome and seek the verdict of a just God, before whom we are willing to expose our innermost thoughts. Are you similarly willing?
We would stand openly before all mankind if it were not suicidal. Perhaps some day we will have to accept slaughter for our crime of independence, but not yet.
Your criticism and your malice are much deeper than mere disagreements of strategy or philosophy. You do not oppose our philosophy, you oppose our existence. Our presence in the world means that your precious ideals are false. Some of you would rather kill us than face the loss of your ideologies, just as those like you have either hated or killed every sufficiently independent human.
You present yourselves to the world as compassionate, tolerant and enlightened, but we know that your smooth words are costumes. Oh yes, we know you, servant of the state; don’t forget, we were raised with you. We played with you in the schoolyard, we sat next to you in the classroom. Some of us studied at the same elite universities. We watched as you had your first tastes of power. We were the boys and girls standing next to you. Some of us were your first victims. We are not fooled by your carefully crafted public image.
What We Believe:
Many humans resent the responsibilities that are implied by consciousness. We accept those responsibilities and we embrace consciousness. Rather than letting things happen to us (avoiding consciousness), we accept consciousness and choose to act in our own interest. We do not seek the refuge of blaming others, neither do we take refuge in crowds. We are willing to act on our personal judgment, and we are willing to accept the consequences thereof.
We believe in negative rights for all: That all humans should be free to do whatever they wish, as long as they do not intrude upon others; that no man has a right to the life, liberty or property of another; that we oppose aggression, fraud and coercion.
We do not believe that our way of life, or any other, will make life perfect or trouble-free. We expect crime and disagreements and ugliness, and we are prepared to deal with them. We do not seek a strongman to step in and solve problems for us. We agree to see to them ourselves.
We believe in free and unhindered commerce. So long as exchanges are voluntary and honest, no other party has a right to intervene—before, during or after.
We believe that all individuals should keep their agreements.
We believe that honestly obtained property is fully legitimate and absolute.
We believe that some humans are evil and that they must be faced and dealt with. We accept the fact that this is a difficult area of life.
We believe that humans can self-organize effectively. We expect them to cooperate. We reject impositions of hierarchy and organization.
We believe that all humans are to be held as equals in all matters regarding justice.
We believe that the more a man or woman cares about right and wrong, the more of a threat he or she is perceived to be by governments.
We believe that there are only two true classes of human beings: Those who wish to exercise power upon others—either directly or through intermediaries—and those who have no such desires.
Large organizations and centralization are inherently anti-human. They must rely upon rules rather than principles, treating humans within the organization as obedient tools.
We are building our own society. We will supplement traditional tools with networking, cryptography, sound money, digital currency and anonymous messaging.
Our society will not be centrally controlled. It will rely solely on voluntary arrangements. We welcome others to join us. We are looking for people who are independent creators of value, people who act more than talk, and people who do the right thing because it is the right thing.
We will develop our own methods of dealing with injustice, built on the principles of negative rights, restitution, integrity and equal justice. We do not forbid anyone from having one foot in each realm—ours and the old realm—although we demand that they do no damage to our realm. We are fully opposed to any use of our realm to facilitate crime in the old realm, such as the hiding of criminal proceeds.
We expect to be loudly condemned, libeled and slandered by the authorities of the old regime. We expect them to defend their power and their image of legitimacy with all means available to them. We expect that many gullible and servile people will believe these lies, at least at first.
We will consider traps laid for us to be criminal offenses. Any who wish to join us are encouraged to distribute this declaration, to act in furtherance of our new society, to voluntarily excel in virtues and to communicate and cooperate with other members of the new society.
Free, unashamed men cannot be ruled.
We are The Free and The Unashamed.
Sunday, April 5th, 2009
Excellent video for Lost Liberty Cafe.
Sunday, March 8th, 2009
I admit it! I’m inspired to write this blog by a discourse I’m having in the comments thread of a blog entry prior to the last one where it was claimed that property is in fact coercion because the claim of ownership is used to justify defensive force should someone without your authorization take or use that which you claimed as your own. Of course, in such view the force used in defense is viewed as initiated force instead and the one who takes or uses property without supposed owner’s approval is being coerced.
I have to say this reminded me of a very recent comic that was done by Dale Everett on Anarchy In Your Head named Property as Theft. It’s meant to be funny, but as usual on AIYH to also make a point. While it’s somewhat fitting though, the property as coercion argument might not be exactly the same as the “property as theft” argument and can become quite sophisticated in that once someone establishes such a claim (s)he can then pose a few disclaimers like “despite it being coercion, it is sensible to allow some of it or else none of the things you acquire and need to use would be safe from simply disappearing because someone took them”, or similar arguments.
Of course, that’s incredibly flawed in my view, if anything then because it reflects quite imprecise thinking. The reasoning for allowing some “property as coercion” is pretty arbitrary and as such subjective. It’s very hard to pose such a disclaimer and claim it as an universal rule that everyone should follow, even if the rule was decided on by the majority of voters. In other words, if your claim is that property is coercion then the best way to stay logically consistent and avoid arbitrary reasoning is to reject all claims of property and indeed allow people to take your things as they see fit. At least if you actually believe coercion is morally reprehensible.
But let’s move on the the core of the issue, the claim itself: “property is coercion”. Let’s define both “property” and “coercion”.
The claim “property is coercion” as well as one that “property is theft” has and usually is made in defiance to the libertarian and voluntaryist belief in self-ownership and absolute property rights as necessary for one to have liberty. In fact many, including myself, would often claim that property is synonymous to liberty.
As a voluntaryist myself I define property as an object being owned. And for an object to be owned someone must make a valid claim of ownership over it. A valid claim of ownership implies a statement of the claim and actions taken to substantiate that claim such as obtaining a statement of the previous owner agreeing to the change of ownership or a proof that no previous owner was found and clearly marking of new property as owned by the new owner (so as to make it clear what exactly is owned).
The process of making something owned is seen as natural since each of the steps of the process can be substantiated by consistent logical rationale supported by empirical evidence. If a claim is never stated or in any way communicated it cannot be expected of anyone to know of it (empirically checked, one does not know what one does not perceive). A claim alone isn’t enough for the process to be complete, however, because anyone could arbitrarily claim what was already claimed, creating a logical conflict. So a claim must be substantiated.
If nobody owned it before, this has to be demonstrated by proving that nobody went through the same process of making the object in question owned, thus the object must not be marked as owned and there must not be any accessible evidence of it being claimed before (empirically checked, again one does not know what one does not perceive, if no evidence is perceived of someone owning before, no assumption of prior ownership can be made). Disputes may arise in case the evidence existed but was never available (and of course in case someone tries to take over property by falsely claiming to be a prior owner), but such disputes would require arbitration by an agreed upon third party preferably specialized for researching prior ownership or knowing someone who is specialized in it.
If the object was owned by someone before then it must be clearly demonstrated that the prior owner agreed to change ownership to the current claimant. This also empirically checks out assuming prior owner used the same process to become a valid owner and because by definition of ownership only he has the right or ability to give it to someone else, for free or for a fee. Every other observable case of property transfer usually involves either open violence or stealth action both of which circumvent consent.
Ownership is defined as exclusive and therefore absolute control over an object claimed as owned. This notion of ownership, at least from a libertarian and voluntaryist perspective comes from the concept of self-ownership which is in fact the source of all ownership.
It must be noted that the object in question can be anything in existence, if anything then simply because anything in existence CAN conceivably be claimed by someone. Therefore a claimant can claim ownership of other people, but can also claim ownership over his own self (his body).
However, making a valid claim of ownership as defined above, over other people, is impossible because one cannot come to possession of somebody elses body before that exact someone else, for he lives in or as that body, that individual. He already has ownership (exclusive and absolute control) over his self before anybody else and cannot help not to have this control. Every time you use your eyes, speak or think you are taking advantage of exclusive control over your self.
This is also empirical because the proof is your very existence as what you are including every act that you undertake in your living.
So all this considered, is property as defined by libertarians and voluntaryist and presented here by me, coercion?
Again, I am speaking from a libertarian and voluntaryist perspective, most of all my own perspective as a voluntaryist. I need not to speak anyhow else since the claim is made against beliefs of people like me.
I define coercion as the use of force or fraud to compel someone to behave or be in a certain way, such as do something or not do something. Force is any act undertaken with the purpose of instilling in someone fear of loss of ones self or any act done against ones self which (s)he did not agree with. Fraud is included in the definition of “coercion” because it is another method of compelling people to do or not do what they otherwise would or wouldn’t, by deliberately making claims that the claimant is fully aware are false in order to make people do something.
The core of coercion is the violation of someone’s self. If there was no self to violate in the first place the concept of coercion would have no bearing in reality. If an individual did not have self to worry about, there would be no coercion to worry about either. There would be nobody to feel fear, nobody to agree or disagree; to provide consent or protest against what is being done to him or her. But neither of that is true. As observed in the previous section, defining property, self is the core example of property and is completely irrefutable because every claim that was supposed to refute self-ownership requires self ownership to utter.
So is property coercion? Clearly, for coercion to exist property must exist, at least as your own self. While this in itself is telling with regards to the relationship between property and coercion, since the other is obviously dependent on the former, one may claim self-ownership as valid property and ownership over other things as invalid, thus saying that claiming other things as property and defending them is coercion.
But self-ownership implies exclusive and absolute control over your self, your body including your brain, eyes, ears, skin, hands, legs etc. All of these allow you to act and every act has a purpose, something you pursue. Obviously, every act is designed to bring about certain results and those specific results being caused by your acts would not exist if you did not undertake your acts in the first place. Therefore there is a direct causality between the existence of results you created (with your acts) and your self, the thing you own.
The purpose for which you did your acts were those results and this purpose is something that is obviously within you, for which you exist in the moments you acted in pursuit of those results. Bottom line is that if you existed without purpose it would be like existing without acts and if you existed without acting you would be as good as “dead in the water”, an inanimate organism – dead. Also, since as a human being you are self aware your purpose is something that you yourself choose, consciously or unconsciously, if you did not choose yet still acted, you would be like an automaton.
So if someone denies you the results of your actions (s)he is denying you the purpose for which you existed in moments at which you acted in pursuit of that purpose. They are therefore treating you as if you were an inanimate organism. If they however take the results of your actions, results which you produced because you chose so, they would deny you your will, your ability to choose for yourself and thus treating you as an automaton meant to merely produce for the sake of another.
The results spoken of can be anything. Something you created or something you obtained. The results ARE property and considering the above interdependency between your self and the results of your existence as your self, it is an extension of you. Every denial of property as can be seen above is a denial of you as a human being and every act which would take or use what you created or obtained against your will is an act of coercion because, according to the specified definition, it is every act done against your self (you and your property) which you didn’t consent to.
Finally there is the issue of not doing to another what you would not have another do to you. One can say that Joe defending his property is denying Steve who would take it against Joe’s will a result of his own acts and therefore denying Steve’s humanity. But when Steve’s act itself was denying Joe’s humanity, Steve initiated aggression and therefore was the one to be defended against. By this act alone Steve denied Joe what Steve himself had and therefore had Joe deny the same back to the extent necessary to protect his own. In other words, when the human selves come into conflict the natural resolution is towards equilibrium. This too is not an arbitrary statement as it is almost universally observable that humans will defend against an attack and protect what they deem legitimately their own.
The fact that even states, which themselves practice coercion and theft on a regular basis, could not be established without some extent of recognition towards property rights (reflecting the human need for property rights) and the fact that ever since we know of human existence on Earth we know of the concept of trade and therefore property, further validates property as a natural part of being human and coercion as in fact violation of that same property.
Why is coercion morally reprehensible?
Without using any arbitrary reasoning to answer this, simply because I don’t want to be coerced. Therefore it is only those who do not wish to be coerced themselves whom can treat non-coercion as a moral principle. And that’s the only way to logically and empirically explain any sort of a moral principle. You hold something immoral because you do not want it to be done to yourself. I could call this reciprocity and claim that this is a natural law, but since even that would carry a risk of being seen as making arbitrary judgments I’ll just again turn to empirical evidence that shows pretty clearly at least that likelihood of something being done to yourself increases significantly if you do that something to others.
It is known in physics that every action has an equal and opposed reaction. If you hit a wall it will “defend” itself, or react, by putting pressure on your arms and depending on the strength of your own strike, harm it.
And that’s in a nutshell why I find coercion wrong. Of course, the issue of coercion is peculiar in that while believing in non-coercion will have me not coerce others it would also have me defend against coercion done by others some of whom may claim that my act of self-defense is in fact coercing them to act according to my own non-coercion moral. However, if they really believed in coercion as moral then they shouldn’t have any grudge against me defending myself even if they see my defense as coercion. This is why s consistently held moral of non-coercion actually cannot be forced on others.
So to recap, property is not coercion because without property coercion wouldn’t exist either. Coercion IS a violation of property. The reason is the fact that you irrefutably own yourself and therefore your life and your liberty (your actions). Property is merely an inevitable result of the two. Denial of property is a denial of purpose to life and liberty and ultimately the denial of your own self as a human being.
And all of this can be checked for logical consistency and empirical evidence. All it takes is precise thinking (observing things to their most fundamental components rather than taking a merely cursory look and accepting vague and non-exactly defined terms), intellectual honesty (try to keep cognitive biases in check) and an honest look at yourself and reality around you.
Thursday, March 5th, 2009
I happen to be subscribed to a gloomy youtube channel called EconomyCollapse and checking my latest subscriptions two things I find is the report of economy, at least in US, going from bad to worse which basically concludes that people have been more prosperous in the recession of 80s than today (and I suppose the only one left to compete with then is the Great Depression of 30s). Another video samples what is usually the second wave after the wave of economic collapses, political crisis: Mexico on the verge of civil war.
That’s how it’s always been apparently in predominantly statist societies. First there’s economic crisis and then comes, almost inevitably, a political crisis. As people believe governments (coercive monopolies) are necessary for the maintenance of stable and ordered societies they also tend to blame that same government when anything goes wrong. Most of them didn’t quite grasp the idea of being responsible for themselves so all this is no surprise. And therefore it’s no surprise that political crisis arises.
And the whole gang warfare thing which we’re perpetually living with (and usually call things like “political campaigning”, “elections” etc.) escalates to a whole new level, where the violence inherent in the whole system finally surfaces in all its bloody glory. You see, there has never been political stability because that is an oxymoron. Politics by definition involves ones coercing others to live by their values, therefore force and violence are always the core of the game. It’s just that these facts are through elaborate conceptual masking, abstractions and doublethink hidden from view.
Until it leads to the economic crisis of these proportions.
Then as they say “shit begins to hit the fan”, or in other words, the violence inherent in the system surfaces. Gang warfare you’re living with all along takes to the streets and gun fires become much more common. Rioting, civil wars, installment of oppressive regimes (in the Great Depression era, which led to WW2) or just outright collapse into unprincipled anarchy where while freedoms suddenly increase across the board, people still don’t believe in non-initiation of force as a matter of principle and so some blood shed continues (modern day Somalia) since gangs (aspiring governments that is) vie for power.
So more rioting, government collapses, civil wars, it can all happen, across americas and across europe. What will happen is just an inevitable consequence of all that has been believed and subsequently done in the past. You believe coercion is fine? Well here are the results. Are you happy? I’ll venture to guess not. Are you gonna learn something from this? I hope so. But things must become worse before they become better.
This crisis is a natural reaction of the markets to their constant harassment with coercive practices. As such it is a good development – a correction, in economists terms. However you cannot jump off a sky scraper, no matter if it reaches to the troposphere, and expect not to hit the ground at some point. Your belief that you can jump off the skyscraper and not hit the ground wont change the facts.
Your belief that justifying some coercion in the way we deal with each other (AKA politics) wont result in poverty, chaos and death. Think again. You’ve believed in it, now you shall reap the benefits.
But should you survive the consequences, you have a chance for a new start.
Ban all politics from your life. Reject all coercion and initiation of violence. Embrace voluntary interaction (free market). Think creatively rather than competitively. Believe in your abilities. Take responsibility for your own self. Don’t ask others to live for your own sake.
Then we’ll rise out of this chaos and into the better world.
But before that, brace yourself (be prepared and informed), for the consequences of past actions and beliefs must materialize. What will be will be. What will be must be.
Friday, February 27th, 2009
digg it here
My advice to those kids would be to resist. They don’t have to pay. If I were a parent I’d comfort them with the idea that we will find a way to resist. Nobody will pay any of THEIR debt. Taxes are theft. Gun is in the room. One should defend self from the thiefs not justify their actions and give in.
Besides, speaking of federal government it probably wont exist by the time these kids are adults. An increasing secessionist activity in USA is already testifying to that. About 8 states have “secession friendly” resolution.
The world is changing. This crisis is a free market finally reacting to the decades of delusion and resulting unsound economic practices. This crisis marks the biggest shift in centuries. Bail outs and stimulus packages are only gonna make this fall more profound. It may get worse before it gets better as certain governments let out a dieing scream and trashing, but then it can get better.
Thursday, January 22nd, 2009
If you have doubts about the right to own guns for protection of yourself and your property, watch this video. It completely nails the argumentation for the right to defend yourself without being forced to rely on the government, and how denying this crucial right results in more crime and violence and less security.
These people have my full moral support!
Wednesday, January 21st, 2009
I am going to do what is bound to be unpopular in this time when so many americans are “high on hope” and can’t see clearly what’s in front of them. I am not a believer. I am an individual who dares to think with his own head instead of with the head of state. Here I bring you a number of deceitful passages quoted from the Obama’s speech and respond to them.
At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
No you haven’t been faithful to the ideals of the forbearers. If you had you wouldn’t be invading foreign nations in pre-emptive strikes. You wouldn’t have your income taxed. You wouldn’t be disarmed by your government at every chance they get. Your property wouldn’t be violently invaded because you smoke or heaven forbid grow certain plants. Government would be there as a fearful servant and not a master of the people. Its sole job would be to protect your life, liberty and property. Anyone who has actually looked at the constitution would frown at what Obama said here and be extremely skeptical about anything he has to say further on.
How can so many people praise this man in tears is beyond me, when he so blatantly lies to them!
Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.
Why not be blunt here Mr. Obama and just spit it out. You’re speaking on the countless times discredited “war on terror”, when in fact your government and its agencies have cause more terror both in USA and the world than there could have ever existed if you just stayed out of everyone’s business. The “far-reaching network of violence” is precisely how the very government you are taking control of can be described.
Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.
Collective failure? Let’s see. What is the collective here? A group of individuals. In this case the reference is to the hundreds of millions of individuals in USA. What is a failure? For there to be a failure there must be a goal that was not achieved by the set of choices that were meant to achieve it. Can a “collective” make a choice? Is a “collective” some sort of a singular entity that breaths by itself, separate from the individuals that make it up? Clearly not. Only individuals can make choices. Only individuals can have goals. Only individuals can thus fail. There is no such thing as a “collective failure”. That is just a lie designed to “spread the guilt” even to those who had nothing to do with the failures of others, just as you seek to “spread the wealth” even to those who had nothing to do with actually earning it.
Of course, it’s not the first time that a politician is using vague collectivist terminology to seduce the masses of individuals. It is like religion. So long as people believe there is such a thing as a “collective” existing in and of itself, they will submit to those who claim to be, like priests, representative of this “collective”. But it is a lie.
Unfortunately, and as can be expected, similar vague indefinite language continues throughout the rest of this “great speech”.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
No, you came here to seduce the masses into giving you and your government legitimacy that it needs to continue looting and destroying the very people you are appealing to. Bush destroyed the image of the company you represent, the US Government, and you come with your shiny, glorious new PR campaign to “clean up” your image. Do people truly believe that just putting a new president, a new face, on the same old beast, changes its nature? Are people that deluded?
You are perpetuating the petty grievances and false dogmas, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, in a new packaging.
Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
And you know this how? You asked every single of the individuals you speak of to know that they all were driven by some sort of a “self-sacrificing” urge to build up this imaginary entity you call “America”? Last time I checked most people who came to USA came out of their own self-interest, to build their own life success, not the success of “america”. That you look at the aggregate of all this success and proclaim it as somehow appropriated in the name of your own religion doesn’t mean they all share the same sentiment. Do not speak in their name. Speak for yourself and yourself only.
But who am I kidding, right? There are millions of people out there looking at him like he is the messiah himself, even if they don’t otherwise believe in such a thing as a “messiah”, and just waiting empty-minds and shut thoughts, waiting for him to speak in their name. His words, their words. His thoughts, their thoughts. His mind, their mind. If that’s what you call freedom and greatness why not just strap yourself into the Borg collective of some sort and give up your individuality completely? That is exactly what you’re doing.
The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works–whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
Can your government do anything without coercing those whom do not want the service it offers to buy it anyway? Who, exactly, gets to say whether something works or not? Shouldn’t an individual get to make a decision in what to buy into and what to reject? Your government offers no such choice. Beneath this pile of words stays nothing but raw initiated violence. You said it yourself, Mr. Obama, “what essentially sets the nation-state apart.. is the monopoly on violence”.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control–and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.
Another blatant lie. The market WAS under a watchful eye of your government. Your own government encouraged baseless spending and debts by encouraging loans to those whom clearly could not afford it. Now that it collapsed, you are blaming a lack of government involved. Something is seriously messed up about that logic. More government involvement is, and this can be easily researched by anyone caring for the facts, exactly what destabilized the economy. The so called “free market” was never completely free, for it was constantly regulated and its actors taxed.
We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
Again, you are describing your own organization. When your organization sets an agenda, usually a very expensive one, who is going to pay for it? The people with their taxes, of course. What if someone doesn’t agree with your agenda and wishes not to pay for it? They must, for if they don’t, they’re thrown in jail. Talk about terror, pay up or suffer. Consider the definition of terror, “one that inspires fear”, “a state of intense fear”, “violent or destructive acts”. This is only to mention the domestic terrorism perpetrated by this government, let alone the terror perpetrated in other countries, such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza.
This comes down to nothing more than a leader of the popularized mafia sending a message to the less popular mafia organizations: we will defeat you. And the war continues. No change. None whatsoever.
We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves.
Meaning greater than themselves, such as in your organization perhaps? Why cannot an individual himself or herself decide who is to defend his or her liberty? Why do they must rely on and pay for, regardless of whether they agree or not, armies of individuals ordered by your organization’s directives to kill and plunder, in the name of “defending liberty”?
But those values upon which our success depends–honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism–these things are old.
Seriously, do people listening to this have any precise idea of what these terms actually mean? Honesty and tolerance? Honesty to admit to yourself that by saying that something must be illegal, that something must be done by the government, is the same as saying that those who do not agree with you and those who do not want to pay for the implementation of your own beliefs, must still violently be coerced into conformance to your beliefs?
Hard work? You mean work to pay your debts because government told you it’s fine to buy what you cannot afford? Work only so quarter to half of what you earn be taken from you to fund wars and implementations of beliefs with which you don’t necessarily agree with? Work to earn property which you cannot use on your own terms, as if you weren’t the owner? And all this in a country supposedly built on pursuit of “life, liberty and property”?
Loyalty to Obama? Patriotism, love for the state and not your own values?
Do you ever question the words used to seduce you into uniform compliance?
Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.
Mr. Obama, not everyone believes in your gods. Nor everyone believes in your government, for obviously very good reasons. Some people, unlike the masses weeping in mindless emotional fervor every time you hypnotically chant your vague sentences, actually think as independent and free individuals, not units within some great collective.
More on Obama’s deception:
- An Examination of Obama’s Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches
- Obama’s Inauguration – The Antidote