I watched another one of Mr. Obama’s speech a couple of days ago on television. I couldn’t help but feel I was being sold a bill of goods. I couldn’t help but feel I was being asked to buy something I knew I couldn’t afford and was likely not going to use. I felt as if I had answered the door and let a slick talking vacuum cleaner salesman into my home because he seemed like such a charming person. He proceeds to try to sell me some vacuum cleaner/radio/mp3player/toaster/juicer all in one for several thousand dollars on easy terms when I know I can go out and get all these things separately for a few hundred. Like most good salesmen, his aim is to make the insensible seem sensible, to make the product sound indispensable and to make the price sound fair and equitable. I’m not buying. I simply can’t afford it today.
What sticks out in my mind most about Mr. Obama’s speech is the word “credit.” He kept talking about how much we needed the flow of credit. He kept talking about how much we need credit to get out of this mess which was created because of too much debt that could not be paid. It just made no sense to me. This got me to thinking, who benefits from credit? Who is likely to profit and who is likely to pay? Admittedly this is not always such a simple question, but it seems to me that in today’s United States of America, it is the banks who are profiting and the taxpayers who are footing the bill.
Credit is like gambling, at least when one is the creditor. One is taking a chance that the money loaned out will not be paid back. I am reminded of a time some “friends” came in from Minnesota and needed fifty dollars for gas to get back home. I “loaned” them the money with the complete understanding (in my own head, I didn’t express this thought to them) that I most likely would not be paid back. Had they needed more, they would have been out of luck. If one is going to extend credit to another then they should make sure they only loan money they can afford to lose. It seems to me that modern banks don’t have to worry about that since they don’t have to worry about losing anything. Such is the nature of fractional reserve banking and government guarantees. And it has now been shown to us that when they get into trouble they can simply threaten the cowardly politicians of this nation with financial meltdown and societal upheaval and a bailout will be forthcoming.
Yes, it is true that sometimes a loan will help out all parties involved, more often than not it is the lender who truly profits. If one uses credit to pay for a product, likely one will end up paying more for that product than one should. This extra cost doesn’t go to the manufacturer, but to the bank that loaned the money. It seems to me that the consumer would have been better off had he waited to purchase the product until such a time as he could put aside enough to afford it. I realize and I will be the first to admit that this is not always feasible and that there are situations when credit becomes a necessity, but it seems to me that perhaps our society has over extended its credit system not by buying necessities, but a lavish lifestyle.
So, American families and businesses have been cutting back. They have decided not to spend their money on certain things anymore. Perhaps some have decided to keep their old cars for another year or two rather than buying new. Perhaps others have decided to delay purchasing an insurance policy. Some companies may have decided to lay off some of their employees. Others may have cut back on costs by lowering their inventory levels or by applying modern technology more efficiently. Still others might have decided to pay off as much debt as possible to get out from under the burden of paying interest on loans. Mr. Obama’s speech yesterday made it clear that he didn’t think this was a good idea. Since the private sector has stopped spending, he’s going to make certain the government sector makes up for that lack of spending. He’s going to make certain the debt continues to grow. There’s a huge problem with this. Government money is stolen from the private sector in the form of taxes. Government is spending money in ways private citizens and businesses chose not to spend. Government is spending money the private sector would like to save and the only ones who will profit from this are the banksters, the same ones that demanded hundreds of billions in bailouts from the American tax payers.
The constant contradictions that I heard spilling from Mr. Obama’s mouth confounded me. In one sentence he would talk about how right the ordinary people were in the way they handled their own finances, then he would turn around and talk about how this doesn’t apply to government. As reasons to increase government spending and justify a continuation of bailouts, Mr. Obama cited debatable lessons in history from a viewpoint that many historians might find distorted or a misrepresentation of historical events. He cited the views of economists on “both” sides of the political spectrum who feel that a reduction in spending is the last thing government should do in a recession. It is clear to me that Mr. Obama is refusing to consider differing variations of economic thought. Perhaps it is because he actually believes more government meddling, more borrowing and less freedom for people to conduct their business as they see fit will somehow help the economy, but I get the impression that someone behind the scenes is using him to sell the public a product that most of us realize is poorly designed and too expensive. The Federal Reserve system has never done what it claimed it would do and has cost this country far too much real wealth already.
Let me mention here that when Mr. Obama speaks of history and states that it has provided lessons for us which shows that more government intervention is the way to go, he forgets the lessons of the economic downturn after World War I. With Harding and later Coolidge as presidents we saw little government intervention in the economy and ushered in the roaring 20s, a time of prosperity. After the stock market crash of 1929, when first Hoover and later Roosevelt bullied the United States congress into intervening to try to prevent an economic calamity, we ushered in a time of government interference in the private sector and experienced a long and drawn out depression which only ended with the occurrence of a sad and destructive war.
As for Mr. Obama’s reference to economists on the “right” and the “left” side of the political aisle agreeing on spending, I would politely remind Mr. Obama that there are more than two schools of political thought in the world and to pigeon hole every issue into two arguments, whether referred to as left or right, liberal or conservative, or whatever label you would put on them, is an over simplification and a disservice to mankind. Furthermore, I would remind him that economists are human beings and can be wrong even when they agree. More importantly, they can be trained or paid to present ideas in such a way as to support a particular political philosophy or agenda. In this case it seems that agenda is control of our economy by the unholy marriage of bankers and their political puppets. This is the same game that has been being played for hundreds of years and the public still doesn’t seem to catch on. The rich and powerful stay rich and powerful and ordinary people continue to get screwed.
I will not buy Mr. Obama’s sales pitch. I do not believe that increased government spending and more government intervention into our economy is the way to bring prosperity back to the nation. This is the same old argument that has been used time and again, from Wilson to Bush Jr., to keep increasing the size and intrusiveness of government. There are several other avenues we have yet to travel down. We have always had the option to explore these various economic philosophies, but have never been brave enough to cast off the chains that bind us to the old ways and implement meaningful change that will result in equitable opportunity and prosperity for all who would participate.
Yesterday there were many, many tea party events held across the country to protest taxes. I hope the protests do not stop there. I hope that tax protests are not co-opted by any political party in an effort to further an agenda that maintains the status quo and the power of the banksters. It is time to demand accountability in and from the system. It is time to demand an audit of the Fed, something that has never been done. It seems the Fed is above the law and beyond oversight. If Mr. Obama is truly the champion of change as he says he is, then perhaps he will lead the charge to see that this happens. Audit the Fed, expose its corrupt nature, and perhaps the American people can begin to recover the trillions of dollars that haven’t been accounted for in recent years. Perhaps after it has been audited and those who own it held accountable for their actions, the Fed can be ended and their notes replaced with honest money. It might be nice to see the words “US Treasury Note” instead of “Federal Reserve Note” on a dollar bill again. It might be nice to carry around and circulate genuine gold and silver coins once again. At the very least, that would be a good start.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Ron Paul, Right About the Economy, Right About Freedom
Last year at this time, a presidential campaign captured the interest of many in the nation. Tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of voters like me supported the candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul, a long time Republican congressman from Texas. Those of us who are interested in liberty and personal independence put quite a bit of our hope for a better tomorrow into his candidacy, and in my opinion, rightfully so. Dr. Paul has a long standing record of voting in a pro liberty manner on many of the important issues of our day. Many may have been disappointed by the events that took place, but perhaps they should not be surprised. Even though Dr. Paul did not become president, or even the Republican presidential nominee, his campaign has opened the eyes of a great many people and his message continues to reverberate in the American consciousness, and indeed around the world. The freedom message is powerful and popular worldwide, not just in America.
It became evident quite early on in Ron Paul’s campaign that the establishment was not going to give into him easily, no matter his popularity. The establishment media did their best to marginalize him and his supporters and minimize the impact he had on the political discourse. They did their jobs well, as far as that went, and managed to prevent huge numbers of common folk from discovering the only candidate that could really be trusted to make a difference. But since Ron Paul was a Republican, they couldn’t keep him out of the debates like they do so many other worthy candidates with a freedom message. Unfortunately, it may have been too little, too late against an establishment that was simply too powerful.
Still, Ron Paul managed to awaken a multitude who may have otherwise remained apathetic and feeling helpless against the rising tide of political disenfranchisement that continues to pervade not just the United States of America, but the entire world. Despite the fact that he was given less time than other candidates at the debates, despite the fact that he was asked more insignificant questions having nothing to do with the main issues of the day than the other candidates, despite the media’s efforts to make him and his supporters look crazy and/or radical, he managed to deliver a liberty message that resonated in the fibers of the American people. He managed to deliver a message of smaller, more transparent government that most freedom loving individuals can agree with. Ron Paul’s candidacy was a success in so many ways simply because the establishment and their media cronies did not want the common folk exposed to such ideas and they could do nothing to stop it. The idea of freedom has always been dangerous to those in power.
Yet Ron Paul did more than just deliver the message of freedom to the masses. He was able to make some predictions about the direction this country was taking. More surprisingly, he showed that the American people are interested in economics and how money works, particularly young Americans. After all, it is the younger generations who are going to have to pay for the follies the government engages in today. What do people think debt is anyway? What do people expect from a system where money creation is based on debt? Like the old fairy tale of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, debts are to be paid as promised else likely the children will suffer the consequences. Perhaps the people of this nation understand more than the establishment gives them credit for and that is why there was such an outcry against the recent bailouts.
It is only now, after we have seen many of Ron Paul’s economic predictions come to pass, that he is given credibility by those who interview him in the mainstream media. It is only after an election has been held and establishment supported politicians have remained firmly in place that the mainstream media begins to give any credence to the free market proponents who had been warning all along of the impending crisis. Even now, as Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and others warn of a deepening economic crisis, the politicians continue a policy of increasing the debt burden and trying to maintain an unworkable, credit driven monetary system. Even though thoughtful, common sense solutions have been proffered by such gentlemen and reported on in establishment media these men are ignored by the political and banking elite as their solutions would curtail the power and control the establishment maintains over our lives and so no real change will take place despite the apparent prophetic nature of past predictions.
It’s not just the economy that Ron Paul made dire predictions about, however. He also made predictions and continues to warn about the likelihood that our freedoms will be lost. As it stands, the United States government still honors a few of the freedoms we used to take for granted, but even those freedoms are tenuously honored at best as the elite who control the mechanisms of state would love to stifle all dissent and silence all who would dare protest. Civil liberties which were supposed to be protected by the rules of governance that were outlined in the Bill of Rights which were eviscerated by the Bush administration have not been restored. It seems to me likely that those who broke the law by violating those rights which they had sworn an oath to uphold will never be brought to justice. Worse still, the burdensome tomes legislators and their friends create and then refer to as laws are not being repealed. In fact, I am certain more cryptic laws are being crafted as you read this to create larger bureaucracies with less transparency and more power than ever.
There are remedies available for these problems also. Dr. Ron Paul understands what these remedies entail and gave us his recommendations during the debates. On top of my list is to bring all our troops home from all around the world. As a nation the United States has over extended its budget and its authority by trying to administer an empire it should never have built in the first place. It is time to give the rest of the world the freedom to police their own nations and to keep our troops here to defend ours. It is time to deal with other nations fairly on a private business level, letting them sell their resources for what open markets will determine is a fair price, rather than trying to force them to bow to the will of our corporations. If this causes higher energy prices, then so be it. Perhaps if that were the case we would develop better alternative renewable energy sources. We should have fair trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
It is long past time we ended our wars of aggression. Too much life and treasure has already been lost on an activity which by its very nature can only destroy. Wars of any kind only serve to generate an atmosphere of fear and animosity that darkens the future for all mankind. This kind of paranoia only serves to stifle the overall productivity of the world. Rather than concentrate on producing products and services to improve the lives of others, products and services that destroy are emphasized. Rather than concentrate on products that bring joy and value to one’s life, mechanisms and policies that bring about misery to others are pursued.
Fear is the biggest threat our society faces. It is this unreasonable, irrational emotion that has eroded the American way of life faster than any enemy ever could. Because of its grip, we have allowed the protection of our freedoms to be undermined by an unscrupulous few with their own agenda. Because of its continuing presence we can expect more restrictions on the exercising of our rights.
On more than one occasion last year, Dr. Paul referenced the United States Constitution as part of his answer to a question. As far as I could tell, he was the only candidate to do so. He is, in fact, a self proclaimed defender of the Constitution. Enshrined within the body of the Constitution is the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments which are meant to restrict government’s activities and protect an individual whose natural rights might otherwise be violated by a far more powerful and possibly tyrannical entity. While the Constitution may not be a perfect document as evidenced by its past and present inability to prevent government abuses of civil liberties from taking place, it is a document those who have been unjustly persecuted can point to in their defense when making such claims. It is, at the very least, a good outline of how a just government ought to treat individuals under its auspices.
Many have come to believe that the Constitution is the document that grants American citizens their rights. This is not so. To suggest this would be to suggest that government can take rights and freedoms from its people. These rights and freedoms aren’t granted by government, but are a natural part of the human spirit. This is the case worldwide, not just in America. It is a condition that has been known to philosophers and hidden by tyrants for millennia. The question is not whether or not humans have rights that can be given and taken, the question is whether or not one can openly exercise his individual rights without fear of retribution from those who hold stations of power. This is a measure of the amount of freedom one has in a given society, and in today’s United States of America many have become afraid to exercise their rights due to the flagrant disregard the federal government shows for its own rules as outlined in the Constitution.
Last year in the debates Ron Paul was right about the direction the economy was taking. He was right about the federal government disregarding freedoms. He remains right about establishing a new, sound monetary system based on something other than debt. He remains right about curtailing government abuses by adhering to the Constitution, the highest law of the land. Just following those two simple steps would do so much to begin to bring fiscal sanity back to our economy and peace of mind back to our society. If the government continues to ignore such sound advice, perhaps it is time that common men begin to ignore government dictates and implement their own free market institutions based upon these principles which most politicians no longer care to uphold.
It became evident quite early on in Ron Paul’s campaign that the establishment was not going to give into him easily, no matter his popularity. The establishment media did their best to marginalize him and his supporters and minimize the impact he had on the political discourse. They did their jobs well, as far as that went, and managed to prevent huge numbers of common folk from discovering the only candidate that could really be trusted to make a difference. But since Ron Paul was a Republican, they couldn’t keep him out of the debates like they do so many other worthy candidates with a freedom message. Unfortunately, it may have been too little, too late against an establishment that was simply too powerful.
Still, Ron Paul managed to awaken a multitude who may have otherwise remained apathetic and feeling helpless against the rising tide of political disenfranchisement that continues to pervade not just the United States of America, but the entire world. Despite the fact that he was given less time than other candidates at the debates, despite the fact that he was asked more insignificant questions having nothing to do with the main issues of the day than the other candidates, despite the media’s efforts to make him and his supporters look crazy and/or radical, he managed to deliver a liberty message that resonated in the fibers of the American people. He managed to deliver a message of smaller, more transparent government that most freedom loving individuals can agree with. Ron Paul’s candidacy was a success in so many ways simply because the establishment and their media cronies did not want the common folk exposed to such ideas and they could do nothing to stop it. The idea of freedom has always been dangerous to those in power.
Yet Ron Paul did more than just deliver the message of freedom to the masses. He was able to make some predictions about the direction this country was taking. More surprisingly, he showed that the American people are interested in economics and how money works, particularly young Americans. After all, it is the younger generations who are going to have to pay for the follies the government engages in today. What do people think debt is anyway? What do people expect from a system where money creation is based on debt? Like the old fairy tale of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, debts are to be paid as promised else likely the children will suffer the consequences. Perhaps the people of this nation understand more than the establishment gives them credit for and that is why there was such an outcry against the recent bailouts.
It is only now, after we have seen many of Ron Paul’s economic predictions come to pass, that he is given credibility by those who interview him in the mainstream media. It is only after an election has been held and establishment supported politicians have remained firmly in place that the mainstream media begins to give any credence to the free market proponents who had been warning all along of the impending crisis. Even now, as Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and others warn of a deepening economic crisis, the politicians continue a policy of increasing the debt burden and trying to maintain an unworkable, credit driven monetary system. Even though thoughtful, common sense solutions have been proffered by such gentlemen and reported on in establishment media these men are ignored by the political and banking elite as their solutions would curtail the power and control the establishment maintains over our lives and so no real change will take place despite the apparent prophetic nature of past predictions.
It’s not just the economy that Ron Paul made dire predictions about, however. He also made predictions and continues to warn about the likelihood that our freedoms will be lost. As it stands, the United States government still honors a few of the freedoms we used to take for granted, but even those freedoms are tenuously honored at best as the elite who control the mechanisms of state would love to stifle all dissent and silence all who would dare protest. Civil liberties which were supposed to be protected by the rules of governance that were outlined in the Bill of Rights which were eviscerated by the Bush administration have not been restored. It seems to me likely that those who broke the law by violating those rights which they had sworn an oath to uphold will never be brought to justice. Worse still, the burdensome tomes legislators and their friends create and then refer to as laws are not being repealed. In fact, I am certain more cryptic laws are being crafted as you read this to create larger bureaucracies with less transparency and more power than ever.
There are remedies available for these problems also. Dr. Ron Paul understands what these remedies entail and gave us his recommendations during the debates. On top of my list is to bring all our troops home from all around the world. As a nation the United States has over extended its budget and its authority by trying to administer an empire it should never have built in the first place. It is time to give the rest of the world the freedom to police their own nations and to keep our troops here to defend ours. It is time to deal with other nations fairly on a private business level, letting them sell their resources for what open markets will determine is a fair price, rather than trying to force them to bow to the will of our corporations. If this causes higher energy prices, then so be it. Perhaps if that were the case we would develop better alternative renewable energy sources. We should have fair trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
It is long past time we ended our wars of aggression. Too much life and treasure has already been lost on an activity which by its very nature can only destroy. Wars of any kind only serve to generate an atmosphere of fear and animosity that darkens the future for all mankind. This kind of paranoia only serves to stifle the overall productivity of the world. Rather than concentrate on producing products and services to improve the lives of others, products and services that destroy are emphasized. Rather than concentrate on products that bring joy and value to one’s life, mechanisms and policies that bring about misery to others are pursued.
Fear is the biggest threat our society faces. It is this unreasonable, irrational emotion that has eroded the American way of life faster than any enemy ever could. Because of its grip, we have allowed the protection of our freedoms to be undermined by an unscrupulous few with their own agenda. Because of its continuing presence we can expect more restrictions on the exercising of our rights.
On more than one occasion last year, Dr. Paul referenced the United States Constitution as part of his answer to a question. As far as I could tell, he was the only candidate to do so. He is, in fact, a self proclaimed defender of the Constitution. Enshrined within the body of the Constitution is the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments which are meant to restrict government’s activities and protect an individual whose natural rights might otherwise be violated by a far more powerful and possibly tyrannical entity. While the Constitution may not be a perfect document as evidenced by its past and present inability to prevent government abuses of civil liberties from taking place, it is a document those who have been unjustly persecuted can point to in their defense when making such claims. It is, at the very least, a good outline of how a just government ought to treat individuals under its auspices.
Many have come to believe that the Constitution is the document that grants American citizens their rights. This is not so. To suggest this would be to suggest that government can take rights and freedoms from its people. These rights and freedoms aren’t granted by government, but are a natural part of the human spirit. This is the case worldwide, not just in America. It is a condition that has been known to philosophers and hidden by tyrants for millennia. The question is not whether or not humans have rights that can be given and taken, the question is whether or not one can openly exercise his individual rights without fear of retribution from those who hold stations of power. This is a measure of the amount of freedom one has in a given society, and in today’s United States of America many have become afraid to exercise their rights due to the flagrant disregard the federal government shows for its own rules as outlined in the Constitution.
Last year in the debates Ron Paul was right about the direction the economy was taking. He was right about the federal government disregarding freedoms. He remains right about establishing a new, sound monetary system based on something other than debt. He remains right about curtailing government abuses by adhering to the Constitution, the highest law of the land. Just following those two simple steps would do so much to begin to bring fiscal sanity back to our economy and peace of mind back to our society. If the government continues to ignore such sound advice, perhaps it is time that common men begin to ignore government dictates and implement their own free market institutions based upon these principles which most politicians no longer care to uphold.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Dreaming Evolution in the Twenty First Century
I had a discussion a while back with one of my daughters in which I was accused of being an idealist. I asked her what she was if not an idealist and she said she was a realist. Upon reflection, the situation strikes me as being just a little bit odd. Isn’t it supposed to be the other way around? Aren’t the young people supposed to be the idealists, the ones who are going to make the world a better place, and older folk such as myself supposed to be the realists, the ones who just accept what is and have given up trying to change the system for the better? Perhaps I’ve mischaracterized the exchange or boiled it down too much and over simplified it, but in my opinion this needs to be done at times when dissecting such conversations in order to get a better perspective on things.
We were talking politics. More specifically, we were talking about the individualist philosophy of freedom and liberty versus the collectivist philosophy of socialism. My daughter and I agree that people should be allowed to make their own decisions in their personal lives without government interference, but she disagrees with me on allowing people to make their own decisions when it comes to their business affairs. She is of the mindset that government should regulate business activities and force people to conform to certain rigid standards if they are to be allowed to operate a business. She is also of the opinion that people should be forced to give a portion of their income to the less fortunate in society. I am of the opinion that people should be allowed to open a business without government interference and that consumers should determine whether that business succeeds or fails. I am also of the opinion that no one should be forced to give a portion of their income up to anyone for any reason and that only voluntary contributions to the less fortunate has any true meaning, at least in a spiritual sense.
Again, perhaps I over simplified things, but I expect that you get the general gist of the discussion. As so often happens in discussions such as these, the points that were being made fell on deaf ears, frustration mounted and the conversation ended before it was concluded. My daughter has a good heart and means well. She wants to help people. What the conversation boiled down to, in my opinion, was the way we look at the nature of the human animal. It seems to me that she sees people as basically evil, self centered beings willing to plot against and take advantage of others for their own gain. I see people as basically good, empathetic beings who care about their fellow humans and for the most part want to do right by them. She believes that, unregulated and left to their own devices, people in a free market would steal from others whenever possible and without remorse, and so she claims to be a realist. I would trust that in a free and open market people would deal with each other cordially and with respect and not try to rip each other off, and so in her eyes I am an idealist.
If believing in the goodness of humans makes me an idealist, then so be it, I am an idealist. But I also believe I am a realist. I see things as they are and realize we have a long way to go before mankind achieves a truly free society based on mutual trust and respect. I realize it will take some time before we can live in a society where all our interactions are voluntary and we are not forced or coerced into doing business with organizations we don’t want to do business with, organizations such as many government agencies have become in modern times. I’m not even entirely certain such a society is possible. While such a vision may sound like a utopian society to some, I would be the first to admit that such a society would not be perfect. Perfection in an imperfect world is extremely unlikely. I’m simply looking for the fairest, most just system and it seems to me that letting every individual take personal responsibility for their selves and make their own decisions for their own lives is such a system. It seems that one should be able to keep all the wealth one earns through their own labor or other honest mechanisms and spend it as they see fit. One should not be forced or coerced into “donating” a portion of their income to any organization, no matter how well meaning.
I also realize that such a society isn’t going to just spring up overnight. Such a society is not something that can be forced upon the populace. It is something that should evolve naturally and so become the norm. This is most likely to happen at a slow and steady pace. So I am a dreamer. I dream we can evolve into an ideal society. I dream that common folk will come to this realization, not some leader or an elite political class, and I dream it can and will happen peacefully as a matter of course as each and every one of us begins to understand that it is up to each individual to respect their neighbors’ choices and one would expect their neighbor to reciprocate.
Socialists also dream of an ideal society. Their society revolves around equity. They seem to believe that everyone should have equal access to all wealth regardless of how hard one works, how much in demand their services are, or how much supply for such services and labor exist. They seem to have forgotten that wealth is something created by mankind and is unlimited, not something which occurs as a force of nature and is finite. Wealth itself is not the thing that makes one man equal to another, but it is the opportunity to create wealth that makes men equal in nature. Socialism, wealth redistribution schemes and taxation in general work to destroy this natural equality. These systems reward the lazy and unproductive by giving them unearned wealth and punish the hard working and productive by stealing their earnings from them. This will inevitably break the spirits of those individuals who produce and indeed make them less productive as they begin to feel that they are being used, abused and/or exploited. As a result, the whole society produces less and its economy falters or fails. Hence the socialist’s ideal society discounts the reality of mankind’s nature.
The difference between an individualist’s ideology and that of a collectivist is mostly in the use of force or coercion, even if that force is very subtle. The difference between the idealist vision of an individualist and the idealist vision of a collectivist is one of control. The collectivist would exert authoritarian control using the mechanisms of power that the state provides to frighten individuals into conforming. The individualist would exert market and social pressures on others to show them the benefits of behaving in certain ways and to gently persuade them to pursue acceptable courses of action.
So I am both and idealist and a realist. I also remain ever the optimist. I dream of an evolution occurring in the twenty first century, and hopefully from that evolution will spring a voluntary society, a society free from any elite group that would try to control the population through the force of restrictive laws and regulations. I dream of a society where one’s imagination and innovativeness will be welcomed into the open marketplace. I dream of a society where regulations that stifle competition and limit consumer choice will be a quaint memory like the fading images of a nightmare exposed to the light of day. I dream of a time when each individual will determine for their self what path to take in life and their choices will be honored regardless of how others perceive the merits of those choices. Such a society starts to form as principled individuals continue to remain true to their principles of non aggression, personal responsibility and respecting the choices of others. Such a society grows when principled individuals remind others of the merits of these principles through example. Such a society grows from the bottom up, not the top down.
I continue to do what I can to help my dream come to fruition. It is often times difficult to get those in control to relinquish their power and let others make decisions on their own. It is therefore necessary to remind those in power that such policies are good for everyone, including those in the highest offices of government who have a tendency to try to micromanage even the day to day lives of the common folk. Reversing the tendency toward collectivism our society has shown might not be easy, but it is a worthy effort. There is strength in numbers and our numbers seem to be growing. It is my hope that those of a freedom mindset continue to speak out against authoritarian, collectivist policies of government and that their voices grow louder and more insistent. It is my hope that many more hearts and minds will be won over as they hear the freedom message. It is my hope that many others share my dream of evolution and improving not only the common man’s lot in life, but the human spirit as well.
We were talking politics. More specifically, we were talking about the individualist philosophy of freedom and liberty versus the collectivist philosophy of socialism. My daughter and I agree that people should be allowed to make their own decisions in their personal lives without government interference, but she disagrees with me on allowing people to make their own decisions when it comes to their business affairs. She is of the mindset that government should regulate business activities and force people to conform to certain rigid standards if they are to be allowed to operate a business. She is also of the opinion that people should be forced to give a portion of their income to the less fortunate in society. I am of the opinion that people should be allowed to open a business without government interference and that consumers should determine whether that business succeeds or fails. I am also of the opinion that no one should be forced to give a portion of their income up to anyone for any reason and that only voluntary contributions to the less fortunate has any true meaning, at least in a spiritual sense.
Again, perhaps I over simplified things, but I expect that you get the general gist of the discussion. As so often happens in discussions such as these, the points that were being made fell on deaf ears, frustration mounted and the conversation ended before it was concluded. My daughter has a good heart and means well. She wants to help people. What the conversation boiled down to, in my opinion, was the way we look at the nature of the human animal. It seems to me that she sees people as basically evil, self centered beings willing to plot against and take advantage of others for their own gain. I see people as basically good, empathetic beings who care about their fellow humans and for the most part want to do right by them. She believes that, unregulated and left to their own devices, people in a free market would steal from others whenever possible and without remorse, and so she claims to be a realist. I would trust that in a free and open market people would deal with each other cordially and with respect and not try to rip each other off, and so in her eyes I am an idealist.
If believing in the goodness of humans makes me an idealist, then so be it, I am an idealist. But I also believe I am a realist. I see things as they are and realize we have a long way to go before mankind achieves a truly free society based on mutual trust and respect. I realize it will take some time before we can live in a society where all our interactions are voluntary and we are not forced or coerced into doing business with organizations we don’t want to do business with, organizations such as many government agencies have become in modern times. I’m not even entirely certain such a society is possible. While such a vision may sound like a utopian society to some, I would be the first to admit that such a society would not be perfect. Perfection in an imperfect world is extremely unlikely. I’m simply looking for the fairest, most just system and it seems to me that letting every individual take personal responsibility for their selves and make their own decisions for their own lives is such a system. It seems that one should be able to keep all the wealth one earns through their own labor or other honest mechanisms and spend it as they see fit. One should not be forced or coerced into “donating” a portion of their income to any organization, no matter how well meaning.
I also realize that such a society isn’t going to just spring up overnight. Such a society is not something that can be forced upon the populace. It is something that should evolve naturally and so become the norm. This is most likely to happen at a slow and steady pace. So I am a dreamer. I dream we can evolve into an ideal society. I dream that common folk will come to this realization, not some leader or an elite political class, and I dream it can and will happen peacefully as a matter of course as each and every one of us begins to understand that it is up to each individual to respect their neighbors’ choices and one would expect their neighbor to reciprocate.
Socialists also dream of an ideal society. Their society revolves around equity. They seem to believe that everyone should have equal access to all wealth regardless of how hard one works, how much in demand their services are, or how much supply for such services and labor exist. They seem to have forgotten that wealth is something created by mankind and is unlimited, not something which occurs as a force of nature and is finite. Wealth itself is not the thing that makes one man equal to another, but it is the opportunity to create wealth that makes men equal in nature. Socialism, wealth redistribution schemes and taxation in general work to destroy this natural equality. These systems reward the lazy and unproductive by giving them unearned wealth and punish the hard working and productive by stealing their earnings from them. This will inevitably break the spirits of those individuals who produce and indeed make them less productive as they begin to feel that they are being used, abused and/or exploited. As a result, the whole society produces less and its economy falters or fails. Hence the socialist’s ideal society discounts the reality of mankind’s nature.
The difference between an individualist’s ideology and that of a collectivist is mostly in the use of force or coercion, even if that force is very subtle. The difference between the idealist vision of an individualist and the idealist vision of a collectivist is one of control. The collectivist would exert authoritarian control using the mechanisms of power that the state provides to frighten individuals into conforming. The individualist would exert market and social pressures on others to show them the benefits of behaving in certain ways and to gently persuade them to pursue acceptable courses of action.
So I am both and idealist and a realist. I also remain ever the optimist. I dream of an evolution occurring in the twenty first century, and hopefully from that evolution will spring a voluntary society, a society free from any elite group that would try to control the population through the force of restrictive laws and regulations. I dream of a society where one’s imagination and innovativeness will be welcomed into the open marketplace. I dream of a society where regulations that stifle competition and limit consumer choice will be a quaint memory like the fading images of a nightmare exposed to the light of day. I dream of a time when each individual will determine for their self what path to take in life and their choices will be honored regardless of how others perceive the merits of those choices. Such a society starts to form as principled individuals continue to remain true to their principles of non aggression, personal responsibility and respecting the choices of others. Such a society grows when principled individuals remind others of the merits of these principles through example. Such a society grows from the bottom up, not the top down.
I continue to do what I can to help my dream come to fruition. It is often times difficult to get those in control to relinquish their power and let others make decisions on their own. It is therefore necessary to remind those in power that such policies are good for everyone, including those in the highest offices of government who have a tendency to try to micromanage even the day to day lives of the common folk. Reversing the tendency toward collectivism our society has shown might not be easy, but it is a worthy effort. There is strength in numbers and our numbers seem to be growing. It is my hope that those of a freedom mindset continue to speak out against authoritarian, collectivist policies of government and that their voices grow louder and more insistent. It is my hope that many more hearts and minds will be won over as they hear the freedom message. It is my hope that many others share my dream of evolution and improving not only the common man’s lot in life, but the human spirit as well.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Lost Souls in the Cult of State Worship
I have a couple of friends who are true believers. They are older gentlemen, otherwise very intelligent and quite capable of making their own decisions and running their own lives, but for some reason they have chosen to put their faith in a place where perhaps it doesn’t belong.
As good cult members should, they will at times try to convince me of their beliefs. They want me to join them in their delusional ways so we can have nice, quiet conversations about how great their belief system is. Of course when this happens I usually shoot back at them with a couple of obvious truths about the corruption of the entire system. I happen to know they agree with me on these truths and that usually ends the discussion. It seems they don’t want to question and shake up their belief system too much for fear that it might crumble to dust. This would, of course, mean they’d have to build new temples in their minds in which to place their faith.
Their cult has recently installed a new charismatic leader who is well versed in the art of recruiting people and convincing them of the righteousness of his cause. He presents to his followers simplified solutions to daunting problems that may alleviate some of the symptoms, but makes sure the disease remains. Perhaps he does this to maintain the illusion that his institution cares for people and is needed, or perhaps he does it for his own personal glorification, I really don’t know. I do believe, however, that the solutions he espouses will only exacerbate the problems, much like the doctors of old who would try to put leaches on or bleed a man who had already lost too much blood.
I have no idea how many people are like my friends, no idea how many cult members there are in the world today, but I believe there are too many to count. I believe they number in the tens of millions. I hear them talking on a daily basis, discussing how this leader or that leader is better equipped for, or not so good at, handling specific problems. They all believe that this institution will somehow lead the masses of humanity to a better life. Yet during my entire existence in this physical realm I’ve only observed this institution fail. I’ve only seen it bring mayhem and destruction to some and mishandle the affairs of others. I’ve only seen it create problems and yet some still worship it as if it was the only solution and ask that it solve the problems it created.
I am talking, of course, about the cult of state. I am talking about those people who worship government and turn to it and its innate use of force when confronted with a problem they don’t understand or refuse to get personally involved in. These cult members continue to give the illusion of legitimacy to government as they ask those in control of the mechanisms of the state to solve problems for them rather than looking to themselves for the answers they seek. They support the system by using it and don’t care who the system hurts, even when it hurts the very people using it. Like a hamster in a wheel, one wonders if the cult members even realize that they are going nowhere.
I believe there is a basic moral reason why government can’t solve the problems of society and therefore why it continues to degrade the humanity of its worshippers. Anyone with the slightest bit of empathy for their fellow human realizes that stealing is wrong. Societal problems can’t be solved by stealing (taxing) from one class of people to give to another class. Likewise, economic problems can’t be solved by forced redistribution of wealth. But the priests of this cult of government, the ones known as congressmen and senators, presidents and prime ministers, Democrats and Republicans, they espouse the virtues of such immorality to their doe eyed cult members. Indeed, they have gone so far as to claim that each individual has a duty to surrender a portion of his labor to this cult, whether they believe in it or not, and that refusing to do so somehow makes one a bad person. The cult members cry “foul” whenever a brave soul decides to stand up and declare that he doesn’t want to be a slave to the system anymore and refuses to pay his tribute. Such is the power these occult priests have to mesmerize their followers.
This cult worship could become more dangerous yet as it morphs from a cult that worships a failed, immoral system to a cult of personality. It is no longer suitable to the priests of state that the followers of this cult simply submit to their demands without question. They are now seeking the allegiance of the masses to an installed figurehead. They are now attempting to put a smiling, happy face on the hand that controls the mechanisms of power and sell the populace on the idea that a “change” to a new style of socialism can bring “hope” for our future. But it seems to me that the smile is false, the hope is futile and the change is back to an old failed model on a larger scale in twenty first century packaging.
Yet the members of this cult are its enablers. Those that put their faith completely in this system help maintain its veneer of legitimacy. Without these followers the federal government in particular, which is responsible for the central planning schemes that have led us to this juncture, would soon lose its popular support and be forced to turn over the services it attempts to provide to other agencies more adept at handling such functions. These lost souls continue to wander in the illusionary political forest of right and left, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, and can’t see that the trees which block their view were planted there to keep them from finding true freedom. They can’t see that these collectivist ideologies are all basically the same and that the ideology of individual rights, individual responsibility and self governance has been crowded out of the American political garden and left to die due to lack of sunshine.
To bring these lost souls back we must help them to realize the harm they are causing simply by using the current system. By promoting federally founded government programs and regulations one helps stifle innovation and remove choices that private individuals and organizations would otherwise bring to the marketplace. By praising those who promote centralized control, socialism, and government involvement through bailouts one helps keep an elite ruling class in power and helps stagnate the growth of small entrepreneurs who would otherwise step in and succeed where others have failed by offering the legitimate services the marketplace demands.
State worship is something we as a society can tolerate no longer. Our empire has grown too large to afford and needs to be cut back. Our individual, natural rights are no longer respected by those who hold the reins of power. Our economy is in shambles due to the monopolistic policies that are only possible with government involvement. It is the federal bureaucracy which created these problems, and it is not they who we should turn to for a fix. It is time to stop worshipping at the altar of the state. It is time to evolve past this over bloated centralized federal government, shrink it to a reasonable size and function, and return the power to the community level and to the individual. Then perhaps we can achieve true freedom. Then perhaps we can begin to build a world where respect for others is honored. Then perhaps we will see a society where no man can be shielded by his power when he decides to bring harm to another.
As good cult members should, they will at times try to convince me of their beliefs. They want me to join them in their delusional ways so we can have nice, quiet conversations about how great their belief system is. Of course when this happens I usually shoot back at them with a couple of obvious truths about the corruption of the entire system. I happen to know they agree with me on these truths and that usually ends the discussion. It seems they don’t want to question and shake up their belief system too much for fear that it might crumble to dust. This would, of course, mean they’d have to build new temples in their minds in which to place their faith.
Their cult has recently installed a new charismatic leader who is well versed in the art of recruiting people and convincing them of the righteousness of his cause. He presents to his followers simplified solutions to daunting problems that may alleviate some of the symptoms, but makes sure the disease remains. Perhaps he does this to maintain the illusion that his institution cares for people and is needed, or perhaps he does it for his own personal glorification, I really don’t know. I do believe, however, that the solutions he espouses will only exacerbate the problems, much like the doctors of old who would try to put leaches on or bleed a man who had already lost too much blood.
I have no idea how many people are like my friends, no idea how many cult members there are in the world today, but I believe there are too many to count. I believe they number in the tens of millions. I hear them talking on a daily basis, discussing how this leader or that leader is better equipped for, or not so good at, handling specific problems. They all believe that this institution will somehow lead the masses of humanity to a better life. Yet during my entire existence in this physical realm I’ve only observed this institution fail. I’ve only seen it bring mayhem and destruction to some and mishandle the affairs of others. I’ve only seen it create problems and yet some still worship it as if it was the only solution and ask that it solve the problems it created.
I am talking, of course, about the cult of state. I am talking about those people who worship government and turn to it and its innate use of force when confronted with a problem they don’t understand or refuse to get personally involved in. These cult members continue to give the illusion of legitimacy to government as they ask those in control of the mechanisms of the state to solve problems for them rather than looking to themselves for the answers they seek. They support the system by using it and don’t care who the system hurts, even when it hurts the very people using it. Like a hamster in a wheel, one wonders if the cult members even realize that they are going nowhere.
I believe there is a basic moral reason why government can’t solve the problems of society and therefore why it continues to degrade the humanity of its worshippers. Anyone with the slightest bit of empathy for their fellow human realizes that stealing is wrong. Societal problems can’t be solved by stealing (taxing) from one class of people to give to another class. Likewise, economic problems can’t be solved by forced redistribution of wealth. But the priests of this cult of government, the ones known as congressmen and senators, presidents and prime ministers, Democrats and Republicans, they espouse the virtues of such immorality to their doe eyed cult members. Indeed, they have gone so far as to claim that each individual has a duty to surrender a portion of his labor to this cult, whether they believe in it or not, and that refusing to do so somehow makes one a bad person. The cult members cry “foul” whenever a brave soul decides to stand up and declare that he doesn’t want to be a slave to the system anymore and refuses to pay his tribute. Such is the power these occult priests have to mesmerize their followers.
This cult worship could become more dangerous yet as it morphs from a cult that worships a failed, immoral system to a cult of personality. It is no longer suitable to the priests of state that the followers of this cult simply submit to their demands without question. They are now seeking the allegiance of the masses to an installed figurehead. They are now attempting to put a smiling, happy face on the hand that controls the mechanisms of power and sell the populace on the idea that a “change” to a new style of socialism can bring “hope” for our future. But it seems to me that the smile is false, the hope is futile and the change is back to an old failed model on a larger scale in twenty first century packaging.
Yet the members of this cult are its enablers. Those that put their faith completely in this system help maintain its veneer of legitimacy. Without these followers the federal government in particular, which is responsible for the central planning schemes that have led us to this juncture, would soon lose its popular support and be forced to turn over the services it attempts to provide to other agencies more adept at handling such functions. These lost souls continue to wander in the illusionary political forest of right and left, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, and can’t see that the trees which block their view were planted there to keep them from finding true freedom. They can’t see that these collectivist ideologies are all basically the same and that the ideology of individual rights, individual responsibility and self governance has been crowded out of the American political garden and left to die due to lack of sunshine.
To bring these lost souls back we must help them to realize the harm they are causing simply by using the current system. By promoting federally founded government programs and regulations one helps stifle innovation and remove choices that private individuals and organizations would otherwise bring to the marketplace. By praising those who promote centralized control, socialism, and government involvement through bailouts one helps keep an elite ruling class in power and helps stagnate the growth of small entrepreneurs who would otherwise step in and succeed where others have failed by offering the legitimate services the marketplace demands.
State worship is something we as a society can tolerate no longer. Our empire has grown too large to afford and needs to be cut back. Our individual, natural rights are no longer respected by those who hold the reins of power. Our economy is in shambles due to the monopolistic policies that are only possible with government involvement. It is the federal bureaucracy which created these problems, and it is not they who we should turn to for a fix. It is time to stop worshipping at the altar of the state. It is time to evolve past this over bloated centralized federal government, shrink it to a reasonable size and function, and return the power to the community level and to the individual. Then perhaps we can achieve true freedom. Then perhaps we can begin to build a world where respect for others is honored. Then perhaps we will see a society where no man can be shielded by his power when he decides to bring harm to another.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Constitutionalists, Ron Paul Supporters and Real Terrorists
This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on March 19th, 2009
By now many of you have probably heard about the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report that labeled constitutionalists, Ron Paul supporters and others as possible domestic terrorists. When I first heard about it my first thought was something like, "Oh no, here we go again. The government propaganda machine is at work again. They are trying to equate ordinary folk and peace loving activists with violent extremists." Indeed, from my point of view this seems correct.
But, alas, I am a man who can´t just scratch the surface of an issue and leave it at that. I must try to dig deeper into the heart of the matter and try to sort through the implications. This is not to say that my initial gut reaction wasn´t correct. Indeed, often times it is. Yet there is often more to such reports than meets the eye and words are often misused or misinterpreted. I began to wonder why such a report would even be considered warranted. It seems clear to me that the language being used in the report was chosen to discourage dissent and incite violence rather than protect officers.
To begin with, we can examine the word terrorist. The word invokes images of hate filled, spiteful people plotting in a secretive fashion to plant bombs in public areas meant to kill and maim as many innocents as possible. Yet that is not what a terrorist is in the strictest sense of the word. A terrorist is one who terrorizes. A terrorist simply creates an atmosphere of fear. One could make the argument that I am a terrorist based on the fact that I write horror novels designed to make the reader feel the tingle of fright run down his spine. To label me as such would be an attempt to misinform and mis-associate in my opinion and the same can be said for the MIAC report. It wouldn´t, however, be totally false as the label was based on a plausible truth.
Or I could simply be looking at this from the wrong point of view. Perhaps from the point of view of those in politics and law enforcement, people in the freedom movement really are terrorists. After all, they have a tendency to not simply submit because someone claiming to have authority over them tells them to. They have a tendency to know their rights and to exercise them. They have a tendency to expect the police officers and government personnel to operate within the bounds of the law written down and codified in the Constitution. What could be more terrifying to a bully on a power trip who insists on being obeyed without question? What could be more frightening to a bureaucrat than someone who insists on the freedom and ability to run his own life rather than depending on the system?
Those of us who have awakened and wish to move forward with a liberty agenda confound the sensibilities of those who insist on regulating every aspect of our lives. We in the freedom movement see ourselves and everyone else as individuals while those with a collectivist point of view have a tendency to lump people together into groups. It could therefore be very logical for those with a collectivist mindset (as many in the government seem to have) to conclude that if one individual involved in the freedom movement becomes violent while defending his rights, all of them are potentially violent. Many of us who are liberty oriented believe that individuals should be punished individually for any harm they may cause to another individual. Those with a collectivist mindset, which is apparently the mindset of the people involved with writing the MIAC report, believe it is ok to punish a group for the actions of an individual, or worse yet to prevent some imaginary incident from possibly happening. It doesn´t matter to them how many innocent people will be hurt or implicated, nor does it matter what principles of human dignity are ignored, it only matters that they are obeyed and that their power, their control and their point of view are all maintained, by force if necessary.
It appears to me as if those currently in control of the mechanisms of power in this nation are, indeed, afraid and perhaps even terrified of those involved with the freedom movement. But I doubt very much that has anything to do with the people involved. The ideas of freedom and liberty are powerful. These ideas make wonderful allies when you side with them and frightening adversaries to fight against. They are ideas that most everyone understands and that just make good sense. Indeed, they seem to be ideas that have been interwoven into the fabric of the human spirit. So as those in control of the mechanisms of power see more and more people begin to question their authority they lash out at those who spread the message. As more ordinary people begin to demand accountability and insist on personal responsibility for the decisions that impact their lives, those who wish to remain in power may find themselves turning to even more tyrannical and devious methods to maintain control.
And so I am also afraid. I am terrified of that the men dressed in blue, or more often black these day, will one day kick down my door, drag me away and lock me in some cold prison cell simply because I choose to embrace the ideals that make men truly free as they go about their day to day lives. I am afraid that one day I will be accused of being a terrorist despite the fact that I abhor violence and do not advocate it, and that I will be forced to defend myself in front of a state owned court more concerned with its own self interests than with truth, justice or preserving the rights of the individual. I´m afraid that such a proceeding could cost me dearly in terms of time and wealth regardless of its outcome. I am afraid because the real terrorists have done their job well and given those who would dissent reason to be afraid. Yet I refuse to let fear silence me and will continue to support Ron Paul, The Campaign for Liberty, The Free State Project, tax protestors, constitutionalists and any other peaceful, freedom advocate I might come across. The more of us that feel this way and speak out about it, the better off we´ll all be.
If you want to know who the real terrorists are, type police brutality into a youtube search and watch the videos. If you want to know how real terrorism works, you only need to watch video of otherwise peaceful protests turned violent not by the protestors, but by those men dressed in black with riot gear and helmets who were supposedly there to keep the peace. Government forces have a history of violence that is far more insidious than any action any private organization has ever taken. Yet despite that they are still so afraid of some peaceful activists that they feel the need to label them and put out propaganda against certain organizations. They know what they are doing is wrong, but they cling to their delusions that it is for the greater good. Freedom and liberty are the ideals that will lead to greater societal good. Those in government would do well to realize and embrace these ideals before popular opinion forces them into an awkward and uncomfortable position they will have trouble defending.
By now many of you have probably heard about the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report that labeled constitutionalists, Ron Paul supporters and others as possible domestic terrorists. When I first heard about it my first thought was something like, "Oh no, here we go again. The government propaganda machine is at work again. They are trying to equate ordinary folk and peace loving activists with violent extremists." Indeed, from my point of view this seems correct.
But, alas, I am a man who can´t just scratch the surface of an issue and leave it at that. I must try to dig deeper into the heart of the matter and try to sort through the implications. This is not to say that my initial gut reaction wasn´t correct. Indeed, often times it is. Yet there is often more to such reports than meets the eye and words are often misused or misinterpreted. I began to wonder why such a report would even be considered warranted. It seems clear to me that the language being used in the report was chosen to discourage dissent and incite violence rather than protect officers.
To begin with, we can examine the word terrorist. The word invokes images of hate filled, spiteful people plotting in a secretive fashion to plant bombs in public areas meant to kill and maim as many innocents as possible. Yet that is not what a terrorist is in the strictest sense of the word. A terrorist is one who terrorizes. A terrorist simply creates an atmosphere of fear. One could make the argument that I am a terrorist based on the fact that I write horror novels designed to make the reader feel the tingle of fright run down his spine. To label me as such would be an attempt to misinform and mis-associate in my opinion and the same can be said for the MIAC report. It wouldn´t, however, be totally false as the label was based on a plausible truth.
Or I could simply be looking at this from the wrong point of view. Perhaps from the point of view of those in politics and law enforcement, people in the freedom movement really are terrorists. After all, they have a tendency to not simply submit because someone claiming to have authority over them tells them to. They have a tendency to know their rights and to exercise them. They have a tendency to expect the police officers and government personnel to operate within the bounds of the law written down and codified in the Constitution. What could be more terrifying to a bully on a power trip who insists on being obeyed without question? What could be more frightening to a bureaucrat than someone who insists on the freedom and ability to run his own life rather than depending on the system?
Those of us who have awakened and wish to move forward with a liberty agenda confound the sensibilities of those who insist on regulating every aspect of our lives. We in the freedom movement see ourselves and everyone else as individuals while those with a collectivist point of view have a tendency to lump people together into groups. It could therefore be very logical for those with a collectivist mindset (as many in the government seem to have) to conclude that if one individual involved in the freedom movement becomes violent while defending his rights, all of them are potentially violent. Many of us who are liberty oriented believe that individuals should be punished individually for any harm they may cause to another individual. Those with a collectivist mindset, which is apparently the mindset of the people involved with writing the MIAC report, believe it is ok to punish a group for the actions of an individual, or worse yet to prevent some imaginary incident from possibly happening. It doesn´t matter to them how many innocent people will be hurt or implicated, nor does it matter what principles of human dignity are ignored, it only matters that they are obeyed and that their power, their control and their point of view are all maintained, by force if necessary.
It appears to me as if those currently in control of the mechanisms of power in this nation are, indeed, afraid and perhaps even terrified of those involved with the freedom movement. But I doubt very much that has anything to do with the people involved. The ideas of freedom and liberty are powerful. These ideas make wonderful allies when you side with them and frightening adversaries to fight against. They are ideas that most everyone understands and that just make good sense. Indeed, they seem to be ideas that have been interwoven into the fabric of the human spirit. So as those in control of the mechanisms of power see more and more people begin to question their authority they lash out at those who spread the message. As more ordinary people begin to demand accountability and insist on personal responsibility for the decisions that impact their lives, those who wish to remain in power may find themselves turning to even more tyrannical and devious methods to maintain control.
And so I am also afraid. I am terrified of that the men dressed in blue, or more often black these day, will one day kick down my door, drag me away and lock me in some cold prison cell simply because I choose to embrace the ideals that make men truly free as they go about their day to day lives. I am afraid that one day I will be accused of being a terrorist despite the fact that I abhor violence and do not advocate it, and that I will be forced to defend myself in front of a state owned court more concerned with its own self interests than with truth, justice or preserving the rights of the individual. I´m afraid that such a proceeding could cost me dearly in terms of time and wealth regardless of its outcome. I am afraid because the real terrorists have done their job well and given those who would dissent reason to be afraid. Yet I refuse to let fear silence me and will continue to support Ron Paul, The Campaign for Liberty, The Free State Project, tax protestors, constitutionalists and any other peaceful, freedom advocate I might come across. The more of us that feel this way and speak out about it, the better off we´ll all be.
If you want to know who the real terrorists are, type police brutality into a youtube search and watch the videos. If you want to know how real terrorism works, you only need to watch video of otherwise peaceful protests turned violent not by the protestors, but by those men dressed in black with riot gear and helmets who were supposedly there to keep the peace. Government forces have a history of violence that is far more insidious than any action any private organization has ever taken. Yet despite that they are still so afraid of some peaceful activists that they feel the need to label them and put out propaganda against certain organizations. They know what they are doing is wrong, but they cling to their delusions that it is for the greater good. Freedom and liberty are the ideals that will lead to greater societal good. Those in government would do well to realize and embrace these ideals before popular opinion forces them into an awkward and uncomfortable position they will have trouble defending.
When Horse Theft is State Sanctioned
This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on March 15th, 2009
The day after the Liberty Forum ended, as I was still driving home from that magnificent event, I heard the news that Brian Travis´ property in Candia, New Hampshire had been raided by area police, a couple of veterinarians and a representative of the SPCA. The alleged purpose of this raid was for the protection of the horses on the property. The authorities had accused the property owner of neglect. I was both saddened and shocked by the news and proceeded to find out as much as I could about the event.
For the record, I admit that I am a little biased toward Mr. Travis. Though I have never met the man personally, I have listened to him on several occasions speak of his adventures on the radio program "Free Talk Live" as he traveled across the country from Colorado to New Hampshire in search of a better life more closely akin to the principles we hold dear, those of non initiation of force and that in order to live in liberty you must allow others to do the same. He came across as an honest, caring, principled individual with a genuine concern for all mankind, not just those close to him. I find it hard to believe that such a man could or would neglect animals he was obliged to care for, especially valuable animals such as those that were kidna--, errr, confiscated from him.
Still, I feel a certain obligation to remain as objective as possible when writing about events and concerns such as this. This can be quite difficult to do at times. I felt the need to distance myself and try to remain objective in this case and so I began reading articles, blogs and the comments of those biased toward Brian Travis and those biased toward the agencies and people involved in the raid. I have to say that it was a real eye opener to read through some of these posts. An occurrence such as this can really bring out the raw emotion in some people. Some comments become very vitriolic and spiteful. There seems to be some real hatred out there against Free State Project members and this issue apparently brought it out. There appears to be at least a few natives of New Hampshire who harbor and nourish a likely unhealthy resentment toward those who believe that the answers to today´s societal and economic ills lay in less government regulation and more individual and personal responsibility. This aspect was a little unnerving in the middle of what could otherwise be a challenging and useful debate.
Much of the expressed concern, however, was for the welfare of the horses. This is understandable. As humans, we have a basic understanding that it is wrong to steal someone else´s property, but we can justify doing so if we feel the reasons for our actions are honorable. People who love animals in general and horses in particular in this case can certainly justify emancipating a helpless equine from the clutches of a cruel, uncaring owner. For this reason, for a moment or so as I was reading through some blog posts, I was a bit torn. It seems that many people in the area where this event occurred believe that the horses were, in fact, neglected. They reasoned that the SPCA and the veterinarians wouldn´t raid the man´s farm unless this was true. For a fleeting moment, I found myself wondering about this point.
Indeed, we as a society wish to believe the best in people. We want to believe that anyone in which the public places its trust has only the best intentions at heart. We´d especially like to believe this coming from people entrusted with the protection of animals who have no voice and cannot directly speak to us and report their own abuse. I would like to believe this too. I would like to believe that there are only good, honorable and trustworthy people working for organizations like the SPCA. So for a moment I was inclined to wonder if perhaps my perceptions of the people involved were wrong and these horses were indeed in danger. After all, I am only looking at this situation from afar and have not had direct contact with any of the players involved with this drama.
Then I saw something that changed my perception entirely. It was this documentary posted on Youtube from ABC´s 20/20 which exposed the abuse perpetrated by some in charge of local SPCAs. It points out that some people will allow their positions of power to go to their heads. The second half in particular shows just how corrupt one man can become when granted such all encompassing power, how he either knowingly lies and cheats for personal and professional profit, or he is so delusional and self righteous that he thinks himself some sort of messiah to the animals who can make no mistakes and do no wrong. My guess is the former.
Those who believe that the welfare of animals is important should consider that likely animals who are not in reality abused have established some sort of rapport with their owners. For them to be taken away from the environment they have grown accustomed to will likely cause undo emotional stress. Who will be held accountable if that is indeed the case? In this particular case, no one, as all those involved have immunity in the eyes of the law. It is sad to think that such criminal activity can be sanctioned by those entrusted to adjudicate and no one will ever answer to the victims of such crimes.
There are some deeper issues of principle at stake here as well. One of those issues is a basic principle of our culture, that a man is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. This is a rule of law that at one time we as a society took great pride in promoting. It is also a rule of law that seems to have become a quaint memory in recent decades. More and more often I see and hear of people who find themselves fighting to prove their innocence. More and more often I see and hear of injustices perpetrated onto the citizenry because of the presumption of guilt by the very system that is supposed to protect the individual from such actions. It is more than simply tragic, it is an abomination to a society that is supposed to cherish and honor the concepts of freedom and liberty.
Brian Travis now finds himself in the awkward position of having to hire a lawyer and fight to regain possession of his pets utilizing the very system that allowed them to be stolen from him in the first place. Can there be more of a conflict of interest? It is as inherent in the system that it should try to protect itself as it is in nature that an organism would engage in self defense when threatened or attacked. Even if he eventually proves that he is innocent of neglecting his animals and shows that not producing the proper paperwork was an honest mistake and oversight on his part, he will have been punished. He will have spent thousands of dollars in fees and precious hours of his time battling an injustice. If actions such as these are to be taken in a free society, if we are to allow people like Steve Sprowl and Dave Garcia (from the 20/20 documentary "Cruelty to Owners") carte blanche to raid people´s farms and businesses, then those people and anyone who helps them should be held personally responsible when mistakes are made and accusations are disproved. This should also be done within a system that minimizes conflicts of interest that could arise between any of the parties involved. In this way, we can be more certain that political considerations or the promise of financial gain are less likely to be at the heart of such actions. In this way, we can be more certain that men wielding power will not attempt such actions as a result of a vendetta against another individual.
I have no reason to doubt Brian Travis when he states he believes this action was taken as a result of an incident that happened on his property and involved Steve Sprowl in November of 2008. I have no reason to doubt that this action occurred because Mr. Travis and his family refused to submit to the demands of a man who is perhaps corrupted by the heady influence of power. In fact, due to the secretive nature of the government position as events continue to unfold, I have reason to suspect that it is Mr. Travis who speaks truthfully and the government bureaucrats who are being less than honest.
Ironically, Mr. Travis moved to New Hampshire to help fight against the very injustices he now finds himself experiencing. He believes there is a better way for society to accomplish its aims rather than simply appointing such people to positions of power and hoping they always do the right thing. Likely it is, at least in part, his libertarian philosophy – that one should never initiate force against another and that in order to live as a free human being one must grant others the same dignity – that helped create the situation he now finds himself in.
It is the people who still believe in the cult of the state who help maintain the illusion of legitimacy these tyrants hold over the populace. It is the people who believe that those in power are just in their actions, or at least their intentions are just, who prop these petty tyrants up and help prevent innovative, real, transparent solutions from being enacted. Until and unless we can hold these individuals responsible for unjust actions and demand they personally compensate those they´ve wronged we will find abuses of power taking place. Until and unless we honor the principles of individual freedoms and liberties upon which our western culture is based we will continue our downward slide toward an authoritarian, collectivist system of society that destroys the human spirit of all those involved with it.
Here are the links to the 20/20 documentary "Cruelty to Owners:"
Part 1 of 20/20 documentary "Cruelty to Owners."
Part 2 of 20/20 documentary "Cruelty to Owners."
It is my hope you will take the time to watch both parts.
The day after the Liberty Forum ended, as I was still driving home from that magnificent event, I heard the news that Brian Travis´ property in Candia, New Hampshire had been raided by area police, a couple of veterinarians and a representative of the SPCA. The alleged purpose of this raid was for the protection of the horses on the property. The authorities had accused the property owner of neglect. I was both saddened and shocked by the news and proceeded to find out as much as I could about the event.
For the record, I admit that I am a little biased toward Mr. Travis. Though I have never met the man personally, I have listened to him on several occasions speak of his adventures on the radio program "Free Talk Live" as he traveled across the country from Colorado to New Hampshire in search of a better life more closely akin to the principles we hold dear, those of non initiation of force and that in order to live in liberty you must allow others to do the same. He came across as an honest, caring, principled individual with a genuine concern for all mankind, not just those close to him. I find it hard to believe that such a man could or would neglect animals he was obliged to care for, especially valuable animals such as those that were kidna--, errr, confiscated from him.
Still, I feel a certain obligation to remain as objective as possible when writing about events and concerns such as this. This can be quite difficult to do at times. I felt the need to distance myself and try to remain objective in this case and so I began reading articles, blogs and the comments of those biased toward Brian Travis and those biased toward the agencies and people involved in the raid. I have to say that it was a real eye opener to read through some of these posts. An occurrence such as this can really bring out the raw emotion in some people. Some comments become very vitriolic and spiteful. There seems to be some real hatred out there against Free State Project members and this issue apparently brought it out. There appears to be at least a few natives of New Hampshire who harbor and nourish a likely unhealthy resentment toward those who believe that the answers to today´s societal and economic ills lay in less government regulation and more individual and personal responsibility. This aspect was a little unnerving in the middle of what could otherwise be a challenging and useful debate.
Much of the expressed concern, however, was for the welfare of the horses. This is understandable. As humans, we have a basic understanding that it is wrong to steal someone else´s property, but we can justify doing so if we feel the reasons for our actions are honorable. People who love animals in general and horses in particular in this case can certainly justify emancipating a helpless equine from the clutches of a cruel, uncaring owner. For this reason, for a moment or so as I was reading through some blog posts, I was a bit torn. It seems that many people in the area where this event occurred believe that the horses were, in fact, neglected. They reasoned that the SPCA and the veterinarians wouldn´t raid the man´s farm unless this was true. For a fleeting moment, I found myself wondering about this point.
Indeed, we as a society wish to believe the best in people. We want to believe that anyone in which the public places its trust has only the best intentions at heart. We´d especially like to believe this coming from people entrusted with the protection of animals who have no voice and cannot directly speak to us and report their own abuse. I would like to believe this too. I would like to believe that there are only good, honorable and trustworthy people working for organizations like the SPCA. So for a moment I was inclined to wonder if perhaps my perceptions of the people involved were wrong and these horses were indeed in danger. After all, I am only looking at this situation from afar and have not had direct contact with any of the players involved with this drama.
Then I saw something that changed my perception entirely. It was this documentary posted on Youtube from ABC´s 20/20 which exposed the abuse perpetrated by some in charge of local SPCAs. It points out that some people will allow their positions of power to go to their heads. The second half in particular shows just how corrupt one man can become when granted such all encompassing power, how he either knowingly lies and cheats for personal and professional profit, or he is so delusional and self righteous that he thinks himself some sort of messiah to the animals who can make no mistakes and do no wrong. My guess is the former.
Those who believe that the welfare of animals is important should consider that likely animals who are not in reality abused have established some sort of rapport with their owners. For them to be taken away from the environment they have grown accustomed to will likely cause undo emotional stress. Who will be held accountable if that is indeed the case? In this particular case, no one, as all those involved have immunity in the eyes of the law. It is sad to think that such criminal activity can be sanctioned by those entrusted to adjudicate and no one will ever answer to the victims of such crimes.
There are some deeper issues of principle at stake here as well. One of those issues is a basic principle of our culture, that a man is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. This is a rule of law that at one time we as a society took great pride in promoting. It is also a rule of law that seems to have become a quaint memory in recent decades. More and more often I see and hear of people who find themselves fighting to prove their innocence. More and more often I see and hear of injustices perpetrated onto the citizenry because of the presumption of guilt by the very system that is supposed to protect the individual from such actions. It is more than simply tragic, it is an abomination to a society that is supposed to cherish and honor the concepts of freedom and liberty.
Brian Travis now finds himself in the awkward position of having to hire a lawyer and fight to regain possession of his pets utilizing the very system that allowed them to be stolen from him in the first place. Can there be more of a conflict of interest? It is as inherent in the system that it should try to protect itself as it is in nature that an organism would engage in self defense when threatened or attacked. Even if he eventually proves that he is innocent of neglecting his animals and shows that not producing the proper paperwork was an honest mistake and oversight on his part, he will have been punished. He will have spent thousands of dollars in fees and precious hours of his time battling an injustice. If actions such as these are to be taken in a free society, if we are to allow people like Steve Sprowl and Dave Garcia (from the 20/20 documentary "Cruelty to Owners") carte blanche to raid people´s farms and businesses, then those people and anyone who helps them should be held personally responsible when mistakes are made and accusations are disproved. This should also be done within a system that minimizes conflicts of interest that could arise between any of the parties involved. In this way, we can be more certain that political considerations or the promise of financial gain are less likely to be at the heart of such actions. In this way, we can be more certain that men wielding power will not attempt such actions as a result of a vendetta against another individual.
I have no reason to doubt Brian Travis when he states he believes this action was taken as a result of an incident that happened on his property and involved Steve Sprowl in November of 2008. I have no reason to doubt that this action occurred because Mr. Travis and his family refused to submit to the demands of a man who is perhaps corrupted by the heady influence of power. In fact, due to the secretive nature of the government position as events continue to unfold, I have reason to suspect that it is Mr. Travis who speaks truthfully and the government bureaucrats who are being less than honest.
Ironically, Mr. Travis moved to New Hampshire to help fight against the very injustices he now finds himself experiencing. He believes there is a better way for society to accomplish its aims rather than simply appointing such people to positions of power and hoping they always do the right thing. Likely it is, at least in part, his libertarian philosophy – that one should never initiate force against another and that in order to live as a free human being one must grant others the same dignity – that helped create the situation he now finds himself in.
It is the people who still believe in the cult of the state who help maintain the illusion of legitimacy these tyrants hold over the populace. It is the people who believe that those in power are just in their actions, or at least their intentions are just, who prop these petty tyrants up and help prevent innovative, real, transparent solutions from being enacted. Until and unless we can hold these individuals responsible for unjust actions and demand they personally compensate those they´ve wronged we will find abuses of power taking place. Until and unless we honor the principles of individual freedoms and liberties upon which our western culture is based we will continue our downward slide toward an authoritarian, collectivist system of society that destroys the human spirit of all those involved with it.
Here are the links to the 20/20 documentary "Cruelty to Owners:"
Part 1 of 20/20 documentary "Cruelty to Owners."
Part 2 of 20/20 documentary "Cruelty to Owners."
It is my hope you will take the time to watch both parts.
Friday, March 13, 2009
My Liberty Forum Report
This article was originally posted on March 11th, 2009 at americanchronicle.com
I had the good fortune to be able to spend the weekend of March 5th – March 8th of 2009 attending the Liberty Forum in Nashua, New Hampshire which was put on by The Free State Project. To say I was energized and excited by the happenings there would be an understatement. Words can not begin to describe the feelings I had as the weekend progressed. I felt welcomed, accepted and embraced by all those in attendance. Never before in my life have I experienced so many people that felt the same way about freedom as I do all gathered together in the same place.
I drove from the Chicago area to Nashua to attend this event. The total drive time was a little over 17 hours one way. I would have flown, but I didn´t want to put up with the TSA and all their dictates. Sorry, but I want to be able to keep my shoes on and drink bottled water when I travel. I could have taken a train, but I didn´t. I wanted to drive. It had been a long time since I´ve taken a road trip. The forum made it worth the trip.
I could talk about the liberty luminaries that gave their speeches. I could talk about how great it was to hear these personalities in person. I could talk about the individual speeches by people like Adam Kokesh from Iraq Veterans Against the War and how great and emotional his presentation was. I could talk about how awed I was to be in the presence of Mary Ruwart (one of my personal heroes) and how exciting it was to be able to speak to her one on one even if it was just for ten minutes. I could talk about how inspiring it was to listen to Will Buchanan tell of his adventures on his Walk for Liberty across America and to discuss freedom with him and his lovely wife Brooke at a round table luncheon.
There are many things about the speakers I could mention. I could talk about how interesting and educating it was to hear Glenn Jacobs from the WWE give a speech on the economy. Glenn Jacobs is a huge man and a powerful presence, but to me it was his intelligence that was the most impressive thing about him. I could mention how entertaining it was to hear John Taylor Gatto speak about education despite his age and the fact that he can´t be as animated as I´m sure he was in the past. I could talk about how fun it was to watch Stefan Molyneux instruct a roomful of libertarian minded people on how to win any political debate in two minutes or less.
I could talk about these things and I guess I just did a little, but I won´t go into any more details because, although these luminaries and their presentations gave this gathering substance and form, it was not they who made the forum so exciting for me to attend. Although these famous and inspiring people gave presentations worthy of the standing ovations they received and never seemed to have enough time to answer all the questions audience members wanted to pose, it was not they who impressed me the most. It was, in fact, the legions of ordinary people who had gathered together in one place to listen to these people who delighted me. It was they who created the positive and exciting atmosphere which permeated the hotel. It is they who make the Free State Project the beacon of hope that it has become in the liberty movement.
One of the first things one notices about this movement is the diversity of those involved. People from all backgrounds, cultures, races and religions attended. That is a testament to the power of freedom. It appeals to most everyone regardless of their upbringing or social status. The other thing I noticed is how friendly everyone was. There was no prejudicial judging going on in this group. There was a tendency I found to introduce one´s self and then to begin conversing with one another as if you´ve known each other for years. The non initiation of aggression principle and the idea that in order to live in liberty you must grant that liberty to all others is ingrained in our psyches, for the most part. That connection alone is a powerful catalyst for tolerance and friendliness in our interactions. Those ideals were personified by just about everyone at the forum.
It is these individuals who make society work. It is they who provide the labor, the products and the services that make day to day living in the modern world possible. The people attending were the teachers, the technicians, the software programmers, the mechanics, the entrepreneurs, the businessmen, the doctors, the clerical workers, etc. who want to see government reduced in size and scope. These are professionals and laborers from a variety of industries, both private and public, who are tired of the overbearing, intrusive nature of our government and simply want back the ability to be able to make decisions for their selves and their businesses and succeed or fail based on their own merits. They came to the forum to get ideas on how to achieve liberty in our lifetime and discuss those same ideas. It was these discussions we had amongst ourselves that made the liberty forum such an exciting place to be.
By the end of the Liberty Forum my head was so full of new information and ideas that it was spinning. I don´t know if it would have been possible to squeeze anymore nuggets into my skull, and yet I didn´t want the weekend to end. I had found a time and a place I would have liked to have stretched into eternity had it been in my power. I now have more hope than ever before that ordinary folks can create the change necessary to return our society back into the type of freedom loving, independent thinking society our founders must have imagined. The ordinary people attending this forum gave me more hope than any politician possibly could. They are the promise of real change, lasting change, change from the bottom up. For me, this is what made the Liberty Forum a rousing success.
I had the good fortune to be able to spend the weekend of March 5th – March 8th of 2009 attending the Liberty Forum in Nashua, New Hampshire which was put on by The Free State Project. To say I was energized and excited by the happenings there would be an understatement. Words can not begin to describe the feelings I had as the weekend progressed. I felt welcomed, accepted and embraced by all those in attendance. Never before in my life have I experienced so many people that felt the same way about freedom as I do all gathered together in the same place.
I drove from the Chicago area to Nashua to attend this event. The total drive time was a little over 17 hours one way. I would have flown, but I didn´t want to put up with the TSA and all their dictates. Sorry, but I want to be able to keep my shoes on and drink bottled water when I travel. I could have taken a train, but I didn´t. I wanted to drive. It had been a long time since I´ve taken a road trip. The forum made it worth the trip.
I could talk about the liberty luminaries that gave their speeches. I could talk about how great it was to hear these personalities in person. I could talk about the individual speeches by people like Adam Kokesh from Iraq Veterans Against the War and how great and emotional his presentation was. I could talk about how awed I was to be in the presence of Mary Ruwart (one of my personal heroes) and how exciting it was to be able to speak to her one on one even if it was just for ten minutes. I could talk about how inspiring it was to listen to Will Buchanan tell of his adventures on his Walk for Liberty across America and to discuss freedom with him and his lovely wife Brooke at a round table luncheon.
There are many things about the speakers I could mention. I could talk about how interesting and educating it was to hear Glenn Jacobs from the WWE give a speech on the economy. Glenn Jacobs is a huge man and a powerful presence, but to me it was his intelligence that was the most impressive thing about him. I could mention how entertaining it was to hear John Taylor Gatto speak about education despite his age and the fact that he can´t be as animated as I´m sure he was in the past. I could talk about how fun it was to watch Stefan Molyneux instruct a roomful of libertarian minded people on how to win any political debate in two minutes or less.
I could talk about these things and I guess I just did a little, but I won´t go into any more details because, although these luminaries and their presentations gave this gathering substance and form, it was not they who made the forum so exciting for me to attend. Although these famous and inspiring people gave presentations worthy of the standing ovations they received and never seemed to have enough time to answer all the questions audience members wanted to pose, it was not they who impressed me the most. It was, in fact, the legions of ordinary people who had gathered together in one place to listen to these people who delighted me. It was they who created the positive and exciting atmosphere which permeated the hotel. It is they who make the Free State Project the beacon of hope that it has become in the liberty movement.
One of the first things one notices about this movement is the diversity of those involved. People from all backgrounds, cultures, races and religions attended. That is a testament to the power of freedom. It appeals to most everyone regardless of their upbringing or social status. The other thing I noticed is how friendly everyone was. There was no prejudicial judging going on in this group. There was a tendency I found to introduce one´s self and then to begin conversing with one another as if you´ve known each other for years. The non initiation of aggression principle and the idea that in order to live in liberty you must grant that liberty to all others is ingrained in our psyches, for the most part. That connection alone is a powerful catalyst for tolerance and friendliness in our interactions. Those ideals were personified by just about everyone at the forum.
It is these individuals who make society work. It is they who provide the labor, the products and the services that make day to day living in the modern world possible. The people attending were the teachers, the technicians, the software programmers, the mechanics, the entrepreneurs, the businessmen, the doctors, the clerical workers, etc. who want to see government reduced in size and scope. These are professionals and laborers from a variety of industries, both private and public, who are tired of the overbearing, intrusive nature of our government and simply want back the ability to be able to make decisions for their selves and their businesses and succeed or fail based on their own merits. They came to the forum to get ideas on how to achieve liberty in our lifetime and discuss those same ideas. It was these discussions we had amongst ourselves that made the liberty forum such an exciting place to be.
By the end of the Liberty Forum my head was so full of new information and ideas that it was spinning. I don´t know if it would have been possible to squeeze anymore nuggets into my skull, and yet I didn´t want the weekend to end. I had found a time and a place I would have liked to have stretched into eternity had it been in my power. I now have more hope than ever before that ordinary folks can create the change necessary to return our society back into the type of freedom loving, independent thinking society our founders must have imagined. The ordinary people attending this forum gave me more hope than any politician possibly could. They are the promise of real change, lasting change, change from the bottom up. For me, this is what made the Liberty Forum a rousing success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)