The Fourth of July: Why Bother?

Print Friendly

The Fourth of July is weeks away now – but what are we celebrating, really? Independence from Great Britain? Ok, that I’ll buy. But the Fourth is also taken as a symbol of “our freedoms.” Well, let’s look at that for a moment – and consider the freedoms we don’t have anymore:

* The freedom to travel without being subject at any time to a random stop/interrogation/search.

OBL is allegedly dead but the “war on terror” is full o’ life. Neither the Patriot Act nor the litany of outrages against what used to be regarded as elemental rights and liberties will be scaled back, let alone chucked altogether. At least the Alien and Sedition Acts eventually got retired. But it is looking rather unlikely that any of us will be able to board an airplane without being handled like incoming felony arrestees for the foreseeable future, or enjoy the now-deceased protection of probable cause before a cop can legally interrupt our trip and halt us by the side of the road for – well, no reason at all.

* The freedom to associate with whom we wish – and to not associate with whomever we wish, for whatever reason we wish.

Our concept of “civil rights” was twisted by the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Guilt over the mistreatment of blacks led to a horrible (because anti-liberty) perversion of law. It is one thing to demand that all people, irrespective of race, be treated equally under the law. That each of us have equal access to courts and other such legitimately public places.

It is quite another thing to demand legally enforced notions of “equality” – of results and otherwise; to force people to interact with one another – and to redefine as “public” accommodations privately owned businesses, property, and so on. It is now illegal in many areas for a bar owner to permit his patrons to smoke if they wish; civil rights shysterism means a person who doesn’t like smoking (or “no kids allowed”) may use the courts – the police - to force the owner of a privately owned business to kowtow to their demands, even though they are perfectly free to do business elsewhere, with a bar or restaurant owner (or whomever) that is willing to provide the sort of environment, product or service that person prefers. (Or he could just open up a business of his own that operates according to his view of things.)

It is illegal for a private club to determine the criteria of membership; for a property owner to sell to whom he wishes; for a landlord to rent to whom he prefers. Etc. The race racket is now just as vicious in reverse as it was the other way around. Worse, actually – because now it’s the government doing the race-based browbeating, not the Klan.

* The freedom to own property, especially land.

The income tax is evil, but the tax on property – our homes/land – much more so, because it assures that we will never stop paying income taxes because without income, we can’t pay the annual rent on our property that government demands (i.e., property taxes) in return for the privilege of allowing us to stay there for awhile … until the next payment comes due.

Property taxes turn ownership of anything substantial, such as our homes, into a mirage. We can see the idea of it, but we can never quite get there. There is not even the possibility of being a freeman, beholden to none, living on land you paid for. Just the Marxian reality of endless payments to the government, designed specifically to destroy the very concept of a freeman.

* The freedom to buy/possess a gun without government permission.

Even in “gun friendly” states such as my own home state of Virginia, one must present a government ID and fill out government forms (and of course, pay a fee to the government) in order to exercise what has now become the conditional privilege – no longer the right – to buy/possess a firearm. People argue about the “true meaning” of the Second Amendment, with the gun-grabbers endlessly harping about the “well-regulated militia” portion to make the claim that the men who wrote the thing intended to limit the right to keep and bear arms only to state-sanctioned bearers – “the militia” – who, of course, were to be “well-regulated.” Except for the glaring historical fact that at the time the Constitution was ratified and for decades thereafter, there were absolutely no restrictions or rigmarole whatever placed upon the ownership of firearms by private citizens, who possessed them in abundance. Strange, is it not, that no attempt was made to “regulate” private – and ubiquitous – possession of firearms until the modern era… .

* The freedom to decide for ourselves, without coercion, whether we want health insurance and if so, under what terms.

With the passage of Obamacare, there is now in principle nothing beyond the scope and authority of the federal government – which claims the right to compel each of us to buy the product of a for-profit cartel, with the usual threats of intimidation and (ultimately) violence, if we decline to comply.

We will shortly no longer have even the freedom to decide for ourselves, in consultation with doctors of our own choosing, what sort of care is best for us. Doctors will shortly no longer have the freedom to treat patients as they (rather than a government “health care” bureaucrat) deem appropriate. Everything even vaguely related to “health” will fall under the government’s eye. Your most intimate, private details will be an open book. Have no doubt that virtually everything and anything you do in life will shortly become the government’s business – to monitor, supervise, regulate and control – because after all, those activities and choices of yours could conceivably affect your health – and your health is now public business.

 

Yes, corporate-run HMOs are often shitty. But you can say no.

With Obamacare, you’re not permitted even that.

* The freedom to decline to “help” random strangers, imposed on us by threat of violence.

This one’s at the root of most of the present evils we suffer. G. Gordon Liddy famously described a liberal as someone with a burning desire to help others – with your money. I’d modify “liberal” to “statist” because it’s not just those on the political left who are guilty of this sin. Plenty of Republicans, for example, think it’s ok to use the power of the government to force Smith to finance the education of Jones’ children, or fuel the endless burning pit of “defense,” no matter how absurd and exaggerated.

As a result, Americans are no longer free to go their way in peace, to pursue happiness. What it used to be all about… .

At every turn they are accosted by their fellow men, via the state. Freedom – as understood by the men who wrote our founding documents – is at best a conditional and strictly limited thing, nowadays. There are very few – if any – unqualified freedoms left. The essential freedoms – especially those related to property rights and the (former) right to be free from arbitrary hassles and the onetime right to be free to peaceably associate with whomever we choose and to be free to not associate with whomever we choose – are mostly if not entirely out the window.

So, what are we celebrating, exactly?

Hell, in most parts of the country, you’re not even allowed to buy a firecracker anymore…. .

But I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free….

Except, of course, we’re not.

Share Button

  97 comments for “The Fourth of July: Why Bother?

  1. methylamine
    May 6, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    I’m starting to think history can be re-written as a conflict between two sub-species of humanity. Hear me out:

    98% of people don’t WANT to control other people. I have no desire; you probably don’t either. You want to go on about your way peaceably, interacting with others in voluntary and consensual ways. You don’t want to rip people off, don’t want to be ripped off, and in general treat people in your life decently and receive the same back.

    Then there’s the 2%. They want to CONTROL people. They like POWER. They lack empathy. They find peoples’ inconsistencies and vagaries threatening and unsettling. In many cases, their lack of empathy puts them in a special psychological class–SOCIOPATH. With no inkling of the pleasures of normal human interaction, with rewarding bonds of loyalty and friendship, their only pleasure is POWER.

    I believe history is a chronicle of the struggle between the normal 98% and the sociopathic 2%.

    The end result is totalitarianism–very close to what we have today. The very top of the “leadership” is dominated by sociopaths, and the useful idiots and minions below them–while not necessarily sociopaths themselves–depend so much on the system that they propagate it. Out-of-control cops. Bureaucrats who see fit to launch SWAT raids on Amish dairy farms (Google it). A woman forced by a SWAT raid to give up her daughter to CPS for refusing to give her an unnecessary and dangerous drug (Maryanne Godboldo). Police who treat you like a Guantanomo inmate at a routine traffic stop. TSA feeling up little girls.

    Folks this IS tyranny. I am boycotting July 4 by hanging my US flag upside down this year–the symbol for distress.

    Fixing it is easy. No violence is required; simply withdraw your consent. The sociopaths are too few in number to run it themselves; they need cops, TSA, judges, SWAT teams composed of ordinary but deluded people as their “muscle”. They need YOU to believe the lies and stay in fear.

    Withdraw your consent! Argue peacefully at every turn; when you get pulled over, decline a vehicle search. When you fly, refuse the porno-scanner and refuse to have your “junk” touched. Better yet don’t fly, and tell the airlines why.

    • May 6, 2011 at 6:36 pm

      This is spot on – excellent summary of the situation!

      Clover’s a case in point; Exhibit A. If he thinks you ought to do something (such as wear a seatbelt) he’s not content to make his case and let you choose for yourself; he wants the law to force you to do as he thinks you ought to do. If he thinks “education” (read: compulsory government schools) is good, then he feels no compunction about having men with guns threaten you if you don’t “help” fund them.

      Etc. Etc.

      • clover
        May 7, 2011 at 1:12 am

        Here is a driver test. How do you rate. Looking at it you would be at best a fair driver.

        http://www.statefarm.com/_pdf/SteerClear.pdf

      • clover
        May 7, 2011 at 1:47 am

        By the way I do not care if you do not wear a seat belt. I just do not want to see any teenagers not wearing one or any of my friends or relatives. You are free to do as you like.

    • dom
      May 6, 2011 at 7:03 pm

      Problem is of that 98% many are zombies! Nice write-up.

    • Brent P
      May 7, 2011 at 1:32 am

      I think it’s different than that. American society is full of ordinary control freaks. They do not want their neighbors living any differently than they do. They fear the ‘other’. They want conformity. While they are not evil, usually very empathic, and usually not brave enough to use force themselves, they enable the state because they are afraid. Needlessly afraid.

      The sociopaths manipulate this very large group. Those of us who really believe in freedom are a small minority that easily marginalized if not simply stomped on. The battle is to relieve the great majority of their fear of the ‘other’ and see how they are manipulated and stolen from. We won’t have freedom until people see how they are alike when it comes to big important things instead of how they are different in small trivial details. With the illusion of fear removed, the sociopaths that run the state will lose their power.

      On another note, I’ve come to believe that the airlines don’t care that we don’t fly because of the TSA. They want business travel and so long as their cartel is safe they really don’t care about our pleasure/optional travel. Now if businesses stop flying people because of the TSA…

    • clover
      May 7, 2011 at 2:46 am

      How is it that the 2% of the people are social-paths and they are the ones that get elected to a higher office? How is that happening? How is it that only these social-paths do something wrong? How is it if one of these social paths does something wrong and the thousands of others of these social-paths do good things and it never gets publicized?

      • May 7, 2011 at 11:03 am

        Poor ol’ Clover, you are indeed clearly a product of the government school system! “Social-paths”? Are they winding and scenic?

        A sociopath is one who has no regard/empathy for others but rather regards them as things to be used for his own purposes. Those end purposes don’t have to be rape or murder, although that is a common expression of the mindset. The sociopath is one who craves power and control – hence, such people are attracted to government and things related to government.
        %0

        • clover
          May 7, 2011 at 4:27 pm

          I guess you would say the same thing about every person that is the head of any sort of of company. You would say that also about any type of manager that has control or tells others what to do. If that is the case you would not have your computer, no internet, no truck, no motorcyle, no roads and not much of anything.

          • May 7, 2011 at 5:39 pm

            No, Clover, I would not – because companies (for the most part) do not exercise violent control over anyone. You deal with them on a voluntary basis – because you like what they sell, or otherwise wish to do business with them (or not, as you prefer).

            Government, on the other hand, is about forcing people to do things; about punishing them if they don’t comply.

          • clover
            May 7, 2011 at 6:03 pm

            What violent control have you been involved with? Again other countries around the world are thousands of times worse than ours for violent control. I have not seen it. Nobody I know has seen it personally. Have you seen it personally? It is something to bring up a video clip that was edited to show what people like you want to see. It is another thing to have the real stats and even the real truth about a given event. I guess you are one that says it is fine to start beating on a policeman and they are supposed to take it. There are dozens of police killed by your so called innocent people.

            What is the worst thing that the government has made you do? Wear a seat belt? You need to fight for a real cause. 99% of people know that they should wear a seat belt. It is worth going to war for you.

          • Brent P
            May 8, 2011 at 4:57 am

            While inside a corporate culture sociopaths do often rise to the top outside the corporation, they have no power unless they team up with government. Even inside the corporate culture people who are their victims can simply get another job.

            Sociopaths rising to the top is one of the hidden reasons why once great corporations die. We will hear about not being able to compete, poor quality, etc but rarely the internal corporate culture.

          • Ken V.
            May 21, 2011 at 8:47 pm

            What planet did you come from?

            Sure “managers” TELL people what to do, but they also PAY those people to do it. And with the single exception of the military; if you don’t like it you can always quit and find a job somewhere else.

        • Ken V.
          May 21, 2011 at 8:41 pm

          You’re absolutely right Eric. Although sociopaths make up a very small percentage of any society, they gravitate toward the following “careers.”

          1. Police

          2. Military

          3. Government

          4. Crime

          • dom
            May 22, 2011 at 2:48 am

            Surprise Surprise..

            Guys, I really can’t believe rapture didn’t get my ass! Shit.. Guess I need to move on.

    • Gil
      May 7, 2011 at 5:45 am

      You got that statistic arse-about: 98% are pro-nation and 2% are pro-Libertarian. If the overwhelming people were Libertarians then it be a Libertarian nation already.

      • May 7, 2011 at 10:52 am

        I’m optimistic; I think probably 20 percent of the population is inclined toward liberty. The real thing, I mean. The rest? Well, you have authoritarians of various stripes that run the gamut from the left-liberal (Clover is an example) to the right-conservative (Palin/Bush/McSame). They bicker over how state power should be wielded against the individual, by them – but both agree on the wielding of state power, by them.

        The left-right dichotomy is a false one; just as is the idea that America has a “two-party” system. In fact there is just one party – the Government Party – with two “wings.”

        But, the status quo is becoming untenable and less so everyday. The country is no longer socially or economically – and hence, politically – stable. One way or another, “change” is coming….

        • clover
          May 7, 2011 at 4:34 pm

          Eric you are wrong about me. I am far from a left-liberal. Left-liberal would say do your own thing. It is exactly what you are except for the fact that you do not care at all about others. It is only about you. Is it true that the libertarian is only about yourself party? As you say, you do not care if others are killed as long as you get to do what you want. You do not care if others die or are injured, you just do not want to be delayed a couple of minutes.

        • Ken V.
          May 21, 2011 at 8:56 pm

          “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
          — C.S. Lewis

          Scott Bieser hits it again:

          http://www.scottbieser.com/BOYN.html

      • JAlanKatz
        May 8, 2011 at 9:38 pm

        I think there are intermediates here. It isn’t automatic that those who don’t want to control others are libertarians. Consider the actual system we live with. It isn’t obvious that, given a tremendous amount of corporate welfare and regulations that protect the rich, we should just ignore it and say “well, private property from now on.” I’m a libertarian, by the way, just recognize it’s a bit more complicated.

        • May 8, 2011 at 10:30 pm

          I’m as much the enemy of crony “capitalism” as I am of crony “socialism” (or “fascism”). It’s all the same thing – use of organized force to dominate and control. Mind, I have no truck with “the rich” – provided the rich we are talking about earned their money, meaning they provided a good or service that people freely paid for. I don’t think any individual should have his income taxed because the income tax is incompatible with liberty. Taxes should be generalized, such as sales and excise taxes. No individual or business should have to provide details of his private financial dealings to the government.

          We have the current oppressive tax system to a great extent in order to fund immoral things, such as transfer programs of all descriptions, subsidies and inducements – and, of course, “defense” – which really means global hegemony enforced by violence.

          If the government restricted itself to its Constitutional authority it would need perhaps 10 percent of the revenue it currently takes by force from the people. That 10 percent could be readily obtained by sales taxes, duties and so on that do not require any individual to “open his books” to cretinous government minions. Just imagine what it would be like to be free of the income tax; to be able to keep most of what you earn – with taxes a small incidental.

          America was like that, once – and could be like that again.

  2. dom
    May 6, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    Problem is of that 98% many are zombies! Nice write-up.

  3. jesse bogan
    May 6, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    Heh… I live in the District of Criminals, and for a great part of my life, we (friends family and self) made the trek to the DC mall for the fireworks display and concerts. At first (late 60s as a kid, and 70s as an adult) discreet drinking was tolerated, some use of illegal smoke was always around, but in general, a nice celebration. Over the years, less and less “freedom” is tolerated by the po-lice, and then, after 9 11, you are now expected to line up, be searched (None of those pesky Al Keeda coolers allowed ya know), and are then passed thru “security” to be herded into a fenced area to celebrate our “freedom” Needless to say, I no longer go. Strikes me as funny way to celebrate freedom.

    • May 6, 2011 at 7:58 pm

      Yup! I keep hearing that god-awful Len Greenwood song in the background…. yes ahm proud to be an ahhhmurrikun, where at least ah know ahm freeeee….

      Gag.. choke…. puke….

    • clover
      May 7, 2011 at 4:43 pm

      Yes you would rather die than stand in line. The fact is there are thousands of people that want you dead along with everyone that is in line with you. You would rather be dead than to stand in line for a few minutes. I would not go to any major event without security right now. Thousands of others with knowlege of what is going on in the world would not either. It is either have security or many events would be canceled with lack of attendance. I and thousands of others would not board a plane if they got rid of all security. Millions would not board one after the first dozen crashes.

      • Jesse Bogan
        May 7, 2011 at 8:56 pm

        No, no Mr Clover, you have that ALLLL wrong. First of all, in the USA today, you are far more likely to be killed by a Government goon, wearing a costume and shiny badge, that by any sort of “terrorist”. Sad, but true. There are plenty of websites that you can go to that will actually verify that fact. Time to take off the rose colored glasses chum, America has become a Police State in every way but in name. The police have been militarized with grant after grant, and they have long since ceased “To Protect and Serve” the population of America, but have instead become an occuping Army of a security service weilded by the Feral Government.
        If you want Air Traffic to be safe, then issue all passengers a firearm loaded with frangible bullets. I can flat guarantee that there would be no unrest on the plane at all. Have you ever read the ENTIRE second amendment? “A well regulated Militia, necessary to the security of a FreeState…” That meant, in the day that it was written, that WE, We the People, were expected to be trained well enough in the use of arms to be able to protect what is ours. Our family, person, and state are OUR responsibility, not someone elses. Like oh so many, you evidently think it is OK to delegate that RESPONSIBILITY to someone else, instead of standing up and doing YOUR job yourself. I am not. I am not willing to bow my head like a serf, and let massa look out for po little me. It is MY responsibility, and I KNOW that I can and will do a better job. And my way I won’t cede my Constitutionally enshrined RIGHTS as a free person. Not only that, but the courts have stated time after time that the police have NO RESPONSIBILITY to protect YOU individually, but “only society as a whole” And there you sit, like a sheep expecting ol officer not so friendly to protect YOU. And if you wind up as “Collateral Damage”, well too bad for you. Man up Clover!! Man Up. I am nobodies collateral damage. I refuse to celebrate my “Freedom” by being herded into a “freedom enclosure” at the point of a state controlled gun.

      • Gil
        May 8, 2011 at 3:19 am
        • May 8, 2011 at 8:33 am

          Absolutely! Such things are, of course, shocking to Clovers – who recoil from the idea that individuals are either responsible for or capable of being responsible for their own security. Guuuuuuuuvernment will protect us!

          Similarly, guns on campus. I live near VA Tech – a “gun free” zone. A zone where a psychopath killed 30 people, with ease, because not one of his dozens of helpless victims had the means to shoot back. They merely cringed in corners, awaiting their turn…

          It never occurs to people such as Clover that – axiomatically – “gun free” zones are the scenes of the most mass killings and violence, while areas where ordinary people are not persecuted for possessing the means to defend themselves (and others) are among the safest places to be.

    • clover
      May 8, 2011 at 3:30 am

      Jesse I would take my chances up against the police any day of the week and any year. There have been thousands of people killed by terrorists. There have been very few people killed by police. It is ok to get mad and upset about something but at least do it about the facts.

      • Jesse Bogan
        May 8, 2011 at 7:39 pm

        Lets just take a recent example or two shall we?? In Seattle, the city just “awarded” 1.5 million of the peoples money to the family of a Native American homeless man. He amused himself by carving wood. He was crossing a street, minding his own business, when he somehow attraced the attention of a passing cop. Did I mention that the woodcarver was deaf?? In 7 (that is seven ) seconds after the cop, out of his line of sight, ordered him verbally to stop, escaleted his response to shooting him in the back, killing him. Seven seconds from first contact, to dead man, for a guy that was deaf, minding his own business, and was walking away from the cop (guess he could not have made a threatening move at the cop …) So who is the terrorist?? There was another incident in Nevada. Guy was shopping in the cosco. He was a concealed permit holder, and once again, was minding his own business. Some panicky store employee called the cops. They ordered everyone to leave the store (The victim here had NO IDEA that he was the problem) He left the store along with everyone else, and as he left, in a crowd of people, was confronted by several cops. He was of course suprised, as he was doing nothing wrong. The 2 cops gave conflicting orders simultaneously (Get Down,,, Drop your gun) He tried to comply, and the cops opened fire, amid a crowd of people. One cop finished him off by closing the distance, and putting his last couple of rounds in his back as he lay dieing on the pavement. This guy was a medical equipment sales man, graduate from West Point, with no criminal record at all. In fact, you would probably refer to him as one of the good guys. So Clover, who is the terrorist now?? If anyone other than a costumed badge wearing state thug had executed an innocent man like that, they would have been charged with murder.. As it is the fat blue line excused the killing. How about the guy that the Oakland metro cop shot in the back as he lay handcuffed?? Or the little girl killed “by mistake” in a “drug raid” in Philly?These are only a very few that I can think of right now, there are plenty more. It happens every day here in what used to be America. You can feel free to trust the cops wherever you live. I pray that they will continue to earn that trust. But I won’t bet my life on it…

        • May 8, 2011 at 7:59 pm

          Here’s the video of the first incident:

          • dom
            May 9, 2011 at 12:06 am

            That’s insane! Absolutely nuts.. A fucking outrage. Imagine a woodcarver carrying a knife and carving wood! What do you think about this one Clover?

          • clover
            May 9, 2011 at 2:37 am

            Were are these videos?
            http://youtu.be/R8olEn237h8

        • clover
          May 9, 2011 at 1:44 am

          I do not know the law about carrying a gun in that state but it goes to show that people get pretty nervous when there are people with guns in a store when they are not used to it or expecting it. I would think that it is not a good thing to take a gun into a store but that is my opinion and not the law. Police can make a mistake and it gets very well publicized when it does. If they are found that they did something wrong then they lose their job and can be put into jail themselves. You found two cases but you forget that dozens of police are shot each year on the job. Those get publicized very little other than the local news.

          • Brent P
            May 9, 2011 at 5:07 am

            There was a time when people didn’t get all paranoid about guns. It is the control freakish pro-state attitudes that you display here that have led to this current environment. There was a time in this country where a teenager could take a rifle to school on a city bus and nobody would so much as blink.

            Police have a far less dangerous job than many productive people do. Furthermore, most of the danger in police work comes from their revenue extraction activities when they pull over someone for revenue collection and it turns out to be a criminal who thinks it’s more than a traffic stop. The cops reinforce this by intentionally using traffic stops to make arrests. Besides that if any of us decided to strap on a gun belt and drive around in a decked out crown vic stopping people on the road demanding money we would expect it to be a wee bit dangerous.

            However, the reason we see so many beatings and killings by police now is that police forces are not only made up in large part by bullies (who are naturally cowards) but cops are trained to be paranoid. This “officer safety” paranoia turns into the trigger happy behavior where every slight movement becomes a threat to their lives.

  4. Don
    May 7, 2011 at 5:43 am

    As Alex Jones of infowars.com has said,
    “The answer to 1984 is 1776!”

    • May 7, 2011 at 1:21 pm

      Or 1861.

      I prefer that option – peaceful secession (if possible). It’s sick and sad that we celebrate “consent of the governed” and “the right of the people to alter or abolish” abusive government given that neither have been operative since at least 1861.

      Without the right to withdraw from the (cough) “voluntary” union when other forms of redress don’t work, there is no consent of the governed – just force and violence.

      The people of the Southern states believed it was time to separate; their lawful representatives – who had their consent – attempted to do so on their behalf. The Northern thugocracy would not permit this. Like an abusive husband who threatens to kill or beat the wife who does not love him anymore and wishes to go her way in peace Abe and his band of thugs (including psychopaths such as Sherman and genocidal war criminals such as Grant and Sheridan and Butler) beat and killed the Southern freedom movement into submission, erecting a consolidated federal authority that set the limits of its own power (hence, unlimited power), from which there is no appeal, hence no consent.

      • Gil
        May 8, 2011 at 3:26 am

        There’s no such thing as peaceful secession from a sovereign nation. To break away from the main power makes you a Separatist group. The closest solution is to find unclaimed land and found a new nation. On the other hand, what wrong with violence? You’re not much of a man if you aren’t willing to stand up for yourself or your family. Defensive force should be encouraged. Those who went with the flow and didn’t want to make trouble ended up in gas chambers and gulags.

        • May 8, 2011 at 8:28 am

          Generally, yeah – you’re right. The Clovers will not permit their captives to go in peace. But, there are a few exceptions. For example, when the Soviet Union fell apart (for much the same reason, I think, that the US is going to fall apart), several new states came into existence without a major battle between the dying Soviet Union and the new states coming into being.

          But, I agree with you in principle. The question becomes: What does the average guy do? He can’t physically fight the present system on his own; that would be a suicide mission. Even to passively resist certain things is to invite your doom.

          Where then, do we begin?

          I’m not a soldier or a tough guy; but I’m a passably coherent writer, I like to think – and I use whatever skills I have in that respect to try to get people thinking.

          And I like to think, that’s a good start… .

  5. Gil
    May 7, 2011 at 5:48 am

    Aw shucks. You should know freedom isn’t given, it’s taken. Those of the War of Independence didn’t ask or wait for permission to cease being part of the Empire they took it – with deadly force. Duh!

    • May 7, 2011 at 10:44 am

      Unfortunately, you’re right.

      I say unfortunately, because I loathe violence. I – and other Libertarian types – don’t want to harm anyone (who isn’t harming us, of course ) and do our best to live – and let live. Unlike the Clovers, we have no desire to interfere with or direct the lives/personal choices of others; so long as they’re not harming (or defrauding) someone else, they should be free to live life as they wish; what the founding fathers called the “pursuit of happiness.”

      But I agree with you that, ultimately, people who feel as I do – who don’t want to live at the expense of others, by force and who would like to be free of people who do want to live at the expense of others, by force – are probably going to have to fight. The Takers and Controllers aren’t going to be swayed by reason or convinced by appeals to morality. They literally won’t leave others alone.

      I’ve had conversations with many such and asked (for example) how it is that they will condemn theft if I do it myself (as well as violence, if I do it myself) but approve of it – even demand it – when it is done on their behalf by this entity we call “government”? It doesn’t click. They don’t see it.

      Government, to a Clover, is a holy thing – imbued with mystical powers that render moral rules of conduct between ordinary individuals inoperative. The Vox Populi may do anything it wishes, as expressed via the vote, through politicians and “the law.”

      • clover
        May 7, 2011 at 5:09 pm

        Yes it must be worth going to war for making you to wear a seat belt. Going to war for making you spend a couple of hundred dollars on insurance. Going to war for stopping you for 3 minutes for a safety check every other year. Going to war for making it safe to enter an event. I think that you need some mental help. There are thousands of worse things in this world than those.

        • mithrandir
          May 7, 2011 at 8:37 pm

          Clover,

          It would appear that way by actions of the gov’t. If you do not wear a seat belt, you will recv a fine. Do not pay that fine you will be assessed penalties in addition to the original fine. Eventually, more severe measures will be taken.

          My uncle was pulled over for a seat belt violation. He asked the Leo why he was receiving a ticket. She said it was for his safety. He said BS and said where were they when he was sent to war in Korea. They did not seem to care about his safety then.

          Regarding Insurance: If insurance was not mandatory, I do think that it would be better priced. Minimum insurance in NJ is not priced in proportion to the amount of coverage you are getting. You pay about 70% of the cost for about 15-20% of the coverage for minimum coverage compared to a standard policy.

          Auto Insurance should be voluntary. Other types of insurance are voluntary.

          Re the safety check: If you mean the yearly (or every other year depending where you are) auto inspection. The state in NJ only checks for emmission testing. They dropped safety inspections years ago. They did not reduce the amount they charge for the inspection though.

          The inspection does not take 3 minutes either. If you are lucky you can get done in about 25-20 minutes at the earliest.

          Just because there are worse thing in the world, does not mean that these things should be accepted.

          • May 8, 2011 at 8:18 am

            Clover’s an example of the New Man. That is, of the “man” who venerates authority and clamors for ever-tighter control over the lives of not just himself but everyone else, too. Just mouth the magic words… safety… our children…society.

            The New Man is not just bewildered by the idea of leaving people to figure things out for themselves, make their own choices as they see fit based on their own evaluation of the pros and cons, to interact on the basis of voluntary cooperation, etc. – he is actively hostile to such notions.

            It offends him at the deepest, most conditioned level. A guy like Clover is an intellectual automaton. Government good! We (never I). … He can’t reason or think in terms of concepts and principles. Everything to him is to be viewed in the context of a childish appeal to the aforesaid notions of safety… our children… society… we.

            It never occurs to him that government is nothing more than people who wield state authority. People subject to the same character defects as the annoying guy who lives next door, who tries to lord it over you whenever he can. Only when he becomes an official of the government, he now has an army of enforcers to impose his will on others.

            Clover is, like most state-worshippers, a mystic – because he believes that human nature magically changes when a person goes to work for the government; that government itself transmutes what would be obviously wrong when done by an individual (theft, say) into something that’s morally acceptable. Presto!

            Such a person is either not very bright, very thoroughly conditioned – or some combination of the two.

            He cannot be reasoned with, because reason is a foreign language to him. His morality is a kind of petty socialism, never closely examined.

            After many years of trying to get through to people like him, I’ve come to believe it is just not possible.

            There is a fundamental incompatibility. This means that those of us who would like to live in a free country will have to figure out a way to separate ourselves from the Clovers and each of us go our respective ways. And – much harder – if we do manage to get away from the Clovers, we will have to take steps to prevent new ones from arising in our midst. I have several ideas along those lines…

        • Brent P
          May 8, 2011 at 5:11 am

          The state does not care about our safety. It does not care if we live or die. Those who operate the state with little exception care about themselves first and foremost. If you don’t believe me, look at how government has treated soldiers over the last many decades. Unsafe vaccines, DU, sitting in a trench with nuke going off, etc and so on. Safety is irrelevant. Fear such as yours however is their tool to get what they want, power over us and our wealth.

          While most people aren’t willing to fight back for what has happened so far the government keeps pushing and it’s going to cross a line eventually. Timing is everything.

          I miss the 80s but vague memories of the 70s indicate an even freer time. I remember what it was like before this paranoid control freak safety culture. I want that attitude regarding living life back.

          • May 8, 2011 at 7:57 am

            I also remember the pre-paranoid/control-freak culture that existed before things began to go south. When (for instance) life was much less scripted; kids just went out and “found something to do.” It wasn’t like today, where almost everything is an organized, group activity of some kind. You could ride a bike (or a Big Wheel on the driveway) without a helmet for saaaaaaaaafety. In high school, some of the other kids’ trucks had – gasp! – rifle racks, some with actual rifles there. On schoooooooooool grounds! And… wait for it…. kids were allowed to smoke! Yes! Saw it myself….

            Also:

            You could argue with a cop about a traffic ticket and not risk being shot or Tazered. Cops were not buzz-cut American SS types. They still carried revolvers – not high-capacity military-type semi-autos.

            It was possible to go into an airport, buy a ticket in cash – without ID – and go wherever you wanted, anonymously.

            No pee tests to get a job…

            No “random checks” – anywhere, for anything. They were against the law.

            A friend of mine marks the Moment of Change, when the paranoid/control freak culture began to be the mainstream culture, as that point in the ’80s when “moms” began to dominate politics; when you saw “baby on board” signs in cars and almost every annoying, freedom-taking new law was couched in terms of “the children”…..

          • dom
            May 8, 2011 at 1:14 pm

            Eric, the pee test comment you made got me thinking about accessibility to drugs. These days (has been for awhile now), but kids can get narcotics (cocaine, heroin, etc..) easier than a pack of smokes and a beer! It’s idiotic. Instead of running the risk of becoming a cigarette smoking beer drinker they bypass that shit all together and go right for crack head. I know this is an oversimplification. -just slightly

          • May 8, 2011 at 4:36 pm

            It’s true!

            Which shows you hwo effective the “war” on drugs has been…. like the “war” on terrah, too.

          • Marc
            May 11, 2011 at 8:02 am

            I find it bizarre that our civilian culture has been relentlessly feminized since the 80s while militarily America takes the lead as the most aggressive country on earth. The contrast is really quite stunning. At home, our obsession with the intricacies of safety and fairness overshadows life, liberty, and happiness at every turn while overseas armed predator drones patrol an increasing number of foreign skies. Of course, most of the infuriating nonsense that we have been forced to endure here is done for the sake of “the children”, the environment, or social justice. More recently, national security has moved to the forefront. Perhaps we are finally getting an ominous taste of our own medicine.

          • May 11, 2011 at 9:29 am

            Yes. Maybe the two are related? A wimpy, subservient culture accepts not only the degradation of the individual but enjoys lashing out (by proxy) at other cultures. Notice that America rarely, if ever, picks an enemy who can really hit back. We stomp on pathetic Second and Third World countries like Grenada, Panama and, of course, Iraq. And we prefer to do our killing from a distance, showering these places with bombs and so on. Then we watch it like it’s a video game. We kill literally tens of thousands (perhaps more) Iraqis – people who did nothing to threaten “our freedom” – and it’s nothing to us. Just some ragheads, right? Yet we whine and cry about niiiiiine eleven like old women.

            The part that infuriates me the most perhaps is its done in my – in our – names.

          • Brent P
            May 12, 2011 at 1:23 am

            In the 70s the school playground consisted of monkey bars and other structures made of galvanized steel pipe and the ground below them was covered with limestone gravel.

            As a child I was more restricted by my parents than most kids and that is relative freedom compared to what I see kids suffering through today…

            Sometimes I think I had relative freedom as a kid then compared to being an adult now. I expected to have freedom when I became an adult instead I find the state playing parent at every turn. This has to be creating frustrations in people, ones that are going to build in the population and cause more and more people to snap in the future. Which of course will only result in a more controlling police state.

          • May 12, 2011 at 9:16 am

            I remember that same America. Same monkey bars – same freedom. And you’re right, in many ways, the kids of the ’70s enjoyed more real freedom than the adults of the present time, in terms of just being left alone to make choices for themselves without constantly being hassled by some Authority… .

  6. dirk Edwards
    May 7, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    But as long as they let religous people pray as they please, they think there free!!Great work Thanks-Dirk

  7. James
    May 7, 2011 at 11:47 pm

    I visit numerous websites, on a regular basis, and frequently spend time reading the comment sections. I rarely find individuals, whose comments reach the depths of those offered by clover. The only thing more puzzling, than the idiocy he offers, is that anyone actually spends the time to respond. Although, I understand the joy we all get by thrashing an obviously overmatched opponent. He appears intent on establishing a new standard by which all internet trolls should be measured.

    Whenever I come across these individuals, I often wonder if they aren’t engaging in some type of perverse parlor game. In other words, he and his friends sit around trolling websites, producing inane comments and keep score by the number of responses they receive. I mean, how else can you explain the drivel he offers?

    • May 7, 2011 at 11:59 pm

      Hey James!

      It’s a mystery to me, also… he just keeps coming back for more…

    • dom
      May 8, 2011 at 2:08 am

      I would be happy to learn he’s just trolling and screwing around. The sad truth is he seriously believes what he says here. I think it is interesting to have a real live sample of the zombie population and he’s happy to represent. What Eric, I, and many others here are guilty of is trying to point him toward the right direction. It’s pointless. My mom used to say it best when I would get into arguments with my dad and younger brother. She would say to me “Don’t argue with an idiot because they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

    • clover
      May 8, 2011 at 2:00 pm

      Yes overmatched. When most of the facts get deleted it is not a fair fight.

  8. clover
    May 8, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    I just want to make one comment. Eric in theory I agree with you 100 percent on most things. In reality we live in the real world. People do not do the right thing. People are out to kill us if at all possible and if it is easy enough for them to do it. Everyone does not handle their responsibilities if they cause others harm. People drive after drinking too much and klll and injure thousands. I live in the real world. You and others do not.

    • dom
      May 8, 2011 at 3:28 pm

      LOL..

      You don’t “want to make one comment,” or “say just one thing,” or “live in the real world!”

      • May 8, 2011 at 5:00 pm

        Don’t forget “the facts”… the facts!

        De troof hurts….

        • dom
          May 8, 2011 at 6:57 pm

          Dood, I stated the facts before.. All of them. Also,the key to the universe was in that post too! But you deleted it! The answers to everything-always was in that darn post you deleted.. We’re doomed now.

    • May 8, 2011 at 4:39 pm

      People! These people! Who are these people?

      Poor ol’ Clover… ein teppichfresser, ja?

      Here’s what it comes down to; what you are all about:

      Security/safety – just say the words (doesn’t have to be an actual, specific threat). Why, security and safety are the most important things in the world! Maybe “the children,” too. Worth any sacrifice of liberty on the say-so of the guuuuvernment, which always knows best, always acts to protect us from ourselves – and all those threats out there, too.

      Freedom; human liberty – those are just irrelevant, pie-in-the-sky things and not worth worrying about in “the real world.” If there’s any chance that anyone, anywhere, might possibly do something to abuse his freedom or take advantage of his liberty, then we simply must have a new law that takes away everyone else’s freedom and liberty, too.

      Gotta be safe.

      Don’t treat people as individuals, respecting their right to be assumed responsible until they give concrete reason for believing otherwise. Treat ‘em all like the degraded cattle that some of them might be – because that’s how Clovers view other people. As stupid cows to be led and told what to do… and turned into hamburger when they don’t obey.

      This is the Cloverite way of “thinking.”

      • clover
        May 8, 2011 at 6:53 pm

        Security has nothing to do with if you have or do not have freedon. In the world today having no security is like being in a heavy weight fight with your hands behind your back and a sigh on your shirt saying hit me please.

        • dom
          May 8, 2011 at 7:03 pm

          I would just use my legs and headbutts..

          And my shirt would say “If I’m still standing you didn’t hit me hard enough!”

        • May 8, 2011 at 7:20 pm

          Interesting.

          You mean like the freedom to board an airplane without being felt up by a government thug?

          Or perhaps the freedom to take a drive without the possibility of being stopped by a cop, at random, and compelled to show your ID and have the cop “look you over”?

          Maybe you mean that pesty old business about the people’s (former) “…right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures”?

          Hmm?

          I sort of also remember a time when the government had to have a warrant to eavesdrop on your phone conversations or other correspondence… when, in other words, people could speak freely without having to worry that some low-rent government Clover was jotting down their every word.

          Clover, if you weren’t so intellectually palsied, so blinkered in your knowledge of both history and human nature, you’d be aware that the call for “security” (and “safety”) is the call of every tyrant and every tyranny the world has ever known. Giving up our freedom in return for the promise of security/safety (but the reality of chains and servitude) is precisely the sort of bargain cattle probably think they’re making as they trot down the chute to get that knock on the head that precedes becoming hamburger.

          That’s the philosophy you’re not capable of understanding – or just don’t care to understand, because you really do believe that the guuuuuuvrnment is spayshul and your bestest friend and looking out for you, just like a friendly uncle.

          Except, of course, that Uncle is a “funny” uncle… and he’s the last thing from the bestest friend any of us – who aren’t Clovers – want to have to deal with.

          • James
            May 8, 2011 at 10:09 pm

            Go back and read my original post. I rest my case!

          • May 8, 2011 at 10:21 pm

            I’m pretty sure he’s serious… and of course, he probably votes. My guess is he’s some from of “civil servant,” based on his reverence for authority combined with his mouthful-of-Novocaine numbing vacuity. I’ve encountered creatures like this before. They do walk amongst us….

      • clover
        May 8, 2011 at 7:35 pm

        One thing you do not understand Eric is that thousands would die with no security. What number would you put to it?

        A thug ” a tough and violent man, esp a criminal” How many of those do you see as security people at an airport? Checking you for guns or knives is a violent action? Get real.

  9. Jesse Bogan
    May 8, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    Be safe?? Sure. I wear a helmet, jacket and gloves when I ride, I use my seat belt alla the time. But I do it because I choose to, not because the nanny state is waiting to ticket or imprison me if I don’t. I lock my doors at night (unfortunately a necessity in the nanny state run city), but I also pack a suprise just in case some feral citizen decides to breach my locked door. Instead of cowering and dialing 911, and WAITING for the “state” to come to my aid, I ensure my safety RIGHT NOW, on my terms. Makes more sense to me Those that drink and drive deserve the penalties that they get. But if you sit at home and drink yourself into a stupor, why would I care? As long as you don’t involve me, it is not my business. I believe strongly in personal responsibility. The nanny stae has fostered a culture that no longer requires that responsible behavior be a requirement to being part of the civil society. What a big loss for all of us. I despise being treated as the lowest common denometer by the PTB as a result.

    • dom
      May 8, 2011 at 7:24 pm

      I agree completely. I wear the belt, helmet, gloves, etc.. because I want to. Even wore a condom for the same reason. We (wife and I) both have an okiedoke ready for line steppers. Any citizen who is able but unwilling defend themselves is a fucking tool and deserves their fate.

      • May 8, 2011 at 7:37 pm

        I met/talked with the legendary G. Gordon Liddy a few times back in the ’90s, when he was doing his radio show in DC. He would occasionally read my columns on the air. Mr. Liddy – as a convicted felon – is not legally permitted to possess firearms. However, he makes it a point to mention that Mrs. Liddy possesses many firearms…

        I always liked that!

        I also took some advice of his to keep guns in various places throughout the house, not just your bedroom. You never know when you might need a hogleg, and if you do, you want quick access – wherever you are!

    • May 8, 2011 at 7:30 pm

      Even worse – the Cloverite doctrine that says if even one person does something foolish, irresponsible or criminal, then laws must be passed to “make sure” it never happens again, even though it will happen again at some point (because no law will ever stop stupid/criminal conduct) and even though it inevitably comes at the price of everyone’s liberty, even though most people behave responsibly and haven’t done a thing to justify the theft and trampling of their liberties and prerogatives.

      “Gun control” – civilian disarmament, in honest language – is a case in point. So also much of what passes for traffic “safety” enforcement nowadays.

      Clover is like that character in the legendary movie, The Outlaw Josey Wales. I mean the rabid Yankee “red leg” who pursues Josey. His rationalization for every brutality? “There ain’t no end to doin’ right…. . ”

      That is Cloverism in a nutshell.

  10. clover
    May 8, 2011 at 10:00 pm

    No Eric that is not my opion at all I have nevr said that if one person does something wrong a law needs to be created. That is closer to your thinking in that you say if you can not get 100% of the people to do the right thing then why try? That is the kind of thhing you have said dozens of times. If hundreds or thousands do sommething wrong and a law can fix it a lot no matter if it is 100% or not then something should be done.

    I hope all these page views are helping you to make some money.

  11. Jesse Bogan
    May 8, 2011 at 10:57 pm

    I live in DC. I can say with utmost certainty that for “security” people, there is NEVER gonna be enough security. Never. I believe it was Ben Franklin who said (paraphrasing a bit I am sure) Those that will give up liberty for security deserve neither, and will lose both. True words. I look at what the KGB, oh wait, DHS has done to DC. All government buildings are secure like fortresses. Everyone else?? Not so much. They spent a zillion bucks on a “visitors center” at the Capitol, but everyone knows, it is really a shelter for the elected idiots. They are doing the same thing at the Washington monument, an underground “visitors center” that all will have to transit, before we can enter the monument to the General that fought for our “freedom” You should see a presidential motorcade… The SS beat the snot out of some guy that didn’t run out of the street fast enough when the Emporer approached. This is what passes for normal these days. In some states the po lice will pull you over for a mandatory breathalizer test. If you dare refuse, they have a tame judge on the spot, and they will issue a warrant, and at the point of a gun, they will draw your blood by force. In America. In Colorado, they were randomly stopping drivers, and again, at the point of a gun, take a DNA sample. Without probable cause. Without a warrant. How long before you are stopped and asked “Papier Bitte” just like in Hitlers Germany. Only this is America. Do you think Clovers head will explode when he figures out that just about everything his government tells him is a lie???

    • clover
      May 9, 2011 at 12:00 am

      I have to think that when Ben Franklin was alive the word terrorist was not even invented yet. I would bet that when Ben Franklin was alive there was not a plain in the air. I would bet when Ben Franklin was alive you could not cross the ocean in a few days. Things have changed and you have to change with them or die.

      • clover
        May 9, 2011 at 12:01 am

        plane in the air.

      • dom
        May 9, 2011 at 12:16 am

        terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

        Origin:
        1785–95; terror + -ism

        terror
        Origin: 1325–75;

        Benjamin Franklin: Jan 17, 1706 – April 17, 1790

        Just the facts boys! Nothing more nothing less!

        • clover
          May 9, 2011 at 12:29 am

          Was the word applied to people that are out to kill thousands of others? Nooooo. Only the facts.

          • dom
            May 9, 2011 at 12:32 am

            LOL

            So if a single word term does not exist for an act/action that act/action does not exist either?

            Just curious..

        • clover
          May 9, 2011 at 1:04 am

          Dom, maybe you are right. The word has been around for a long time all the way back to the French Revolution. Maybe it is ok then. Thousands were killed back then so it is ok for thousands today. We should just sit back and take it and do nothing.

          • dom
            May 9, 2011 at 2:00 am

            So losing our basic American rights is doing something about it?

      • Jesse Bogan
        May 9, 2011 at 1:38 am

        Clover, you are aware that terrorisim is a tactic right? It is a method used by many people of various beliefs to change the behavior of others. Some want you to Convert to their religion. Some want you to accept shredding the Constitution, and turning you into a serf on the great prison state. Ever wonder why the mantra from Washinton these days is “Be afraid, be very very afraid”? Remember Franklin Roosevelts great speech, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” What the heck happened to that part of the great American spirit? In WW2, we were fighting not 1, not 2, but 3 nations with their conscripted armies, and state supported arms production. That was a BIG DEAL. Now, who are we fighting??A rag tag bunch of more or less stateless bad actors. They do not have an army of Men at arms, or a navy, or an airforce. They cannot project FORCE anywhere. Ask yourself this Clover, why are you afraid of these people?? Really Why?? You have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than encountering any sort of “terrorist” Cui Bono, That means “Who Benefits?” Who benefits by YOU being afraid??? (Hint, it ain’t you)

        • May 9, 2011 at 10:40 am

          Clover and those like him are what is pushing this country toward the abyss. Not the scumbag politicians or even the government itself – because without the mass support of fearful, gullible and ignorant Clovers, the outrages being visited upon what was once a fairly free (and at an even earlier time a genuinely free) country would be impossible. Imagine the reaction of a manlier America to such as George W. Bush and his “Patriot” Act… .

          On “terrorism”… Clover, again, is a blank slate. He does not remember (if he was ever aware of it) that terrorism has been in use for many years and been dealt with – appropriately and successfully – as a police matter. Without creating a militarized police state, as we have been erecting.

          Examples: The IRA in the United Kingdom; the Red Brigades in Italy. Neither country turned into a police state in order to deal with these groups. But we Americans shit our pants when a similar movement targets us, embracing police state tactics presented to us in the name of “security” and – most hideously of all – “protecting our freedom.” Which of course we have surrendered, willingly – even happily.

      • May 9, 2011 at 10:19 am

        Once again, Clover, you reveal yourself to be a product of government education.

        True, there no “plains” in the air in the late 18th century; but there was this thing going on in France called The Terror; aka the fallout of the French Revolution. And guess who did all the terrorizing? Hint: It wasn’t the average Frenchman. The thousands killed were killed by their own government; by government thugs such as Robespierre, Marat, et al. They, too, couched their head chopping in terms of the “safety” and “security” of the state.

        Do you know what the German term, sicherheit, means? Security. It was a favorite term of the German Nazis, too. As in SD (the even meaner branch of the SS). And in the constant reference made to the term by Hitler, Goebbels and Goering. Do know what the formal title of the act giving Hitler dictatorial powers after the Reichstag fire (the German 9/11) was? Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich….. in English, “Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich” – i.e., to keep them “safe”…. by giving arbitrary, total power to the government.

        Stalin liked to talk about “safety” and security” too – and was always on the lookout for what he called (yes) “terrorists” … that is, people who opposed his thug state – and resisted it.

        I realize you’ve probably never cracked open a book on your own and are likely – no, obviously – ignorant of the consequences of giving flawed human beings power over other human beings – but you might try it sometime… .

  12. JvG
    May 8, 2011 at 11:32 pm

    Some one wrote about the old days, when guns were in gun racks in the high school parking lot. I recall being in high school ROTC. Not because I was pro-military, but because it was more interesting than the alternative, gym class. The ROTC classrooms were in the school itself. The main classroom was used to teach military thought and tactics, and also how to assemble and disassemble M-1 WW-2 30 caliber rifles, real ones. We would use these at the local miltary base, we would fire armour piercing rounds at targets. I suppose these rounds were condsidered surplus during the Vietnam era. As incredulous as it seems, we would use these same rifles for drill (marching) practice on the highschool football field. We would also march, with our uniform and guns, downtown on Veterans Day.

    The other classroom, in the science wing,was our rifle range. The guns were single-shot bolt action Springfield rifles, probably from WW-1. We shot 22 caliber rounds, real ones. There was a classroom on the other side of the wall on both sides. The thought of doing something we shouldn’t did not enter our minds. Five other guns would have been pointed at us instantly, backed by 16 years old marksmen. It is hard to believe that only 40 years have gone by.

    • May 9, 2011 at 10:32 am

      Hi JV,

      Indeed!

      Similar “history” here, also. I was a Boy Scout and in those days, there was a merit badge for marksmanship. At summer camp, there was a rifle range; and we 13,14,15 year-olds had ready access to firearms. No one shot anything except targets. All my friends’ parents had guns in the home – loaded and openly available – because after all, what use is an unloaded, locked-in-a-cabinet gun? None of us (and here I mean the entire community of thousands of people) ever did anything criminally violent, despite the easy/immediate access we had to firearms.

      Is it not curious that the rise in violence, mayhem and general disintegration parallels the rise of Cloverism (that is, the regulation and “control” of almost everything) and the constant chipping away at whatever freedoms still remain – always on the basis of “safety” or “the children” or “protecting us”?

  13. May 9, 2011 at 10:10 am

    Excellent article.

    There is, however, one thing I might disagree with: that the “income” tax is less heinous than the property tax. Isn’t the income tax actually a tax on labor? And isn’t, for most us, our labor the most valuable asset we possess? If this is true, taking into consideration all that Obamacare entails (if your particular state allows it to be implemented in its entirety), not only do we not own our land and our house, we don’t even own our own bodies.

    Mike Schroeder

    • methylamine
      May 9, 2011 at 9:31 pm

      @Mike Schroeder:
      EXCELLENT point, Mike! You hit the nail on the head. Income tax is the ultimate theft because it steals the product of your body and mind, your labor…rendering you A SLAVE.

      Welcome to neo-feudalism, fellow slave. You don’t own your house (property tax), you don’t own your car (registration, and that pink slip isn’t the real title), and you don’t own your body (drug laws, income tax).

      Hell you don’t even own your own children–CPS can grab them at will. Try not vaccinating them.

      • Gil
        May 10, 2011 at 3:36 am

        Aw, turn it up methyl. How would you define a slave then? Slavery wasn’t abolished after all and the 14th Amendment is meaningless?

        Yes you do own your own house but you don’t own the land under it. You do own your car but you do have to pay to use the public roads. You do own your body in the sense that if you want a different of laws then go to a different jurisdiction or coutry. Hell a true Libertarian would argue no own has the right to own another person ever regardless of age.

        • May 10, 2011 at 11:07 am

          A working definition of “slave” is someone who labors under compulsion.

          The situation that exists today is different than chattel slavery, where a person could be the literal property of someone else. However, while we’re not legally the property of the government, in many ways the government does assert an ownership claim over us. Methyl’s point about the criminalization of the mere possession/use of certain substances is a case in point. No harm has been to another person; there is no victim – hence no crime, at least not in a moral (and sane) sense. Nonetheless, the government (its armed enforcers) will assault you, prosecute you, take your property and send you to jail – for nothing more than consuming a substance it has arbitrarily decreed to be illegal.

          Income and property taxes, meanwhile, are more like the tribute required of a Medieval serf.

          We are permitted to work and to keep some of what we earn, but compelled (by threat of violence) to give over a large portion of everything we possess to the “lord,” i.e., the government. There is no escape from this, either – unless you divest yourself of all possessions, earn no income and become a wandering bum or live in the woods.

          We have a degree of freedom, but less of it each year – and most of our activities are restricted/limited/regulated, even though to a great extent there is no moral basis for imposing these restrictions and limitations (because our actions cause no harm to others). An example – as we’ve been discussing on this site – is mandatory “buckle-up” laws. It’s no more the government’s business whether we wear a seatbelt in our cars than it is whether we eat our veggies at supper. But the law gives the enforcers the legal authority (as distinct from the moral right) to waylay a motorist and threaten him with implied violence (and actual, real violence if he declines to comply) merely for not “buckling up.”

          It’s demeaning, it’s immoral – but it’s “the law.”

          Bottom line: We’re not (yet) literal slaves, but we are very close to being in the same condition that Medieval serfs were: That is, under the thumb of government, constantly having to pay tribute to it – and legally unable to live free from it, even if we are harming (or threatening to harm) no one else.

          • Brent P
            May 12, 2011 at 1:06 am

            It is what Rockefeller meant about ownership and control. You don’t need ownership if you have control.

        • clover
          May 12, 2011 at 3:13 am

          You say income tax makes you a slave? What a joke. When a third of our population in the lower income pay no income tax then how is it being a slave? You guys will never quit! What a joke. I bet Eric pays little if any income tax.

          • May 12, 2011 at 9:37 am

            Re-read the earlier post, Cloveroni. Serf vs. slave. Yes, you’re right, a third of the population pays no income tax at all – because they’re living off the other two-thirds who do. You might say the people paying the taxes are chained to the people who aren’t - forced to work in order to support them… hmmm… a person who is forced to work in order to provide money to someone else…

            How might such a person be described?

            As far as how much I pay in taxes: Right off the top I lose nearly 15 percent of everything because as a self-employed person I pay both ends of FICA. Then there’s the “normal” federal income tax on top of that. Plus Virginia state income tax. In a “good” year, when my income is high, I routinely pay well over 30 percent of my gross income in combined federal/state income taxes. This is typical of the tax burden imposed on people who aren’t rich enough to take advantage of the loopholes available to very affluent people, but who are just affluent enough to be screwed over the most by taxes.

            Then add to the aforesaid the multiple layers of additional taxes we pay at every turn – including taxes on real estate and property, sales taxes, motor fuels taxes, restaurant taxes, etc. The actual net tax bite on many middle/upper middle class people is well over 40 percent.

            Yeah. I’d call that a joke. Only the joke’s on those of us who pay.

    • mithrandir
      May 10, 2011 at 12:54 pm

      Although science fiction, the Doctor Who episode “The Sun Makers” (http://www.drwhoguide.com/who_4w.htm Search about midway down page) discusses of a future where people are oppressed by the ruling elites.

      “The majority of the citizens of the vast Megropolis cities are being overworked and overtaxed by the ruling elite, led by the Gatherer, and the sinister Collector.”
      ===========================================
      Hopefully things do not ever get that bad.
      I think part of the problem is that people want something for nothing and are willing to believe politicians that promise them something for nothing.

      The true cost of many programs and services of government is hidden. (or at least made more difficult to determine) I would think that many people would be willing to make do with less mandatory programs and services and keep more of what they earn for what they consider essential.

  14. Jesse Bogan
    May 11, 2011 at 11:54 pm

    Here ya go, just for Clover. A couple of this weeks atrocities in the name of protecting and serving…

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/87886.html

    And my personal favorite, DEATH for running a stop sign…
    .
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/87869.html
    Thanks to the Lew Rockwell site, where I first found this site…

    Clover, look these up and read. Then look around that site and read some more. It might help broaden your “wee slicket cowerin'” little horizons.

    • May 12, 2011 at 9:20 am

      Clover could witness such things every day and still not get it. His mindset reflexively genuflects before “the law” (any law, all laws) and automatically rolls over onto its back whenever “safety” or “security” is barked at it – just like a well-trained heeler.

    • May 18, 2011 at 12:21 pm

      Some more for Clover:

      In a not-so-stunning decision, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement can enter a home against the wishes of a resident for any reason and the resident has no right to resist. Even the dissenting judges agreed with the ruling in principal but believed that the decision was too broad in it’s scope.

      In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.

      “We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

      David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *