Housecleaning
"A piece of paper defines my rights. My acts of defiance enforce them."
OK, let's get a few things straightened out here. A couple of things have fallen off the shelf, and I ought to pick them up, do some vacuuming, straighten this place up a little.
First off, a stopped clock is right a couple of times a day. Glenn Beck appears to be a fraud, but I like what he wrote that I quoted. I really get the feeling that he is like many Obama supporters: An administration I dislike cannot violate the Constitution with impunity, but I am blind to the violations done in my guy's name.
He did write, "Our collective experience since the Founding has taught us that all governments of every stripe are fascist in nature. They will gobble up as much money, resources, and people as possible unless adequately checked ... All these 'isms' simply reflect the mistaken belief that progressively larger governments are needed to address our problems." Whether he understands that this was true prior to Jan. 20, 2009, is unclear. But at least he appears to grasp truth at the moment. Sadly, I expect he will rediscover his blind spot the day a Republican president is inaugurated, just as most Democrats will have the scales fall from their eyes that day.
A number of simple truths here. The vast majority of US of A citizens are comfortable with "progressively larger governments," as they know of nothing else in their lifetimes. The federal government, however, long ago passed the point where it can sustain its sheer bulk with theseized assets resources available at its command. Its fiscal and moral bankruptcy are obvious to an increasing number of people; sadly, most of these people are pinning their hopes on some sort of revived Republican Party.
"... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness ..."
A number of things are clear. Much about the U.S. government and its subsidiaries is destructive to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — beginning with the notion that the smaller units of government serve the federal government, and not vice versa. Or perhaps beginning with the notion that the governed have consented to all of this. Or perhaps beginning with the notion that the powers being exercised by the government are just.
In any case, an altering or abolition is in order. However, in the immortal words of Macolm Reynolds, "I got no need to beat you, I just want to go my way." How does one go about altering or abolishing a tyrannical government while adhering to the principle of non-initiation of force?
A housecleaning is in order. But you do not clean a house by demolishing it with explosives and other implements of force. Nor, recent history shows, do you clean the house by clearing it of one sort of vermin and allowing another sort to move in.
Wednesday morning I indulged in a writing exercise recommended by the legendary Ray Bradbury: I compiled a list. As ideas and fragments of ideas and images came to my mind, I wrote them down. It began with simple ideas: "The generous thief. The dinosaur lover." Then I progressed to concepts: "Mudslides as weapons. Sacrificing for an ideal. Future events, seen now in past tense."
And then this:
"A piece of paper defines my rights — my acts of defiance enforce them."
I believe that Thoreauvian statement contains the seeds of how one goes about altering or abolishing a tyrannical form of government while clinging to the Zero Aggression Principle.
More on this as the cobwebs clear from my mind. Your own insights are always welcome; click on the word "comments." See it? Right down here:
OK, let's get a few things straightened out here. A couple of things have fallen off the shelf, and I ought to pick them up, do some vacuuming, straighten this place up a little.
First off, a stopped clock is right a couple of times a day. Glenn Beck appears to be a fraud, but I like what he wrote that I quoted. I really get the feeling that he is like many Obama supporters: An administration I dislike cannot violate the Constitution with impunity, but I am blind to the violations done in my guy's name.
He did write, "Our collective experience since the Founding has taught us that all governments of every stripe are fascist in nature. They will gobble up as much money, resources, and people as possible unless adequately checked ... All these 'isms' simply reflect the mistaken belief that progressively larger governments are needed to address our problems." Whether he understands that this was true prior to Jan. 20, 2009, is unclear. But at least he appears to grasp truth at the moment. Sadly, I expect he will rediscover his blind spot the day a Republican president is inaugurated, just as most Democrats will have the scales fall from their eyes that day.
A number of simple truths here. The vast majority of US of A citizens are comfortable with "progressively larger governments," as they know of nothing else in their lifetimes. The federal government, however, long ago passed the point where it can sustain its sheer bulk with the
"... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness ..."
A number of things are clear. Much about the U.S. government and its subsidiaries is destructive to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — beginning with the notion that the smaller units of government serve the federal government, and not vice versa. Or perhaps beginning with the notion that the governed have consented to all of this. Or perhaps beginning with the notion that the powers being exercised by the government are just.
In any case, an altering or abolition is in order. However, in the immortal words of Macolm Reynolds, "I got no need to beat you, I just want to go my way." How does one go about altering or abolishing a tyrannical government while adhering to the principle of non-initiation of force?
A housecleaning is in order. But you do not clean a house by demolishing it with explosives and other implements of force. Nor, recent history shows, do you clean the house by clearing it of one sort of vermin and allowing another sort to move in.
Wednesday morning I indulged in a writing exercise recommended by the legendary Ray Bradbury: I compiled a list. As ideas and fragments of ideas and images came to my mind, I wrote them down. It began with simple ideas: "The generous thief. The dinosaur lover." Then I progressed to concepts: "Mudslides as weapons. Sacrificing for an ideal. Future events, seen now in past tense."
And then this:
"A piece of paper defines my rights — my acts of defiance enforce them."
I believe that Thoreauvian statement contains the seeds of how one goes about altering or abolishing a tyrannical form of government while clinging to the Zero Aggression Principle.
More on this as the cobwebs clear from my mind. Your own insights are always welcome; click on the word "comments." See it? Right down here:
posted by B.W. Richardson at
6:51 AM
1 Comments:
I spent much of my young manhood angry and prepping for a revolution that never came and likely never will. If it does, I do believe it will leave things a hundred times worse than before.
My tag-line for some years now has been, "The Ultimate Answer to Kings is not a bullet, but a belly-laugh." They can play their totalitarian games all they like, but they do it without me. And screw'em if they can't take a joke.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home