"Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it." -John Adams
Welcome to Patriot's Lament. We strive here to educate ourselves on Liberty. We will not worry ourselves so much with the daily antics of American politics, and drown ourselves in the murky waters of the political right or left. Instead, we will look to the Intellectuals and Champions of Liberty, and draw on their wisdom of what it is to be a truly free people. We will learn from where our Providential Liberties are derived, and put the proper perspective of a Free Individual and the State. Please join us!
A good article about the Hutaree "militia" and Federalist 46 by Chuck Baldwin. Most of it was written 2 years ago.
Thanks Brent!
In dispelling the fears of colonists toward a standing
federal army, Madison said in Federalist 46, “Let a regular
army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and
let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still
it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments,
with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.
The highest number to which, according to the best computation,
a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one
hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth
part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not
yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or
thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting
to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered
by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties,
and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections
and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced
could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”
" So, pray tell,
would today’s FBI categorize James Madison’s statements
in Federalist 46 as “seditious conspiracy”? If so, perhaps
we are closer to tyranny than any of us wants to admit!"
"You know,
before this happened I trusted the police," Moore concludes
in an ironic echo of the witness who saw him beaten and left for
dead on the sidewalk. His experience is just one illustration –
albeit an uncommonly infuriating one – of the fact that no informed
and rational person should ever make that mistake.
For those of you who like history, I encourage you to read "Conceived in Liberty" by Murray Rothbard. If you don't like history, read this book anyway. It is the most comprehensive book on the history of the American Revolution I have ever seen or read. This book will arm you with knowledge that will be very valuable in your everyday struggle for Liberty. This portion of the book I found on Lew Rockwell's blog today.
For masses
of men to turn from their daily lives to hurl themselves against
existing habits and the extant might of a ruling government requires
an accumulation of significant grievances and tensions. No revolution
begins in a day and on arbitrary whim. The grievances of important
numbers of people against the state pile up, accumulate, form an
extremely dry forest waiting for a spark to ignite the conflagration.
That spark is the "crisis situation," which may be intrinsically
minor or only distantly related to the basic grievances; but it
provides the catalyst, the emotional impetus for the revolution
to begin.
You can download a copy of the book from the Mises Institute here. You can also buy a hardback copy from them. I am serious, do yourself a favor, and let your mind be Conceived in Liberty. Oh, and don't expect to read it in 2 or 3 days. :-)
In the first hour, Aaron and Josh discuss permissions versus rights. The hour ends with a caller ranting about how stateless societies always end in violence. The second hour kicks off with us asking him which stateless societies ended in violence. "The Roman Empire" is offered as an example. Isn't an empire a state? He goes on to offer more examples of states that ended in violence but offers not a single example of a society with devolved legitimacy of the use of force ending in mass violence. Of course this is what we have been saying since the very first show. The state is not the only ill in society, but by its nature it makes violence and theft systemic instead of sporadic.
Tom Woods comes on in the second hour to discuss justice versus law, what the American Republic used to mean, and Ron Paul!!!
In this week's episode we discuss the "majesty" of the presidency, and challenge the listeners to put politicians in their place. Not to bow down. Here we sit like serfs below the assembly and beg them for things. It is time that the people be the power, asking permission from no man.
About a month ago, I participated in the Occupy Fairbanks panel discussion. Topics ranged from politics to economics to philosophy. It was definitely a lively discussion and I had a lot of fun interacting with the other panelists. Thanks to "Occupy Dave" for putting this event together. Enjoy!
The reason the "War on Guns" hasn't been very productive, is because it hasn't been run as a war, but as a police action. They need to get serious and get the job done.
If you want to see more of the effect of guns, then reference the story on the Ohio school shooting caused by guns, or the story last year of the teenager killed by guns in Anchorage. Now think of being able to buy them at a store, yeh, that'll fix the problems.
Guns are death.
Oops, he actually said "Drugs" (search the News Miner comments for "Lance_Roberts"). I would actually say that we need a war on hands because they facilitate nearly ALL crime. Cut everyone's hands off and we'd be far better off. People don't hurt people, hands do.
I thought about adding to Josh's post with a comment on my thoughts, but decided I wanted to hash this out a bit more in its own post.
The number one theme of the movie is that the illusory power any state has over the people living in it is based solely on the compliance of those people. Right at the beginning the main character's boyfriend tells her, "What if everyone refused to watch? It would be over. There would be no more games." So true. Then throughout the rest of the movie other avenues of non-complaince are presented which would end the game and remove power. The fear of the ruling class that the people might realize that they themselves hold all the cards is emphasized throughout. It is a refusal to kill another child from a poor district that saves the main character's life at one point. It is the refusal to complete the game in the end that forces the all powerful ruler to change the rules to maintain the illusion that he is in control. I do not think it is a coincidence that young children are used in this role. The only powerless people in society are those who have had their humanity, empathy, and idealism beat out of them. This is usually the adults, not the young.
Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war. ~Albert Einstein
It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. ~Albert J. Nock
Also, in my opinion, the reason people find the "excessive violence" of the movie disturbing is because it's clearly children killing children. War coverage in the "real world" hides this fact. More than that, it's not some savage society of vikings killing each other or something like that. It's a very cosmopolitan "high minded" society where the organizers sit around and drink cocktails, produce TV interview shows, and attend glitzy parades. I would agree with one of the posters in Josh's blog that it is, like America, very Roman in that sense. It's not Mel Gibson leading brave tough men in battle against evil men or some trite nonsense like that. It is far closer to what modern war really is. American children killing foreigners' children and being killed by them. The adults just sit back and pretend that it's some sort of high minded "honor" while their children bleed out with their arms and legs hacked off. The reality of sending 18 year olds off to kill foreign kids is sick and disturbing. The film just shoves that right in your face.
Phil Ochs correctly identified this in his song "I Ain't Marchin' Anymore" where he observes that "it's always the old who lead us to the war, it's always the young to fall."
What is absurd and monstrous about war is that men who have no personal quarrel should be trained to murder one another in cold blood. ~Aldous Huxley
More disturbing to westerners no doubt is the fact that white children who look like their own are killing and being killed by other white children who look like their own. The idea that "the other is different" is erased. Because most still think in the colossally racist paradigm of nationalities, the film manages to find a way to cut through that illusion, creating a discomfort that most do not feel about killing human beings who live elsewhere, especially if they look different.
Also, the game itself, while sold as a "fair" competition, is anything but. Most of the challenges within the game are completely contrived and created by the rulers who conscripted the kids in the first place. The fire, the weird dog things, the constant changing of the rules ... this has the air of the many false flag news reports related to war. Events that happen, become accepted at face value, then later are shown to be contrived or created by the state itself. It also reminds me of the 70+ different reasons the Bush administration gave for the invasion of Iraq over the 8 years of idiocy he was in office. It also reminds me of what those in power do to individuals who refuse to play the game anymore.
Another disturbing part of the film for many is that most of the adults keep telling the children how lucky they are to be selected and what an honor it is to participate in the games, even tho they know the kids are going to kill and die for nothing. Again, this is essentially no different from modern American war culture. It reminds me of The Animals song "Sky Pilot" where it is observed what colossal hypocrites and cowards military chaplains are. "Go and kill, God will be with you." Disgusting and 100% reality. The movie makes people uncomfortable but this fact of life doesn't? How pathetic.
Another aspect that was brought up on the radio show this week was that the poor kids are drafted with no choice while the kids from the wealthy districts volunteer and get years of training before the games. While there is no draft in modern America there is undeniably a "Poverty Draft" where, through economic destruction of the lowest income families through inflation/etc, joining the military becomes the best financial option for the children of these families. These kids are the cannon fodder who see the most combat. Wealthy and educated enlistees generally go into the officer corps or have administrative jobs. Politicians, who fund and promote war, never participate at all.
An alternate potential interpretation of the game arena is that it is a metaphor for forced schooling, another fine aspect of American society. In many schools, the de facto rules are made by the kids themselves. They are thrown into the same building and largely left to fight it out amongst themselves with the only rule being, "Might makes right." Alliances are formed, the weak are eliminated, and the strong prevail.
I could go on, but I'll leave it at that. If you want to leave a comment, instead of just saying "I liked this movie" or "I thought it was rubbish", please take the time to discuss any parallels you see between the film and reality ... or how it affected you personally.
