"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!

Monday, April 2, 2012

This Week's Radio Show: The Hunger Games

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.

The last half hour we discuss the movie/book "The Hunger Games" and the parallels between the film and reality. A more in-depth discussion of these points can be found at the following blog post: http://patriotslament.blogspot.com/2012/04/hunger-games-ripping-veil-off-civil.html

1 comment:

  1. Enlisted soldiers swear to,"...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." However, because they also swear to, "... obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me..." There is less of a safeguard against laws and rulers who defy the Constitution. Officers swear to only support and defend the Constitution. Officers *should* be willing to defend that at all costs; despite opposition from commanding officers or the President. Articles 90-92 of the UCMJ only require obedience to *lawful* orders. The flip side of this is article 94--how likely is it that someone who is not following, "lawful orders", would be charged with mutiny? Military uniforms are horrible. Horrible.