September 24, Jury Nullification
October 1, Property Rights
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Recent Patriot's Lament episodes
Here are the YouTube playlists for the last two episodes of the radio show. Last week's show with guest Matt Want will be posted as soon as I get the audio.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Fugitive Slave Laws, Jury Nullification and Reality
In regards to the discussion on the radio show yesterday, I've found some information on how jury nullification played an instrumental role in the abolition of the institution of slavery in the united states, against the Supreme Court's own rulings mind you. It's important to remember that it was the Federal Government itself which was upholding slavery against the citizenry who were trying to raise the moral standard of society at the time). Read the Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling if you think I'm distorting anything here.
In regards to nullification:
The Fugitive Slave LawUntil the middle of the 1800s, federal and state judges often instructed the juries they had the right to disregard the court's view of the law. (Barkan, citing 52 Harvard Law Review, 682-616) Then, when northern jurors began to refuse to convict abolitionists who had violated the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law, judges began questioning jurors to find out if they were prejudiced against the government's position and dismissed any who were. In 1852 Lysander Spooner, a Massachusetts lawyer and champion of individual liberties, complained "that courts have repeatedly questioned jurors to ascertain whether they were prejudiced against the government. ... The reason of this ... was that 'the Fugitive Slave Law, so called' was so obnoxious to a large portion of the people, as to render a conviction under it hopeless (if the jurors were taken indiscriminately from among the people)." Modern treatments of abolitionism praise these jury-nullification verdicts for the role they played in helping the anti-slavery cause – rather than condemning them for "undermining" the rule of law and the uniformity of justice.
Spooner's work on slavery and nullification is also online thanks to the Liberty Fund's Online Library of Liberty.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Mises on price controls
The Austrian-American free market economist Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) left Switzerland for the United States in August 1940. During the war years he wrote a number of books which criticized government intervention and control of the economy, especially price controls and rationing. He had witnessed firsthand how the Nazis used price controls in Europe and saw something very similar happening in the United States during World War 2. He thought the logical consequence of strict price controls would be a system of socialism:
The aim of price control is to decree prices, wages, and interest rates different from those fixed by the market. Let us first consider the case of maximum prices, where the government tries to enforce prices lower than the market prices.
The prices set on the unhampered market correspond to an equilibrium of demand and supply. Everybody who is ready to pay the market price can buy as much as he wants to buy. Everybody who is ready to sell at the market price can sell as much as he wants to sell. If the government, without a corresponding increase in the quantity of goods available for sale, decrees that buying and selling must be done at a lower price, and thus makes it illegal either to ask or to pay the potential market price, then this equilibrium can no longer prevail. With unchanged supply there are now more potential buyers on the market, namely, those who could not afford the higher market price but are prepared to buy at the lower official rate. There are now potential buyers who cannot buy, although they are ready to pay the price fixed by the government or even a higher price. The price is no longer the means of segregating those potential buyers who may buy from those who may not. A different principle of selection has come into operation. Those who come first can buy; others are too late in the field. The visible outcome of this state of things is the sight of housewives and children standing in long lines before the groceries, a spectacle familiar to everybody who has visited Europe in this age of price control. If the government does not want only those to buy who come first (or who are personal friends of the salesman), while others go home empty-handed, it must regulate the distribution of the stocks available. It has to introduce some kind of rationing.
But price ceilings not only fail to increase the supply, they reduce it. Thus they do not attain the ends which the authorities wish. On the contrary, they result in a state of things which from the point of view of the government and of public opinion is even less desirable than the previous state which they had intended to alter. If the government wants to make it possible for the poor to give their children more milk, it has to buy the milk at the market price and sell it to these poor parents with a loss, at a cheaper rate. The loss may be covered by taxation. But if the government simply fixes the price of milk at a lower rate than the market, the result will be the contrary of what it wants. The marginal producers, those with the highest costs, will, in order to avoid losses, go out of the business of producing and selling milk. They will use their cows and their skill for other, more profitable purposes. They will, for example, produce cheese, butter, or meat. There will be less milk available for the consumers, not more. Then the government has to choose between two alternatives: either to refrain from any endeavors to control the price of milk and to abrogate its decree, or to add to its first measure a second one. In the latter case it must fix the prices of the factors of production necessary for the production of milk at such a rate that the marginal producers will no longer suffer losses and will abstain from restricting the output. But then the same problem repeats itself on a remoter plane. The supply of the factors of production necessary for the production of milk drops, and again the government is back where it started, facing failure in its interference. If it keeps stubbornly on, pushing forward its schemes, it has to go still further. It has to fix the prices of the factors of production necessary for the production of those factors of production which are needed for the production of milk. Thus the government is forced to go further and further, fixing the prices of all consumer goods and of all factors of production—both human (i.e., labor) and material—and to force every entrepreneur and every worker to continue work at these prices and wages. No branch of industry can be omitted from this all-round fixing of prices and wages and from this general order to produce those quantities which the government wants to see produced. If some branches were to be left free, the result would be a shifting of capital and labor to them and a corresponding fall of the supply of goods whose prices the government has fixed. However, it is precisely these goods which the government considers especially important for the satisfaction of the needs of the masses.
But when this state of all-round control of business is achieved, the market economy has been replaced by the German pattern of socialist planning. The government’s board of production management now exclusively controls all business activities and decides how the means of production—men and material resources—must be used.
The isolated measures of price fixing fail to attain the ends sought. In fact, they produce effects contrary to those aimed at by the government. If the government, in order to eliminate these inexorable and unwelcome consequences, pursues its course further and further, it finally transforms the system of capitalism and free enterprise into socialism.
Many American and British supporters of price control are fascinated by the alleged success of Nazi price control. They believe that the German experience has proved the practicability of price control within the framework of a system of market economy. You have only to be as energetic, impetuous, and brutal as the Nazis are, they think, and you will succeed. These men who want to fight Nazism by adopting its methods do not see that what the Nazis have achieved has been the building up of a system of socialism, not a reform of conditions within a system of market economy.
There is no third system between a market economy and socialism. Mankind has to choose between those two systems—unless chaos is considered an alternative.
The aim of price control is to decree prices, wages, and interest rates different from those fixed by the market. Let us first consider the case of maximum prices, where the government tries to enforce prices lower than the market prices.
The prices set on the unhampered market correspond to an equilibrium of demand and supply. Everybody who is ready to pay the market price can buy as much as he wants to buy. Everybody who is ready to sell at the market price can sell as much as he wants to sell. If the government, without a corresponding increase in the quantity of goods available for sale, decrees that buying and selling must be done at a lower price, and thus makes it illegal either to ask or to pay the potential market price, then this equilibrium can no longer prevail. With unchanged supply there are now more potential buyers on the market, namely, those who could not afford the higher market price but are prepared to buy at the lower official rate. There are now potential buyers who cannot buy, although they are ready to pay the price fixed by the government or even a higher price. The price is no longer the means of segregating those potential buyers who may buy from those who may not. A different principle of selection has come into operation. Those who come first can buy; others are too late in the field. The visible outcome of this state of things is the sight of housewives and children standing in long lines before the groceries, a spectacle familiar to everybody who has visited Europe in this age of price control. If the government does not want only those to buy who come first (or who are personal friends of the salesman), while others go home empty-handed, it must regulate the distribution of the stocks available. It has to introduce some kind of rationing.
But price ceilings not only fail to increase the supply, they reduce it. Thus they do not attain the ends which the authorities wish. On the contrary, they result in a state of things which from the point of view of the government and of public opinion is even less desirable than the previous state which they had intended to alter. If the government wants to make it possible for the poor to give their children more milk, it has to buy the milk at the market price and sell it to these poor parents with a loss, at a cheaper rate. The loss may be covered by taxation. But if the government simply fixes the price of milk at a lower rate than the market, the result will be the contrary of what it wants. The marginal producers, those with the highest costs, will, in order to avoid losses, go out of the business of producing and selling milk. They will use their cows and their skill for other, more profitable purposes. They will, for example, produce cheese, butter, or meat. There will be less milk available for the consumers, not more. Then the government has to choose between two alternatives: either to refrain from any endeavors to control the price of milk and to abrogate its decree, or to add to its first measure a second one. In the latter case it must fix the prices of the factors of production necessary for the production of milk at such a rate that the marginal producers will no longer suffer losses and will abstain from restricting the output. But then the same problem repeats itself on a remoter plane. The supply of the factors of production necessary for the production of milk drops, and again the government is back where it started, facing failure in its interference. If it keeps stubbornly on, pushing forward its schemes, it has to go still further. It has to fix the prices of the factors of production necessary for the production of those factors of production which are needed for the production of milk. Thus the government is forced to go further and further, fixing the prices of all consumer goods and of all factors of production—both human (i.e., labor) and material—and to force every entrepreneur and every worker to continue work at these prices and wages. No branch of industry can be omitted from this all-round fixing of prices and wages and from this general order to produce those quantities which the government wants to see produced. If some branches were to be left free, the result would be a shifting of capital and labor to them and a corresponding fall of the supply of goods whose prices the government has fixed. However, it is precisely these goods which the government considers especially important for the satisfaction of the needs of the masses.
But when this state of all-round control of business is achieved, the market economy has been replaced by the German pattern of socialist planning. The government’s board of production management now exclusively controls all business activities and decides how the means of production—men and material resources—must be used.
The isolated measures of price fixing fail to attain the ends sought. In fact, they produce effects contrary to those aimed at by the government. If the government, in order to eliminate these inexorable and unwelcome consequences, pursues its course further and further, it finally transforms the system of capitalism and free enterprise into socialism.
Many American and British supporters of price control are fascinated by the alleged success of Nazi price control. They believe that the German experience has proved the practicability of price control within the framework of a system of market economy. You have only to be as energetic, impetuous, and brutal as the Nazis are, they think, and you will succeed. These men who want to fight Nazism by adopting its methods do not see that what the Nazis have achieved has been the building up of a system of socialism, not a reform of conditions within a system of market economy.
There is no third system between a market economy and socialism. Mankind has to choose between those two systems—unless chaos is considered an alternative.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Questions from the Interior Alaska voter guides
Each time I have asked Mr. Joshua Bennett questions I have recieved very prompt answers. Here are the Q & A for round 1.
What would you say are the top 3 attributes in a candidate?
1. Understanding the Constitution of the United States of America, and the State of Alaska, being willing to follow it even if it's not popular, and knowing that the Constitution limits the candidate if he is elected and not the citizen.
2. Understanding that private "property is surely a Right of mankind as Real as Liberty" and that government is instituted by the people to protect property and who knows it is unjust for a government to deny a citizen the free use of his own property.
3. Understanding that Liberty is for all people, and the elected official is required to see to it that all Citizens' Rights are protected, knowing that compromising even one Citizen's Rights is wrong, and that using force to tax one Individual to give to another is wrong.
What top five principles do you try to live by? Why?
I can narrow it down to two principles:
1. Love the Lord with all your heart.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
If you love your neighbor as yourself in all aspects of your personal, business, and public life, which means practicing self control and respecting the Rights of our neighbors, you can sleep at night knowing you always try to do Right by your fellow man, and you can live without the worry of accusations of wrongdoing being brought against you.
And it's how I want my children to live, so I need to show them by example.
What makes a community a great place to live?
A community that practices the "Golden Rule." If we all would, it would be evident that we do not need the government to regulate every aspect of our lives; the freedom that would come with that would encourage the free market and industry to thrive in our local community, and our local society would take care of those less advantaged through neighborly means, and not through the force of government. That would make a great and prosperous community to live in.
Have you ever made missteps in your political career? Care to elaborate or say what you would do differently today?
I have never had a career in politics, and don't intend to make it a career. I believe career politicians are a detriment to our society. Most have never known life outside of the public life, and have never created any real wealth, growth, or contributed to society from the private sector whatsoever. Instead, they take the wealth of the People to empower and entrench themselves, they stifle growth in the private sector by regulating it, and the contributions they make are of other people's wealth, and never their own. No, I don't think I want this to be a career.
If I did anything different, it would be to not run for a political office at all.
Many politicians (whether they run for Senate or School Board) always claim their best for the job due to “experience”, is experience all its cut out to be or are there more attributes we should be looking for?
As I said above, being an "experienced" politician is no attribute at all. Experience in the private working sector would be good, but knowledge of the fundamentals of Liberty and the relationship between the Citizen and the state are attributes I look for.
Website: Bennetts for borough on Facebook. Blog: Patriotslament.blogspot.com. I also have a radio show on Saturdays on KFAR at 10 a.m.
Follow Up to Joshua Bennett
Based on your answer to the political career question, and knowing you ran for Borough Assembly last year I’m curious what your goal is in this bid, especially considering your statement, “If I did anything different, it would be to not run for a political office at all.”
"I do not believe the 'political system' is a very valuable way to effect change. It usually comes down to the two 'sides' dividing the people and getting the people to be against their neighbor, which is anti-Liberty at its core. The problem is because of the 'other guy,' and takes the focus off of the actual problem, the political system itself. All we do when we see one of the parties come to power, is they use political force to push their way on others.
Where does that system and freedom coexist? It can't. So when I said if I did anything different, I would not run, it's because I am not seeking to force my ideals on anyone. I hope to use the forum that candidates get when they run for office to get the message of Liberty out (as I see it, based on history) to as many people as possible who might have otherwise never heard the concept.
If I won the seat, I would simply continue to use that 'bully pulpit' to try and show the fallacy of the system that steals and forces submission ,and contrast it with Liberty, with the hope some people would get it. If we can change people's way of thinking, then we have real change, and an honest change that isn't forced on anyone. Freedom.
But there are other ways to spread the message, which is what I meant by 'not running at all'."
What would you say are the top 3 attributes in a candidate?
1. Understanding the Constitution of the United States of America, and the State of Alaska, being willing to follow it even if it's not popular, and knowing that the Constitution limits the candidate if he is elected and not the citizen.
2. Understanding that private "property is surely a Right of mankind as Real as Liberty" and that government is instituted by the people to protect property and who knows it is unjust for a government to deny a citizen the free use of his own property.
3. Understanding that Liberty is for all people, and the elected official is required to see to it that all Citizens' Rights are protected, knowing that compromising even one Citizen's Rights is wrong, and that using force to tax one Individual to give to another is wrong.
What top five principles do you try to live by? Why?
I can narrow it down to two principles:
1. Love the Lord with all your heart.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
If you love your neighbor as yourself in all aspects of your personal, business, and public life, which means practicing self control and respecting the Rights of our neighbors, you can sleep at night knowing you always try to do Right by your fellow man, and you can live without the worry of accusations of wrongdoing being brought against you.
And it's how I want my children to live, so I need to show them by example.
What makes a community a great place to live?
A community that practices the "Golden Rule." If we all would, it would be evident that we do not need the government to regulate every aspect of our lives; the freedom that would come with that would encourage the free market and industry to thrive in our local community, and our local society would take care of those less advantaged through neighborly means, and not through the force of government. That would make a great and prosperous community to live in.
Have you ever made missteps in your political career? Care to elaborate or say what you would do differently today?
I have never had a career in politics, and don't intend to make it a career. I believe career politicians are a detriment to our society. Most have never known life outside of the public life, and have never created any real wealth, growth, or contributed to society from the private sector whatsoever. Instead, they take the wealth of the People to empower and entrench themselves, they stifle growth in the private sector by regulating it, and the contributions they make are of other people's wealth, and never their own. No, I don't think I want this to be a career.
If I did anything different, it would be to not run for a political office at all.
Many politicians (whether they run for Senate or School Board) always claim their best for the job due to “experience”, is experience all its cut out to be or are there more attributes we should be looking for?
As I said above, being an "experienced" politician is no attribute at all. Experience in the private working sector would be good, but knowledge of the fundamentals of Liberty and the relationship between the Citizen and the state are attributes I look for.
Website: Bennetts for borough on Facebook. Blog: Patriotslament.blogspot.com. I also have a radio show on Saturdays on KFAR at 10 a.m.
Follow Up to Joshua Bennett
Based on your answer to the political career question, and knowing you ran for Borough Assembly last year I’m curious what your goal is in this bid, especially considering your statement, “If I did anything different, it would be to not run for a political office at all.”
"I do not believe the 'political system' is a very valuable way to effect change. It usually comes down to the two 'sides' dividing the people and getting the people to be against their neighbor, which is anti-Liberty at its core. The problem is because of the 'other guy,' and takes the focus off of the actual problem, the political system itself. All we do when we see one of the parties come to power, is they use political force to push their way on others.
Where does that system and freedom coexist? It can't. So when I said if I did anything different, I would not run, it's because I am not seeking to force my ideals on anyone. I hope to use the forum that candidates get when they run for office to get the message of Liberty out (as I see it, based on history) to as many people as possible who might have otherwise never heard the concept.
If I won the seat, I would simply continue to use that 'bully pulpit' to try and show the fallacy of the system that steals and forces submission ,and contrast it with Liberty, with the hope some people would get it. If we can change people's way of thinking, then we have real change, and an honest change that isn't forced on anyone. Freedom.
But there are other ways to spread the message, which is what I meant by 'not running at all'."
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Was war the only option?
Here are some interviews with people smarter, more qualified and more experienced than I questioning the permanent warfare state. Can we take the time this weekend to understand what we failed to 10 years ago? I'm not sure people want to understand, but these men offer insight for those who seek the truth.
Andrew Bacevich
Michael Scheuer
Chalmers Johnson
Robert Baer
Monday, September 5, 2011
How to Advance Liberty
For the readers out there:
For more of our favorite videos, visit the YouTube Channel:
-David
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Borough Assembly
I am going to join Aaron again in running for borough assembly. Can we win? I don't know, but winning a seat isn't everything. Look at the way things have changed just in one year, the conversation in this town is different than it ever has been.
Running for office gives us the opportunity to get the message of Liberty out to people who otherwise would never hear it, and that is the real goal. Not a seat.
The more people we all can reach that they can and should live a Free life, the better off this community will be.
Running for office gives us the opportunity to get the message of Liberty out to people who otherwise would never hear it, and that is the real goal. Not a seat.
The more people we all can reach that they can and should live a Free life, the better off this community will be.
New Episode Online
The latest episode of Patriot's Lament is now online at our YouTube channel.
Tune in live every Saturday morning to 660 AM from 10:00-11:00 AM.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Hey Hey!
Some people you can never please, you might as well just let them be, they mock everything not their own, from their imaginary throne...
We are seeing it now. We were told that no way would we be downgraded if we passed the debt ceiling, and some were crying from the rooftops that NO MATTER WHAT, we would be downgraded. Some said it was imperative that we allow the government to sell our posterity down the road with more debt, that the end of our civilization was upon us. Those who stood up and said NO! were mocked, ridiculed, called terrorist, you name it. The elite, from their imaginary thrones, looked down on us and scared the masses into bowing down to their will. And many of our "leaders" whom we looked to and supposedly sent to Washington to stand against the Throne, bent their knee.
Fast forward to today.
How the traitors who voted for the debt ceiling must feel betrayed. They capitulated for "the good of the people" and and the very thing they were told wouldn't happen, has.
I don't feel sorry for them, they knew what was right, and they voted for political expediency; they sold our birthright so they wouldn't be mocked.
And now, I mock them.
Fools.
What gave you the right to steal from my family so you could pat yourself on the back and stand in awe of your patriotic bravery, elitism and political achievements?
I mock you, you fool. You betrayed the very thing you knew to be right. You are no friend of mine. I don't care if you're a "nice guy," I could care less that you feel my pain; I mock the agony you supposedly went through while you wreaked havoc over your own people.
Fool. What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? And what was your gain?
Don't you realize that when you are worth something to someone, they do things for you, and when you are worthless to someone, they do things to you? What is your worth now?
You are nothing to me, you are in the same category in my book as the thief who would break down my door and ravage my family.
Fool.
A second flood, a simple famine, plagues of locusts everywhere, or a cataclysmic earthquake, I'd accept with some despair. But no, You sent us Congress! Good God, Sir, was that fair? John Adams
Greater men than you faced far more adversity with far more to lose than just their political careers, and they didn't waiver, they were not faint, they stood for that which was Right, and their memory lives on, and their posterity will speak highly of them until the end of time, and you, Fool, will be forgotten, and if you are spoken of, it will be with disdain.
We are seeing it now. We were told that no way would we be downgraded if we passed the debt ceiling, and some were crying from the rooftops that NO MATTER WHAT, we would be downgraded. Some said it was imperative that we allow the government to sell our posterity down the road with more debt, that the end of our civilization was upon us. Those who stood up and said NO! were mocked, ridiculed, called terrorist, you name it. The elite, from their imaginary thrones, looked down on us and scared the masses into bowing down to their will. And many of our "leaders" whom we looked to and supposedly sent to Washington to stand against the Throne, bent their knee.
Fast forward to today.
How the traitors who voted for the debt ceiling must feel betrayed. They capitulated for "the good of the people" and and the very thing they were told wouldn't happen, has.
I don't feel sorry for them, they knew what was right, and they voted for political expediency; they sold our birthright so they wouldn't be mocked.
And now, I mock them.
Fools.
What gave you the right to steal from my family so you could pat yourself on the back and stand in awe of your patriotic bravery, elitism and political achievements?
I mock you, you fool. You betrayed the very thing you knew to be right. You are no friend of mine. I don't care if you're a "nice guy," I could care less that you feel my pain; I mock the agony you supposedly went through while you wreaked havoc over your own people.
Fool. What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? And what was your gain?
Don't you realize that when you are worth something to someone, they do things for you, and when you are worthless to someone, they do things to you? What is your worth now?
You are nothing to me, you are in the same category in my book as the thief who would break down my door and ravage my family.
Fool.
A second flood, a simple famine, plagues of locusts everywhere, or a cataclysmic earthquake, I'd accept with some despair. But no, You sent us Congress! Good God, Sir, was that fair? John Adams
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” John Quincy Adams
Greater men than you faced far more adversity with far more to lose than just their political careers, and they didn't waiver, they were not faint, they stood for that which was Right, and their memory lives on, and their posterity will speak highly of them until the end of time, and you, Fool, will be forgotten, and if you are spoken of, it will be with disdain.
I won't bow down even if the whole world thinks I am crazy!
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Monday, August 1, 2011
The Debt Show
Writes Lew Rockwell
Most Americans learned their lesson during TARP: all their calls and letters to congressmen had had no effect as compared to a nudge from Goldman Sachs, etc. Since we live in a bankocracy, it mattered not at all that 100% of real people were opposed to the big-boy bailout. And this time, I can't find any regular people who care about the debt ceiling, and why should they? We know, with Ron Paul, that default is the far better option, economically and morally, than more debt. We also know, with Ron, that the congress will obey the banks, and keep borrowing and inflating until the dollar is wastepaper. That's why all this manufactured drama interests no one not on the regime's payroll (the cable channels, for example). We also know that the balanced-budget amendment is a snare and a delusion, as Ron has long pointed out. But who ever thought our salvation was to be found in the US congress, that collection of demagogues, bribe-takers, clowns, and boobs, and a handful of decent people? The democratic myth holds that they are our "representatives," and you can lobby them just like Citibank or Lockheed does. No, you can't. Ron Paul is leaving congress. What else do we need to know? We need to follow his lead, in his work against the regime and for economic sanity, peace, and civil liberties. Forget congress. Or rather, diss them every chance you get, laugh at them, withdraw your consent, and know that our hope is elsewhere: in our own minds and hearts, inspired by great men like Ron, and in the hearts and minds of our comrades.Reprinted from Lew Rockwell's Political Theater: The Debt Show
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Some thoughts
The Israelites had it made. Think of it, God was their King, they only had Judges that would listen to their legal problems and they only dealt in matters that involved the individual vs. other individuals, and in matters that involved God's Law.
Eventually, they cried for a king, and why not...every other Nation had a king, why couldn't they??!!
Samuel tried to discourage them, and reminded them that a king would bring taxation, military conscription, and the potential for tyranny. But they demanded it anyway.
It's interesting that God tells Samuel to give them a king, and says that in this request, they are rejecting Him, not Samuel.
We could say that God saw the people wanting someone to rule over them instead of individually ruling over themselves as a rejection of Him.
And look what they got.
Fast forward several hundred years, and God's law is given to us in a nutshell, "Love the Father with all your heart, and love your neighbors as yourselves."
That's it.
We could have a perfect (as perfect as man can be) society based on those two laws. If you love your neighbor as yourself, what need is there for any law anyway? Based on that Law alone, you could truly live free.
We are never told to force this law on anyone, but to spread the "Good News." And in part, the Good News is that man can live free, free from bondage and slavery.
Fast forward to today. Today we have people who want to use this "Good News" to enslave a free people.
Of course, it's for your own good, and for the good of society, but it requires that individuals conform to a certain idea that THEY decide is right.
Does "love your neighbors as yourselves" mean to support laws made by a government you know to be evil but that throws people in jail for not following their own personal beliefs?
So then it is ok?
"Well, even though I know this government to be evil, and that it sanctions the murder of the unborn, and murders the innocent at will, that it steals from our posterity worse than the most villainous mobster, I will support it when it is in line with one of my moral beliefs."
Really? Are you willing to let a murderous, thieving government be your "moral compass" when it passes a law that fits into your own moral code, even when that law is punishing someone who is harming none other than himself, or, more often than not, no one at all??
Where in the Bible are you told to support government-sponsored "moral laws" that merely image what you deem to be good? If you are willing to allow the government to be your moral compass, you cannot pick and choose which morals you will decide to be right. The government has and does decide that for you. I hate drugs. But I see no biblical authority to force others to not use them. I like to have an alcoholic drink, but I know some "Christians" think that it is wrong. What authority do they have to force their belief on me?
None.
Yet we see the religious ones clamoring for the government to legislate their morals on others. Because it is "right." They allow themselves to be blinded by the fact that some day, that same government could decide that the views they hold should be illegal, and what recourse would they have then? They already had everyone who they disagreed with locked up, so who is left to defend them?
They have told God, "give us a king," and they pay the consequences of their desires, forgetting that in supporting this king, they have rejected God.
Eventually, they cried for a king, and why not...every other Nation had a king, why couldn't they??!!
Samuel tried to discourage them, and reminded them that a king would bring taxation, military conscription, and the potential for tyranny. But they demanded it anyway.
It's interesting that God tells Samuel to give them a king, and says that in this request, they are rejecting Him, not Samuel.
We could say that God saw the people wanting someone to rule over them instead of individually ruling over themselves as a rejection of Him.
And look what they got.
Fast forward several hundred years, and God's law is given to us in a nutshell, "Love the Father with all your heart, and love your neighbors as yourselves."
That's it.
We could have a perfect (as perfect as man can be) society based on those two laws. If you love your neighbor as yourself, what need is there for any law anyway? Based on that Law alone, you could truly live free.
We are never told to force this law on anyone, but to spread the "Good News." And in part, the Good News is that man can live free, free from bondage and slavery.
Fast forward to today. Today we have people who want to use this "Good News" to enslave a free people.
Of course, it's for your own good, and for the good of society, but it requires that individuals conform to a certain idea that THEY decide is right.
Does "love your neighbors as yourselves" mean to support laws made by a government you know to be evil but that throws people in jail for not following their own personal beliefs?
So then it is ok?
"Well, even though I know this government to be evil, and that it sanctions the murder of the unborn, and murders the innocent at will, that it steals from our posterity worse than the most villainous mobster, I will support it when it is in line with one of my moral beliefs."
Really? Are you willing to let a murderous, thieving government be your "moral compass" when it passes a law that fits into your own moral code, even when that law is punishing someone who is harming none other than himself, or, more often than not, no one at all??
Where in the Bible are you told to support government-sponsored "moral laws" that merely image what you deem to be good? If you are willing to allow the government to be your moral compass, you cannot pick and choose which morals you will decide to be right. The government has and does decide that for you. I hate drugs. But I see no biblical authority to force others to not use them. I like to have an alcoholic drink, but I know some "Christians" think that it is wrong. What authority do they have to force their belief on me?
None.
Yet we see the religious ones clamoring for the government to legislate their morals on others. Because it is "right." They allow themselves to be blinded by the fact that some day, that same government could decide that the views they hold should be illegal, and what recourse would they have then? They already had everyone who they disagreed with locked up, so who is left to defend them?
They have told God, "give us a king," and they pay the consequences of their desires, forgetting that in supporting this king, they have rejected God.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Newsminer
Here is the full story, our float took first place in the political floats.Golden days parade
New Show
I realize that I never announced here that Patriots Lament is now live on the radio and internet every Saturday from 10 am to 11 am Alaska time.
Go here, KFAR 660 and click on the listen live and you got it. If you click programs and hit audio on demand, you can listen to archives of the show. David is putting them together to have a link to them here soon also.
It's sweet, we get all kinds of hate callers, so we must be doing something right.
Go here, KFAR 660 and click on the listen live and you got it. If you click programs and hit audio on demand, you can listen to archives of the show. David is putting them together to have a link to them here soon also.
It's sweet, we get all kinds of hate callers, so we must be doing something right.
Fairbanks for Ron Paul
The parade today was a great success. Our Ron Paul float was awesome!! Michael Boldin from the 10th amendment center was on hand tonight and gave a great speech.
Good job and thanks to the Fairbanks chapter of Campaign for Liberty. These guys are the real deal.
Fairbanks for Ron Paul 2012
Jump on here and "like" the page.
It was good to see the support at the parade, and awesome how many people understood "End the Fed"!
Good job and thanks to the Fairbanks chapter of Campaign for Liberty. These guys are the real deal.
Fairbanks for Ron Paul 2012
Jump on here and "like" the page.
It was good to see the support at the parade, and awesome how many people understood "End the Fed"!
Monday, July 18, 2011
The Sovereignty Movement vs. Being A Free Man
The Sovereignty Movement leads down many fascinating rabbit holes: some of which are built on historical fiction, significant other portions of which are quite revealing truths. Many of those who get involved are already "at the end of their rope" and still view an appeal to the state as their last resort. They often lose it when the state says, "We don't care if you are legally correct." They forget that the legitimacy of the state does not rest on law, contract, or even force, but on the perception of the majority that the state's use of force is legitimate. The state only needs the perception of legitimacy from your neighbors to use force against you for any reason whatsoever. Thus, to appeal to the state is to miss the point. The only conclusion one reaches if one does not eventually let go of these ideas is that he must project greater force against the state than it can project against him. This is a race to the bottom that the state always wins. Far more important is to attempt to de-legitimize the state in the minds of those around you. Far more important is to remain peaceful and let the truth of what you speak inspire those around you to question the very nature of the state. As Victor Hugo observed, "Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come." Indeed Christ himself showed us the way forward when it comes to demonstrating the power of resisting the "powers that be" without ever fighting back.
So what of the legal and administrative battle that is the Sovereignty Movement? We must realize that paperwork cannot enslave men, nor can it set men free. Only men can enslave men. Conversely, the condition of liberty can only be found in a society made up of free individuals. What is a free individual? One who seeks to live a life based on a congruent and peaceful ideology. An ideology free of internal conflict (peace being the absence of conflict). Since the only person we can improve is ourselves, the question of "how to be free" then becomes a question of, "What conflicting beliefs do I hold, and how can I resolve this inner conflict?" Liberty comes about one person at a time as we each decide to examine our own thoughts and motivations, and resolve the conflict within ourselves. Again, Christ reminds us of this: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
Towards this end, I have also found Butler Shaffer's book Boundaries of Order to be highly enlightening. It caused me to reexamine considering myself to be a "Rothbardian" or "Voluntaryist" and to think in ways that are much less formal and far more internally peaceful.
-David Giessel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)