Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:28:39 -0700 From: ernesthancock@INFICAD.COM (Ernest Hancock) Subject: Re: Stink'n Think'n To: AZRKBA@asu.edu
First of all to all those on the list that read this stuff without deleting first. 1) Deleting is easy 2) Getting down to the rock foundation of principles as they apply to freedom issues takes discussion and thought 3) We need to exercise our brain cells once and a while 4) Understanding how people came to their conclutions and why they think the wa that they do is very very informative to me and helps me/us develop our retoric in response to these types of counter points. 5) E-mail is better in some ways than face to face and almost as responsive to burn away the chaff.
I would have been seen as a young Don in many ways 8-9 years ago and understand him better as we talk more and see that he is on the correct path. As he gets closer to government action and the political process he'll discover what many of us have only recently realized. Hell, even Rick D. use to think that the legislative process was far more effective than it really is only last year. I hope that we can get Don and others that think as he does, more closely involved in the process (where the rubber meets the road, so to speak) so that he has the experience needed to flavor his philisophical training.
> I have been a rebel since the day I was born, not against
>just rules but against *arbitrary* rules. When a rule is of more benefit
>than it is of detriment, I will support it, and I will support exceptions
to >it when appropriate. When there are more exceptions to it than benefit,
>then I advocate changing it.
Thank you for sharing. It helps me understand you more. I see your progression throughout your life and that you are on the right track. But you still have some distance to go (IMHO). BTW, Who decides for me what is "apropriate"?
>The struggle, I discovered, is between Liberty and Feudalism. Call it
>"liberty and totalitarianism" if you wish; that's the conventional
language. >But Feudalism is more specific: Feudalism is what we had before the
>American Revolution. What is going on today is not a revolution; it is a
>counter-revolution. I have even put it in a tagline I use sometimes; see
>the end of this post.
I see your point. I hope you see that "Statutory Law" is what is being used to counter the true revolution. Most Libertarians I know would be happy to ignore government if they really did limit themselves to the powers allowed them under the U.S. and State Constitutions. We may or may not vote with a government so limited. Why? Because a government so limited would have little effect on my daily life,... that was the whole freaking point of America, protect the borders, provide for peaceful mediation, punish acts against my Life, Liberty &/or Property and that government was never to be the bad guy by socially or economically trying to engineer my action as to what I should do because the majority thought it was in the best interest of "the state" or even in MY bestinterest. The phrase "provide for the common welfare" meant that liberty was the best way to do that,... duh.
>You don't lose any rights by getting a drivers' license; if you believe
>government can lawfully deprive you of your rights then you already lost
>them when you signed up -- or someone else signed you up -- for social
>security.
I'm not clear what you mean here. It has been a long debated subject that you can not contract your rights away. Like you can not forever sell yourself into slavery. But government "lawfully" depriving me of my rights is attempted all the time. This is what some of us are willing to risk our security for to change,... or at least draw attention to.
>They have infiltrated the Reform Party with a bunch of useful idiots to
>destroy their effectiveness, and they have infiltrated the Libertarian
Party >with a bunch of useful idiots (Anarchists) to destroy its effectiveness.
From the inside - It is far easier to see that it is the compromisers that are the biggest danger. They aren't compromising towards anarchy :)
>People have government, Ernie, because they want a little stability in
their >lives. Government is the worst institution for establishing that, but it
is >'way ahead of anarchy. And I do agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said
>there needs to be a revolution every ten years or so just to keep
government >aware that it is not invincible.
When you speak of the founding fornicators (as my good friend Gregg calls them, so as to strip any reverence they do not dererve) I'm not sure who you mean. Are you refering to the signers of the Declaration of Independence or of the U.S. Constitution. Many of the DoI signers were very much against the idea of any form of centralized power (the Anti-Federalist). They argued that the Federal Government would indeed become the monster that it is now, while the Federalist argued that that wouldn't happen. The "Compromise" was the Bill of Rights that limited the scope and power of the U.S. Government. These limits were ignored more and more as time went by and people were less informed about how and why their government was set up the way that it is. In today's Republic is an interesting "My Turn" article on the editorial page about that very thing. By the time of FDR the U.S. Constitution was regularly ignored (had to pass a contitutional amendment to out law Liquor,..... I remember one being passed to outlaw any other drug. And the same mentality has allowed the attack on gun rights).
So the argument isn't so much against the government formed by our constitutions as it it is against the inevitable growth of government to be the abuser of our rights as opposed to the protector of them,.... too much history on my side man.
>But if we throw out government altogether, we will be nothing but an
>over-ripe Mogadishu, Somalia within six months. You say you have come to
>the conclusion that as a business-person, no improvement can come from
>government. Except for one little minor point, you sure got that right!
>The one little minor point i this: You _will_ have government. You will
>have government you have a say in, or you will have government imposed upon
>you.
Computer voting has put an end to my belief that I have any real say.
>You will have government based upon the integrity and responsibility of the
>majority of the people, or you will have government by mob rule, and the
>leader will be the guy who can motivate the mob and keep them ignorant of
>the truth.
You don't think that's what we have now? Where you been man?
Ernie