13

I Want My Freedom Back

Posted by straightlinelogic 9 years, 8 months ago to Government
82 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Earlier this week, edweaver submitted a post, "Does a person have to die to be free?" In it, he asked: "Is death the only way to rid yourself of government?" I submitted a response keyed to that question, and the response developed a thread. However, I wanted to submit what I said to the entire Gulch community to see what everyone had to say about it. Here goes:

One realization that has come to me, far slower than it should have, is that it is not enough to be against statism and government, one has to be for something, to have a vision of where one wants to go. The Fountainhead sounds the tocsin against the encroaching state, and Atlas Shrugged painted the dystopian future after that encroaching state has smothered everything in its path. However, Rand never presented a vision of a world in which the things she was fighting for—liberty, limited government, rational self-interest, and capitalism—had triumphed. One of the reasons I wrote The Golden Pinnacle, which you read, Ed, is to, if not show a world where those ideals had triumphed, to at least show what America was like when we approached the pinnacle of freedom during the Industrial Revolution. It is the first of a trilogy, and the third novel will offer the ultimate utopian vision.

You can look at the current nightmare and despair. You ask: “how do ever get the government out of our lives?” Reformulate your question: “how do we restore freedom in America?” It may seem a trivial point, but the first question is akin to: “how do we get the cockroaches out of our kitchen?” It’s a valid question, and the cockroaches have to be eradicated, but it’s mundane and uninspiring. Restoring freedom, on the other hand, inspires, and freedom’s proponents aren’t left just pointing out the deleterious consequences of statism and coercion (even, or especially, for the so-called beneficiaries), but can instead frame the issues in terms of people building better lives for themselves and their families, unobstructed by the state, reaping their just rewards, and rediscovering respect for themselves and their fellow citizens. People need to strive for higher goals than cockroach eradication. (Even that task sounds more palatable if you reformulate it is a part of the job of making your kitchen sparkling clean.)

If we Gulchers frame our goal as restoring freedom, then that can be done in ways large and small. Realize that like all corrupt, overreaching, overextended, overly indebted governments, ours will fail. A big part of our job will be done, but if all we can offer is: “told you so, told you so,” it will not matter. Winston Churchill said, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else.” After the collapse, many Americans will be ready to try the right thing: restoring freedom. The government will be bankrupt and continuation of the welfare state and foreign adventurism will be fiscally impossible. But intellectual revolutions always precede actual revolutions, so it is now that we must make the case not just against current arrangements, but the positive case for restoring freedom, in every way that we can. That’s what leaders do.

Thoughts?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 8 months ago
    Very interesting. However, I believe the gulch was Rand's depiction of the ideal. But yes I agree that showing what is possible or the goal is as important as showing what is wrong.

    One of the goals of our books is to show that in a free society, most people are not only honest but heroes who are incredibly ingenious. I have seen this in my own life. Most of the people who came into my office were heroes (not necessarily Galts) who were striving for and in many cases achieving incredible things. They were also fiercely honest, because you don't create an invention by faking reality.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by CarolSeer2014 9 years, 8 months ago
    To add to the theme of freedom v liberty:
    my dictionary defines "licentiousness" as an excess of freedom constituting an abuse of liberty.
    But maybe it is an excess of liberty constituting an abuse of freedom.
    Whatever, you cannot have true freedom/liberty without restraint or responsibility, in my view, anyway.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 8 months ago
      I have differing personal definitions of "freedom" and "liberty".

      Freedom seems to mean to many what you said, "license".

      Whereas I define "liberty" as "freedom with responsibility".

      That is, you have freedom to act, but you are responsible for the consequences of your actions.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 8 months ago
        So very correct. Too many want "freedom" without consequences nor responsibility. For example, the freedom of speech would call for anything to be permitted. Yet, those who believe in liberty understand that there are consequences for one's actions and thus would not yell "fire" in a crowded and not easily exited venue as such might cause a panic that could result in harm to others. Likewise, those espousing "freedom" might advocate no rules against driving intoxicated, but those who believe in liberty understand that one has a responsibility not to drive intoxicated so as not to put at risk others. Liberty is a state of responsible freedom.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by preimert1 9 years, 8 months ago
      To me "freedom" is nuanced as a personal thing and requires personal responsibility on the part of an individual. "Liberty" would seem to be more of a group thing such as autonomous rule. America wrested liberty from English rule.

      In the Navy we got "liberty" but we certainly were not free.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by oldwarrior 9 years, 8 months ago
    In the last chapter of Atlas Shrugged, Judge Narragansett added an item to the Constitution (paraphrasing): the government will make no law interfering with the freedom of commerce. In addition, another item should be the government will pass no law redistributing the wealth of any one to others for any reason other than criminal activity or tort (and that includes envy).
    In addition, our educational system (preferably private) must teach financial and economic literacy, so the average person, to be considered educated, will be able to avoid the nonsense that triggered the meltdown a few years ago.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 8 months ago
      Oldwarrior -

      I think the Constitution should stay out of education. I think that an amendment that says, "All laws passed in the US at any level must be Constitutional." is essential.

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MicheleGM 9 years, 8 months ago
    Freedom comes with a cost; that of acting responsibly and taking responsibility for your own actions. Self responsibility, along with the freedom to fail, are critical components of Liberty. And, as Matt Kibbe so eloquently states in the title of his book: "Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff." Government in Liberty is restricted to its proper role of protecting property, whether it be the lives of the citizens (national defense) or enforcing contracts between freely associating people.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by IndianaGary 9 years, 8 months ago
      I like your characterization of responsibility. I've seen many posts here where the word "responsibility" could be replaced with "duty", which I do not accept. I agree that we each need to be responsible for our own actions which means being held accountable by an objective legal system should we encroach on the rights of others. Such actions need not be criminal in nature and civil proceedings should suffice to resolve many disputes. Initiation of force, however, is criminal and needs to be dealt with reciprocally.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by SolitudeIsBliss 9 years, 8 months ago
    Sad that we have to admit: We want a FREE nation, we want our Individual freedoms however, as law abiding citizens there isn't much we can do to engender change. Vote, yes ! Show up at marches and protests. Be outspoken about the evils, corruption and dysfunction of our government ! All of this still does not accomplish much ! We are still trapped in the same system until enough of the populace chooses to effect change by whatever means. Until then, we simply share idealistic platitudes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Commander 9 years, 8 months ago
    I have always been proactive in solutions beyond conflicts. I wholeheartedly concur with your vision.
    I have one very strong objection. Supplant "freedom" with "Liberty". Liberty implies responsibility to self and community extant. "Freedom" reminds me too much of "Lord of the Flies".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
      I used freedom in my response because edweaver had asked "Does a person have to die to be free?" I agree with you that on an intellectual level, liberty connotes a certain responsibility. However, I think freedom packs more of an emotional wallop. My emotional reaction to freedom is not "Lord of the Flies," but rather Braveheart, where it is the refrain throughout the movie, and especially at the end, when William Wallace shouts it as he's being drawn and quartered. I think that scene would have been less effective had he yelled, "Liberty!"
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Commander 9 years, 8 months ago
        Never ceases to amaze me.....interpretation of word-symbols. I appreciate your profound ability to dialog.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
          Thanks, words appear to be my one particular skill. I'm not the only one with that skill in the Gulch, and I love the opportunity to go back and forth with Gulchers.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Commander 9 years, 8 months ago
            I find myself being very care-full of the words I use these days. "Words that can hurt, can heal". (George Carlin)
            To directly address edweavers question: Freedom is a concept only for the living. Without life, and consciousness to perceive, freedom, does not exist....even in "animal" state.
            I do agree.....Freedom is more "inspiring".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 8 months ago
              I agree with you. I only wanted to get people looking at the possibility that if we go to far and death is the only way to gain freedom, where have we gone. We are on a bad path but I cannot help but believe there are people in other countries that death is the only way. Maybe I am wrong. I like how SLL took this to a conversation about freedom.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 8 months ago
                In many cases, there is a chemical imbalance in the individual which makes rational thought problematic. In others, there is an emotional imbalance that causes the same.

                There are some rational thinking people who see suicide as the rational solution. Say the long married person who's partner of many years passes, and they see little remaining reason for living (no kids, perhaps). Or the breadwinner of the family that becomes unemployed and subsequently loses more and more assets, causing their loved ones to suffer and the only seeming way to "provide" for those loved ones is to convert a life insurance policy (a la "It's a Wonderful Life").

                It's not a solution that I would advocate, but I can see how a rational person could come to that choice.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 8 months ago
        Sure would have been, since William Wallace and Robert the Bruce were both part of the ruling class of Scotland; an aristocracy out to expel a foreign aristocracy.

        Braveheart, while entertaining, was such crap. Wallace was nothing like the long-haired barbarian Gibson portrayed, and the kilt wasn't worn in that era (what's more, there are paintings of Wallace in full armor).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 8 months ago
          The great kilt was. The walking kilt was not. The 'plaid' as a distinct pattern for each tribe is modern, though probably based on local weaving techniques and dyes.

          Jan
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 8 months ago
    Congress, the president and the courts,
    including the supreme court, shall make no law
    or regulation abridging the voluntary choices
    of the citizens, except as is mutually and
    unanimously agreed between the Speaker
    of the House, the president and the Chief
    Justice, to violate the constitutional rights
    of *other* citizens.

    how about that amendment? -- j

    p.s. all federal laws and regulations are
    to be reviewed within two years and reinstated
    thusly, else they are revoked.

    p.p.s. Yes, the Gulch was the beginning
    of the ideal society, in my view.

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jsw225 9 years, 8 months ago
    There is no winning against these people until they are ruined. There's only 2 options.

    1.) Leave. But there is only one final frontier. And as of right now, Mars isn't worth colonizing. (Working to solve this).

    2.) Crash. You can't beat these people at their own game. They wrote the rules. They've perfected it over thousands of years. The entire system must crash before it's fixed. And even then, there's no guarantee that you'll win in the aftermath.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by wiggys 9 years, 8 months ago
      jsw225,

      you are as right as rain. you could leave; i.e. live on a sail boat, I have done it; once you leave the dock money is un-necessary. and as for the crash; I think it has actually taken place but those in Washington do not care about the nation only them selves and for fixing it they do not have a clue if they even think about it which I doubt. the aftermath will be war in the streets like it is throughout the rest of the world.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 8 months ago
    I agree completely. It's easier for me to support "eat more homecooked meals" than "eat less fast food." If you tell me what not to do, I imagine an empty whole where that unhealthful treat used to be.

    I do not know how to apply that to anti-statism because most people who vocally claim to support objectivism and/or libertarianism come off as some combination of paranoid, whining, bigoted, and mean-spirited. Despite that, I think most "normal" people are actually libertarians and don't know it. Even patent non-objectivists who believe giving alms is a sacred duty might accept the gov't isn't that at carrying it out.

    Someone smarter than I am about this needs to come up with a positive way to present the gov't being less costly and intrusive.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 8 months ago
      Circuitguy -

      I think that Straightline has an excellent point, which you have just supported. Many people tend to phrase their philosophy in terms of "don't stand under my umbrella", which leads to the list of unpleasant adjectives you cite. We need to increasingly phrase our philosophy as a "You believe in freedom? Y'all are welcome!" approach. We are our own worst PR agents.

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 9 years, 8 months ago
      "most people who vocally claim to support objectivism and/or libertarianism come off as some combination of paranoid, whining, bigoted, and mean-spirited." example please
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 8 months ago
        I'm saying I agree with the notion of selling what we want rather than what we don't want. (the empty hole thing) But some of us are nutjobs. This is why the average person misunderstands Ayn Rand and maybe why we don't have politicians supporting libertarian ideas even though I suspect most people are libertarians.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 9 years, 8 months ago
          still no example. Your perceptions are pointed. Where did you develop this perception? I understand your overall concept. I want to see if we perceive things similarly. Without an example...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 8 months ago
    I think the early United States, that immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, epitomizes that society. It wasn't the ultimate, as there was still oppression of a significant portion of the populace, but in general, while there were sporadic instances of slavery in the north, one could look at the majority of the non-slave areas of the US as that society. Or perhaps Australia between when it was a penal colony and the beginning of WWI.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Solver 9 years, 8 months ago
      Does an individual own himself or can he be made property, protected by slave-holder rights?
      Answer, he owns himself.
      But in relativism, society decides what is right and wrong, even if it is wrong.
      Did unalienable, natural, civil, societal or god given rights include slavery? That depended on if “society thought” the rights of masters to have slaves should be respected. History shows they were. Even today there is slavery. Using these subjective rights can mean, and does mean, well, nearly anything, depending on the current “mood of society.” Most everywhere, full slavery is currently wrong, again. But one day, using relativism, “society” may make it right, again.

      For individuals that respect individual rights, slavery is always wrong and never right, period.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by IndianaGary 9 years, 8 months ago
      Yes, slavery was the elephant in the living room and the major contradiction in our Constitution was the failure to eradicate it at the beginning of the nation.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 8 months ago
        Slavery includes such tangible restrictions as not owning property, not being eligible for professional work, having to have your master's permission for whatever you wanted to do.

        I would like to point out that blacks were slaves for a few hundred years; women have operated under the abovementioned restrictions for thousands of years ('how many thousand' depends on the part of the world). But women's condition was 'spun' to a positive image - so it couldn't be wrong, could it?

        And women got the right to vote 50 years after blacks did.

        Jan, the elephantess in the room
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 8 months ago
          But slavery and lack of women's ability to vote still persists in a good portion of the world.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 8 months ago
            True. But this is not what I am commenting on. When people refer to 'slavery' (ie black slavery) as "the elephant in the room" they are ignoring the fact that the 'happy homemaker, child-rearer, safe port for her husband' is operating under similar explicit constraints...though far different implicit constraints. It is as if someone were to say to a Negro, "You are so superior to us that we are going to protect you from thought and decision whilst you wile away your time communing with cotton balls."

            And we bought this line. For thousands of years. Women accepted that we were superior beings, eternal children, raising other children.

            So, I am not commenting on the condition of today's world, I am commenting on how deeply people can fool themselves - all the way to the point where the generally savvy folks on this site find no fault in a comment that '[black] slavery' is 'the elephant in the room'. It is not! 50% of the human race brainwashed into non-productiveness for thousands of years is the elephant in the room; slavery pales beside this.

            Jan
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by BaritoneGary 9 years, 8 months ago
              I submit that if you are using any form of government money in any fashion, you are somewhat a slave. You give them, whoever issues the medium of which you call money, jurisdiction into your lives through "their" money. Hence, again, the need for an independent and honest monetary system that is not governed by the world bankers.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 8 months ago
    In order to restore freedom, you must first identify, and then teach the principles inherent in freedom. You must live them in your life and then teach them through example to your children, friends, neighbors, and others.

    You must also stand up against those who seek for power - those who want to destroy freedom. And they will come, to be sure.

    You must teach that there is black and white. There are actions that lead to freedom and actions that lead to slavery. ALL actions have consequences and all decisions are based on moral principles of action that either maintain or erode the cause of freedom.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by BaritoneGary 9 years, 8 months ago
      Follow the money! Freedom is being able to store your surplus productivity in a constant, valuable form. When you establish this, beyond the scope of any government jurisdictions, then you will begin to see freedom. Teach your children well.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by BaritoneGary 9 years, 8 months ago
    Multiple commodities as a means of exchange is a great idea, but there may be constantly fluctuating values. That's why I believe in the metals standard. The more commodities introduces, the more cumbersome the calculations. With gold, silver, and copper, the values remain constant in their respective values and can offer stability to commodity prices. Besides, I'd rather have a couple of ounces of gold in my pocket than 160 barrels of oil in my backyard!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by BaritoneGary 9 years, 8 months ago
    As I see it, it all comes back to the money. There needs to be a push to restore our economy to an "honest" system. Once the standard has been raised, prosperity will begin. The biggest problem that I see, is that every thinker has their own way of fixing the problem. Rather than supporting a solution, or a system, they all wish to institute their own way (idea, system, etc.) instead of researching the existing propositions and supporting one of them. The best will survive. I have proposed a system of honest money, but I cannot get anyone to adopt it and put it into action. I believe that freedom starts with an honest monetary system. Let everyone enjoy the fruits of their labors, and all of the politics will follow. I have posted a spreadsheet with values that will work quite well. All that is needed is for people to use it! Start demanding payment in honest money and stop using the federal reserve notes. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3zC5jD...
    If you have any feedback, comments, or ideas, please let me know. I have been interested in this for at least 30+ years. I have spoken to many well versed individuals and have read many authors who have solid economic policy.
    Live long, and PROSPER!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 8 months ago
    You ask, what are we for?

    In AS, Galt's Gulch was, if not that ideal society, then the nucleus of one. Specifically it was a large camp where the most productive of men could live apart from the government that made true living impossible.

    Months ago I at least conceived of a multi-commodity money system. I sought to replace fractional-reserve banking and trading in debt, with trading with coin (all precious metals allowed), and scrip backed with specific quantities of named commodities. Any merchant would be free to hawk his wares for any commodity he needed either to make them or to support his daily living.

    Imagine being able to trade unrefined petroleum directly for refined motor or jet fuel, wheat (or corn) for bread, or silver for any electronic device that needs silver to make. That's just for starters.

    Rand assumed putting gold and silver in people's hands would be enough. I propose a wider selection of commodities, to avoid a repeat of the "cross-of-gold" situation that ultimately gave way to the Federal Reserve.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by BaritoneGary 9 years, 8 months ago
      Multiple commodities as a means of exchange is a great idea, but there may be constantly fluctuating values. That's why I believe in the metals standard. The more commodities introduces, the more cumbersome the calculations. With gold, silver, and copper, the values remain constant in their respective values and can offer stability to commodity prices. Besides, I'd rather have a couple of ounces of gold in my pocket than 26 barrels of oil in my backyard!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 8 months ago
        I see what you're saying. Of course, I don't propose anyone actually take physical possession of any commodity other than coins. (When I say "coins" I mean coin minted in gold, silver, copper, or any other metal anyone might desire.)

        I had in mind letting people carry scrip denominated in certain weights or liquid volumes of commodities the scrip issuer would store in a silo, a tank farm, or other general or specialized warehouse. And to get around the fluctuation issue, I would put the onus on the merchant to offer his goods for sale in any quantity of any commodity he wished. And in this era of smartphones, I'm sure you could soon get an "app" to track commodity-exchange rates, so you could decide for yourself whether any givern merchant was offering you a good deal.

        I think you can understand why a purveyor of, say, motor fuel might gladly accept oil scrip at a more favorable rate of exchange than that at which he would accept wood scrip, or paper pulp scrip, or wheat scrip, or even gold or silver coin. Everything would depend on how much effort he would need to get the raw material he needs to produce the goods he provides.

        Now of course the merchant has a joker of a problem. His employees could use that wheat scrip to be paid in. And that's just for starters. So any merchant would have a use for any of a number of commodities, not just to make the finished product but also to pay his workers and to support other "ancillary" parts of his operation.

        What I'm really callng for is "partial enhanced barter." The enhancement would be that everyone has available to him all the information on how valuable certain commodities can be.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by BaritoneGary 9 years, 8 months ago
          I agree with your concept, but logistically it is too complicated. Too much time would be required to research value. If everyone would agree to a metals standard, everything could be denominated in an easily identifiable medium, hence making commerce simple, easy and fast.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 8 months ago
            Such research should not be necessary. As I understand it, the futures markets settle minute-by-minute based on every bit of news anybody gets. The last thing we should consider is a "price control."

            I might agree to this much: publish commodity values in terms of one value standard: say the gold troy ounce. But sill allow people to carry receipts for any commodities that anyone is willing to store for others. Nor do I propose that the government involve itself in any of this.

            Think of the Mulligan Mint in Atlantis in AS. Mulligan would strike gold or silver coin on request. Now imagine as well that Ellis Wyatt were to issue scrip for the oil he brought out of the ground, or that Midas were to go into the "oil banking" business. All without any government involvement, and with no attempt to fix the value of any commodity in terms of another.

            All I'm dealing with here is the concept of Legal Tender. Legal Tender is anything of value that a court might write into its Rules as universally acceptable for the discharge of a private debt, a tax obligation, or a court judgment.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by BaritoneGary 9 years, 8 months ago
              Because markets constantly change is the very reason to have everything "converted" into AU or AG, depending on the commodity. There is no price fixing, just a standard. It needs to be universally accepted. For thousands of years, gold and silver have always had a value for trade, over and above their intrinsic commercial value(s). I do not like any printed medium of exchange, because I don't trust the printers (and counterfeiters). Who is going to run the printing presses? Turn personal notes into AU or AG, then we can deal.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 8 months ago
    "You ask: “how do ever get the government out of our lives?” Reformulate your question: “how do we restore freedom in America?” It may seem a trivial point, but the first question is akin to: “how do we get the cockroaches out of our kitchen?” It’s a valid question, and the cockroaches have to be eradicated, but it’s mundane and uninspiring. Restoring freedom, on the other hand, inspires"
    ---
    I dunno. Seem to me like you're essentially arguing that rather than focusing on getting cockroaches out of the kitchen, we should instead focus on restoring the kitchen to its former cockroach-free, sparkling clean condition. Granted, the first statement evokes a negative emotion, while the second statement evokes a positive emotion, but logically speaking, they're really just two different ways of saying essentially the same thing. If you took two different people and gave one of two statements to each of them, and then asked them to both to devise solutions with their particular statement as the goal, I think they would most likely produce the same methodology and the same tactics. The fact that one was using a negative statement and the other a positive one wouldn't make much of a difference.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 8 months ago
      The only way to get government out of one's life is to leave to where there is no government. You might be able to get close to that at some places here on Earth.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by BaritoneGary 9 years, 8 months ago
        Move to Texas, then help Texas secede. Once Texas becomes it's own nation again, then change the laws to reflect decent, honest, and moral values. Then, keep it that way. I submit that Texas will someday become the Gulch (and it can accommodate millions of like-minded individuals. Help fight for the solution.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 8 months ago
          I am a native Texan, although I haven't lived there since 1976. http://www.galtsgulchchile.com is looking pretty good right now.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by BaritoneGary 9 years, 8 months ago
            I live on the gulf coast, almost all the way down. It is a sub-tropical paradise here. Plenty of fish. Plenty of farms, wildlife, cattle, along with a real easy-going attitude. No matter what happens, I can survive here, and mostly on my own terms. I truly believe in what I am saying. So far, we have had several of our friends move here, some from Communist Maryland, and some Virginia. They all believe that we can secede and make Texas the free country that we all dream about. Come home!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 8 months ago
        Sure, but you wouldn't be able to bring more than a small handful of people with you. A large population would require a government.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo