How can liberty survive?
Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 12 months ago to Politics
Excerpt:
"The main problem the liberty minded face as regards preserving – and recovering – their lost liberty is that they are enmeshed among those who either do not understand or want to even try to understand liberty.
And those who actively loathe it.
It is not like the Late Unpleasantness (1861-’65) which was fundamentally geographic as much as it was ideological. On the one side – of the Mason Dixon line – you had the South. On the other, the North. Both sides were clearly different, in terms of where each lived as well as their respective languages, culture and history.
Savannah was not Boston.
But how do we separate ourselves from our next-door neighbor? From the authoritarian collectivists who sit on the town council? From the Clover who believes he has a “right” to health care – and “free” education – and thus, a right to force you to provide it? Who demands you “buckle up” for “safety”?
Who insists others wear a Face Diaper or close their businesses . . . to keep him “safe”?
Even in areas that are still culturally a bit more liberty minded – i.e., the “red” states – the canker is there and it is spreading.
Many of the “red” states are purple – on their way to turning blue. Even Texas.
The process has been accelerated, ironically, by the flight of the not-so-liberty-minded from places like New York and California, where their mindset created the fouled nest they now abandon – to foul new nests, elsewhere.
How can liberty survive, given this?"
Read on for possible answers.
https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2021/...
"The main problem the liberty minded face as regards preserving – and recovering – their lost liberty is that they are enmeshed among those who either do not understand or want to even try to understand liberty.
And those who actively loathe it.
It is not like the Late Unpleasantness (1861-’65) which was fundamentally geographic as much as it was ideological. On the one side – of the Mason Dixon line – you had the South. On the other, the North. Both sides were clearly different, in terms of where each lived as well as their respective languages, culture and history.
Savannah was not Boston.
But how do we separate ourselves from our next-door neighbor? From the authoritarian collectivists who sit on the town council? From the Clover who believes he has a “right” to health care – and “free” education – and thus, a right to force you to provide it? Who demands you “buckle up” for “safety”?
Who insists others wear a Face Diaper or close their businesses . . . to keep him “safe”?
Even in areas that are still culturally a bit more liberty minded – i.e., the “red” states – the canker is there and it is spreading.
Many of the “red” states are purple – on their way to turning blue. Even Texas.
The process has been accelerated, ironically, by the flight of the not-so-liberty-minded from places like New York and California, where their mindset created the fouled nest they now abandon – to foul new nests, elsewhere.
How can liberty survive, given this?"
Read on for possible answers.
https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2021/...
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.”
Thomas Jefferson
Amazing the insight this man had all those years ago. Truer words we never spoken.
If another steal can't be beat, it's in my gut things will really get bad.
If so, most of my life is behind me. What the hell? Don't know what course others may take. Give me liberty or give me death!
I don't think it can survive. I think we've gone past the tipping point, thanks to the Wuhan or Chinese virus (take that, all you PC cops at the NSA scanning everything we do!) and all of the fallout from the Chinese/Wuhan virus.
We have lost--no, that's not right: as a society, we have voluntarily ceded--so many personal liberties and freedoms over the past 14 months that I just don't think we'll ever get them back.
I have some health concerns about getting vaccinated. My reactions to things like this are anaphalactic in nature, and could potentially be life threatening.
But I also have personal reasons for refusing to get jabbed.
First, this is a disease that has a 99.65 percent survival rate, which means 1993 people out of 2000 who contract it will survive. I like those odds; I'll take my chances.
Second what potential long term effects will those who have been vaccinated begin to suffer from in six months? A year? Five years? Obviously, nobody knows or can know. And I am just not willing to risk it.
Third, and maybe most importantly, the idea of being told that I MUST get vaccinated for the Chinese/Wuhan virus is reason enough to tell them to go to Hell.
And someone (not sure if it was a media personality or a politician) recently said that if I refuse to be vaccinated, I should be charged with reckless endangerment, a felony. A felony? Really?
I just don't think that as a civil society we can be saved. I think it must come crashing down and be rebuilt. I mean, you can only make so many repairs or improvements to a house; eventually you have to tear the damn thing down and build it again.
I believe that's where we are. (Edited to add a missing word.)
Compromise always moves toward evil and away from morality and the right to make decisions for oneself.
This country is now at a place where everything is monitored and controlled. There is nothing that can be done without permission. I am unaware of any country or place that is different. If it existed I would go there now.
For now the best that might be achieved is to live unobserved, not bringing the wrath of the state or the controllers upon you.
Almost all are against liberty and will report you should you be suspected of doing what you desire and believe will benefit yourself.
When a population has been conditioned into obedience, there are many who willingly become enforcers. Now that we see insane actions like people being pepper sprayed for not wearing a mask, those behind the scheme see an opportunity to recruit official enforcement organizations, and it won't take much to put them in place. Most of the existing government agencies in the Federal government have armed security forces, and all it takes is an executive order to expand their actions.
The US Postal Service is now monitoring social media as an expansion of its role in preventing mail fraud, but what could they be looking for? Would a claim by "fact checkers" at Farcebook be sufficient for a criminal charge of fraud? Could anti mask postings bring a criminal charge of endangering the public?
I have an uncomfortable feeling we're seeing only a mild beginning of a growing fascist state, imposed with the help of corporate entities seeking survival by being on the "right side."
"this could be achieved by a decentralization movement with its long-term goal being the peaceful division of the country into sovereign autonomous states,"
It seems like it should be possible. I wouldn't call them separate states. I would reinterpret the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to mean the federal gov't does nothing except for things specifically set by the constitution. Everything else would be local.
Take the issues from the article:
Healthcare - Subsidized healthcare could be made available to taxpaying residents of regions that want it. When they travel to areas with market-based plans, it would be like going out-of-network.
Subsidized Education - This could be handled similarly to how state universities offer residents in-state tuition.
Seat Belts - Just as cities have different speed limits, they could enact seat belt zones.
Face Masks - The same as seat belts. You could have places where it's required, places where it's up to property owners whether masks are required on their property, and places where property owners cannot insist on masks. Even on a road trip, you wouldn't have to drive that far to find a place that suits your desires.
The problem I see is in local gov'ts using this to impede travel or trade. For example, a local government might want to deny passage of a paid driver not earning the local minimum wage. They might want to deny entrance to people from regions with very lax rules about social distancing. They might not want people transporting guns, drugs, etc that are banned in that area. There would have to be some kind of legal framework to ensure local gov't couldn't impede commerce. So someone could pass through not not earning min wage, but you couldn't establish a taxi service that serves a high minimum wage area but doesn't pay the minimum wage because it's based on the other side of the border. You couldn't stop someone from moving guns, drugs, or other contraband, but you cannot take them out in open or use them in any way.
The author says such a plan would not work because some people would be caught on the wrong side of the border and some people just want to control others. I think people would move, though, as surely as they move now b/c a neighborhoods is getting rough, property taxes, etc.
His they and us ending sounds like a parody. He is so good, he says, but other people won't be for freedom, and that will eventually force people like him to fight people are different. It could be easily solved "if only they would allow it.* (emphasis his). I'm really not sure if this ending is a parody of self-righteousness.
It could work better than the author thinks. These things are actually minor. Once it were set up and working, most people wouldn't give it a second thought. The devil's in the details, but in my mind it's closer to the intention of the Constitution than what we have now.