I was recently watching an HBO presentation called “The Latin Explosion: A New America” and one part of the program delved into the political realm pointing out how desperate politicians are to get the “Latino vote” and how that gives latinos power and influence. Entertainers like Pitbull and other latino performers have ads encouraging their fellow Latino Americans to vote because that’s “power”.
Unfortunately, they, just as many other americans of any other ethnicity, have been fooled into believing that their vote counts, not realizing that what it counts for is not what they think it counts for. They are but pawns voting for their overlords just like all the other citizens of the Realm and they are simply being used by the political elite as a resource; another spigot of revenue pouring into the government coffers to feed to insatiable hunger of an ever growing and all powerful Leviathan that wants complete control over all its subjects within the Realm. (and outside the Realm as well)
So I would like only to say this to my fellow latino Americans; voting for others to rule over you will likely not turn out to be “power” for you but it will be for your overlords. But as long as you keep voting for the establishment candidate, whether Democrat or Republican (or other) and wave your Star Spangled Banner wildly overhead; cheer for the soldiers and above all be a good citizen by paying your taxes you should be just fine…. for a while anyway.
On the other hand, should you ever cross your overlords by standing up for your right to not be groped just because you want to travel by airliner; or your right to do with your own body what you want – drinking what you want, smoking what you want or even drinking RAW MILK if you want; or your right to raise your children and educate them how you think best; or your right to do as you wish with your own property; or your right to marry without getting permission from the government; or your right to keep what your earn and not have it stolen by the government under threat of violence; or your right to pass on your property to your posterity without being taxed out of it; or your right to not be conscripted or have your children conscripted to fight immoral wars for the government and kill people who have not attacked you; or your right to keep and bear arms to protect yourself and your family; or your right to keep your property and not have it stolen by thugs using “imminent domain” laws; or the right to not have your privacy invaded without justification or warrant; or the right to….. I could go on and on of course but anyway, things might not go so well for you then.
Is the right to vote really a power or is it the relinquishment of power? Something to ponder I think.
While it may be true, when it comes to the material world, that a picture is worth a thousand words, I doubt the same holds true when it comes to the realm of ideas and even when considering a picture there’s the inescapable fact that a picture must be created by something or someone and that a picture therefore, also begins with an idea.
Ideas are created in the mind by the act of thinking which is communicated by language even if it is only communicated in one’s own mind. The language by which an idea is communicated is made up of words that are defined by even more words to form the language that form the thoughts which create the ideas that create a picture.
So it seems evident that without all these factors the manifestation of a picture is not even possible and while a picture may show us something materially, a non material or philosophical idea can only find it’s ultimate expression and understanding in the form of words. Choosing the right words therefore, is ultimately critical in conveying an idea.
In the material or physical realm, concepts such as heat for example, are more fully understood when experienced. No matter how many times we told our five-year-old son that the boiling water is hot and will burn him, he did not fully understand the definition of Hot and Burn until he laid hold of the pot’s handle and poured the boiling water down his shoulder and arm. Now, as an adult, he is reminded of the very definite meaning of those terms every time he sees the scar tissue (a picture) left on his flesh by the boiling water.
As seen above, the transference of a material or physical concept isn’t really that difficult. However, the transference of an idea can be downright frustrating at times. First. All people are not of the same language. Second. Even those who are of the same language do not all possess equal quantities of the terminology of that language. Third. Of the words which they do have in common, each word does not likely have the exact same meaning or nuance to each and every person in that language group. So we can see that the communication of an idea from one mind to another in an exacting way can be a challenge to say the least.
Even if one has a great apologia and all other things are equal there’s another potential problem when trying to communicate an idea. Many people, having been educated in government schools, may lack critical thinking skills and or have underdeveloped skills in logic and sound reasoning and be unable to reach rational conclusions about the validity and or veracity of an idea. But even with all that, I’ve found that when people are presented with a logical, well reasoned idea, they are receptive.
What I’m trying to convey here is that communicating an idea effectively takes a lot of work! It takes consistency, patience, tact, choosing the right words, making the right analogies and everything else including the kitchen sink when trying to win the hearts and minds of others to a point of view. (e.g.libertarianism) A point of view that many may have almost no familiarity or may have a great deal of misinformation about.
The acceptance of ideas into a culture ultimately are responsible for whatever worldview the people in that culture may have and therefore, I would argue, are very determinate of the sort of world they end up with. That being the case, I’m really just attempting to point out the necessity of thoroughly fleshing out ideas before accepting them as legitimate. Even if they are wildly popular or generally accepted as being true, it’s still important to look at them from every possible angle, attempting to fully understand them and coming to the most rational conclusion possible with the information available at any given point in time.
While exploring and considering any idea it may be important also to understand what the motivation is behind an idea being propagated. Many have purported an idea or philosophy for their own nefarious purposes, as I think is evident in the realm of the political class, who rely upon the ideas and ideologies of the intellectual elite to maintain power over the masses. And in turn, the intellectual class is rewarded for their part, through the promotion of their ideas via book sales, positions in media, political advisories, other appointments to high positions and the like. All this is done, in my view, to make the average person believe in the legitimacy of both the political class’s and the intellectual elite’s authority and it has been largely effective for many centuries.
However, some ideas, I believe, may be purported for more ethical and moral reasons. Some of these ideas, as in the case of Libertarianism, while somewhat theoretical, can be shown logically (a priori) to be superior to any of the current or past systems of governmental authoritarianism which obviously haven’t worked out in favor of individual liberty and freedom to this point in history.
In the socio-political-economic realm an idea whose time has come, in my opinion, is Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism. It’s not right/left – liberal/conservative – It’s liberty; it’s justice; it’s freedom; it’s property rights and the axiom that no one can aggress against anyone else’s person or property except in defense of their own person or property. It’s the idea that the “state” does not serve the people; never has and never will and therefore should not exist since the function that the state and it’s government now fulfills can be accomplished mush better, cheaper and more effectively by voluntary cooperation of individuals and groups of people without the coercion of the state.
Whether the “ruling class” has been appointed or taken power by force the results have always been the same. Maybe it’s time to consider that individuals may be able to run their own lives more effectively than the politicians. If we don’t like what the world has become maybe it’s time to consider another way of thinking about things that’s altogether different than what we’ve been taught through political institutions which have been run by those wishing to maintain their power and position over us. Maybe it’s time to create a new picture. A picture that doesn’t include overlords who make their living from the productive lives of others. A picture that depicts true liberty and true freedom by doing away with statism.
Now there’s a picture worth a thousand words and then some.
See also: “For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto” By Murray N. Rothbard
I know a lot of my FB friends don’t see my posts or I would catch a lot more heck than I do. For those of you who do see my posts, here’s another you will probably not like regarding “The Draft”. I’ve already written on this recently but I wanted to approach it from another angle. So let’s try an analogy.
Okay, George has an enemy who lives in another subdivision down the road, let’s call him Freddie. George feels that Freddie is a threat to his and his family’s safety so he decides the best thing to do is to strike first. After all, his dad always said “Son, if you know there’s going to be a fight, make sure to get in the first punch”. But in this case George decides that he doesn’t want to do the “dirty work” himself so he’s going to enlist the help of a fellow who lives in his subdivision, John, to do it for him.
Now John says that he doesn’t want to do it. He thinks that attacking someone who hasn’t actually attacked you is wrong and besides that, Freddie has never threatened him. But George insists that he might and that since he’s the president of the homeowner’s association that John must do as he says and if he doesn’t he’s going to revoke his membership and he will no longer be able to live in the neighborhood because he will no longer be a member of the association. (This is a make believe association where George is the final authority as it has been delegated to him by the other members)
John is faced with a tough decision. He can’t afford to move and George is holding a proverbial gun to his head. What’s he going to do? He’ll lose his home and his family will be out on the street if he doesn’t follow George’s orders.
So in the above story is there anyone who thinks that what George is doing to John or to his enemy down the street is in any way morally justifiable? I’m going to assume that most people with average intelligence will say no. That being the case how can anyone of average intelligence possibly justify the Draft?
Do we all agree that we own ourselves and our property and that our bodies are our property correct? If that is the case then can we agree that nobody has a right to aggress or commit an act of violence against our property unless we are aggressing against them? (all have a right to self defense) So, if I can’t aggress against you and you can’t aggress against me then upon what authority are we able to appoint someone else to do the aggressing for us?
If individuals have no moral authority to aggress against their neighbors then individuals appointing others to aggress upon their neighbors on their behalf have no moral authority either. You can’t delegate authority that you don’t possess.
Back to George. Now George has become the President of a country. He says that you must go halfway around the world and kill some people that he and the “others” have determined to be a threat to his and his fellow countrymen’s safety and if you don’t agree to do this he will lock you up and throw away the key.
President George has now “aggressed” against you by conscripting you; taking away your freedom to choose; restricting your movement, so on and so forth and has pressed you into service to aggress against other people who have not actually aggressed against you. If you resist this enslavement you’ll be locked up and branded a traitor.
What will you do?
Ali died late on June 3, 2016
As a kid, back in the 70’s, I loved watching Muhammad Ali. Regardless of what you think about him, he was very entertaining and a tactician in the ring. Back then I didn’t know anything about the politics, Vietnam, the Nation of Islam or any of that stuff. I just knew I liked watching him box. He was quite a character and his banter with Howard Cosell was a hoot.
As an adult with conservative – right wing tendencies, when I learned about Ali refusing to be inducted into the army, I thought less of Ali as a person but now, as a libertarian, I have to reassess my opinion of Ali.
When Ali said “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong,” and refused to be drafted into the army he took a lot of flak for it and I’m certain he knew what the consequences would be when he took that stand. You may think it cowardice but standing up for one’s beliefs and being willing to take a felony wrap and go to prison can hardly be defined as cowardice.
Many today still think the draft to be a legitimate action of the government during wartime but in a country that claims to value liberty and freedom, that’s a pretty hypocritical position to take. Forcing people to kill other people against their will just because the ruling caste demands it and claims it’s their duty is certainly anything but just. It’s sad that so many people are just reactionaries who don’t stop and really think about the ramifications of their position. Do any of these people think that they own their own bodies? If so then they should stand against the Draft unhesitatingly.
Conscription is tantamount to slavery. There’s no other way to look at it. What is it when one group of human beings takes away the freedom of another and conscripts them into service against their will? I think it’s called slavery plain and simple. There is no justification for such a position for those who say they love liberty. All the cries from politicians and the, so called, patriotic citizen that everyone should do their duty and serve their country when called upon, cannot diminish the facts of what the nature of the draft is… let’s just call it what it is — SLAVERY.
Our Rights, our Liberties, our Freedoms do not come from the government and we therefore, do not owe the government anything and certainly not to kill or die for it. Defending your property, freedom and liberty is one thing but going to war for the State and what will surely, at a future time, be shown to be for causes that have nothing to do with those things is surely misguided.