The Declaration of Independence was signed on this day of July 4th in the year 1776. The British Empire had treated the American Colonies as little more than mere servants, whose sole purpose was to obey, and to be commanded. The colonists of course had a very different view of this arrangement, and thus proclaimed their independence from the British Crown, in so doing there was a much broader statement made to the world. The declaration was a statement to mankind as a whole, it was a statement to all men that it is divine to be free, that in nature or Nature's god, that it is natural for all men to be born free and equal. As Thomas Jefferson put these ideas to paper, it is not that he himself created these ideas, but more importantly, combined at once in thought these ideas. There were changes made to Jefferson's original draft ( changes Jefferson felt " Mangled" his work ) but the embodiment, the soul of the declaration was nothing less than the work of Thomas Jefferson.
Reading the declaration today brings strong emotions to ones heart, and for a document that was written 235 years ago I would suggest that itself is a testament to how powerful a statement the declaration was even at the time of it's writing, it would also indicate, I would add to the passion of not just Jefferson, but John Adams, Ben Franklin, and the other signatories of that document, not to mention the conviction those men had upon signing that document, for once there name was penned to paper it was an outright act of treason against the crown, to be punished by death ( by hanging ) which would most have certainly been done for public display as a message to others.
The secret to it's success to me has always been key phrases that were the embodiment of the declaration, timeless phrases such as " We hold these truths to be self evident" imagine the power of that statement alone. Saying to the world " well of course we are free, it's as natural as sunshine is to daytime " or " by what right does a King govern over me, after all we are all born of equal station at birth " ! Radical ideas for the time, radical ideas even today. The philosophy of a sovereign individual in contemporary America is quite foreign to citizens of our country as a concept today, consider that our present government mandates everything from wages to light bulbs, to how many gallons of water our toilets can flush. Cannot that kind of control over a people be a contradiction to Jefferson's notion of " among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the description Jefferson gave of unalienable rights ?
It is their right, it is their duty, was Jefferson's way to say to all people who inhabit this globe that as children of God we all have a responsibility to throw of the chains of tyranny when we see them. It is an axiomatic statement for all time, for all people. It is imperative to take the time to know what is an improper form of governance against a free people, and to alter or abolish that form of government when necessary to " Secure these rights ". Continuing with Jefferson's thoughts " And to provide new guards for their future security " was to point out that thinking forward as we establish a society of freedom we are obligated to consider how to maintain such a society of liberty and prosperity, so that those ideas of freedom will become timeless.
Make no mistake, freedom is divine. Jefferson himself made this clear to all when he penned " and for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine providence " he was indeed referencing God and the desire of the creator for all his children to be free. There should be no doubt that Mr. Jefferson who had read John Locke, Barlamaqui, and Vattel was influenced by the enlightenment and the writers and philosphers espousing the enlightenment, but the very soul of all of the culmination of his readings was that Divinity, God almighy himself reigned over man, and that in nature man is to be free.
The Declaration of Independence called for the seperation of the colonies from Britain, that act was in defiance to the crown, and would be seen as cause for war. It was a calculated move on the part of the founders, who would go on to fight a revolution, and form a country to be known as " the United States of America " a republic to be founded on the idea of a sovereign individual, who would have the right to life, liberty, and property. A society where one could worship god as they individually saw fit to do, to live their lives without coercion. It was a declaration to the world, a declaration to the world for a world of liberty.
for further reading on this check out these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html
Monday, July 4, 2011
Saturday, July 2, 2011
A Resolution of Liberty
The Lee Resolution was brought to Congress for the expressed purpose of Declaring Independence. The resolution was voted on in 1776 July the 2nd. It was approved. The formal declaration was revealed to the public on the 4th of July 1776. The Declaration was intended to be a statement expressing grievances against the crown, thus justifying the move to independence, the Declaration however became something much broader, and more bolder than declaring independence, it became a statement declaring " The Rights of Man " and the legitimacy of self governance.
The Lee resolution was being debated over for a period of days, and finally had been adopted. What led to this resolution ? Why would a Colony of subjects decide to overthrow the rule of a King ? How did these " Americans " come to the conclusion that the crown had only " Their " best interest at heart, rather than the interest of the common good ? Benjamin Franklin would have been one of those founders who had an influence on this, for example while traveling in Europe, his visit to Ireland gave him first hand observance of the level of poverty that had been inflicted on the Irish because of the trade restrictions installed there, his fear was that those same restrictions would impoverish the American colonies as well. Mr. Franklin had been able to obtain private letters from then Governor Hutchinson. The " Hutchinson Letters Affair " demonstrated quite conclusively that the Rights of Bostonians were to be quelled with the aid of London.
The Intolerable acts having been enacted over a period of years after the Seven Years War, were viewed as being hostile to the American Colonies. The Quebec Act though not directly intended to effect Massachusetts, was seen in any event as a punishment for behaviour of independent political will, and was a tool to keep the Colonies in Disciplined order for the Crown. There was no doubt that the most powerful Nation on the globe at that time had every intention of keeping the American Colonies subjugated to the will of a King. General Washington at this time was facing the British during the siege of Boston. British Cannon's had fired on the town of Boston, and soldiers sent out to find munitions and weapons. Could the message be any clearer ?
The Lee Resolution was quite bold. The very act itself was a message to a King. It flatly stated you have no dominion here. For it's time it was an unthinkable act. The consequences for such an act surely meant death. The Empire continually stepped up more aggressive measures for every act of " rebellion " it saw from the colonies. And now a declaration from it's people that claims, we no longer want, or need you, or further more desire to serve you. An entirely unprecedented act. We are seeing similar parallels in our more contemporary times, the " Arab Spring " and the violence in China are signs that the Human condition is to seek liberty. By understanding our founders, perhaps we can further understand others who desire to live " In a World of Liberty".
For further reading on this please follow these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Resolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerable_Acts
The Lee resolution was being debated over for a period of days, and finally had been adopted. What led to this resolution ? Why would a Colony of subjects decide to overthrow the rule of a King ? How did these " Americans " come to the conclusion that the crown had only " Their " best interest at heart, rather than the interest of the common good ? Benjamin Franklin would have been one of those founders who had an influence on this, for example while traveling in Europe, his visit to Ireland gave him first hand observance of the level of poverty that had been inflicted on the Irish because of the trade restrictions installed there, his fear was that those same restrictions would impoverish the American colonies as well. Mr. Franklin had been able to obtain private letters from then Governor Hutchinson. The " Hutchinson Letters Affair " demonstrated quite conclusively that the Rights of Bostonians were to be quelled with the aid of London.
The Intolerable acts having been enacted over a period of years after the Seven Years War, were viewed as being hostile to the American Colonies. The Quebec Act though not directly intended to effect Massachusetts, was seen in any event as a punishment for behaviour of independent political will, and was a tool to keep the Colonies in Disciplined order for the Crown. There was no doubt that the most powerful Nation on the globe at that time had every intention of keeping the American Colonies subjugated to the will of a King. General Washington at this time was facing the British during the siege of Boston. British Cannon's had fired on the town of Boston, and soldiers sent out to find munitions and weapons. Could the message be any clearer ?
The Lee Resolution was quite bold. The very act itself was a message to a King. It flatly stated you have no dominion here. For it's time it was an unthinkable act. The consequences for such an act surely meant death. The Empire continually stepped up more aggressive measures for every act of " rebellion " it saw from the colonies. And now a declaration from it's people that claims, we no longer want, or need you, or further more desire to serve you. An entirely unprecedented act. We are seeing similar parallels in our more contemporary times, the " Arab Spring " and the violence in China are signs that the Human condition is to seek liberty. By understanding our founders, perhaps we can further understand others who desire to live " In a World of Liberty".
For further reading on this please follow these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Resolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerable_Acts
Friday, July 1, 2011
Enlightened
The American Declaration of Independence was unique in many ways. However the guiding principles tended to gravitate toward the idea of a Sovereign individual. Locke had proposed the idea that in nature all men were equal and independent. This is quite the opposite of the Divine Right of Kings, which had been the prevailing thought of many European standards of the time. The idea as proposed in the Declaration that it is the right of an individual to " the pursuit of happiness " shows how radical the founders were in their time. It is radical in this time as well.
Even in our day in age we are not pursuing policies that are designed for the freedom of the individual, but rather for the collective, or the Federal Government itself. Much of the current discussion of the balanced budget for example is the cost of what programs ? Medicare. Medicaid. Social Security. They are ideas promulgated from Socialist Systems adapted to the American Republic. To consider adopting a complete elimination of these three programs would be considered unthinkable in our time. In England during the 1600's there were poverty laws enacted much as we have a welfare state today ( and for much the same reason ) yet thru our Declaration the American experience was to be different. We have com full circle, have we not ?
The idea that each individual born has " inalienable " rights is a radical idea, the common thought at the inception of the Declaration was those rights included Life,Liberty, and Property. Today we have advocates for the right to Health care, a Job, Housing. A striking difference. It was enlightenment that brought the founders to there conclusions. They were students of History. Well versed in the Tyrants of the past, and in their time the present. We would be wise as well to study this Tyranny. It can come in many forms, it can come in many shapes, but a well rounded view of freedom is essential to knowing the difference.
After the French and Indian War, there were many disgruntled colonists. The central theme was taxation without representation. In our time we face a similar dilemma, try influencing your Congressman with your block club for example, while Lobbyists fill the pockets of your " Representative ". The siege of Boston took place because of the Boston Tea Party. This lead to events that took the Colonies to Declare Independence. The guiding principles were the enlightened idea of the sovereign individual. The idea that no authority could lay claim over you as a person because in nature we all exist in equality. That would make today's legislator's appear to be dictators by comparison, and in fact many ways are. It would depend of course on how you wish to define freedom. It does not come thru the security offered by the state, but rather thru the absence of the state. Natural Rights preexist any form of government. That was the view of the founders.
In the period that lay between the Seven Years War, and the Declaration of Independence there was much reflection on the nature of government, and what role it played in the lives of individuals, that reflection .... that enlightened view of that role lead to the conclusion that a man has the right to live for his own sake. I would encourage all to reflect on that as well, it is indeed what the signing was about, our Republic if it is to flourish must reflect on what the rebellion was really about, it is what the 4th of July is about.
For further reading check out these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1010a.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
Even in our day in age we are not pursuing policies that are designed for the freedom of the individual, but rather for the collective, or the Federal Government itself. Much of the current discussion of the balanced budget for example is the cost of what programs ? Medicare. Medicaid. Social Security. They are ideas promulgated from Socialist Systems adapted to the American Republic. To consider adopting a complete elimination of these three programs would be considered unthinkable in our time. In England during the 1600's there were poverty laws enacted much as we have a welfare state today ( and for much the same reason ) yet thru our Declaration the American experience was to be different. We have com full circle, have we not ?
The idea that each individual born has " inalienable " rights is a radical idea, the common thought at the inception of the Declaration was those rights included Life,Liberty, and Property. Today we have advocates for the right to Health care, a Job, Housing. A striking difference. It was enlightenment that brought the founders to there conclusions. They were students of History. Well versed in the Tyrants of the past, and in their time the present. We would be wise as well to study this Tyranny. It can come in many forms, it can come in many shapes, but a well rounded view of freedom is essential to knowing the difference.
After the French and Indian War, there were many disgruntled colonists. The central theme was taxation without representation. In our time we face a similar dilemma, try influencing your Congressman with your block club for example, while Lobbyists fill the pockets of your " Representative ". The siege of Boston took place because of the Boston Tea Party. This lead to events that took the Colonies to Declare Independence. The guiding principles were the enlightened idea of the sovereign individual. The idea that no authority could lay claim over you as a person because in nature we all exist in equality. That would make today's legislator's appear to be dictators by comparison, and in fact many ways are. It would depend of course on how you wish to define freedom. It does not come thru the security offered by the state, but rather thru the absence of the state. Natural Rights preexist any form of government. That was the view of the founders.
In the period that lay between the Seven Years War, and the Declaration of Independence there was much reflection on the nature of government, and what role it played in the lives of individuals, that reflection .... that enlightened view of that role lead to the conclusion that a man has the right to live for his own sake. I would encourage all to reflect on that as well, it is indeed what the signing was about, our Republic if it is to flourish must reflect on what the rebellion was really about, it is what the 4th of July is about.
For further reading check out these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1010a.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
Thursday, June 30, 2011
A World Event that Created a World of Liberty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years'_War
As we near the date of the 4th of July, a day in which we celebrate our Declaration of Independence, I have started to reflect on what precipitated this bold declaration. For it's time it was indeed extremely bold. There were indeed World powers at that time. Global powers. The sphere of influence economically and political were so powerful that to challenge any of these powers I would surmise would be suicidal. Yet the colonies of North America did indeed do that. Why ?
The short version I suppose is taxation without representation. But what did that mean to those who lived on these shores in say 1765 ? The Seven Years War was known in these parts as the French and Indian Wars. It was a theatre of a larger campaign in a global conflict. There was a desire of the Native people to rid the Continent of the English Settlers. The French had allied themselves with many Native tribes, and in there desire to keep the English from gaining a strong foothold of Colonies in this part of the globe were more than happy to oblige the Native tribes of ridding this Continent of a strong English presence. What does that have to do with 1776 ?
Plenty. Wars need to be paid for. And pay the English did. It cost huge sums of money in ships, guns, powder, men, material. So much so that it became the attitude of many in the English Parliament that it was time that those receiving such benefit of such a benevolent Crown that perhaps it was time to share in the burden of cost. That is an argument espoused by some Americans today with our Military being used abroad. What the colonists begin to feel however is that if they were to share in the burden of the cost thru taxation, then they deserved representation in Parliament, this however was not an option Parliament was willing to give. Can you imagine someone from Afghanistan or Iraq demanding an equal seat in Congress today ? There would be a parallel. I believe the modern reaction would be much the same.
North America was a theatre of the entire campaign much as North Africa was to World War II. We were not the cause of, or the reason the conflict started. But the events that occurred during and after the war were the seeds that started the American revolution. Because of that war, and the events unforeseen during and afterwards was created " A World of Liberty "
For further reading on this please check out the following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Plains_of_Abraham
As we near the date of the 4th of July, a day in which we celebrate our Declaration of Independence, I have started to reflect on what precipitated this bold declaration. For it's time it was indeed extremely bold. There were indeed World powers at that time. Global powers. The sphere of influence economically and political were so powerful that to challenge any of these powers I would surmise would be suicidal. Yet the colonies of North America did indeed do that. Why ?
The short version I suppose is taxation without representation. But what did that mean to those who lived on these shores in say 1765 ? The Seven Years War was known in these parts as the French and Indian Wars. It was a theatre of a larger campaign in a global conflict. There was a desire of the Native people to rid the Continent of the English Settlers. The French had allied themselves with many Native tribes, and in there desire to keep the English from gaining a strong foothold of Colonies in this part of the globe were more than happy to oblige the Native tribes of ridding this Continent of a strong English presence. What does that have to do with 1776 ?
Plenty. Wars need to be paid for. And pay the English did. It cost huge sums of money in ships, guns, powder, men, material. So much so that it became the attitude of many in the English Parliament that it was time that those receiving such benefit of such a benevolent Crown that perhaps it was time to share in the burden of cost. That is an argument espoused by some Americans today with our Military being used abroad. What the colonists begin to feel however is that if they were to share in the burden of the cost thru taxation, then they deserved representation in Parliament, this however was not an option Parliament was willing to give. Can you imagine someone from Afghanistan or Iraq demanding an equal seat in Congress today ? There would be a parallel. I believe the modern reaction would be much the same.
North America was a theatre of the entire campaign much as North Africa was to World War II. We were not the cause of, or the reason the conflict started. But the events that occurred during and after the war were the seeds that started the American revolution. Because of that war, and the events unforeseen during and afterwards was created " A World of Liberty "
For further reading on this please check out the following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Plains_of_Abraham
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Blaze or not to Blaze
http://www.talkradionews.com/news/2011/6/23/the-baz-file-bipartisan-effort-would-protect-state-rights-on.html
I am not sure exactly how I feel.......... one the one hand just the fact that there are legislators who seem to partially understand that it is not THEIR rights that I am concerned over, but rather the rights of the people at large that I am concerned with and that those legislators are recognizing it with this particular issue is somewhat heartening to me. On the other hand seeing that the cake will have frosting......... I want those legislators to apply some intelligence and apply this same principle to all legislation. I do not smoke pot, and for truth in advertising never really cared for it...........( what I did like we can save for another discussion ) I know many young people, and many older people that smoke on a regular basis. Some are family members, others are friends. but it is a surprising percentage. I do not think I am unique in this experience. There is a reason it is a multi billion dollar enterprise ( not withstanding the inflated price because of the current legal status of it's usage) at the end of the day, there are a large number of people who enjoy the use of marijuana. It is a god given right that entitles an individual to use it, it is called the pursuit of happiness ( and when most folks use it they seem rather happy I might add ) name me the right that is violated when an individual uses marijuana ...... and thus my dilemma, these same legislators are considering how to tax the product, and regulate the distribution of the product, it drives me insane to hear that spoken in what is presumed to be the " freest " nation on earth. Just because a government has a rectal cranial inversion on a matter, that does not justify passing a law restricting the use of a product or stop an activity. Dislike it if you will, I have no problem with that ( as I said I do not use the stuff or like it either ) but using the current analogies of the day religion should be stopped immediately, after all how do you tax a church ? Until that is solved religion should be abolished. Doesn't make sense does it.
And neither do the current laws that abolish the use of marijuana. uphold your right........ blaze or not to blaze .... that is the question when you live in a " World of Liberty "
for further reading on this subject check out these links:
http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2011/06/21/news/doc4e013c427a339133142711.txt
http://www.themorningsun.com/articles/2011/06/23/news/doc4e02a09ab214e881471240.txt
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0912b.pdf
I am not sure exactly how I feel.......... one the one hand just the fact that there are legislators who seem to partially understand that it is not THEIR rights that I am concerned over, but rather the rights of the people at large that I am concerned with and that those legislators are recognizing it with this particular issue is somewhat heartening to me. On the other hand seeing that the cake will have frosting......... I want those legislators to apply some intelligence and apply this same principle to all legislation. I do not smoke pot, and for truth in advertising never really cared for it...........( what I did like we can save for another discussion ) I know many young people, and many older people that smoke on a regular basis. Some are family members, others are friends. but it is a surprising percentage. I do not think I am unique in this experience. There is a reason it is a multi billion dollar enterprise ( not withstanding the inflated price because of the current legal status of it's usage) at the end of the day, there are a large number of people who enjoy the use of marijuana. It is a god given right that entitles an individual to use it, it is called the pursuit of happiness ( and when most folks use it they seem rather happy I might add ) name me the right that is violated when an individual uses marijuana ...... and thus my dilemma, these same legislators are considering how to tax the product, and regulate the distribution of the product, it drives me insane to hear that spoken in what is presumed to be the " freest " nation on earth. Just because a government has a rectal cranial inversion on a matter, that does not justify passing a law restricting the use of a product or stop an activity. Dislike it if you will, I have no problem with that ( as I said I do not use the stuff or like it either ) but using the current analogies of the day religion should be stopped immediately, after all how do you tax a church ? Until that is solved religion should be abolished. Doesn't make sense does it.
And neither do the current laws that abolish the use of marijuana. uphold your right........ blaze or not to blaze .... that is the question when you live in a " World of Liberty "
for further reading on this subject check out these links:
http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2011/06/21/news/doc4e013c427a339133142711.txt
http://www.themorningsun.com/articles/2011/06/23/news/doc4e02a09ab214e881471240.txt
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0912b.pdf
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
YES ! your right but.....................
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/28/6732624-us-goes-on-offense-against-digital-piracy
Digital Piracy.......... the new scourge. Musicians cannot get paid for their music. Actors are not able to command the salaries once offered. Technicians and key grips can no longer be paid. All of this is true. So why is it that illegal downloads are so popular ? Because people can get something for free ......... you say ? Because the younger generation thinks that everything should be " just given to them " you say ?
I have deep respect for the artist who wants to be paid for their work, I fully understand why an investor would be unwilling to invest in a movie production if they cannot make a profit. The reality is, times have changed. There is no other way to look at it. Anyone in the world can upload a song, a movie, a book, a picture..... etc., name your medium, name your art, whatever it is, it can be digitized and put on the web. What is interesting to me at this juncture is the reaction of Studio's and artist to this reality. More the studio's .... a conglomeration of offices, and decisions that are far to costly in the digital age, gasping with their last breath to hold on to a model that has lasted what 70, 80 years ? The money wasted in court, on lawyers, on influencing legislatures, is money that could be spent on innovation, creation, and digital enhancement, but no. The preferred method is to sustain the old, and forget about the new. I was recently subjected to " Never Say Never " ( if you don't know don't ask..... trust me it is to YOUR benefit ) but there was something interesting about how this artist became known............. YOUTUBE ! Say what you will.... anyone can upload their talent, and it is the great equalizer...........and conversely anyone can watch it...........and that is the future......... American Idol........ minus a middleman or Judges.
In the end I am reminded of what Ludwig Von Mises wrote about and there are two things: The consumer is always........ and I mean ALWAYS in charge of the price of an item.
And it is the consumer who will determine the success or failure of anything in a Market.
These two fundamentals are axiomatic, and cannot be avoided. So my advice to anyone who is an artist of any kind is ......... get on board, or die the slow death that change can bring.
for further reading on this follow these links:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/09/technology/bittorrent_lawsuits/?section=money_latest
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/karaoke-loving-grandmother-convicted-of-illegal-downloading/239702/
http://mises.org/daily/1364
Digital Piracy.......... the new scourge. Musicians cannot get paid for their music. Actors are not able to command the salaries once offered. Technicians and key grips can no longer be paid. All of this is true. So why is it that illegal downloads are so popular ? Because people can get something for free ......... you say ? Because the younger generation thinks that everything should be " just given to them " you say ?
I have deep respect for the artist who wants to be paid for their work, I fully understand why an investor would be unwilling to invest in a movie production if they cannot make a profit. The reality is, times have changed. There is no other way to look at it. Anyone in the world can upload a song, a movie, a book, a picture..... etc., name your medium, name your art, whatever it is, it can be digitized and put on the web. What is interesting to me at this juncture is the reaction of Studio's and artist to this reality. More the studio's .... a conglomeration of offices, and decisions that are far to costly in the digital age, gasping with their last breath to hold on to a model that has lasted what 70, 80 years ? The money wasted in court, on lawyers, on influencing legislatures, is money that could be spent on innovation, creation, and digital enhancement, but no. The preferred method is to sustain the old, and forget about the new. I was recently subjected to " Never Say Never " ( if you don't know don't ask..... trust me it is to YOUR benefit ) but there was something interesting about how this artist became known............. YOUTUBE ! Say what you will.... anyone can upload their talent, and it is the great equalizer...........and conversely anyone can watch it...........and that is the future......... American Idol........ minus a middleman or Judges.
In the end I am reminded of what Ludwig Von Mises wrote about and there are two things: The consumer is always........ and I mean ALWAYS in charge of the price of an item.
And it is the consumer who will determine the success or failure of anything in a Market.
These two fundamentals are axiomatic, and cannot be avoided. So my advice to anyone who is an artist of any kind is ......... get on board, or die the slow death that change can bring.
for further reading on this follow these links:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/09/technology/bittorrent_lawsuits/?section=money_latest
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/karaoke-loving-grandmother-convicted-of-illegal-downloading/239702/
http://mises.org/daily/1364
Thursday, June 16, 2011
What Did We Win ?
I had a brief discussion about the current Pope with someone who was discussing the involvement he had as a child in the Hitler youth, which made me think of what National Socialism really was. At it's heart it was an economic order that was not Communism, nor a Free Market, rather it was indeed a planned economy, but it was a system to plan people and the economy. Why is that relevant to today in the United States ? Or rather how ?
Let's look at some Fundamental parts of the National Socialists programs:
11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program,
21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young
There are a total of 25 points that were presented these points listed are now common practice here in the United States, Our Social Security System was modeled after the German system, Our National Highway system was modeled after the Autobahn, the idea of relief for Single Mothers came from the Socialist System. The comparisons are endless, the point is that we have adopted a full scale system of government controls over our lives and property. If you do not think so try smoking a cigarette in a Bar in Michigan. Not only are the property rights violated of the owner of the establishment, but the Sovereign right of the individual who practices such a habit are violated. This can only happen in a society that has a system of rights " granted " by a Central Authority, rather than a decentralized system, where the government is designed to protect the rights of it's citizens.
I have often reflected on the horror that stemmed from that horrible conflict, but in retrospect we have lost our values, the values that cherish the rights of an individual, rather than subjugating those rights to a Centralized authority, which begs the question then ..... What then did we really win ?
If the United States had maintained it's values of individual Sovereignty of it's citizens and had insisted that " The Rights of Man " were the guiding factor of governance, than this country would still be the foundation of " A World of Liberty "
For further reading check out these links:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Program_of_the_NSDAP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0498a.asp
Let's look at some Fundamental parts of the National Socialists programs:
11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program,
21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young
There are a total of 25 points that were presented these points listed are now common practice here in the United States, Our Social Security System was modeled after the German system, Our National Highway system was modeled after the Autobahn, the idea of relief for Single Mothers came from the Socialist System. The comparisons are endless, the point is that we have adopted a full scale system of government controls over our lives and property. If you do not think so try smoking a cigarette in a Bar in Michigan. Not only are the property rights violated of the owner of the establishment, but the Sovereign right of the individual who practices such a habit are violated. This can only happen in a society that has a system of rights " granted " by a Central Authority, rather than a decentralized system, where the government is designed to protect the rights of it's citizens.
I have often reflected on the horror that stemmed from that horrible conflict, but in retrospect we have lost our values, the values that cherish the rights of an individual, rather than subjugating those rights to a Centralized authority, which begs the question then ..... What then did we really win ?
If the United States had maintained it's values of individual Sovereignty of it's citizens and had insisted that " The Rights of Man " were the guiding factor of governance, than this country would still be the foundation of " A World of Liberty "
For further reading check out these links:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Program_of_the_NSDAP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0498a.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)