Some Words to Ponder....

[nofearengineer]

An excerpt from the Declaration of Independence that has been weighing much more heavily on my mind lately:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[WTL]

That line was addressed to everyone for all time.


But there is a huge importance involved in how they throw off such Government. Part of the brilliance of the revolution is, they did not say in 1770, to the British, "you are tyrants that have no rights to rule over us and we will resist with the pitchfork and musket should you try". No, they tried to be reasonable. So we should be. Military confrontation is a long way off, if ever. It is the worst possible idea, cause it changes what the argument is about. We have so much more power in just saying "No!" and letting the federal government deal with 50 states pursuing their own prerogatives.

[Ebbetsguy]

No Fear Posted:

An excerpt from the Declaration of Independence that has been weighing much more heavily on my mind lately:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.




You kind of missed some stuff before this
which can give a different meaning to the passage;
Here it is in it's entirity
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


which gives this a different meaning

the most important was the fact the colonies were at issue with a King, not a leader they voted for. Revolution,bloodless revlution can happen here ever 4 years, in the form of an election,Thank God.

[nofearengineer]

I didn't paraphrase. I clearly stated that is was an excerpt. From the world's most famous document, no less, so it's not like I was taking something out of context.

I'm always willing to discuss the founding though, so here goes.

I, for one, do not believe bloodless revolutions exist. A revolution that appears to be so, is merely one in which the bloodletting is a delayed response.

Much like what happened at the polls in November of 2008. A large enough group of people decided they wanted a revolution, and managed to talk an even larger group of people (useful idiots) into the notion that it wasn't really going to be a revolution, and here we stand.

[1/4 stick]

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

I didn't paraphrase. I clearly stated that is was an excerpt. From the world's most famous document, no less, so it's not like I was taking something out of context.

I'm always willing to discuss the founding though, so here goes.

I, for one, do not believe bloodless revolutions exist. A revolution that appears to be so, is merely one in which the bloodletting is a delayed response.

Much like what happened at the polls in November of 2008. A large enough group of people decided they wanted a revolution, and managed to talk an even larger group of people (useful idiots) into the notion that it wasn't really going to be a revolution, and here we stand.

There will be a 6% tax on standing.

[WTL]

Originally Posted by Ebbetsguy

No Fear Posted:

An excerpt from the Declaration of Independence that has been weighing much more heavily on my mind lately:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.




You kind of missed some stuff before this
which can give a different meaning to the passage;
Here it is in it's entirity
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


which gives this a different meaning

the most important was the fact the colonies were at issue with a King, not a leader they voted for. Revolution,bloodless revlution can happen here ever 4 years, in the form of an election,Thank God.

There is a large amount of difference between an election and a revolution. Elections are a changing of faces and names, but not a system. Revolutions are changing the system along with the faces.

It is true that there is representation today whereas in the colonies, there was not. That would suggest that we should be more prudent than the founders in our actions towards the current arrangement of power. Our case versus the federal government is not as strong as the case of the founders against King George III.

But there is a case. The current arrangement has been skewed towards the federal government by a combination of legal amendments and willful misinterpretation of the Constitution to advance a worldview counter to that which best preserves liberty. It is up to us, to work peacefully and pragmatically to restore the system as best as we can. This can be done through argument, persuasion and civil disobedience.

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by WTL

It is up to us, to work peacefully and pragmatically to restore the system as best as we can. This can be done through argument, persuasion and civil disobedience.

I agree with you in essence, WTL. If we all behaved this way, the world would be a better place. I simply fear that this line of reasoning is being held up to pacify us until we are no longer capable of choosing the other method. We feel trepidation about the use of violence. I suspect "they" will have no such trepidation about the use of force when they feel sure of the outcome.

By "they", of course, I mean the party that was in power at the outbreak of WWI, WWII, The Korean War, and Viet Nam. I only use these examples as a rebuttal of the commonly held belief that "they" are non-violent.

Anyways....off for the drive home.

[Ebbetsguy]

I edited out paraphrase, because it is not what I meant, it is not there, sorry.
I am not going to disucss politics,especially on a fishing site. I will take every oppurtunity to speak out against violence however. I was shot ,twice in the mid section, I have a partial slug still stuck close to my back bone and lost a good portion of my pancreatic function. This happened when I was 23, it took until these last months to work the anger and fear that I carried , because of this event. After working through a lot of that I have chosen to try and point things around me away from violent solutions. I am sorry for the use of the word paraphrase, i wanted to express that section, right in the begining of the DOI , was setting the stage for free elections, and should be viewed in it's entirety.Us and they is the language of fear. I have stated my feeling, now I will bow out of this discussion, no one will change anyones mind.
Have a good night, it is good to be back home in Brooklyn, Neighborhood reunion tomorrow

[WTL]

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

I agree with you in essence, WTL. If we all behaved this way, the world would be a better place. I simply fear that this line of reasoning is being held up to pacify us until we are no longer capable of choosing the other method. We feel trepidation about the use of violence. I suspect "they" will have no such trepidation about the use of force when they feel sure of the outcome.

By "they", of course, I mean the party that was in power at the outbreak of WWI, WWII, The Korean War, and Viet Nam. I only use these examples as a rebuttal of the commonly held belief that "they" are non-violent.

Anyways....off for the drive home.

Pacify? Never. You can resist without being violent. I am talking about active resistance if the opportunity emerges. But it never should be violent, short of a war that is started by the other guys. And talking violence does no service to us, it is as futile and divisive to us as it was to the civil rights movement when the black panthers started up their garbage. You dont need it. Its a weakened method for achieving anything you want. Need another example? Do you think Osama attacked us because we were free?

Hell no. He attacked us cause he is a nut and we were in Saudi Arabia. In his mind, violence brought to bear against the US would make us want to leave Arabia. Did it? No, it made us return to Iraq and go into afghanistan. It ended up in leading to the opposite of what he wanted. More often than not, violence results in the opposite of one's political objective. The exceptions are very few.


--------------------------------------------------
Back to our predicament.

We are on an unsustainable course right now. The amount of inflation coming is going to cause widespread economic troubles that will be enough to make it positively necessary for what the euros are doing now; austerity.

When that happens, there will be opportunity for the states and local communities to thrust reality upon the federal government and those who are still asleep and think its normal to spend like we spend with no hope of ever paying it back or people who think that prosperity comes from regulation or government insight.

What will happen is a period of weakening in the central government as states assert themselves, some states pursuing productive policies, some not. And out of that great process, the states that behave responsibly will thrive and serve as examples of real progress, they will be the shining beacons on a hill that lead us out of this morass.

What we must do to ensure that thing happen for the good is promote education, free speech and discussion, and certain policies that are likely to leave us in a better position once the **** splatters on the walls (its already hit the fan).

[coachpurdy]

"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

[nofearengineer]

That all sounds good, WTL. I wish/hope you were/are right.

I just think back to the American Revolution. It was not the British who threw the first punch. It is a commonly held belief that the British started it...The Boston Massacre. However, it would appear that fight was started by a bunch of angry, drunken Americans throwing sticks and cobblestones at the "Redcoats." As I see it...that one turned out pretty well for us. So yes, sometimes good does come of violence.

It is my belief that the violence is inevitable, if not from within, from without, via a "wag the dog" incident gone awry. I'm not going to be the person to start it. I would just advocate that you be ready for it when it does start, if you can ever really be ready for something like that.

War is too full of random events, and takes on a life of its own. War is really not about the individual. It is about the society. The Nazis did not destroy Germany because Hitler was a bad man. Germany was destroyed because they were strong of will, but weak of character, and allowed themselves to be led past the point of no return by a bad man. That is the path I fear.

War is not like love; it only takes one side to start a war. The other side is at war whether it wants to be or not. If I corner a bobcat, did the bobcat cause the fight, or did I? It is not in the nature of a bobcat to be cornered. I see the American spirit the same way (at least some of us). It is not in our nature to be cornered. Whose fault will it be when that fight happens?

[WTL]

There is nothing wrong with arming oneself in case it might be necessary, and yes the 2nd amendment was understood in the context of citizens arming themselves should government become tyrannical.

What we are in this for is a political objective. It is also a naturally occurring thing. The cold war was not won with the force you are speaking of. The USSR fell because of eternal economic truths. It fell because tyranny is unstable.

What I am saying is that the best economic system that ever existed did so as a naturally occurring thing. No person devised capitalism. It does not require rulers to be pulling certain levers for a particular outcome. It happens as naturally as any person, who has a dream and a work ethic and a desire to achieve something, will achieve it. You have 7 billion people on this earth with a diverse set of desires, wants and needs, and that very same 7 billion has the skills necessary to provide for all those needs. All you need for it to work is freedom and people being left to their own pursuits, in conjunction with a fair system of justice to enforce contracts and rights. The shadow of that system remains in this country.

You can thank God that we live in a country which has a history of being free. There is a precedent here (that the russians lacked) that can easily be renewed into reality. Bryce, we are in a position of power. I know you don't feel like that, but they have their hands all over something they cannot control.

To achieve the political objectives requires little more than every one of us pursuing and exercising our rights, whether they approve or not. The government is huge and it is powerful. We would never beat the US military anyway if we could somehow arrange a fight with them, but that is just a hypothetical since our military is on our side more than theirs. We will fight in a way that we cannot lose, and we will win.

[nofearengineer]

I hope I feel better about it come November. Not because I'm such a fan of the Republicans.....mostly because it will stop the feeling of freefall into sheer ridiculousness.

I picture Madison and Hamilton, Adams and Jefferson, etc. having these philosophical debates. It makes me smile.

[Rebbasser]

Our freedoms are being taken away little by little. We would be in a lot better shape if the government would just get the hell out of the way and let us live our lives like Americans always have and not try to regulate every single aspect of our lives. Now it is trying to tell us what we can or cannot eat. The government is getting more and more oppressive, but fortunately America is starting to wake up and get fed up with all this crap they are trying to shove down our throats. Hopefully "change we can believe in" will start in November.

I just want the government to start doing what is right, but i sure ain't holding my breath.

I think we ought to send the "leaders" glass belt buckles. They have their collective heads so far up their backsides they need a glass belt buckle to see out.

[bassinbob]

How many of us are willing to be sheep or die defending what our forefathers fought for? I ain't no fricken sheep.