. Every body wants something and nothing comes without a price.
The real question man has to ask himself is what price to pay for liberty. Patrick Henry said give me liberty or give me death. He was willing to fight and die to farther the cause of liberty. Liberty is taken for granted by most, and I doubt most of the men and women who live today are willing to pay such a high price. Those who paid the highest of price should be honored by all of us as well as the men and women who are willing to make that sacrifice today, even if this is for corporate imperialism and calling it the quest for liberty. I wish I knew the answer to when it becomes necessary to fight and die, but our county for the most part has always been imperialist and the exploitation of other people is driven by the desire for more wealth and status. This really isnt any different than other forms of government and true to Marxist theory all governments evolve in a cycle from capitalism to socialism to communism. I also find it interesting all the different categories and the buzz words they create that people use to differ themselves from one of the above categories. Terms such as Communitism, compassionate conservative etc. The internet is full of sites that explain why their brand of government is different from the other.
Here is the problem: people are brainwashed into thinking that they ARE free, but are unable to see the bureacratic maze of laws as being for their
enslavement rather than their protection.
They believe that these laws are just, because they live in a "democracy," but don't even know what that means; ultimately they believe that it means mob-rule, but that this is acceptable because "the will of the majority is always right--" or at last that "that's the price of freedom, the lesser of two evils," and other sound-byte logic.
They don't realize that it means "government by consent of the governed," and that said governments are solely for the purposes of securing the inalienable rights of the people, with which they are equally endowed by their creator-- and that whenever government becomes destuctive to these rights, it's their right to alter or abolish it and elect new governemnt.
Likewise, they don't realize that "consent" means INFORMED consent, i.e. the right to give or refuse consent based on full knowledge of the FACTS regarding the law and history of original intent; as such, virtually NO ONE is consenting to the current establishement, under which they are NOT told that the states are sovereign nations under the legal requirements of the law and Constitution, each bound solely by its own voluntary act.
As such, their "consent" is merely "duped compliance," which is literally no different from compliance bought under threat of force-- in fact it's far WORSE, since at least a forced slave KNOWS he's both; meanwhile a
duped slave lives under the mind-destroying delusion that he's neither.
In reality, the people are slaves to a corporate-statist empire, but are brainwashed in to saying that they have liberty and justice-- but still are forced to pledge allegiance to the USA as one indivisible nation.
And that's just the FIRST of many lies which maintain their enslavement.
In reality, they live under an absolutist state, which holds individual rights SECONDARY to the dictates of corporate-run special-interests.
Meanwhile, the majority of elections are determined almost entirely by special intersts, partisan-media and rational ignorance-- as well as brainwashed propaganda.
And no, this is not one BIT exaggerated; not ONE American war was a just war against domination. Likewise, private work-product is subject to state-attachment via taxations, and almost ALL private interactions are dictated by the state, being limited only to those who carry the proper state-license, education, or other state-permission-- or which conform to proper state-regulations. Private choice is re-defined from anything which doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, to only that which the state specifically allows-- for whatever reason.
Enter the evil nature of man.
Well, here I will be politically correct-- literally-- and say "ethically challenged;" simply put, most people haven't been educated as to the raw facts or ethics of the situation, and so they're basically dwelling in barbarism in this regard; meanwhile various sociological myths pervade which claim to attribute freedom to our society, by blaming the discontent for their own situations.
Here then, likewise, is the factor of elitism as pertains to an oppression as self-validating form of Social Darwinism, by which their superior social status simply confirms their superior
nature.However this "new-age aristocratic" form of elitism takes this one step further, to take further credit for this elite status by claiming to have
chosen it through their "hard work" and diligence, thus attributing their superior status, to superior character-- rather than simply random facts of nature; this frees them even from any ethical duty of compassion for the less fortunate- or even the self-interest that they themselves could wind up in that situation, since again they take credit for
not being in such via their "planning and hard work" while their "inferiors' were choosing to be lazy and self-indulgent.
In all, however, this simply turns results in factionalism, i.e. turning people against each other, since they're all being exploited and don't know the source; Democrats and Republicans pretend to blame each other, but in the end they go to dinner while the voters go to work.
You have so eloquently defined the problem. In the corporate world it is expected that if you point out a problem, you also have a solution or be labeled a complainer. You have so far declined to present your opinion on what to do to fix this mess.
I don't understand where you could get that idea: I thought I'd made quite clear that the states should be freed, as the Constitution requires: every state being a sovereign nation, bound only by its own voluntary agreement. In fact I've stated it at least 7 or 8 times.
However if I wasn't direct enough, I'll say it again: EVERY STATE IS A SOVEREIGN NATION. By doing this, the government will be decentralized from a corporate-statist controlled empire, into a voluntary association of separate nations, each with the supreme power of self-ownership-- and self-government. Federal laws are simply BY-laws-- BY which the states AGREE to govern themselves-- but only on a voluntary basis, NEVER by threat of force.
The Civil War did NOT change the law, and so the original meaning of the law must prevail; legally, the stats are still sovereign nations, and this law must, by its own definitions and requirements, be enforced as written.
There's not much to understand about Constitutional law: the states are sovereign, period. Without that fundamental cornerstone, then the Constitution becomes whatever the federal government claims, since ultimately the individual states determined this by virtue of accepting it-- ala "the customer is always right."
Now compare this to a captive audience-- which is literally what the individual states are-- and you see how America has gone from a democracy to demogoguery. No longer could a single state control policy by nullifying abusive federal law
The Declaration of Independence claims that governments derive their just powers through consent of the governed, and that it's the right of the people to alter or abolish government which they believe destroys their rights; however this no longer becomes the case once sovereignty is destroyed.
However, Lincoln twisted the words of the Founders, who stated that "whenever governments become destructive to their rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it."
In contrast, Lincoln stated that "any people, being inclined
and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better."
Here then, in Lincoln's mind, it seems that rights are contingent solely upon
might, rather than inalienable endowment from one's creator.
In this sense, governments do not derive "just powers" by consent of the governed; for its seems that there ARE no just or unjust powers-- just power
per se.
And so, we may logically conclude that if those with the power, have the right to shake off government-- then they do
not have the power, then they don't have any rights.
Hence with these words, Lincoln essentially declared a Constitutional
coup de tat-- or
coup de grace as would be more accurate--- that government derived its just powers not through consent of the governed, for the purpose of securing their inalienable rights, equally endowed them by their creator; rather, he declared that governments derived their just powers
by any means necessary-- a purely Machiavellian precept.
As such, it is no surprise that Lincoln was such a ruthless and murdering dictator: for we see from his rhetoric that he was simply a Machiavellian pragmatist who saw not truth, but POWER as a defense of itself-- and an end which justified all means... particularly since history is written by the victors.
Hence, it's essential-- even OBLIGATORY -- that every person make an effort to look past Lincoln's hagiographers (i.e. spin-doctors ) to look at the facts of how Lincoln was certainly the most deranged tyrant in world history, and that the United States is by no means the "land of the free," but the home of the SLAVE.
But this isn't really necessary to arrive at the conclusion, that the states were declared as free, sovereign and independent nations--and that the Constitution retains such respective, independent sovereignty.
However Lincoln's corrupt philosphy, is entirely
consistent with reasons for his interpretations of the Constitution to the contrary. Indeed, no serious
legal argument could sustain them.
