Posts Tagged ‘liberty’


The Risk of Civil Unrest…

November 15, 2017

is the Price of Liberty….

While it doesn’t always appear as such, when the world is in turmoil with chaos and uncertainty reigning supreme, citizens and government become more attentive to working in their own best interests. That doesn’t necessarily translate to them working in each other’s best interest. We are living in such a time right now.

It’s not the first time. In fact, we have a form of government today that was built from the ashes of civil unrest more than 240 years ago and whose founders intentionally structured it to allow for civil unrest. Considering the context of the day, it made great sense to protect the ability of the people to protest and confront the excesses and missteps of their government, and this was recognized as being in the best interests of both that government and the people alike.

Human nature being what it is, however, whenever civil unrest has occurred between then and now, that very government has responded “in its own best interests” by adding restrictions to limit the potential for civil unrest in the future.

It is no paradox that if our form of government is to survive, it must not only allow for the potential of civil unrest, that potential and all of the risk it entails must be embraced and defended. In any civilized society, of course, there must be certain parameters drawn by the people around their own behaviors in order to strike a balance between the chaos of unrestricted civil unrest and the lifelessness of unrestricted order.

Unfortunately, in part because of the complacency of the people and in part because of the natural tendency of governments to take on lives of their own when permitted to do so, that balance has begun to list precipitously to port, with the government claiming to act in the best interests of the people, while, actually seeing to its own interests instead. Such a claim, by definition, is oxymoronic.


~-~* * *~-~



Regarding the “MORON”…

December 14, 2016

part of oxymoron and reason number 999 why I hate Facebook….

I don’t go looking for this stuff, honestly. It just seems to jump out of the bushes at me while I’m on the way to something else, like that goddamned Chihuahua that jumped out of a hedge line and sunk his miserable little teeth into my ankle back when I was in college. I tried to punt the snarling coprolite into the next county but he was too quick for me. The upside is that the little shit likely died fifty years ago.

But, I digress. I was talking about those off-the-wall websites and other waste products that some jerk I never met, sitting in an office thousands of miles from here, decides I really need to check out, join, or at least pay attention to so the referral source gets that fraction of a penny for a “hit.” Facebook is one of the worst for presuming the right to dwell in the global mind, heart, soul, and rectal orifice, and it was there that I was threatened with a web-group called…get this…”Libertarian Socialism.”

I’ve been trying to reconcile the use of the adjective “libertarian” in combination with “socialism”, but so far have failed. Perhaps it’s at an intellectual level beyond my reach, but I can’t get past the thought that “Libertarian socialism” has a bit of an oxymoronic ring to it, you know, sort of like “Celibate Prostitution.”

Of course, I had to check it out.

First of all, I have to say that the concept is real, in the sense that such a political philosophy has been around for a long time. I didn’t know that until I looked it up. Being given shelf space in some remote lexicon closet does not legitimize or validate the term, or any other, however. It merely acknowledges that the term had been coined and enjoys a reasonably stable definition, and is therefore, at least on that score, equal to any other “ism.”

That doesn’t belie my assessment, though. I stand by it. My first involvement with Libertarianism began many decades ago, whenever it was that I first read something by Ayn Rand, and later during the seventies when I registered as a Libertarian and voted for Ed Clark for President. My understanding has always been that “libertarian” referred to a concept of community that eschewed force in favor of volunteerism. Liberty.

Secondly, the first thing I encountered upon tiptoeing through the iron gate of the Libertarian Socialist page was the welcoming message:

“this is a place to discuss libertarian socialism. trolls, reactionaries, racists & race realists, etc. are not welcome. ableism, queerphobia, transphobia, misogyny and other forms of reactionary discrimination are not welcome. this includes libertarian capitalists/ancaps/right libertarians and so-called “anarcho” nationalists. violations of these rules may result in a ban, both for the person who does them and possibly the person who invited them to the group as well.

Here again, I was tripped up by my preconceptions regarding definition. I thought I had learned way back when that “socialism” was an economic idea based on social, society-wide, ownership and democratic control of the means of production. I’ve never liked it because it disenfranchises the individual in favor of mob rule over the utilization of one’s assets, and it depends upon force to maintain its form. Despite verbiage to the contrary, it does not represent liberty.

Obviously then, the philosophy of “libertarian socialism“, at least the form offered by the internet group in question, eschews liberty and freedom of speech in favor of an authoritarian, narrowly prescribed menu of permitted sub-philosophies of the newspeak variety. The only reason I could think of why someone would wish to “join” such a group would be (1) if they could be in charge, or (2) could be located near enough to the emperor’s ass to facilitate profitable sycophancy.

Sycophancy has never been my strong suit, however, due in part to an unfortunate lifelong bilateral Tourettes-like tic in my middle digits.

They (Faceplant, et al)really should let me window-shop for my own points of interest and curiosity.  Nine times out of ten while at the end of Mr. Zuckerberg’s tether and choke-collar I find myself misdirected to some flame hole or digital Rubber Room that lacks any compatibility with me or my vapor trail. Just because I spent 30 seconds on Tuesday, 1988 at the urinal next to a guy in a blue suit in the Boston airport does not justify non-stop ads for blue suits or job offers from American Standard…

~-~* * *~-~



October 3, 2014



just a thought…..

September 28, 2014

If I am free to define the nature of what I consider to be the “Creator,” which I believe I am under provisions within the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,  and as those documents direct that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are “unalienable rights”….”endowed by their Creator”…(note the reference to THEIR Creator rather than THE Creator)…does it not follow that it is I who define those rights deemed “unalienable” rather than some complex edict by government?


~-~* * *~-~



Trust is a loan, not a birthright…..

July 6, 2014

and Power entrusted sans oversight is an idiot’s folly….

Giving government the power to pretty much do as it pleases with my Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, is a lot like my father giving me the keys to his Midlife Crisis and a fiver when I was seventeen and expecting that I wouldn’t peel the back tires off of it.

Interestingly enough, however that Power has something in common with the Freedom it can eradicate if it so chooses.

I learned a long time ago that Freedom is not something that can be “given”, not truly, not without conditions. Freedom for those who desire it must be taken. I and I alone decide what my Freedom is. How I express that Freedom is influenced by the will of the community I choose to be a part of, a voluntary association that I am “free” to terminate if I should so desire.

Power resembles Freedom in one crucial aspect. Those who have been given Power to carry out the administrative and military wishes and needs of those they serve, are provided with access to the tools needed to do so. However, just as I can take and define my Freedom, those tools and the authority their users are loaned can be “taken” to redefine their Power, ultimately serving an agenda that is not the will of the People, who were the original source of their Power and its definition.

The usurpation of authority and control over such Power does not occur over night or by permission. Like a child inching sideways toward a puddle he has been forbidden to approach, the incremental violations will continue to their logical conclusion without intervention. Therefore, it is fair to say the only way the child will reach the puddle is by the negligence of his caretaker. Inattention can also be augmented through distraction. It can be difficult to become angry and stern with one who is bathing you in flowers and sweet-nothings, at least temporarily.

Therefore, the Free can lose control of and authority over the Power they have provided to those entrusted with certain duties and responsibilities necessary to ensure the survival and success of the Community as a whole simply through complacency and by not paying attention while it is being seduced away from them.

Does that mean “government” is evil? I would say “no, not necessarily”. After all, our government, at least on paper and by design, is US. However, like the sidling child, without adequate supervision and oversight, a government, even ours, can do evil things. Our society recognizes that good people can sometimes do terrible things, but being a good person is not supposed to be like a hall pass around accountability. Unfortunately, that does happen on occasion. When the hapless offender also wields Power, the likelihood of directly proportionate leeway ensues in the absence of oversight. When those with Power “take” it upon themselves to redefine that Power, and its parameters, and having escaped enough oversight to take actions not permitted under the original authority of their official, roles, the holders of Freedom must act or surrender their Freedom, including their authority over their Lives, their Liberty, and how they Pursue and define Happiness.

Our Constitution provides the means for the Free to do what may be necessary to preserve their rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, provided we will take our asses off of the golf courses and our faces out of the latest widget of digital opium long enough to see that the document doesn’t just become another paper airplane. If you or I choose to lay down and continue to play doormat, then perhaps we would deserve whatever orts those formerly subject to our oversight may choose to dole out to us.

But your children and grandchildren don’t, and neither do mine.


~-~* * *~-~



Free lunch & Crayolas…

November 29, 2013

new and improved giant economy size version…

The Orwellian-named “Affordable Care Act” currently being rolled around like a dung beetle’s precious cargo motivated me to review my little cache of other instances of our national regression towards a fetal position wherein permissions for, and management of, virtually all activities of daily living will be externally controlled functions. Retained and glorified as exemplars of “Liberty” will be the fact that the individual’s central nervous system retains a modicum of influence over biological function such as circulation and respiration.

One item that caught my eye was an editorial from the local newspaper, another Pleistocene relic, published earlier this year regarding an idea floated by the FCC of opening the floodgates a tad and unleashing free wireless access to the masses. The internet, the piece seemed to declare, has evolved to join food, shelter, transportation, education, medical care, designer jeans, cell phones, and Crayolas as Necessities of Life and therefore should be henceforth provided “free”, compliments of the Federal Government.

More on the meaning of the word “free” at another time.

Much like the list of Special Interest Groups, the menu of Necessities of Life keeps being expanded and it’s difficult to keep up. My understanding has always been that if one has a reasonable amount of edible nutrients in his stomach with an acceptable level of regularity, shelter that keeps most of the rain out, wearables to maintain body heat and dignity, and the desire to spend more time on one’s feet than on one’s stern sheets, one could survive and thrive. How well one would survive and thrive would depend on how much one contributed to the process, not on how loudly one screeched. One was perfectly free to play the “It’s my ass and I’ll sit on it if I want to” game if one so chose, but it was pretty much understood that manicures and color TV were not part of the package.

It’s a tough question. I realize that, and like it or not, the cyber-dimension is the printing press of the twenty first century and society must adapt. But with so many things of tradition, as well as of principle, being supplanted so rapidly by so many new things and new principles in the name of such concepts as safety, fairness, equity, and “Why Johnny Can’t Must Have Designer Sneakers and a New Smart-Phone”, I find myself waiting for the inevitable collision. With the federal government annexing so many responsibilities formerly owned by the populace, along with the authority and power to carry them out “efficiently”, when will some genius figure out that that the usual and customary definitions of Freedom and Liberty are passé and no longer fit the modern world?

My late uncle had a preserved section of pig skin that his father-in-law had owned. It was from the belly, obviously a nipple, and he called it the “hind teat”. It was a tradition to award it to those coming in last during any competition or just for the hell of it. I don’t know whatever happened to it but, knowing him, I have occasionally wondered if he might have willed it to Washington.

Has Big Government and its entourage of suckling sycophants actually been hiding my late uncle’s little family tradition all along, planning to award us all, collectively of course, Hind Teat, just as soon as they get all of their ducks, and statutes, and “free” stuff in a row?


~-~* * *~-~