Here is a dose of Big Brother you might not like...

[TMF]

I agree with your earlier comments, but it seems to me that the above is contradictory to your signature. Putting people in the ground isn't defending those you disagree with. ;)

Haha, yes, I do see the irony there. Of course, the meaning of the statement actually supports what I'm talking about. I'd be more willing to fight against a cause I believe in if the way it was being furthered was morally wrong; kinda like abortion. I believe abortion is morally wrong, but bombing abortion clinic workers is not morally straight either.

[JayC]

TMF, there are times when condoning violence over voting is the right thing to do.  A sheep is not obligated to give up it's life just because two wolves and the sheep voted what was for dinner and the sheep lost.

 

Natural rights are endowed on the individual not on the collective, and therefore belong to the individual, not the collective.  When the collective abuses it's majority (or even super majority) to immorally steal a person's rights (or a group of people) then the use of force to free yourself from that bondage is perfectly moral through any means necessary.  

 

Were armed slave revolts in the south before the civil war moral or immoral?  Was the uprisings in the Polish ghetto's moral or immoral?  Because in both cases they were 'illegal' actions that weren't supported by the majority in government.

 

Are we at that point yet?  I don't know, if not there we're pretty close.  The argument that you make about still having a voice seems to make logical sense until you understand that when they cross the line it will be fast and come with such force that liberty may very well not survive.  

 

You've been in the military you know basic tactics of war...  do you sit and watch the enemy line up their troops and wait until they get into perfect position before you mount a counter assault, or do you attempt to disrupt their attack when it is most advantageous to your force?

 

I'm not advocating a revolution, just pointing out flaws I see in your stance...  

 

If you believe a person's natural rights including their liberty and freedom are being violated...  but you would turn around put your uniform back on and defend those immoral actions...  how do you feel that would be upholding both your oath and your moral code?  

 

At exactly what point in your mind does a victim have the right to respond with deadly force towards a tyrannical government that still gives them the illusion of a vote in what is happening?

 

The way I interpret your original post I quoted was that you would condone revolution over voting due to voting not returning what you want. If revolution is your choice you are choosing to involve your kids in the fight. They will die of bullets, bombs or starvation in the event of widespread revolution. Any insurgency in our country would last for decades before both sides came to the table. Whatever age your kids are, if they survive to 16 they will find themselves on the battlefield. I don't want that for my kids. I value freedom, and so long as I have a voice in government I will not resort to violence. We still have a voice. Individually your voice doesn't matter, but collectively it does.

Choosing to default to armed rebellion because you're not getting your way is beyond what I can comprehend. There are many more nonviolent strategies that can be employed to shift us back in the direction of the base principles of liberty; we aren't effectively using them because many of the people on the side of liberty aren't willing to let go of political lead weights. That is not going to motivate me to sacrifice myself or my kids on the altar of freedom, simply because other people refuse to pull their heads out of each other's asses. In fact, while I may believe in the ideals of those who would revolt, I would fundamentally disagree with the manner in which they choose to revolt, to the point I would don a uniform once again to put those people into the ground.

Edited September 24, 2013 by JayC

[Guest uofmeet]

facebook is already doing stuff like this with the pictures you upload.

[RobertNashville]

...At exactly what point in your mind does a victim have the right to respond with deadly force towards a tyrannical government that still gives them the illusion of a vote in what is happening?

Voting is not an illusion simply because the results aren't what a portion (patriots, conservatives, libertarians, etc.) of the population want the results to be.

 

Unless there is enough voter fraud/vote fixing going on to dictate the outcome of an election (and I do not believe we've reached that point despite evidence of some of that going on) then our votes Do count and aren't illusion even if the "wrong" outcome happens. Further, elections not turning out the way a group might want them to does not mean that armed revolution/deadly force is either justified or the right thing to do.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It does kind of remind me of the war that caused
this country to be founded. Not by voting, but by
elitist actions coming from the king.

[tnguy]

Catching bad criminals is hard. It's easier to take good people, turn them into criminals and catch them instead. They don't put up so much of a struggle.

[tnguy]

Voting is not an illusion simply because the results aren't what a portion (patriots, conservatives, libertarians, etc.) of the population want the results to be.

 

Unless there is enough voter fraud/vote fixing going on to dictate the outcome of an election (and I do not believe we've reached that point despite evidence of some of that going on) then our votes Do count and aren't illusion even if the "wrong" outcome happens. Further, elections not turning out the way a group might want them to does not mean that armed revolution/deadly force is either justified or the right thing to do.

 

Could be voting is an illusion because even when the result *is* what that portion of the population wants the results to be, the outcome is much the same.

[Chucktshoes]

Voting is not an illusion simply because the results aren't what a portion (patriots, conservatives, libertarians, etc.) of the population want the results to be.

Unless there is enough voter fraud/vote fixing going on to dictate the outcome of an election (and I do not believe we've reached that point despite evidence of some of that going on) then our votes Do count and aren't illusion even if the "wrong" outcome happens. Further, elections not turning out the way a group might want them to does not mean that armed revolution/deadly force is either justified or the right thing to do.

Here goes nothing...

Certain things, no matter what some may think, are not up for a vote. That's why the founders set up a republic and not a democracy. To restrain the government and protect the individual from his/her neighbors. What was intended is not what we have where our government on a near daily basis takes up and votes upon matters in which they have no business sticking their overly large proboscides.

You often give the impression that as long as a democratic process is followed, the outcome is valid. When the subjects being submitted to that democratic process are life, liberty and property I would soundly reject that position as not just incorrect but wholly immoral.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

We allowed democracy to overtake our system.

[RobertNashville]

Here goes nothing...

Certain things, no matter what some may think, are not up for a vote. That's why the founders set up a republic and not a democracy. To restrain the government and protect the individual from his/her neighbors. What was intended is not what we have where our government on a near daily basis takes up and votes upon matters in which they have no business sticking their overly large proboscides.

You often give the impression that as long as a democratic process is followed, the outcome is valid. When the subjects being submitted to that democratic process are life, liberty and property I would soundly reject that position as not just incorrect but wholly immoral.

 

Regardless of what impression you have of my position and regardless of whether it's "life, liberty and property" that is being impaired; it is being so impaired by the people freely elected to office and willingly given that power.

 

So call my position immoral if you want but voting/the political process is the process we have to use; it can be used to totally screw things up or to correct things. It's likely too late now to change anything but voting is still the process we have whether it's successful (in the eyes of some) or not.

 

If you've got a realistic alternative to offer then please offer it.

Edited September 24, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Voting can be used up to a point until it is ineffective. It has become ineffective, since the fools in DC can't seem to

understand who they serve any more.

 

Democracy is what caused our downfall. Several amendments helped it along, more than kept the government at bay.

 

I know I'm contradicting what I say, sometimes, but "Democracy in America" spelled it out before any of us were born.

A few other thinkers said the same, a long time ago, and were heeded by few. Why do you see me bring up Ayn Rand

so much? What is happening is so unnatural to humans.

 

Before long, there will be no votes, only mandates.

[TMF]

TMF, there are times when condoning violence over voting is the right thing to do. A sheep is not obligated to give up it's life just because two wolves and the sheep voted what was for dinner and the sheep lost.

Here is the point I'm always making; it isn't the government that's the problem. The government is only a symptom of the problem. The real problem are your fellow Americans. They are the reason our gov sucks and so much of the population is on gubmint cheese. So what shall we do about that? I think the list of what we shouldn't do to solve the problem is much shorter than the list of things we should do.

Revolution is never an option until such time we no longer have the right to elect our leaders. To overthrow the government is pointless, because half this country will still be turds. So what would a new government do? How would a new government fix that problem without violating the basic principles of liberty? I don't see how that equation would work.

Revolution only guarantees one thing; exchanging one overbearing, tyrannical government for another. The problem is cultural. We still have the means to do things the right way, and that is how we should continue to do it, good bad or indifferent. I see anyone challenging our government with arms while we still have a voice at the ballot box as a much larger threat to liberty than Obama, which is why I wouldn't hesitate to throw on a uniform again if that became an issue. Just because we are losing the fight against socialist encroachment doesn't mean we don't still have the means to win the right way.

I think revolution just sounds sexy to people that haven't seen women and kids full of bullet holes or in trashbag sized pieces on a regular basis. I won't stand for that kind of violence initiated by people who are either throwing a tantrum or they read only the good parts of our own Revolutionary history. I know what it looks like and I don't want it on our shores.

[RobertNashville]

...Revolution is never an option until such time we no longer have the right to elect our leaders. To overthrow the government is pointless, because half this country will still be turds....

Truly excellent point (actually, the entire post is excellent).

 

Very few realize just how incredibly unique it is for a revolution to result in the establishment of a government who's power rests in the people...where one "king" or "dictator" wasn't simply replaced with another...in all of human history, I believe the American Revolution may be the only exception to that norm.

 

To think that some "new" revolution would result in something as good as what we once had is foolishness...if we can't fix what's wrong peacefully I doubt doing so violently will provide an answer.

[tnguy]

Here goes nothing...

Certain things, no matter what some may think, are not up for a vote. That's why the founders set up a republic and not a democracy. To restrain the government and protect the individual from his/her neighbors. What was intended is not what we have where our government on a near daily basis takes up and votes upon matters in which they have no business sticking their overly large proboscides.

You often give the impression that as long as a democratic process is followed, the outcome is valid. When the subjects being submitted to that democratic process are life, liberty and property I would soundly reject that position as not just incorrect but wholly immoral.

 

On the other hand, the constitution *is* just a piece of paper and relies on the belief and support of the living to remain in effect. Those primarily charged with upholding it have failed us. What's next?

[JayC]

They had elections in Tunisia under a dictator, was it illegal and immoral for those people to violently overthrow their government?

 

I'm not saying that the lack of a good outcome is always or even in most cases a good enough reason to start a armed revolution...  only that the ability to vote, or the perceived legality of the situation has little to do with whether the action was moral or immoral.

 

At what point of being a slave is enough to overthrow the government that is enslaving you?  10%, 30%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 100%?  I contend it's a lot closer to 10% than it is to 100% but that is a personal choice.

 

At the end of the day, you are morally right to use reasonable force to protect any of your natural rights, no matter if the violation comes from 1% of the population or 99% of the population.  The rights are yours an any attempt to steal them is a reasonable threat to your liberty, and if you using reasonable force to protect your rights results in a escalation of force, that morally is the fault of the person or group of people willing to violate your God given rights.

 

I know you don't agree, but at the end of the day if you believe your creator gave you natural rights, and they belong to you alone, then no matter what the majority says they have no moral right to take from you a natural right given to you by God, than they do to kill you or steal from you at gunpoint.

 

 

Voting is not an illusion simply because the results aren't what a portion (patriots, conservatives, libertarians, etc.) of the population want the results to be.

 

Unless there is enough voter fraud/vote fixing going on to dictate the outcome of an election (and I do not believe we've reached that point despite evidence of some of that going on) then our votes Do count and aren't illusion even if the "wrong" outcome happens. Further, elections not turning out the way a group might want them to does not mean that armed revolution/deadly force is either justified or the right thing to do.

 

[RobertNashville]

On the other hand, the constitution *is* just a piece of paper and relies on the belief and support of the living to remain in effect. Those primarily charged with upholding it have failed us. What's next?

What's next is a pretty much inevitable slide toward a socialist democracy which is a trip we've been on since the early 1900's.

 

I'll keep working through the political process as I can and I'll try to be hopeful rather than depressed but I see little chance that our final destination will change at this point.

[JayC]

Can you show me where I signed away MY rights to those being voted into power?  I don't seem to remember signing that document.

 

Regardless of what impression you have of my position and regardless of whether it's "life, liberty and property" that is being impaired; it is being so impaired by the people freely elected to office and willingly given that power.

 

So call my position immoral if you want but voting/the political process is the process we have to use; it can be used to totally screw things up or to correct things. It's likely too late now to change anything but voting is still the process we have whether it's successful (in the eyes of some) or not.

 

If you've got a realistic alternative to offer then please offer it.

 

[RobertNashville]

They had elections in Tunisia under a dictator, was it illegal and immoral for those people to violently overthrow their government?

 

I'm not saying that the lack of a good outcome is always or even in most cases a good enough reason to start a armed revolution...  only that the ability to vote, or the perceived legality of the situation has little to do with whether the action was moral or immoral.

 

At what point of being a slave is enough to overthrow the government that is enslaving you?  10%, 30%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 100%?  I contend it's a lot closer to 10% than it is to 100% but that is a personal choice.

 

At the end of the day, you are morally right to use reasonable force to protect any of your natural rights, no matter if the violation comes from 1% of the population or 99% of the population.  The rights are yours an any attempt to steal them is a reasonable threat to your liberty, and if you using reasonable force to protect your rights results in a escalation of force, that morally is the fault of the person or group of people willing to violate your God given rights.

 

I know you don't agree, but at the end of the day if you believe your creator gave you natural rights, and they belong to you alone, then no matter what the majority says they have no moral right to take from you a natural right given to you by God, than they do to kill you or steal from you at gunpoint.

We aren't Tunisia and we aren't under a dictatorship; at least not at the moment and I doubt we ever will be. In any case, there is no "morality" present in "voting" and trying to claim there is is just silly.

 

"They" (by they I assume you mean the government) may not have a "moral right" to take my natural rights from me but they may well have the power and authority to do so; especially if that power and authority has been freely given to them. Further, I seem to recall in my Bible that God establishes governments and expects his followers to live under those governments (even those that are anti-God).  Also based on my understanding of scripture I find it doubtful that God would be in favor of an armed rebellion when the people who are rebelling are 100% responsible for the government they are rebelling against (unlike King George whom the colonist had no say in how he treated them).

 

But why care what I think; if you want to rebel...if you think that is your only or best option then rebel...there is nothing I can do to stop you.

Edited September 24, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Can you show me where I signed away MY rights to those being voted into power?  I don't seem to remember signing that document.

Can you show me where I said you did?  If you can't then your question is irrelevant.

 

As I just said above, if you want to rebel...if that's your answer...then rebel.

[JayC]

I agree the real problem is half the population has figured out a good armed robber scheme on the other half that is "legal"...  That those in government are just using the popular vote to enrich themselves, but they can only get away with it because they're paying off half the population with the hard work of the other half.

 

I also agree that the likelihood is that any revolution would likely result in somebody much more tyrannical than our current form of government, there are a lot more Stalin's and Hitler's running around than there are Washington's, Adam's, and Jefferson's.

 

I disagree that we couldn't possibly do better, we have seen the failings of our current system, and I think liberty minded individuals could improve upon the system if given the chance.  The truth is if you can't manage your own life well enough that you need a handout from the government to live, then you should lose your ability to direct where the government goes via voting.

 

By placing far greater restrictions on the ability of the government to grow...  by remembering that representatives should be represent a small enough number of people to be directly answerable to those people...  50k to 100k instead of 750k each.

 

But the truth is most of that is a pipe dream, a revolution is coming...  the only question is how bloodless will it be...  Our economy will crash when we're no longer the reserve currency of the world in such a way as to make the great depression look like a girl scout cookout.  That will place pressures on the 'give me' groups in such a way as to start a revolution in some form or fashion...  

 

And the real question you have to ask yourself is who is better to come out on top when that starts to happen?  Somebody who believes more government is the answer, or somebody who thinks government is the problem?  

 

At the end of the day we're all slaves who are just content to allow the chains of bondage to sit lightly on our shoulders hoping our 'master' doesn't select us for unreasonable punishments...  None of us know what real freedom tastes like, and the hope of getting back to liberty is at best a pipe dream...  but I don't have a problem if one of the slaves decided they've had enough and stands up...  I sure as hell won't put a uniform back on and try to track them down and bring them back to the plantation.

 

Here is the point I'm always making; it isn't the government that's the problem. The government is only a symptom of the problem. The real problem are your fellow Americans. They are the reason our gov sucks and so much of the population is on gubmint cheese. So what shall we do about that? I think the list of what we shouldn't do to solve the problem is much shorter than the list of things we should do.

Revolution is never an option until such time we no longer have the right to elect our leaders. To overthrow the government is pointless, because half this country will still be turds. So what would a new government do? How would a new government fix that problem without violating the basic principles of liberty? I don't see how that equation would work.

Revolution only guarantees one thing; exchanging one overbearing, tyrannical government for another. The problem is cultural. We still have the means to do things the right way, and that is how we should continue to do it, good bad or indifferent. I see anyone challenging our government with arms while we still have a voice at the ballot box as a much larger threat to liberty than Obama, which is why I wouldn't hesitate to throw on a uniform again if that became an issue. Just because we are losing the fight against socialist encroachment doesn't mean we don't still have the means to win the right way.

I think revolution just sounds sexy to people that haven't seen women and kids full of bullet holes or in trashbag sized pieces on a regular basis. I won't stand for that kind of violence initiated by people who are either throwing a tantrum or they read only the good parts of our own Revolutionary history. I know what it looks like and I don't want it on our shores.

 

[JayC]

You said:

 

 

 

Regardless of what impression you have of my position and regardless of whether it's "life, liberty and property" that is being impaired; it is being so impaired by the people freely elected to office and willingly given that power.

 

My point is who gave them the authority to impair my rights?  Because they're my rights, and somebody else's or some collective's to give away.  They belong solely to me as an individual.  

 

Just because 50%+1 of the population voted for them doesn't give the collective the authority to violate my rights, anymore than the thug who tries to take away my life, liberty or property at gunpoint.  If anything that fact that it's a group trying to mask their behavior behind the cloak of 'government' makes their actions much more immoral than the thug who at least comes out and says what he's doing is a crime.

 

I've never said that I want to rebel, or that I think it's time to rebel, or that I think it's a good or bad idea to rebel.  Only that it's perfectly moral for somebody to do so if they're natural rights are being violated.  And that I wouldn't be able to put my uniform back on and hunt those people down because I feel that would violate both my oath and would be an immoral action.

 

I do like to tilt at windmills and hope that by making these posts and trying to educate others that we were once a free people, and could be again...  that when our empire does fall, and I honestly believe it will someday...  that in my own small way I help give the tree of liberty a fighting chance to once again grow...  and to encourage those who are stronger willed than I...  that it's perfectly moral to use reasonable force to defend your natural rights.

 

BTW, I refuse to get into a religious debate on this forum, that is the third rail of internet forums and not even I am willing to touch it...  I can truly say I sleep easy at night in the belief that my convictions match my religious beliefs completely.  

 

Can you show me where I said you did?  If you can't then your question is irrelevant.

 

As I just said above, if you want to rebel...if that's your answer...then rebel.

 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

God only creates governments when morals, based on God's law turns into ethics, then into laws by man. Is that

what you mean, Robert? Somehow, otherwise, that makes little sense. God gave us a brain to use to our best

or worst, depending on what we believe and desire, and government is a creation of man. When man creates a

government, he is trying to establish order from chaos, but the less government there is, the better man can

function freely. Some balancing act, eh?

 

If you can't tell, I am a believer in God, and Ayn Rand's belief that God, if there is any(to use her argument),

resides in man's mind, to survive and thrive. I don't have a problem getting on the third rail. How's that, Jay?

[RobertNashville]

You said:

 

 

My point is who gave them the authority to impair my rights?  Because they're my rights, and somebody else's or some collective's to give away.  They belong solely to me as an individual.  

 

Just because 50%+1 of the population voted for them doesn't give the collective the authority to violate my rights, anymore than the thug who tries to take away my life, liberty or property at gunpoint.  If anything that fact that it's a group trying to mask their behavior behind the cloak of 'government' makes their actions much more immoral than the thug who at least comes out and says what he's doing is a crime.

 

I've never said that I want to rebel, or that I think it's time to rebel, or that I think it's a good or bad idea to rebel.  Only that it's perfectly moral for somebody to do so if they're natural rights are being violated.  And that I wouldn't be able to put my uniform back on and hunt those people down because I feel that would violate both my oath and would be an immoral action.

 

I do like to tilt at windmills and hope that by making these posts and trying to educate others that we were once a free people, and could be again...  that when our empire does fall, and I honestly believe it will someday...  that in my own small way I help give the tree of liberty a fighting chance to once again grow...  and to encourage those who are stronger willed than I...  that it's perfectly moral to use reasonable force to defend your natural rights.

 

BTW, I refuse to get into a religious debate on this forum, that is the third rail of internet forums and not even I am willing to touch it...  I can truly say I sleep easy at night in the belief that my convictions match my religious beliefs completely.  

Just so I understand; you bring up "God given rights" and whether voting is moral or not moral but you don't want to talk about religion...got it.

 

What you term tilting at windmills just sounds like a lot of bellyaching to me and bellyaching is pointless and a waste of time.

Edited September 25, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

God only creates governments when morals, based on God's law turns into ethics, then into laws by man. Is that

what you mean, Robert? Somehow, otherwise, that makes little sense. God gave us a brain to use to our best

or worst, depending on what we believe and desire, and government is a creation of man. When man creates a

government, he is trying to establish order from chaos, but the less government there is, the better man can

function freely. Some balancing act, eh?

 

If you can't tell, I am a believer in God, and Ayn Rand's belief that God, if there is any(to use her argument),

resides in man's mind, to survive and thrive. I don't have a problem getting on the third rail. How's that, Jay?

I would discuss it with you but I've already been chastised for daring to raise the subject of religion. ;)

 

I will say this...we have a legally constituted government that I believe we are honor bound to obey and to defend and that the only rational, reasonable, dare I say "moral" way to affect change in that government is through the political process/voting.   Until some jack-booted thug breaks down my front door and starts shooting; that's as "revolutionary" as I'm going to get and like Mr. JayC, I can truly say I sleep easy at night in the belief that my convictions match my religious beliefs completely.

 

With that said I feel this thread has gone so far off course that it will never correct itself so I'm done!

Edited September 25, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Mentioning God is not religion. Mentioning a certain religious belief(Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, etc) is. I didn't take

quotes from the Bible, or any other religious document to say what I did, so it shouldn't offend any "sensitivities" some

non-thinking individual may have. You can take religion to further your beliefs, which is fine, but you don't have to to

get where governments came from. Governments pre-date the Bible and the Quran, when you include monarchies

and other forms of rule.

 

Now, to get back on track, Jay didn't say he wanted to go to conflict with anyone, but said it was inevitable with the

current economic situation, and that morally, it is justified by the Founder's writings and any time to defend your

freedom, which is most definitely being challenged on a daily basis. We can't survive as a nation of laws when those

laws control every breath we take, and take our treasure and creativity away to further an abysmal cause, which has

a belief system based on death over life. Liberalism equals death. It ain't us, and we don't have a flock of virgins

waiting for us in paradise.

 

We have many things that are in need of repair, and this current regime is at war with us over every one of those

things.