Jesus is God's Son
Either Jesus was a fictional character or he took far too much credit for being the eyes of God. Mysticism places more value in the unseen than seen. It becomes a problem when one (authors of scripture) claims to be the spokesperson of a higher power that really doesn't require the assistance of its creation(s). It would seem God, The Almighty, can emit the message clearly to its people at any time. That thought either cannot or rarely is ever challenged in biblical circles. Because, to them, "God works in many ways" but the one direct example of just appearing in front of us all on the doorstep. Again this appears to be another creation debate, but in fact I'm suggesting that "God's Plan" is simply a hands-off approach in which humanity is to figure out life's obstacles for themselves. Many of these ideas were self-generated by religious icons who took empowerment too seriously.
Hell
If God is forgiving and loving, then a belief in Hell is contradictory. It establishes once again that God is vengeful and therefore no better than humanity. For God created humanity with a free will to decide the path they so choose. Not to punish them when God had the choice and power to create a same-face collective.
The Devil
The belief in such implies that an entity consumes people whole. However, to believe that people get their evilness from a Devil is to imply they are not responsible for their actions. For example, if a criminal commits a crime, it is deemed the evil spirit caused the problem because they consumed their soul. In effect modern jurisprudence doesn't need to exist for individuals are not responsible for their own conclusions.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Thursday, November 08, 2007
biblical flaws
Deuteronomy is unfortunately one of my least favorite chapters because it is riddled with tyranny, injecting fear, racism, and the occasional promotion of murder. Hopefully the examples I give will explain why.
This parallels "Worshiping Other Gods." The reason this doesn't hold true is relatively simple: Scientific evidence proves that with each new birth creates a seperate, new mind to think and act for one's self (free will). No descent Creator would destroy the very thing, the human mind, that was designed to make those religious choices for themselves. To a Creator, they've already accepted that each human can except or reject creation. Therefore, this was a human-influenced ideal and certainly not a higher power-guided prophet.
Words like "must" and "commanded" are force. If in fact the lord demands these things, why doesn't he come out in the open, in the visible, and physically prove his wishes with spoken word? Hence the enclosed system of belief in tyranny amongst religious dogmas.
In religion this should read to not have idols superior to God. In terms of progress and ingenuity, if humanity didn't have models in achievements in arts, technology, etc., there would be no reason to expand our knowledge.
Pretty self-explanatory really. Children should be punished for things that are out of their control.
In a savage period, religion still cannot be excused for acts of murder. A is A. The Bible is the only book historically that can get away with such grotesque promotions. However, if a pagan forced their values that threatened the survival of a Christian(s), of course defending ones self is right and moral. But neither paragraph really attempts to detail such, possibly due to blind obedience. The first paragraph doesn't even attempt to at all. Hence why their guilty of the promotion of murder. The second, the interpreter, is nearly as guilty. The author acknowledges the offense, mildly, but quickly by-passes it for the upholding of the Bible's principles of tyranny and self-sacrifice. There is no difference between secular and non-secular force. Both deem to engulf the individual. Blind abidance to the Bible is dangerous considering the flawed nature of its authors: humans, who have used it to protect believers from the reality of their customs of tyranny and violence. A "middle ground" is unacceptable to them for threat of divisions in religious circles (an act Morman's practice, amongst others).
"Messengers of God" or "God's agents" were authoritarians who actively promoted the use of force and to suppress secular liberty. (It was secularism, not religion, that attained liberty.) Prophets used their intelligence to overstep their boundaries to acquire power. "God's word" by now is simply a phrase to draw attention to the Bible as the bearer of all morals versus human knowledge that is acquired through experience. These quotes instill fear into people, which is the entire point of religious prophetising. It implies God should be feared for God is vengeful. The problem is if God is so, then God is no better than humanity for we are vengeful. It doesn't quite make logical sense to fear God when God is superior in every way to humanity.
Moses Urges Israel To Obey - 4:3-4
You saw what the Lord did to you at Baal-Peor, where the Lord your God destroyed everyone who had worshiped the god Baal-Peor. But all of you who were faithful to the Lord your God are still alive today.
This parallels "Worshiping Other Gods." The reason this doesn't hold true is relatively simple: Scientific evidence proves that with each new birth creates a seperate, new mind to think and act for one's self (free will). No descent Creator would destroy the very thing, the human mind, that was designed to make those religious choices for themselves. To a Creator, they've already accepted that each human can except or reject creation. Therefore, this was a human-influenced ideal and certainly not a higher power-guided prophet.
4:5
You must obey these laws and regulations when you arrive in the land you are about to enter and occupy. The Lord my God gave them to me and commanded me to pass them on to you.
Words like "must" and "commanded" are force. If in fact the lord demands these things, why doesn't he come out in the open, in the visible, and physically prove his wishes with spoken word? Hence the enclosed system of belief in tyranny amongst religious dogmas.
4:25
...do not corrupt yourselves by making idols of any kind.
In religion this should read to not have idols superior to God. In terms of progress and ingenuity, if humanity didn't have models in achievements in arts, technology, etc., there would be no reason to expand our knowledge.
The Ten Commandments - 5:9
I do not leave unpunished the sins of those who hate me, but I punish the children for the sins of their parents to third and fourth generations.
Pretty self-explanatory really. Children should be punished for things that are out of their control.
Worshipping Other Gods 13:6-10
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods (god that neither you nor your fathers have known, god's of the people around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. And then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
The Layman's Bible (interpretations):
It must, however, be remembered that idolatry struck at the very foundations of Hebrew national life as founded on the Covenant at Horeb. The religions of the Canaanites and sorrounding peoples was a debased from of nature worship, with revolting moral standards and practices. We may not like the exact way in which the Hebrews sought to deal with their subversives, but we can recognize the legitimacy of their abhorrence of the offense and of their desire to guard against it. They were anxious, therefore, to keep out any marks of pagan customs, even mourning rites of bodily mutilation and shaving of the head. The barriers against standards and practices must be high and thick, lest the nation eventually be engulfed by them.
In a savage period, religion still cannot be excused for acts of murder. A is A. The Bible is the only book historically that can get away with such grotesque promotions. However, if a pagan forced their values that threatened the survival of a Christian(s), of course defending ones self is right and moral. But neither paragraph really attempts to detail such, possibly due to blind obedience. The first paragraph doesn't even attempt to at all. Hence why their guilty of the promotion of murder. The second, the interpreter, is nearly as guilty. The author acknowledges the offense, mildly, but quickly by-passes it for the upholding of the Bible's principles of tyranny and self-sacrifice. There is no difference between secular and non-secular force. Both deem to engulf the individual. Blind abidance to the Bible is dangerous considering the flawed nature of its authors: humans, who have used it to protect believers from the reality of their customs of tyranny and violence. A "middle ground" is unacceptable to them for threat of divisions in religious circles (an act Morman's practice, amongst others).
The Prophet 18:15
The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from amongst your own brothers.
Layman's Commentary:
(excerpt)
The Deuteronomists -- to whom Moses was a figure of colossal proportions, to say the least -- certainly regarded him as the standard by which all messengers of God must be measured.
"Messengers of God" or "God's agents" were authoritarians who actively promoted the use of force and to suppress secular liberty. (It was secularism, not religion, that attained liberty.) Prophets used their intelligence to overstep their boundaries to acquire power. "God's word" by now is simply a phrase to draw attention to the Bible as the bearer of all morals versus human knowledge that is acquired through experience. These quotes instill fear into people, which is the entire point of religious prophetising. It implies God should be feared for God is vengeful. The problem is if God is so, then God is no better than humanity for we are vengeful. It doesn't quite make logical sense to fear God when God is superior in every way to humanity.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Liberty in the 21st Century
http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/117...176&wid=117
Tibor R. Machan
The Libertarian Perspective #75 Tue, 24 Oct 2006
The Common Good
Liberal Democrats are having a conniption fit about the lack of any vision that unites the Democratic Party. So several of their pundit-philosophers are writing essays in which they lament this situation and propose remedies.
Among those doing this is Michael Tomasky, who, in a recent piece for The American Prospect, suggests that "Democrats need to become the party of the common good." Then he goes on to write, as one of his critics put it, "breathlessly," that "We are all in this . . . together, and . . . we have to pull together, make some sacrifices, and, just sometimes, look beyond our own interest to solve our problems and create the future."
I have a better idea. Let Democrats, Republicans, and the rest recover the powerful idea that got the country going in the first place, one laid out pretty neatly in the Declaration of Independence. This idea is that the common good is pursued precisely when government does what justifies its existence—namely, secure our rights. That, indeed, is THE common good in the American political tradition.
There are millions of disparate "goods" that individuals pursue, but only one unites them, only one is their common good: the protection of their fundamental individual rights. This was part of the revolutionary idea that animated the Founders and put the country in opposition to so many others, including those in Europe from which so many of its initial population fled.
In most countries throughout human history the idea was promoted that there is a rich common good, a whole slew of objectives that everyone must pursue. In other words, the common good was really the collective goods of all the people, as if they really did share goods galore that they needed to promote. The one-size-fits-all mentality was encouraged by rulers, monarchs, tsars, and the rest who needed to hoodwink us into thinking that their goals are really our goals and we cannot really, individually, have goals of our own. That was the common good–the leaders' good peddled for the rest as their good, too.
The American Founders, guided by the classical liberal social-political philosophies of John Locke and company, saw through this. They realized that in a big country, the millions of inhabitants share but very few goods. (Of course, small associations—churches, clubs, corporations, professional groups and so forth—can have some common objectives all right. But no such common good or objective exists for the millions of us!) And the most important—probably, in fact, only—common good we share is the protection of our individual rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It's the one good that's indeed good for us all, that we have in common.
If government, which is instituted to secure these rights, does its job right, it will stick to little more than making sure that everyone's liberty is safe. Why? Because then all the millions of different individuals, and some of the groups they voluntarily form amongst themselves, will quite successfully embark on the task of pursuing all those goods that suit them. Securing our rights does that for us!
But today's public pundit-intellectuals don't get it. They want to find some thick public good—a whole, humongous basket of allegedly common goods—that government will set out to achieve. And they are surprised that there isn't such a basket; in a largely free society people have their own basket of proposed goods they want to obtain for themselves. And this isn't because they are selfish and will not make sacrifices—notice how looking out for yourself is being demeaned in Tomasky's call to arms—but because even in what they consider appropriate objectives for which sacrifices should be made the citizenry differs significantly. They don't need having one idea of what's worthy of a sacrifice shoved down their throats. No, they want to choose those objectives, as well as the ways of making the sacrifices for them if need be.
Maybe the Democrats—and Republicans—ought to recover the Founders' vision. Then they wouldn't have to concoct an impossible one behind which they cannot manage to unite folks.
---------------------------
http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/hancock/hancock1.html
(excerpt)
Libertarians in general knew government had every motivation to grow in size and intrusiveness and lacked any real deterrent against doing so. The Libertarian Party represented a growing understanding that force or the threat of force, in whatever form, was required to maintain control of a population increasingly aware of the illegitimacy of so much government in their lives. Most people simply wish to be left alone, but government cannot leave them alone. Men in uniforms with shiny badges and seal-embossed parchments demanding service to “The King” have always been accompanied by the threat of violence for non-compliance.
The Revolution between the ears won’t take place all at once, but it will take place overnight. One morning everything will be different. Government actions against the people in the form of laws like the USA PATRIOT Act, surveillance of the innocent, controls on communications and the supposed dominion over one's body are creating an explosive environment, and the central planners know it. These police state tactics are not for our protection from outside threats, but for the protection of government from the American people. Government limits on our ability to seek redress and physically defend against tyranny are increasing -- an outcome predicted for decades by libertarians.
There are reasons to avoid being in public office these days. I firmly believe there will be at least a metaphorical guillotining of public officials responsible for destroying the American Dream for tens of millions of Americans. And I do not wish to be affiliated with those standing in line for their turn to have the lever pulled on their fate. I have absolutely no political goal other than to be left alone. My whole family and large circle of friends have invested a great deal of time, effort and money to that end. But I don't see wielding the power of elective office as a path to that goal.
While content to focus my efforts at home in Arizona , I have become increasingly aware of those with a great desire to be a “respected member” of the very system we oppose. The claim that one needs positions of power in order to free individuals is very troubling. We should be the Hobbits who do not seek power over others, and are willing to make great investments to ensure being left alone. Changing the hands on the levers of power won’t eliminate the levers. The abandonment of the principled foundation of libertarianism now would be disastrous and leave us with nothing of value to distinguish us from our ideological competition.
And while most libertarians would welcome a return to the size of government allowed by the US Constitution as championed in the Federalist Papers, many recognize that this document created the opportunity for the powerful central government we oppose today. The liberty-minded people of the American Revolution were profoundly ambivalent about the US Constitution, and detailed their concerns in the Anti-Federalist Papers. What good are checks and balances when all three branches of government are aligned against the rights of the individual? The Bill of Rights was the libertarian compromise. These ten “Thou Shalt Nots” of government was the deal made to avoid conflict. But the document has proven to be binding only on the people, in our forced support of our present government, while every single one of the Bill of Rights is constantly violated without hesitation by government. I am certain that I am not the only one wondering when this “social contract” will finally be declared null and void. –Ernest Hancock
---------------
Every generation has one or two philosophers that transcend time. From Aristotle (The Father of Logic) to Thomas Aquinas. From the Founding Fathers (Creators of the first free nation) to Ludwig Von Mises (The Father of “True” Economics). From Ayn Rand (The Mother of Liberty) to her heir, Leonard Peikoff, and on to the Libertarian Party.
In the 21st Century, I believe there is the beginnings of another. Lo Bastido’s two keystone contributions are essential as not only a guide, but for all of time.
The term "socialism" is not merely an economic term; it has other aspects, which all relate back to its very name.
Any government measure designed to manipulate society into what is deemed to be the ideal is socialism. Leftists -- no matter how moderate -- are socialists, since they support the manipulating of the economy to decrease economic inequality, and thus, presumably, social distinctions between rich and poor. Naturally, they also support some -- but not all -- permissions in regards to non-economic activities, such as marriage. Note that I said permissions, instead of rights. There are no civil rights for individuals under socialism, because socialism takes it for granted that "society" -- whether in the form of all individuals, a majority of individuals, or even some individuals as a group -- is superior to the individual qua individual. Those who call themselves "liberals" do not believe in rights; their perceived entitlements to welfare are certainly not rights; groups of individuals cannot have their own rights as a group; the overall principle is that the individual must kneel before the whims of society (although actually the ruling elite in charge of the government).
We must take into account the wide scope of socialist activities. Economic measures designed to manipulate society are a form of socialism, as we have seen. But there are many justifications for socialism, and Marxism is only one of them. (The term "Marxism" may reasonably be applied to the general concept of wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor, with the underlying assumptions that under capitalism there is no middle class; that the rich are always getting richer while the poor are always getting poorer; and that the rich can only get rich at the expense of the poor.)
Another justification for socialism is the vague concept of "virtue." Under this kind of socialism, society is manipulated toward the goal of creating a society based on certain religious ideals. The individual is largely left alone in his economic activities, but his non-economic activities are regulated if not banned, even though those activities are conducted between consenting adults with a clear and honest agreement regarding their association.
This form of socialism is as destructive of individual liberty as the more recognized Marxist form of socialism. Bizarrely, the proponents of virtue socialism refuse to recognize their socialism, despite their constant invocation of terms like society, the greater good, and the majority, in the context of manipulating them using government fiat -- classic rhetoric of all socialists.
Any system which aims to respect individual liberty must accept that society (or the greater good, or the majority) is built up from the basic unit of the individual. There must also be the recognition that no group of individuals -- be it a group of only two individials, or of all other individuals -- has any special rights of its own; and it certainly has no superior rights over the individual. Put briefly: society has no rights; government has no responsibility to safeguard society. The term "social contract" clouds the truth that government is basically a contract between the individual and his government; society itself has no political-cum-legal substance, with no rights, privileges, or responsibilities of its own.
Society must be allowed to take whatever course it will, regardless of the outcome. Representative government is founded on the principle that the constituency deserves whatever it votes for, and should be allowed to freely choose its fate. Society must be treated -- respected -- in the same way: whatever society as a whole wants, society as a whole should get.
Now, socialists believe the worst in humanity: they must, otherwise their policies cannot be justified. They take for granted that, if not for their interventionism, society will collapse into unspeakable horror. This belief is based on a bedrock of rank misanthropy. The prediction just mentioned requires the average individual to be a reckless, cruel idiot with no real ability to control himself: a slave to his own impulses and desires. Socialists justify the enslavement of the individual on the grounds that the individual is already a slave to his own passions. This is true no matter how vigorous a socialist's policies are in enslaving the individual: even if a policy only slightly enslaves the individual, it is assumed that the individual is only slightly a reckless, cruel idiot with a reduced ability to control himself. They call this misanthropy pragmatism, as if pragmatism were an ideal which lifts humanity to its greatest heights. (It only lifts those in charge to the greatests heights, which is the entire point of socialist politics.)
There is no real cure for misanthropy. And socialists refuse to acknowledge the value of liberty -- or if they do, they insist that it is inferior as an ideal to misanthropic pragmatism. For them it is better, in other words, to treat their fellow individuals as irresponsible slaves than to allow them to destroy themselves.
Note irresponsible: liberty and responsibility are inseparable halves. Both Marxist socialists and virtue socialists pay at least some superficial homage to responsibility -- more so with the latter -- but in the end neither truly believes in it. Even if an individual will destroy himself if given the freedom to do so, he must be respected in that choice. And if he hurts someone else's property or person, then he must be respected enough to be prosecuted for it. Socialist fiat is essentially preemptive: it seeks to prevent what are deemed criminous actions before they occur. Some activities often lead to other, harmful activities; it certainly feels good to prevent the latter by banning the former. But what such emotion-driven policy neglects is that freedom-based justice cannot survive under such prosecutorial policy. By preventing action B by banning action A, one has essentially declared all actors of A -- all of them! -- to be guilty ahead of the fact. Thus two sacred principles of Western jurisprudence are violated: prosecution on an individual basis, with the opportunity to confront one's accuser; and the presumption of innocence until one has been proven guilty. Briefly: socialism replaces proof of guilt with presumption of guilt.
Assume that, say, 80% of crack users will commit robberies while high, or to support their habit, or both; government still has no right to use statistics to prosecute all crack users. (It should use actual evidence, something which socialists tend to dismiss as irrelevant.) One of the defining qualities -- and evils -- of socialism is that it punishes the innocent (those who would not commit other crimes) along with the guilty (those who were going to commit other crimes). Modern jurisprudence should not run on statistics; a prosecutor should not charge someone with the possibility that he might mug someone in the future. (Those of you whom I am describing in this post, please take a moment to re-read the previous sentence objectively; and ask yourself honestly if such a system as described horrifies you.)
Thus, the man who snorts coke in his apartment, and has no inclination to hurt anyone else or their property, is as wicked as the man who stabs someone on the street to pay for his next heroin fix. No socialist can claim that absolutely all users of such hard drugs commit secondary crimes; and even a 99% possibility of a future crime is no justification for prosecution. It is scarcely appreciated by socialists that people should be prosecuted as individuals for the crimes they have already committed, using evidence collected against them, and with the chance to confront their accusers. No, that whole irrelevant -- to them -- rigamarole should be avoided by simply preventing people from doing things which often lead to those other crimes.
These socialist policies on criminal justice are an indication of how hostile socialism is to responsibility. If an individual manages to get his hands on cocaine, and goes on a shooting spree using a prohibited firearm, socialists studiously avoid putting the responsibility on the individual: the Marxist socialist blames the firearm, while the virtue socialist blames the cocaine. From that kind of perspective, it's not the individual who failed in his responsibilities (for he has none, since he deserves none), it's the government who failed in its responsibilities! No socialist commentator would say "Well, it's his own fault; he chose to do the coke, and so he's responsible for whatever he does even if he's hopped up." Instead a socialist would say "Government failed this man, and failed the people he shot; government must work harder to live up to its responsibilities."
In other words, government is assumed to be more responsible than the individual -- even though the enormous mass of human history has proven the reverse. Misanthropists-as-socialists do not trust people; and since according to human nature they must trust in something to make things right, they place their trust in government. Beware those who would take away responsibility from the individual, for they are putting responsibility into the one human institution which least deserves it: government, which has the power to arrest or even kill those who dare violate the tyranny guarding the current social ideal. –Lo Bastido
---------------------------
- Murder
- Assault
- Property damage and theft
- Copyright and patent infringement
- Breach of contract
All these activities violate one fundamental precept: that we all have the rights to our own bodies and property, and nothing else. (None of us, of course, have any rights toward other people's bodies and property.) The principle is that adults of sound mind may consent to activities with other adults with no interference from government except as an arbiter in case of dispute. –Lo Bastido, on the only areas of government intervention
Tibor R. Machan
The Libertarian Perspective #75 Tue, 24 Oct 2006
The Common Good
Liberal Democrats are having a conniption fit about the lack of any vision that unites the Democratic Party. So several of their pundit-philosophers are writing essays in which they lament this situation and propose remedies.
Among those doing this is Michael Tomasky, who, in a recent piece for The American Prospect, suggests that "Democrats need to become the party of the common good." Then he goes on to write, as one of his critics put it, "breathlessly," that "We are all in this . . . together, and . . . we have to pull together, make some sacrifices, and, just sometimes, look beyond our own interest to solve our problems and create the future."
I have a better idea. Let Democrats, Republicans, and the rest recover the powerful idea that got the country going in the first place, one laid out pretty neatly in the Declaration of Independence. This idea is that the common good is pursued precisely when government does what justifies its existence—namely, secure our rights. That, indeed, is THE common good in the American political tradition.
There are millions of disparate "goods" that individuals pursue, but only one unites them, only one is their common good: the protection of their fundamental individual rights. This was part of the revolutionary idea that animated the Founders and put the country in opposition to so many others, including those in Europe from which so many of its initial population fled.
In most countries throughout human history the idea was promoted that there is a rich common good, a whole slew of objectives that everyone must pursue. In other words, the common good was really the collective goods of all the people, as if they really did share goods galore that they needed to promote. The one-size-fits-all mentality was encouraged by rulers, monarchs, tsars, and the rest who needed to hoodwink us into thinking that their goals are really our goals and we cannot really, individually, have goals of our own. That was the common good–the leaders' good peddled for the rest as their good, too.
The American Founders, guided by the classical liberal social-political philosophies of John Locke and company, saw through this. They realized that in a big country, the millions of inhabitants share but very few goods. (Of course, small associations—churches, clubs, corporations, professional groups and so forth—can have some common objectives all right. But no such common good or objective exists for the millions of us!) And the most important—probably, in fact, only—common good we share is the protection of our individual rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It's the one good that's indeed good for us all, that we have in common.
If government, which is instituted to secure these rights, does its job right, it will stick to little more than making sure that everyone's liberty is safe. Why? Because then all the millions of different individuals, and some of the groups they voluntarily form amongst themselves, will quite successfully embark on the task of pursuing all those goods that suit them. Securing our rights does that for us!
But today's public pundit-intellectuals don't get it. They want to find some thick public good—a whole, humongous basket of allegedly common goods—that government will set out to achieve. And they are surprised that there isn't such a basket; in a largely free society people have their own basket of proposed goods they want to obtain for themselves. And this isn't because they are selfish and will not make sacrifices—notice how looking out for yourself is being demeaned in Tomasky's call to arms—but because even in what they consider appropriate objectives for which sacrifices should be made the citizenry differs significantly. They don't need having one idea of what's worthy of a sacrifice shoved down their throats. No, they want to choose those objectives, as well as the ways of making the sacrifices for them if need be.
Maybe the Democrats—and Republicans—ought to recover the Founders' vision. Then they wouldn't have to concoct an impossible one behind which they cannot manage to unite folks.
---------------------------
http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/hancock/hancock1.html
(excerpt)
Libertarians in general knew government had every motivation to grow in size and intrusiveness and lacked any real deterrent against doing so. The Libertarian Party represented a growing understanding that force or the threat of force, in whatever form, was required to maintain control of a population increasingly aware of the illegitimacy of so much government in their lives. Most people simply wish to be left alone, but government cannot leave them alone. Men in uniforms with shiny badges and seal-embossed parchments demanding service to “The King” have always been accompanied by the threat of violence for non-compliance.
The Revolution between the ears won’t take place all at once, but it will take place overnight. One morning everything will be different. Government actions against the people in the form of laws like the USA PATRIOT Act, surveillance of the innocent, controls on communications and the supposed dominion over one's body are creating an explosive environment, and the central planners know it. These police state tactics are not for our protection from outside threats, but for the protection of government from the American people. Government limits on our ability to seek redress and physically defend against tyranny are increasing -- an outcome predicted for decades by libertarians.
There are reasons to avoid being in public office these days. I firmly believe there will be at least a metaphorical guillotining of public officials responsible for destroying the American Dream for tens of millions of Americans. And I do not wish to be affiliated with those standing in line for their turn to have the lever pulled on their fate. I have absolutely no political goal other than to be left alone. My whole family and large circle of friends have invested a great deal of time, effort and money to that end. But I don't see wielding the power of elective office as a path to that goal.
While content to focus my efforts at home in Arizona , I have become increasingly aware of those with a great desire to be a “respected member” of the very system we oppose. The claim that one needs positions of power in order to free individuals is very troubling. We should be the Hobbits who do not seek power over others, and are willing to make great investments to ensure being left alone. Changing the hands on the levers of power won’t eliminate the levers. The abandonment of the principled foundation of libertarianism now would be disastrous and leave us with nothing of value to distinguish us from our ideological competition.
And while most libertarians would welcome a return to the size of government allowed by the US Constitution as championed in the Federalist Papers, many recognize that this document created the opportunity for the powerful central government we oppose today. The liberty-minded people of the American Revolution were profoundly ambivalent about the US Constitution, and detailed their concerns in the Anti-Federalist Papers. What good are checks and balances when all three branches of government are aligned against the rights of the individual? The Bill of Rights was the libertarian compromise. These ten “Thou Shalt Nots” of government was the deal made to avoid conflict. But the document has proven to be binding only on the people, in our forced support of our present government, while every single one of the Bill of Rights is constantly violated without hesitation by government. I am certain that I am not the only one wondering when this “social contract” will finally be declared null and void. –Ernest Hancock
---------------
Every generation has one or two philosophers that transcend time. From Aristotle (The Father of Logic) to Thomas Aquinas. From the Founding Fathers (Creators of the first free nation) to Ludwig Von Mises (The Father of “True” Economics). From Ayn Rand (The Mother of Liberty) to her heir, Leonard Peikoff, and on to the Libertarian Party.
In the 21st Century, I believe there is the beginnings of another. Lo Bastido’s two keystone contributions are essential as not only a guide, but for all of time.
The term "socialism" is not merely an economic term; it has other aspects, which all relate back to its very name.
Any government measure designed to manipulate society into what is deemed to be the ideal is socialism. Leftists -- no matter how moderate -- are socialists, since they support the manipulating of the economy to decrease economic inequality, and thus, presumably, social distinctions between rich and poor. Naturally, they also support some -- but not all -- permissions in regards to non-economic activities, such as marriage. Note that I said permissions, instead of rights. There are no civil rights for individuals under socialism, because socialism takes it for granted that "society" -- whether in the form of all individuals, a majority of individuals, or even some individuals as a group -- is superior to the individual qua individual. Those who call themselves "liberals" do not believe in rights; their perceived entitlements to welfare are certainly not rights; groups of individuals cannot have their own rights as a group; the overall principle is that the individual must kneel before the whims of society (although actually the ruling elite in charge of the government).
We must take into account the wide scope of socialist activities. Economic measures designed to manipulate society are a form of socialism, as we have seen. But there are many justifications for socialism, and Marxism is only one of them. (The term "Marxism" may reasonably be applied to the general concept of wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor, with the underlying assumptions that under capitalism there is no middle class; that the rich are always getting richer while the poor are always getting poorer; and that the rich can only get rich at the expense of the poor.)
Another justification for socialism is the vague concept of "virtue." Under this kind of socialism, society is manipulated toward the goal of creating a society based on certain religious ideals. The individual is largely left alone in his economic activities, but his non-economic activities are regulated if not banned, even though those activities are conducted between consenting adults with a clear and honest agreement regarding their association.
This form of socialism is as destructive of individual liberty as the more recognized Marxist form of socialism. Bizarrely, the proponents of virtue socialism refuse to recognize their socialism, despite their constant invocation of terms like society, the greater good, and the majority, in the context of manipulating them using government fiat -- classic rhetoric of all socialists.
Any system which aims to respect individual liberty must accept that society (or the greater good, or the majority) is built up from the basic unit of the individual. There must also be the recognition that no group of individuals -- be it a group of only two individials, or of all other individuals -- has any special rights of its own; and it certainly has no superior rights over the individual. Put briefly: society has no rights; government has no responsibility to safeguard society. The term "social contract" clouds the truth that government is basically a contract between the individual and his government; society itself has no political-cum-legal substance, with no rights, privileges, or responsibilities of its own.
Society must be allowed to take whatever course it will, regardless of the outcome. Representative government is founded on the principle that the constituency deserves whatever it votes for, and should be allowed to freely choose its fate. Society must be treated -- respected -- in the same way: whatever society as a whole wants, society as a whole should get.
Now, socialists believe the worst in humanity: they must, otherwise their policies cannot be justified. They take for granted that, if not for their interventionism, society will collapse into unspeakable horror. This belief is based on a bedrock of rank misanthropy. The prediction just mentioned requires the average individual to be a reckless, cruel idiot with no real ability to control himself: a slave to his own impulses and desires. Socialists justify the enslavement of the individual on the grounds that the individual is already a slave to his own passions. This is true no matter how vigorous a socialist's policies are in enslaving the individual: even if a policy only slightly enslaves the individual, it is assumed that the individual is only slightly a reckless, cruel idiot with a reduced ability to control himself. They call this misanthropy pragmatism, as if pragmatism were an ideal which lifts humanity to its greatest heights. (It only lifts those in charge to the greatests heights, which is the entire point of socialist politics.)
There is no real cure for misanthropy. And socialists refuse to acknowledge the value of liberty -- or if they do, they insist that it is inferior as an ideal to misanthropic pragmatism. For them it is better, in other words, to treat their fellow individuals as irresponsible slaves than to allow them to destroy themselves.
Note irresponsible: liberty and responsibility are inseparable halves. Both Marxist socialists and virtue socialists pay at least some superficial homage to responsibility -- more so with the latter -- but in the end neither truly believes in it. Even if an individual will destroy himself if given the freedom to do so, he must be respected in that choice. And if he hurts someone else's property or person, then he must be respected enough to be prosecuted for it. Socialist fiat is essentially preemptive: it seeks to prevent what are deemed criminous actions before they occur. Some activities often lead to other, harmful activities; it certainly feels good to prevent the latter by banning the former. But what such emotion-driven policy neglects is that freedom-based justice cannot survive under such prosecutorial policy. By preventing action B by banning action A, one has essentially declared all actors of A -- all of them! -- to be guilty ahead of the fact. Thus two sacred principles of Western jurisprudence are violated: prosecution on an individual basis, with the opportunity to confront one's accuser; and the presumption of innocence until one has been proven guilty. Briefly: socialism replaces proof of guilt with presumption of guilt.
Assume that, say, 80% of crack users will commit robberies while high, or to support their habit, or both; government still has no right to use statistics to prosecute all crack users. (It should use actual evidence, something which socialists tend to dismiss as irrelevant.) One of the defining qualities -- and evils -- of socialism is that it punishes the innocent (those who would not commit other crimes) along with the guilty (those who were going to commit other crimes). Modern jurisprudence should not run on statistics; a prosecutor should not charge someone with the possibility that he might mug someone in the future. (Those of you whom I am describing in this post, please take a moment to re-read the previous sentence objectively; and ask yourself honestly if such a system as described horrifies you.)
Thus, the man who snorts coke in his apartment, and has no inclination to hurt anyone else or their property, is as wicked as the man who stabs someone on the street to pay for his next heroin fix. No socialist can claim that absolutely all users of such hard drugs commit secondary crimes; and even a 99% possibility of a future crime is no justification for prosecution. It is scarcely appreciated by socialists that people should be prosecuted as individuals for the crimes they have already committed, using evidence collected against them, and with the chance to confront their accusers. No, that whole irrelevant -- to them -- rigamarole should be avoided by simply preventing people from doing things which often lead to those other crimes.
These socialist policies on criminal justice are an indication of how hostile socialism is to responsibility. If an individual manages to get his hands on cocaine, and goes on a shooting spree using a prohibited firearm, socialists studiously avoid putting the responsibility on the individual: the Marxist socialist blames the firearm, while the virtue socialist blames the cocaine. From that kind of perspective, it's not the individual who failed in his responsibilities (for he has none, since he deserves none), it's the government who failed in its responsibilities! No socialist commentator would say "Well, it's his own fault; he chose to do the coke, and so he's responsible for whatever he does even if he's hopped up." Instead a socialist would say "Government failed this man, and failed the people he shot; government must work harder to live up to its responsibilities."
In other words, government is assumed to be more responsible than the individual -- even though the enormous mass of human history has proven the reverse. Misanthropists-as-socialists do not trust people; and since according to human nature they must trust in something to make things right, they place their trust in government. Beware those who would take away responsibility from the individual, for they are putting responsibility into the one human institution which least deserves it: government, which has the power to arrest or even kill those who dare violate the tyranny guarding the current social ideal. –Lo Bastido
---------------------------
- Murder
- Assault
- Property damage and theft
- Copyright and patent infringement
- Breach of contract
All these activities violate one fundamental precept: that we all have the rights to our own bodies and property, and nothing else. (None of us, of course, have any rights toward other people's bodies and property.) The principle is that adults of sound mind may consent to activities with other adults with no interference from government except as an arbiter in case of dispute. –Lo Bastido, on the only areas of government intervention
Does prayer work?
Does prayer work?
I personally believe prayer has subverted reason for the mystical. Now I want to make it clear that I believe prayer is important to lifting one's spirit; but not when mysticism has been passed over as concrete evidence throughout religionist history. For example: if a cancer survivor is so certain in the power of prayer, the power to heal from God's hands, why did they need radiation treatments in the first place? It would seem to me, at most, that a Creator created humanity with the tools to develop said radiation treatment; but any medical successes are to the credit of human knowledge and free will. These "miracles" are more likely works of invention than any purported hand from God.
The big question that is asked by religionists is: "Why does God allow evil to happen?" He doesn't. Humanity does. In fact, you could say to a certain extent religion has. Because prayer (mysticism) often suspends thought--and more importantly, action--"faith" offers complacency, and hiding, as comfort. Those believing evil emanates from secularism also allow the most heinous of tyranny to go on untouched. ("If we all just pray, things will get better.") In the 20th Century, we've been through two World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and the globe is under the constant threat of teetering on a nuclear World War III. We have the tools to choose, to think, and to act for ourselves. Yet mysticism hides in an impenetrable bubble of reality denial to which reason disintegrates.
If my biblical knowledge is correct, "The Great Flood" was an invention passed over from generation to generation by the mystic intellectuals, in order to scare the non-believers into believing God unleashed his wrath upon human sin. Yet weather patterns by some religionists are deemed to be "set in motion" with no true discrimination in mind other than just the right elements of cool and warm temperatures creating natural disasters. (If the American central belt is under constant tornado threat, are these people greater "sinners" than the rest of Americans?) Those who unfortunately are in the wrong place at the wrong time lose their life--and not by predicted design. On a global weather scale, the earth is trying to keep a constant yin and yang balance. Those geographs lacking or having an abundance of moist/dry or cool/warm temperatures, will eventually have enough, or an extreme, of the other. Yet we're suppose to be sensitive to the religionist's beliefs; but why does the non-believer not deserve the same sensitivity when unsubstantiated mysticism is shoved down our throats via creation stories and biblical-as-legislated-people-control-rule? (Namely forced prayer in schools.)
A dear friend of mine had brain cancer. Her treatments had cured her--or so we thought. She claimed "God saved her." Later, the doctors found more cancer, and she died. Where are the prayerists now? No reply. Even worse, a friend of mine is battling in a custody case. She believes--get this--that "God is amongst" her lawyer, but she isn't preparing herself, or more immediately, the case, for appropriate action. Meaning, again, that individual responsibility is subverted for prayer in hopes everything will turn out in the end. Whatever positive outcomes are gifts from God; whatever negatives are deemed Devil worship, or simply are forgotten in the context of prayer.
So if you want prayer in your life, that's great; but please don't replace it with free will and the power of the human mind.
I personally believe prayer has subverted reason for the mystical. Now I want to make it clear that I believe prayer is important to lifting one's spirit; but not when mysticism has been passed over as concrete evidence throughout religionist history. For example: if a cancer survivor is so certain in the power of prayer, the power to heal from God's hands, why did they need radiation treatments in the first place? It would seem to me, at most, that a Creator created humanity with the tools to develop said radiation treatment; but any medical successes are to the credit of human knowledge and free will. These "miracles" are more likely works of invention than any purported hand from God.
The big question that is asked by religionists is: "Why does God allow evil to happen?" He doesn't. Humanity does. In fact, you could say to a certain extent religion has. Because prayer (mysticism) often suspends thought--and more importantly, action--"faith" offers complacency, and hiding, as comfort. Those believing evil emanates from secularism also allow the most heinous of tyranny to go on untouched. ("If we all just pray, things will get better.") In the 20th Century, we've been through two World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and the globe is under the constant threat of teetering on a nuclear World War III. We have the tools to choose, to think, and to act for ourselves. Yet mysticism hides in an impenetrable bubble of reality denial to which reason disintegrates.
If my biblical knowledge is correct, "The Great Flood" was an invention passed over from generation to generation by the mystic intellectuals, in order to scare the non-believers into believing God unleashed his wrath upon human sin. Yet weather patterns by some religionists are deemed to be "set in motion" with no true discrimination in mind other than just the right elements of cool and warm temperatures creating natural disasters. (If the American central belt is under constant tornado threat, are these people greater "sinners" than the rest of Americans?) Those who unfortunately are in the wrong place at the wrong time lose their life--and not by predicted design. On a global weather scale, the earth is trying to keep a constant yin and yang balance. Those geographs lacking or having an abundance of moist/dry or cool/warm temperatures, will eventually have enough, or an extreme, of the other. Yet we're suppose to be sensitive to the religionist's beliefs; but why does the non-believer not deserve the same sensitivity when unsubstantiated mysticism is shoved down our throats via creation stories and biblical-as-legislated-people-control-rule? (Namely forced prayer in schools.)
A dear friend of mine had brain cancer. Her treatments had cured her--or so we thought. She claimed "God saved her." Later, the doctors found more cancer, and she died. Where are the prayerists now? No reply. Even worse, a friend of mine is battling in a custody case. She believes--get this--that "God is amongst" her lawyer, but she isn't preparing herself, or more immediately, the case, for appropriate action. Meaning, again, that individual responsibility is subverted for prayer in hopes everything will turn out in the end. Whatever positive outcomes are gifts from God; whatever negatives are deemed Devil worship, or simply are forgotten in the context of prayer.
So if you want prayer in your life, that's great; but please don't replace it with free will and the power of the human mind.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
John Roberts on Homosexuality and AIDs
After reading Roberts' column on AIDs, it wasn't the issue of the disease spreading that scared me most, but John Roberts himself. I'll explain why as I comment on his ideas.
There's no denying Roberts is an intelligent person and holds many fine values I'm sure. But it's the idea he claims to have such experience with homosexuals that bothers me. ("During a lifetime of working with people, I have met many homosexual people.") Then Roberts says:
First he acknowledges that some cases of homosexuality are "genetic" and "naturally effeminate," and then proceeds to say:
Almost as though there are "other" justifiable times when 'stones can be thrown' at people who do not have the same moral code. (I'm probably overpicking on this one, but in the Old Testament there are instances in the scripture, like in Deuteronomy 16:17 "Worshiping Other Gods," when stone throwing is deemed an acceptable action to those who worship "other" God's. A local priest once told me part of reading the Bible is how you "interpret" the scripture, as though there is anything to interpret with mandated killing.)
On top of that - and after acknowledging the "genetic" makeup of homosexuals - he says this is a problem for geneticists and psychologists. He essentially contradicts his own words with whisking away the problem off to two of the areas (science and mind) that have never been able to "cure" something that has never been scientifically or psychologically curable. Maybe it just is. But no...
Religionists do not have an "ordain" right of any kind over anyone else. This is the extremist religious view: they believe secular law is totalitarian but ordain law isn't.
Which is where he can only fail. Legislated virtues are force (aka tyranny), and with government mandating and removing laws at the device of the two-party system, the values John Roberts enacts might also be removed by another who doesn't share those values. Morality cannot be legislated because everyone has their own moral code.
If Roberts wants to do something, he's better off educating people and legislating to remove all discrimination laws. (Because discrimination laws only candy over the truth: human racism. Believe it or not, the individual is within their rights to discriminate against whomever and for whatever reasons. The individual is entitled to their liberty.)
Roberts is a pragmatist. Here's why:
----------
You homosexuals out there. Innit good to know yer nothing more than "dead twigs." Hmmm...lovely.
Not much. Education. But the reality is it has always existed. Roberts just doesn't want to accept it and let liberty run its course. Unless you want to turn the world into a police state - which usually ends in gang warfare because virtuists want to mess with freedoms.
Virtuists subconsciously are trying to create a heaven on Earth by controlling people. They are acting as 'messengers from God', and they do not believe their force of others is a "sin". It would be deemed an acceptable virtue to turn the landscape into something which ironically mirrors Nazi concentration camps; a police state with hired gunmen slapping their rifles on their hands because they love power over others. This vision comes from the same people who believe they have a seat reserved for them in heaven.
Because there are a few bad apples out there who consciously are spreading the contagion doesn't mean others should suffer with fisticuffs. Evil does not emanate from the majority, but the minority who want to control the majority. This is why I fear John Roberts more than AIDs: He would rather control and reduce liberties - which has a direct 'trickle down effect' on "other" freedoms by developing the mindset that force is acceptable - than believe the good nature of the majority will keep the contagion contained.
There's no denying Roberts is an intelligent person and holds many fine values I'm sure. But it's the idea he claims to have such experience with homosexuals that bothers me. ("During a lifetime of working with people, I have met many homosexual people.") Then Roberts says:
1 The genetically sexually indeterminate. (Chromosome abnormality).
2 The emotionally homosexual. Those naturally effeminate (or female masculinity).
First he acknowledges that some cases of homosexuality are "genetic" and "naturally effeminate," and then proceeds to say:
It will be apparent that those persons coming within the first category may be regarded as unfortunate individuals. Those who suffer from a distinctly biological condition are deserving of public compassion. One can throw no stones at these people: nor does it appear that much can be done, medically speaking, to alleviate the condition. It is a problem for geneticists and psychologists."
Almost as though there are "other" justifiable times when 'stones can be thrown' at people who do not have the same moral code. (I'm probably overpicking on this one, but in the Old Testament there are instances in the scripture, like in Deuteronomy 16:17 "Worshiping Other Gods," when stone throwing is deemed an acceptable action to those who worship "other" God's. A local priest once told me part of reading the Bible is how you "interpret" the scripture, as though there is anything to interpret with mandated killing.)
On top of that - and after acknowledging the "genetic" makeup of homosexuals - he says this is a problem for geneticists and psychologists. He essentially contradicts his own words with whisking away the problem off to two of the areas (science and mind) that have never been able to "cure" something that has never been scientifically or psychologically curable. Maybe it just is. But no...
That is my belief: the personal responsibility for all human activity
Religionists do not have an "ordain" right of any kind over anyone else. This is the extremist religious view: they believe secular law is totalitarian but ordain law isn't.
The hidden, concealed and underhand nature of the "evil" makes it incumbent upon legislatures to carefully consider the alternatives.
Which is where he can only fail. Legislated virtues are force (aka tyranny), and with government mandating and removing laws at the device of the two-party system, the values John Roberts enacts might also be removed by another who doesn't share those values. Morality cannot be legislated because everyone has their own moral code.
Has anything been done to limit or control such behaviour? By no means! One must not comment upon the moral perversity of such behaviour. Society must not interfere with the lawful right of these people to engage in their obnoxious, disease-spreading activities. However, it has a weighty obligation to do all in its power to find a cure for this disease, which is a continuous threat to all mankind.
If Roberts wants to do something, he's better off educating people and legislating to remove all discrimination laws. (Because discrimination laws only candy over the truth: human racism. Believe it or not, the individual is within their rights to discriminate against whomever and for whatever reasons. The individual is entitled to their liberty.)
Roberts is a pragmatist. Here's why:
Now, socialists believe the worst in humanity: they must, otherwise their policies cannot be justified. They take for granted that, if not for their interventionism, society will collapse into unspeakable horror. This belief is based on a bedrock of rank misanthropy. The prediction just mentioned requires the average individual to be a reckless, cruel idiot with no real ability to control himself: a slave to his own impulses and desires. Socialists justify the enslavement of the individual on the grounds that the individual is already a slave to his own passions. This is true no matter how vigorous a socialist's policies are in enslaving the individual: even if a policy only slightly enslaves the individual, it is assumed that the individual is only slightly a reckless, cruel idiot with a reduced ability to control himself. They call this misanthropy pragmatism, as if pragmatism were an ideal which lifts humanity to its greatest heights. (It only lifts those in charge to the greatests heights, which is the entire point of socialist politics.)
There is no real cure for misanthropy. And socialists refuse to acknowledge the value of liberty -- or if they do, they insist that it is inferior as an ideal to misanthropic pragmatism. For them it is better, in other words, to treat their fellow individuals as irresponsible slaves than to allow them to destroy themselves.
Note irresponsible: liberty and responsibility are inseparable halves. Both Marxist socialists and virtue socialists pay at least some superficial homage to responsibility -- more so with the latter -- but in the end neither truly believes in it. Even if an individual will destroy himself if given the freedom to do so, he must be respected in that choice. -Lo Bastido
----------
Some wise person once described homosexual people as, 'The dead twigs on the tree of life'.
You homosexuals out there. Innit good to know yer nothing more than "dead twigs." Hmmm...lovely.
Conclusion: What then, is to be done about the problem of Homosexuality and Aids?
Not much. Education. But the reality is it has always existed. Roberts just doesn't want to accept it and let liberty run its course. Unless you want to turn the world into a police state - which usually ends in gang warfare because virtuists want to mess with freedoms.
Governments must discourage all forms of sexual activity that are likely to result in the spread of the contagion. In the absence of a cure, there will, sooner or later, have to be some control over the extent of homosexual practices. Amongst the alternatives are :
1 Greater discipline and segregation in Prisons.
2 Compulsory Aids testing before international travel.
3 Segregation of sexually active Aids patients. Use of mental hospitals (now empty) as Aids hospitals for these patients.
4 Public education as to the manner in which Aids is spread and as to the dangers of homosexual conduct.
5 Compulsory registration of Aids carriers.
6 A Public denial of the “normality” of homosexual conduct and a public rejection of the suggestion that homosexual relationships are proper or acceptable to Society as a whole. There can be no such status as that of homosexual or lesbian "marriage", which is an affront to Society. Nor should consideration be given, under any circumstances, to the adoption of children by persons living in such relationships.
Virtuists subconsciously are trying to create a heaven on Earth by controlling people. They are acting as 'messengers from God', and they do not believe their force of others is a "sin". It would be deemed an acceptable virtue to turn the landscape into something which ironically mirrors Nazi concentration camps; a police state with hired gunmen slapping their rifles on their hands because they love power over others. This vision comes from the same people who believe they have a seat reserved for them in heaven.
Because there are a few bad apples out there who consciously are spreading the contagion doesn't mean others should suffer with fisticuffs. Evil does not emanate from the majority, but the minority who want to control the majority. This is why I fear John Roberts more than AIDs: He would rather control and reduce liberties - which has a direct 'trickle down effect' on "other" freedoms by developing the mindset that force is acceptable - than believe the good nature of the majority will keep the contagion contained.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Beginning of the end of Freedom to Speech
Picture a kid on a sled reaching the tipping point of a tall snow hill, and this is the end of America as we've known it, heading slowly, than faster, downhill. It was nice knowing you, Americans.
Congress Wants to Blame the Grassroots for Its Own Corruption
MANASSAS, Va., Jan. 16 /
PRNewswire-USNewswire/
-- The following is a
statement by Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com,
regarding legislation currently being considered by Congress to regulate
grassroots communications:
"In what sounds like a comedy sketch from Jon Stewart's Daily Show, but
isn't, the U. S. Senate would impose criminal penalties, even jail time, on
grassroots causes and citizens who criticize Congress.
"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the
Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to
500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report
quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220
would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive
intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history,
critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself.
"The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate
grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or
more members of the public, with no other qualifiers.
"On January 9, the Senate passed Amendment 7 to S. 1, to create
criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone 'knowingly
and willingly fails to file or report.'
"That amendment was introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-LA). Senator
Vitter, however, is now a co-sponsor of Amendment 20 by Senator Robert
Bennett (R-UT) to remove Section 220 from the bill. Unless Amendment 20
succeeds, the Senate will have criminalized the exercise of First Amendment
rights. We'd be living under totalitarianism, not democracy.
"I started GrassrootsFreedom.com to fight efforts to silence the
grassroots. The website provides updates in the legislation and has a
petition to sign opposing Section 220.
"Thousands of nonprofit leaders, bloggers, and other citizens have
hammered the Senate with calls in opposition to Section 220, which seeks to
silence the grassroots. The criminal provisions will scare citizens into
silence.
"The legislation regulates small, legitimate nonprofits, bloggers, and
individuals, but creates loopholes for corporations, unions, and large
membership organizations that would be able to spend literally hundreds of
millions of dollars, yet not report.
"Congress is trying to blame the grassroots, which are American
citizens engaging in their First Amendment rights, for Washington's
internal corruption problems."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)