My assumptions and biases.
All ideals can be applied for good or evil purposes.
Governments are rules/standards. Rules and standards have no meaning if they can not be inforced.
Rights = Rules
Principles = Rules
Rule = Consequence
Action/Inaction = Consequence
Most people try to avoided consequence, because they want to be able to do what ever they want.
And, they do this under the guise of Lyberty and call it freedom.
By what standard do we set as a society. What method of enforcement: ostracism, enslavement or the treat of death?
Do we believe we have the right to force others to play by our rules of no rules.
I have a code every one has a code, i.e., rules we live by. ("Some people understand the rules they live by on a conscious level, and others are ruled by them on a subconscious level.) A society just tries to make them more uniform so their is some consistance and we know what to expect from those we meet in life.
Self-Government is still government.
The family dynamic is still government.
Elder Council is still government.
Two people get into a dispute over water, and go to a third to settle the matter that is government.
Two people get into a dispute over water and one kills the other, and no one cares that is anarchy. (Was it thieft or self-defense?)
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?
- Thomas Jefferson (a catch 22)
Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.
- Thomas Jefferson
The # 1 goal of education and parenting is to teach self-discipline, self-reliance and the 'rules' of sociaty.
This post was a direct result of a discusion or dispute I was having on another site. Where they tried and somewhat succeeded in ostracizing me, because I was expressing opinions contrary to the groups as a whole.
I do not feel force if arms is need or the right move at this time. If I did I would already be acting. I wouldn't be wait for them to solidify their position any more.
The opposition has had a very long time to build up their defenses. Very rarely is it a good idea to go with the frontal assault on the castle walls.
If we are out of time then we might have no other choice.
You can dismantle all the support structures (welfare/intitelments), but you will condem a lot to a slow death, if you don't first teach them how to fish for themselves.
Every time the left turned to violence they failed, because they were then thought of as part of the problem. And, no longer thought of as having the solution.
We have lost the PR (Propaganda) war.
Wars and conflicts are won and at the subconscious (will) level. They have 'you or some of us' so convinced that you can no longer win in the political realm that you don't even try. They win by default.
This is not a battle we can win through force of arms. The use of force to compel someone or group to believe something is Tyranny. Or at lest the first steps on the road to tyranny.
The case for Liberty must be fought on the battlefield of ideas. This is why the left focus their efforts on the school system.
There was also an expressed desire to get payback for wrongs committed. If we follow this path, give it a couple more generation we won't be fighting over Liberty, but who did what last. Just looking to get our payback for the last insult that we suffered.
If we do not win on the battlefield of ideas, we will have enslaved ourselves to a never ending cycle of revolutions.
My 2 Cents,