Compare that, to the quoted message below from Baron (seen above) I received today.
Subject: Ron Paul…
With an open mind I clicked on the YouTube link. I didn’t really know what to expect from the next ten minutes of political ideas.
Being British I am sometimes questioned on my love for America, my interest in her government, her people and her ideas. I think it all stems back to a over a decade ago when I used to watch American tv shows wishing I could visit the land of the free, wanting to visit New York, hold the money and speak to the people.
People never understood why I had this obsession with The States and neither did I really, not until I took Modern World Politics in school.
The reason is quite simple; the principles that America were founded upon are as close to perfect as a nation could hope for.
This gives me hope.
I read and I watch and it seems the country has yet to fulfil it’s potential or simply put; it should be doing a hell of a lot better.
Watching Ron Paul highlights for three hours last night on YouTube was a pleasure. From watching Bill O’Reilly to Sean Hannity, listening to the tea party movement, by contrast his points, views and rational arguments made perfect sense. They’re so simple and obvious, yet they seem so groundbreaking because these arguments are so rarely discussed in the mainstream American media.
Apologies Dream for the long post, I’ve been up a long time with work and realise I am 1) rambling 2) telling you what you already know. I suppose the purpose of my message was to say thanks for introducing me to Ron Paul and to please keep the great content and book recommendations coming on The Dream Lounge. I have been a keen reader for all of a week ;-). In other news I am now obsessed about living the nomad life after reading yours and Tynans blogs.
How are things across the pond, hope you are well?
The message especially provides contrast for Josh’s comment on “American arrogance at it’s best”. Josh, as far as I know, was born in the United States. He’s also extremely intelligent, academically and otherwise. Never the less, his comment reflects a thorough degree of brain washing against his own country, against it’s founding (and eternal) principles, and against some of the greatest men to have ever lived.
It is no coincidence that these appeals are found together. Feminism as we know it, is communism with a gender slant — and “for the common good”, is one expression of the root of all evil — initiations of force (read: violence) under the guise of good intentions.
Some of the greatest men in history stood up against that undefinable glob of evil, and won. They deserve to be revered for as long as a single individual is still breathing. Of course, their feats, and the men themselves, represent the polar opposite of where do-gooders without an understanding of and invincible devotion to, life and liberty, want our country — and the rest of the world — to be heading.
In short: it’s all connected. With one poison comes it’s other.
Gregory: the only proper role of any government — and especially our federal one thanks to it’s supreme written law and the foundation upon which that supreme law derives it’s power — is to protect the rights of individuals (the only rights that exist, can exist, and have ever existed).
Those rights, stem from an individual’s right to life. Unless filtered through this basic premise, our federal government is 100% out of line, needs to be put in check, and back into it’s proper place.
As for the “common welfare” you refer to, you need to understand that the individual is the unit of society. So when one refers to “society”, you are only referring to the sum of a certain number of individuals. In this sense, the life and liberty of the individual is the only “common welfare” that exists. Anything else is an attempt to provide “welfare” for something no more real than a unicorn.
Even the national defense, which is certainly a role of our federal government, is at it’s core, a protection of the rights of individuals.
Regarding the “General Welfare” which I know you love about our supreme written law, it’s only purpose was to grant the federal government minor and insignificant powers that could not be conceived at the time, and that were prohibited under the Articles of Confederation (our first plan of government). For example, under the AOC, the federal government couldn’t grant a passport.
Now think about how granting a passport parallels with what we see today, such as the recent attempt to force individuals to purchase a private product “for their own good”. This implies ownership of the individual, which is a power never delegated to the federal government.
As such, it is profoundly unconstitutional, and illegal. I know this escapes you, but that’s reality, no matter how “good” your and everyone else’s intentions are.
Daniel: the natural rights of man are not up for debate. A man has a right to his life, a right to exist, a right to exist for his own sake, a right to his liberty, and a right to pursue happiness in accordance with his own values.
No man has the right to infringe upon the rights of others.
“Collective rights” do not exist.
“Individual rights” is redundant.
All men have a right and duty to themselves to defend their life and rights stemming from that right with any and all force necessary.
Renzo: it is the betrayal to your own soul and “do-good” intentions that are the bane of civilization. I am right, you are wrong, and this is never changing. To acknowledge the possibility of that fact changing would be to deny the natural rights of man, and consequently, reason as man’s only absolute — which rests upon the shoulders of the right to exist.
Furthermore, military slavery is not allowed in our constitution — nor is slavery of any kind — because the federal government was never delegated the power to own an individual (it is impossible to delegate this power to the federal government, as we’ll explore in a moment).
The constitution of these States United is the plan of government on which our federal government operates, and as such, where it derives it’s power from.
The question no one seems to have the balls to ask is: where does the constitution — our supreme written law — derive it’s power from?
The answer of course is: the moral justification that “… to secure these [self evident, natural, unalienable] rights, Governments are instituted among Men”.
This is the purpose for which our federal government exists. And guess what do-gooders? I have it in writing, and will do all that is necessary to see our federal union return to such a principal.
Including the defense of my life, and the life of my loved ones, with any and all force required to repel acts of violence and slavery that you condone as “for the common good”.
Slavery is slavery — be it by the lash of a whip, or force of a gun. No such authority exists to use force against an individual unless he has violated the rights of another.
Get it through your thick skulls do-gooders: I’m right.
ps- in response to Baron’s original comment, what’s wrong with being “selfish”? In another wording, selfish can be read as “man’s rational self interest” — which I would argue, is man’s supreme source of happiness.