Guest Post: Reflections On The 4th Of July

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt Market

Reflections On The 4th Of July

You get what you pay for. Or, more precisely, you get what you work for. Over 230 years ago, a group of colonists on the edge of the new world realized that the freedom they traveled halfway across the planet searching for would never be, unless, that is, they finally confronted the iron fisted enemy they once ran from. Their Declaration of Independence was a struggle in itself. Most Americans at that time were not resolved to support revolution. Many were undecided even after the war was won. Ultimately, the most powerful and pervasive empire on earth at that time, the British Empire, was defeated by a mere portion of the American population; farmers, craftsmen, tradesmen, frontiersmen, who had fought with such force of will, with such passion, that they were able to convince other nations (like France) that such a thing could even be achieved. In that moment, they transformed the shape of the Earth forever. The impossible was now, indeed, possible. The great shadow of elitism and autocracy was not only vulnerable; it could be crushed by the likes of so called “peasants”. The common man could determine his own destiny, and shape his own government. No matter what had happened before, or what has happened since, no one, and nothing, could erase that moment from time, when the leviathan was cast down, and men tasted true freedom.

You get what you work for.

I and many others of my generation have in the past felt lost, as if we were born in the wrong time and faced with a society and a nation so warped and backwards we might never be able to assimilate. At first, you suspect that something must be wrong with you, but later, you begin to realize that you are simply honest, and that something instead is dearly wrong with the world. The question then is whether or not you risk yourself and your sanity by conforming, or risk even greater stakes, and attempt to right the wrongs that came before. Wrongs you were born into. Do you have the guts to clean up the mistakes of generations past and set things right, or do you leave these overwhelming problems for your children? On July 4th, 1776, a courageous organization of men and women offered themselves as a shield to those who would come after. They dared to say “no more”. And, on this day, in this age of renewed tyranny, we must consider if it is not our time to step forward and become the wall that holds fast against the storm.

Independence Day is not about blind nationalism, it is not about statism, it is not about collectivist subservience to a pervasive bureaucracy; it is about the rebirth of the individual in the face of overwhelming despotism, and the creation of a country whose fundamental focus was the nurturance of such individualism above the desires of government. Beyond the often irrational fears of the “majority”. A philosophy of decentralization that was meant to supercede elitist addictions to power and dominance. The 4th of July is a marker, an oasis in the annals of history, when the true potential of humanity could be glimpsed, even if only for a moment.

Ever since, men have longed for another opening in the veil. We have allowed ourselves to be manipulated, conned, conditioned, and enslaved. We have abandoned our self sufficiency, and become utterly dependent upon political and economic systems we no longer have any real influence over. America has lost itself, and the darkness grows ever more heavy. For those who have awakened to this reality, I can say only this; you are not the first. Others have come before you. Others have fought back. Others have been victorious. You have been given the most evocative foundation on which to stand; you have been given heritage. You know now what can be accomplished, if only we have the determination to move ahead. You also know what is required for success. You know what has been sacrificed in the past, and what must be sacrificed again. For every 4th of July for the past two centuries, we are reminded what it takes to be free.

It is important to celebrate the accomplishments of the past, and to learn from the struggles of our ancestry. It is enriching to our character to focus at least one day on that which is best in our natures, to embody and make tangible our principles. It is honorable to give thanks to those who gave so much, if only to prove what can be done. But this is not the end of our responsibilities. We are also tasked with ensuring the legacy carries on. Our very conscience demands that we not only maintain the structures of liberty, but that we build even further. We have much to do, and little time to do it.

You get what you work for. It is time to go to work…

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
GoinFawr's picture

"Whither goest thou, America, in thy shiny car in the night? "-Jack Kerouac

(Damn hippies)

Vint Slugs's picture

Actually, Jack was one of the "beats", not a hippy.  Quite a difference.

GoinFawr's picture

My error. (I tried to amend it, but you were too quick on the draw.)

"Here comes a citizen! Let's light him up and piss him out!"-Gilbert Shelton

(Yippie?)

Gully Foyle's picture

GoinFawr

You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.

Abbie Hoffman

Libertarian777's picture

America wasn't founded as a democracy.

It' a constitutional republic. In fact that was the whole point of founding states. Each was independent from the federal government, and retained it's rights (so no other, larger state could vote away it's rights). This is one of the reasons why the senate was 2 senators from each state irrespective of the population in that state.

We are moving towards pure democracy. I.e. Mob rule. Soon there will be more people on welfare and social security than productive workers. Pure democracies devolve into socialism, since over time, people will vote for collective spreading of other people's wealth.

AnAnonymous's picture

Propagandists are such a drain on resources. They will keep recanting their half lie, half truth until they come to realize that facts are not a matter of belief but admittance.

Attrition is useless for the matter.

There is no opposition between democracy and constitutional republic.

Democracy and ochlocracy are different things. People established that stuff two thousand years ago. Misrepresenting one for the other is just a waste of resources.

Hacked Economy's picture

AnAn,

Libertarian777 is correct.  A democracy and a republic are two very different entities.  There is MUCH opposition between them.

If you're referring to what we actually have today in the U.S. (an almost unrecognizable mix of mob rule, welfare state, egalitarianism, etc.), then comment as such.  But if you're commenting solely about definitions, then you got it wrong, and Libertarian got it right.

wanklord's picture

The article in question is a genuine piece of crap (bullshit at its best). Besides that, Americans are a bunch of stupid animals easy to manipulate and subdue. These mules clearly fit in one of Leo Strauss'(*) categories of society: the Vulgar Many

"The vulgar many, are lovers of wealth and pleasure. They are selfish, slothful, and indolent. They can be inspired to rise above their brutish existence only by fear of impending death or catastrophe."

The sooner the US economy collapses, the better, so these brutes will finally learn NOT to live beyond their means.

* German Philosopher (1899-1973)

Hacked Economy's picture

Hey Wanky,

You already cut-and-pasted this exact same comment this weekend (see #1421603).

Write something original and inspiring, please, to catch our attention.

Besides, doesn't "wank" mean "masturbate" in the UK???

macholatte's picture

and where you from Wanky that you have such hatred?

 

unununium's picture

It occurs to this American that your viewpoint may be shared by more in Britain than I had imagined.

ebworthen's picture

And Wanky - Britain and the rest of Europe are not slaves to their neighbors and smashing windows for having to work more than 35 hours a week, get a month's paid vacation, and retire at 60?

Piss in your own pot.

AnAnonymous's picture

There is MUCH opposition between them.

 

Republic is a form of goverment.

Democracy is a political ideology.

There is opposition between as there is opposition between a fruit and a car.

Urban Redneck's picture

You should really put down the Adam Smith and read Aristotle before making comments like that.  The differences between a republic and democracy have been well debated and documented for thousands of years. Hence, "republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms."  The larger issue is the difference between the proper and just rule by 1, rule by a few, and rule by all- and the degenerate rule by 1, rule by a few, and rule by all. The tyranny of the one, tyranny of the few and the tyranny of the majority all have drawbacks (they suck) and all are inferior to the republic.  To say that there is "no opposition" between democracy and republic implies that democracy and republic are the same (which would imply that good and bad are the same thing, when in fact they are polar opposites)- I don't think there is a single translation of Aristotle anywhere in the world that says democracy and republic are the same, unless the thought Nazis have been rewriting the classics recently.  And while democracy and oligarchy are slightly different, they share the common traits of both being shit forms of authoritarian government benefitting the undeserving special interests.

GoinFawr's picture

"Pure democracies devolve into socialism, since over time, people will vote for collective spreading of other people's wealth."

Maggie, that's such a load of bullshit:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/27/debt-deficit-oecd-countries-data

Judging by 'standards of living' and fiscal prudence, it looks a lot more like an evolution rather than devolution.

Your assumption hinges on absolutely everything being a priori owned by private interests.

Your type get wood when I mention privatizing breathable air.

OTOH America has repeatedly squandered opportunities to elect to the oval office its only dyed in the wool constitutional republican: Ralph Nader. Which is really too bad because if the the US constitution wasn't merely a prop used for window dressing you would have one helluv an awesome republic to live in.

pcrs's picture

If I am not allowed to steal from you, I can not delegate that right to a politician either. Het still does not have that right, even if a lot of people agree with his theft, or hope to benefit.

Thus politicians are nothing but organised criminals with a flag and an anthem. They command you to obey their laws in the name of the majority, like a priest wants your obedience in the name of god. As soon as you are lured in by them to take a little bit from your neighbor to give part of it to you, a mad scramble for the spoils begins and it always has to end with you being robbed for enormous amounts to hand over to the elites. You only have yourself to blame, you agreed in principle with theft and threats of murder, now it turns against you, you can not make objections.

Hacked Economy's picture

That's an overly-generalized statement, but I will agree that we need to vote out the politicians and vote in true statesmen.  Term limits of some sort for all legislative positions at all levels.

pcrs's picture

I don't agree with that and history has proven in thousands of cases worldwide that it does not work either. But you can keep trying to employ a thieve in a contract to steal for you and share the proceeds with you.

GoinFawr's picture

I can and do make objections, all the time. Sure they might not be heeded, but I certainly have the opportunity to make them.

I'm being realistic: 'Anarcho Capitalism' is as much a pipe dream as pure Communism (same thing really) because power vacuums never last, and human nature can be selfish. Absolutely free from civil oversight the cleverer sociopath is favoured and subsequently will endeavour to do nothing but take, which is why there must be a modicum of coercion. While my neighbour may be taking a bit from me today, tomorrow I might need a bit of what he has; give and take is the basis of all functioning societies.

You are conflating your experience with politicians with politicians overall. The criminals do not succeed in states where the rule of law actually applies across the broadest demographic.

Unless you plan on living alone on an island, incommunicado with the rest of the planet, one way or another you rely on someone else every moment of your existence, like it or not. IE It is not 'theft' if you owe it.

goldsaver's picture

Ah, but here is the bright epic failure of your theory. My neighbor can only take a bit from me either by my consent or by the use of physical force. Governments are legalized use of physical force.

So my neighbor could trade fairly with me, face me in battle and expect to die by my hands or employ the government to do by proxy what he can not do himself.

Give and take is the basis of all societies, yes, but only when it is done by voluntary trade and while providing value for value, not by the gang warfare of democracy and political groups. The fact that you might need a little from your neighbor today and he might need a little tomorrow does not give you the right to take it by force with the full expectation that he will also.

Anarcho capitalism is as far removed from communism as a good and evil are removed from each other. The purpose of government is limited to the protection of citizens from physical violence and to settle contractual disagreements. That is why they are given, by its citizens, a monopoly on the use of force.

Any government that endeavors beyond this degrades into totalitarian fascism, socialism or monarchy. It is tribalism vs individualism. All other -isms derive from here.

nmewn's picture

"The purpose of government is limited to the protection of citizens from physical violence and to settle contractual disagreements. That is why they are given, by its citizens, a monopoly on the use of force.

Any government that endeavors beyond this degrades into totalitarian fascism, socialism or monarchy. It is tribalism vs individualism. All other -isms derive from here."

Thank God I'm not alone.

nmewn's picture

Love Carlin.  

Government is there to protect the citizen from the oligarchs, not to join them in the plundering of us.

It begins with accepting personal responsibility for yourself and flows from there. If you ask the government for economic or social intercession on your behalf you are admitting failure individually and as a result you let us all down collectively.

As has been remarked on here by others, governments prime directive is the protection of the whole from aggression from outside and to mitigate contractual disputes within.

When it is asked to do more, it requires more sustenance (taxes). The producers are objecting to the continuing theft of the oligarchs, both within the revolving doors of government and without.

In a nutshell ;-)

goldsaver's picture

My virtuous friend you are not alone. The idea of America, and yes she is an idea not a place or a series of seemingly connected events and geographically located men, may have gone into hiding within her borders and may have to be revived elsewhere, but she is not dead for as long as men retain the ability to think.

Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof.

nmewn's picture

"The idea of America, and yes she is an idea not a place or a series of seemingly connected events and geographically located men, may have gone into hiding within her borders and may have to be revived elsewhere, but she is not dead for as long as men retain the ability to think."

Indeed my brother.

It is all beneath the mask, the idea is bulletproof, it can never be slain, it can never be conquered.

GoinFawr's picture

 "The purpose of government is limited to the protection of citizens from physical violence and to settle contractual disagreements"

"modicum of coercion"

goldsaver's picture

There is no modicum to their coercion. An no moderation to the State's force. States are formed and restrained by men or ruled by it. States have the ultimate form of coercion over the individual, a gun. Any argument against the government always degenerates into force. This has always been and will always be. But like nuclear power, the dangerous creature that is the State can be restrained and used for good or unleashed to its own desires of evil. Who restrains the beast? Its victims. Please allow me to explain.

All transactions with the government presume two inviolable facts. The victims acceptance of the power of the State, and the conformance of the victim to its dictates. When you and I file our 1040 return, we do so because we agree with the IRS that it has the authority to demand it of us and we have grown to accept the implication beneath that demand. That we are servants of the State, or more rightfully the bankers who are the State. That we must serve a portion of our lives to its benefit and that we hold no absolute claim to our production since the State has first call on our surplus. We do so, in some cases because we have been trained to believe so and in other cases because we are afraid of the consequences to disobedience to the State. And it is agreement. You do file the form and you do accept as inevitable the confiscation of your wealth.

In exchange the State not only allows you a modicum of freedom and comfort, at a reduced rate based on the success of your efforts, the more you earn the more you pay, but allows you to play their illusory game.

But what if you did not consent? What if the servants rose up as men and whitdrew their consent. What if the victims no longer accepted the rules of the game and the conditions for their "freedom and comfort"? Chaos. You see, the pieces of linen with ink or digital entries in a bank hard drive that you exchange your service and production for are not what the State needs. They can create more out of thin air, why should they care about them? What they truly need is your voluntary production. What they depend on is on the host to continue eating, drinking and providing them with effortless blood.

They depend on your labor under their terms. They need you to work. They need you to create. They need you to buy a new house and pay your mortgage on time. They need you to buy that new union worker made car every three years and to spend "money" in the latest iCrap. They need you to produce. Voluntarily.

What would happen if you stopped paying your taxes? They would use guns against you to force, at best your compliance, and at worst your neighbors out of fear.

But what would happen if you stopped thinking? Stopped producing? Stopped buying? Stopped the machine?

Can they force you to work to your ability? Can they force you to buy a new car? Can they force you to make as much from your production as your mind and your hands permit you?

No my friend. That is the flaw in their system. They are bound by the rules they set up and limited by your voluntary cooperation. They expect some will defy them, but within the rules of their game. They expect tax protesters. So don't protest the tax.

They expect you to cheat within their laws (and they are not yours or mine anymore). So don't cheat.

They expect you to play the game. Don't play.

Ask yourself, who am I working for? My family? Myself? Really?

Do you want to defeat the beast? Do you want to destroy the banksters? Do you want to take away their power?

Withdraw your consent!

 

Strange Game. The only winning move is not to play.

GoinFawr's picture

"I know: You think you're going to be six forever..."-Bill Watterson

Seriously, you're talking about something transitory. Short-term game at best.

"They expect you to cheat within their laws (and they are not yours or mine anymore). So don't cheat."

In Efrafa everybody is guilty of breaking some rule or another, the laws say so. All you need to do is put a microscope far enough up their... noses and have a good look around to find out which one it was.

"Anarcho capitalism is as far removed from communism as a good and evil are removed from each other."

Only if you were to make the tedious mistake of equating capitalism with fascism or communism with Stalinism. (Not to mention the transparent value judgment, the associative attempt to 'brand'.)

"Oh I get it alright; it's very clever...How's that working out for you, being clever?... Well, keep it up then. Now, a question of etiquette..."-TD

goldsaver's picture

Only if you were to make the tedious mistake of equating capitalism with fascism or communism with Stalinism. (Not to mention the transparent value judgment, the associative attempt to 'brand'.)

The complete opposite. I am not equating capitalism with fascism, quite the opposite. My apologies, I clearly failed to be sufficiently clear.

Fascism, Communism, Marxisim, Stalinism, Socialism, Maoism and progressivism are all different rugby teams in the same league. Same game, same rules, same goals. They might call themselves  by different names and have their own unique plays in their play books, but is all the same game.

Capitalism is golf. Different game. Different rules. Different goals.

 

You must brand. Not because you choose to do so but, because the nature of the thing is inherent in the existance of the thing. Reality is real. You brand everyday. food or poison, water or oil, beautiful or ugly. To brand is to exist, identify, define and understand.

 

zaknick's picture

I've got no problem with confiscating all the banksters ill-gotten wealth.

Whatever a majority of a country wants, through informed debate not MSM psyops garbage, is what's best for it. Mob rule? Hardly.

I would even prefer true ucked in the head tribal
socialism (as opposed to grassroots Austrian economics) with TRANSPARENCY and one (wo)man one vote over "representative democracy"(sick joke) any day.

Urban Redneck's picture

"Whatever a majority of a country wants ... is what's best for it"

So your impotence makes you jealous of those in power?  You don't mind tyranny of the majority because you don't think you measure up and will be a target, and you can't stand tyranny of the one or tyranny of the few, because you aren't one of them. 

Or you don't mind if the majority comes for you and your family in the middle of the night (white sheets and torches and all) and you get to swing from the tree and with your last breath on this earth watch them have their fun with your loved ones? 

After all, if there is "informed debate" it's hardly "mob rule"  

Abitdodgie's picture

But if you become a member of the real Republic, and not a sold out slave to the 14 amendment, a federal citizen, and I spit in your general direction , then America would be strong again ,you only have yourselves to blame

JR's picture

Excellent comment, Libertarian777.

The proponents of mob rule on this site today are supporters of the popular Communist program sometimes called land reform.  IOW, anyone who has worked for a living to establish a home or a farm or a business needs to get out of the way and let the mob fight over everything he has built…because in their minds the establishment of America means every American, even the new illegals, owns a share of all the property, not by providing any contribution but by vote.

The oligarchs greatly favor mobs at the voting booth continually voting circuses, entertainment and diversion of private property into their idle hands. That’s because mobs are pawns in the hands of the tyrants.

The men who founded America made no apologies for being land owners and businessmen because those were the marks of responsibility; property rights is a key concept in the establishment of a society that has permanence and can provide for the general welfare of the citizens.

And, by the way, for those commenters who miss the point on this site today, the establishment of this government for the first time in history set in motion a society that would protect the individual from the majority or the combined efforts of the minorities.

GoinFawr's picture

"The proponents of mob rule on this site today are supporters of the popular Communist program sometimes called land reform."

Junk because it simple isn't true. The 'mob rulers' I see on this site mostly promote the entirely justified desire to see the that rule of law applies to everyone, not just those with a net worth less than that of the top 1%. IE They are trying to protect what they have earned.

OTOH, nationalizing a major industry to develop a sovereign wealth fund has been incredibly successful for some countries. Who 'owns' a nation's natural resources, anyway?

"IOW, anyone who has worked for a living to establish a home or a farm or a business needs to get out of the way and let the mob fight over everything he has built…because in their minds the establishment of America means every American, even the new illegals, owns a share of all the property, not by providing any contribution but by vote."

Junk because it evades acknowledging that accumulating wealth by inheritance or theft can hardly be labelled as 'earned'.

"The men who founded America made no apologies for being land owners and businessmen because those were the marks of responsibility; property rights is a key concept in the establishment of a society that has permanence and can provide for the general welfare of the citizens"

Junk because of the inherent irony of using imported hubris to rationalize 'sharing' what the First Nations of NA had already established for hundreds if not thousands of years: IE 'permanence'. Also ignoring that the same folks offered no apologies for the genocide committed in order to procure their wealth.

"And, by the way, for those commenters who miss the point on this site today, the establishment of this government for the first time in history set in motion a society that would protect the individual from the majority or the combined efforts of the minorities."

This last part is not junk, but it is a glaring omission to fail to note that this creed was actually taken from the first nations, and then applied to everyone but them.

JR's picture

Thanks for your responses.

But I’m worried that America, just now, does not need any infusion of Marxist theory: private property is theft or privilege, capitalism is exploitation, and the proletarian movement is the “independent movement of the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority.”

I guess this phrase from Engels is what reminds me of how Stalin and now our own new ruling cartel, use the idle mob to help them override the middle class.  As for the allusion to an established ownership of the entire North American continent by a few American Indian tribes, I guess Marx would have covered that in the Manifesto as well if he had thought of it.


Revisionist history  and the influx into America of racial groups who refuse to assimilate to America’s founding principles are displacing, perhaps forever, the descendants, and thus the influence, of the early settlers, by populations no longer like-minded to the fathers who created our Constitution.

As John Adams said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The Pilgrim Fathers whose influences molded our New England institutions sought these shores not simply as refugees, but also as missionaries.

 “A great hope and inward zeal they had of laying some good foundation (or, at least, to make some way thereunto) for propagating and advancing the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world.”  As Rev. Josiah Strong, D.D., wrote in “Our County” in 1885:

“They came not for gold; but for conscience’ sake and soul’s sake.  The early settlers of New England were sufficiently homogeneous to enable them to labor harmoniously and successfully to make religion, learning, liberty and law the four corner-stones of their civilization.  New England ideas gave form to the national government, and shaped the institutions of the Middle States; but does anyone suppose they are dominant to-day in the great territories of the West? Is there no danger that an alien and materialistic civilization will spring up in the Rocky Mountains and beyond…?”

The Mexican population of the U.S. soon will equal the Mexican population of Mexico; multinational corporations unlawfully having destroyed America’s borders to usher in a low-wage labor force to replace American citizens and their self-created standard of living.  Already, 40 percent of Black males have been displaced in the workplace, as have many Whites.  Even the celebration of Christmas has been neutralized by the celebration of a Jewish holiday whose religion denies Christ.

 

 

GoinFawr's picture

Theocracies suck, of any denomination.

Mixed economies aren't 'Marxist', but the most successful are indeed secular.

Ever hear of 'separation of church and state'? It goes hand in glove with a republic's mandate to "protect the individual from the majority or the combined efforts of the minorities".

Janestool's picture

They were looking for gold, silver, copper, and tin all of which were contractual attachments to their Crown granted Charters so the state could share in the bounty. They brought with them a democracy and a religion from Europe which at the time was centrally authoritative and hierachichal in structure. For them democracy could only be imagined in messianic glories or the Republican verbage of Aristotle. In doing so they displaced functioning indigenous democracies that were consensual in practice and heterarchical in structure not understanding the dark age they had been emerging from. The romantic ideal individualism of the Revolution had as much to with a group of land speculators (George Washington practicing land surveyor and member of several land companies) as anything else after King George's Proclamation of 1763 which forbid further settler expansion into the interior of Trans-Appallachia. Those Viriginia tobacco farmers were only wealthy on paper owing their assets to the banks in London. By participating in state endorsed land speculation (Pre and Post Revolution Aims) those planters sought to enrich themselves and free themselves from their own financial trappings. And become self made kings at the expense of displacing an indigenous population with planned immigration to whom they would sell and rent land to. What responsiblity did the founders take for creating a democracy? In this process of Western expansion indigneous nations were either displaced or had their nation status co-opted and integrated into the domestic authority of a foreign state, by which their own decision making structures were transformed and replace with Aristotle's and the Messiah's langauge and practice. In the end, the indigenous nations became feudal in practice and structure while the race to the Pacific continued without much debate to secure an empire, and fortunes, maybe a lot less than securing a democracy.....You cannnot reinvent the wheel by using the same wheel.....and Idealistic romanticism about the individualism of the founders is a misnomer....We have many problems today, but reciting romantic visions of individualism is not the answer....There are traditions of individualism in America that predate Columbus....and maybe the solutions we need today are a robust individualism in which the individualism is based on measures of self reliance, personal responsibility and community responsibility....The corporations today that exploit the American land scape have their origins in Crown charters during the colonial era.....the elites and self made kings (founders) of America were a lot less concerned with the destiny of humanity than gaining the privilege to exploit rather than the gaining the responsibility to be free  and individual men.........ARx

goldsaver's picture

The 'mob rulers' I see on this site mostly promote the entirely justified desire to see the that rule of law applies to everyone, not just those with a net worth less than that of the top 1%. IE They are trying to protect what they have earned.

So those who promote the idea of confiscating the private property of others are just "protecting what they have earned"? What difference does it makes if the rule of law applies only to the bottom 51% or the top 51%, either way it is no longer the rule of law. Whether it is based no the monarchy of the privileged or the guillotine of the masses, it is still rule of men over other men.

OTOH, nationalizing a major industry to develop a sovereign wealth fund has been incredibly successful for some countries.

Yes, nationalizing a major industry worked so well for Zimbabwe, The USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia just to name a few. Nationalization always fails because those who legally steal the property of others were unable to create the wealth to start with.; How could they possibly expect to keep a factory they can not create running or an oil field they could not explore producing, or a farm they could not build providing? It is their hubris and basic ignorance that drives them to believe that stealing a man's wealth and property will continue to provide them with wealth. Without the mind of the man who built it, it fails.

  Who 'owns' a nation's natural resources, anyway?

It belongs to whomever provides it to the market as value. What is the value of a natural resource that is three miles under the surface of the ocean until it is brought to the surface? What is the value of a seed until a farmer plants it and cultivates it as wheat? What is the value of a patch of timber if no one makes lumber from it? The value its zero. Natural resources have no value until some one's mind and hands have made them valuable. Air is a natural resource. Have you seen many retailer selling breathable air? Of course not. There is no value needed to be added, therefore it is a natural resource. But oil, lumber, gold, grain, fruit are all valuable only because someone gave them value by their actions. The ones who gave them value are the ones who own them.

Junk because it evades acknowledging that accumulating wealth by inheritance or theft can hardly be labelled as 'earned'.

Epic fail. Are you not advocating the theft of another man's property as justified by law? If a man acquires his property by theft, then by all means, the purpose of the law is to retrieve it to the rightful owners. And no, society in general is not the rightful owner. The direct victims of the theft are. If a man inherits wealth he did not earn it, true. But the man who bestows the inheritance on him did. And it is his choice as to how to dispose of his wealth. Whether he hands it over to his children or donates it to his favorite charity, it is still not yours and you have no claim to it.

This last part is not junk, but it is a glaring omission to fail to note that this creed was actually taken from the first nations, and then applied to everyone but them.

Which first nations? The Indian Nations that inhabited the continent? The ones that lived by subsistence nomadic tribal warfare? Which of those nations are innocent of the same crimes committed against them? And they were in many cases crimes, no doubt. Of course, you can not call the purchase of Manhattan a crime. Nor the Louisiana purchase. Nor the trade of debt for land of the South West.

None of that diminishes the fact that this country was founded on the principle that a man's mind and the product of his hands are his property and that the mob nor the king may dispose of it as they wish. That we have completely abrogated our founding, does not negate our founding.

JR's picture

Powerful commentary and rebuttal! goldsaver.  A fitting addendum to Brandon Smith’s 4th of July reflections.  Thank you.  Really well done.

GoinFawr's picture

So those who promote the idea of confiscating the private property of others are just "protecting what they have earned"?

No, those who don't contribute their fair share are stealing from those trying to protect their private property.

"Yes, nationalizing a major industry worked so well for Zimbabwe, The USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia just to name a few...Nationalization always fails because those who legally steal the property of others..." hallelujahgobble, fume, rant, hiss.

Ahem, and exactly how could they have been stealing what had always been theirs? Because some foreign installed dictator 'sold' it to some immoral multinational for some green bits of paper? Hunh. And then there's the leader on the following (one of my favourite tables): http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/27/debt-deficit-oecd-countries-data which slaps your whole ridiculous argument full in the face.

 

It belongs to whomever provides it to the market as value. What is the value of a natural resource that is three miles under the surface of the ocean until it is brought to the surface? What is the value of a seed until a farmer plants it and cultivates it as wheat? What is the value of a patch of timber if no one makes lumber from it?"

What is the value of this blather? Oh, nm, answered:

"The value its zero. Natural resources have no value until some one's mind and hands have made them valuable. Air is a natural resource. Have you seen many retailer selling breathable air?"

I've seen it. That and many other thin edges of wedges...Not valuable? Heh, try making it four minutes without breathable air, head.

 

"Are you not advocating the theft of another man's property as justified by law?"

No, definitely not. Fair share is owed; not stealing.

"If a man acquires his property by theft, then by all means, the purpose of the law is to retrieve it to the rightful owners. And no, society in general is not the rightful owner. The direct victims of the theft are."

So, if rights can be considered wealth (try to stay with me here for a minute if you can), say you inherited certain rights, rights that were stolen...

"If a man inherits wealth he did not earn it, true...." (Now we're getting somewhere)

"...But the man who bestows the inheritance on him did. " Not if he stole it, by your own line of reasoning. This dovetails nicely with your misunderstanding of the cultures that once inhabited, or now border your country.

"And it is his choice as to how to dispose of his wealth. Whether he hands it over to his children or donates it to his favorite charity, it is still not yours and you have no claim to it."

Unless it was stolen from me: IE I paid my fair share and he didn't.

"Which first nations? The Indian Nations that inhabited the continent? The ones that lived by subsistence nomadic tribal warfare? Which of those nations are innocent of the same crimes committed against them? And they were in many cases crimes, no doubt. Of course, you can not call the purchase of Manhattan a crime. Nor the Louisiana purchase. Nor the trade of debt for land of the South West."

No doubt there were many many many crimes indeud. Genocide aplenty! Drunken swindles (I believe you mentioned some)<Cough!> Andrew Jackson <Cough!> 'Sharp Knife' <Cough!> Tanner<Cough!>Human skin for a bridle<retch.>Manifest Destiny might have been 'legal' by the standards in those days...errrr, do you see what I did just there?

"None of that diminishes..." 

Well now, that would be entirely a matter of opinion, no?

"...the fact that this country was founded on the principle that a man's mind and the product of his hands are his property and that the mob nor the king may dispose of it as they wish. That we have completely abrogated our founding, does not negate our founding."

It sounds good though, doesn't it? Too bad it's patently false. You can't 'abrogate' what you've never had from a time that never was in the never never land of Max the 2000 Year Old Mouse.

goldsaver's picture

My apologies. Now I understand your stance. You are a tribal member. Any tribe, from the smallest to the monarchy has the same basic rules. That production is the inherent property of the tribe and that all members of the tribe must contribute their fair share to the benefit of the tribe. Now I understand your point of view.

No, those who don't contribute their fair share are stealing from those trying to protect their private property.

How? If I do not contribute my fair share, how am I stealing your private property? Unless, of course, I go back to the State and demand your property be plundered for my benefit. Only in a communal tribe can that be true. Yes, if my private property is subject to your plunder, it is true that your lack of contribution would result in my loss of property. But then, it was never my private property in that case.

Ahem, and exactly how could they have been stealing what had always been theirs? Because some foreign installed dictator 'sold' it to some immoral multinational for some green bits of paper?

If a man builds a factory in a barren piece of land and the state claims the land as its original property, was the factory originally the States? How can a thing be originally any one's before it exists? Is it not originally the property of he who built it? If I build a farm in a barren piece of land, is the farm not mine? So, lets assume that an evil dictator, Mr X, sold a piece of land to an evil foreign corporation, Umbrella Corporation. Now, lets assume that Umbrella Corporation brings in billions of dollars worth of mining equipment and extracts billions of dollars worth of diamonds. Who is the owner of the diamonds? The State? The State had no diamonds before Umbrella Corporation spent billions digging for them. The People? Which people? Who are the people? Those who sat watching the digging? The ones who received a salary from the mining company for their labor? A salary who would have not existed without the corporation?

Unless it was stolen from me: IE I paid my fair share and he didn't.

How can he have stolen it from you? Please explain the mechanism. Do you believe that the fact that you exist gives you fair share to the production and property of all others?

I want to thank you for an enlightening conversation. I always suspected that the basic premise of the other side was a tribal collective mentality. Now I fully understand.

Please understand that you and I define things differently and are looking at reality thru different premises.

You believe that all is communal and everything belongs to the collective. Therefore if I produce, you have claim to my production. If I do not allow you to plunder, I am clearly stealing from you, since you have claim to my life and mind. It makes perfect sense. If a man drills an oil well and extracts oil from the ground, under your system the oil belongs to you, or at least your fare share of it.

I am sorry, but I don't believe in cannibalism. I am not and will never be your sacrificial animal.

I understand that production comes from the mind, hands and efforts of those who give something value. A resource lacks value until someone works at providing it with value. Such is nature. Water is a valuable resource. You are free to collect it as rain for free. But if you expect someone else to collect it, transport it and provide it to you, you must pay for it. That is the value to you. Not the water, but the actions by the man who provided it to you.

I understand that my production is mine to dispose of as I wish. I am willing to trade for it. I also know that your production is yours. I am willing to provide you value for your value. I will not plunder your production and will not allow you to plunder mine.

So, if rights can be considered wealth (try to stay with me here for a minute if you can), say you inherited certain rights, rights that were stolen...

Rights are not wealth. Wealth is wealth. An apple can not be a rock. The nature of the object is unique to that object or it would not exist. You can not inherit rights. Only what can be bought, produced or given can be inherited. Your rights are yours because you exist! Your rights do not come as a privilege from the State. Your rights are yours because you are. In order for you to live, you have a right to be alive. In order for you to subsist, you have a right to eat. No, you do not have the right to demand others feed you anymore that others have the right to forbid you to grow, buy or trade for food.

Unless it was stolen from me: IE I paid my fair share and he didn't.

How did you pay your fair share for my wealth? If I buy a house and upon my death bestow it to my son, how did I steal it from you? Is it because your great-great grandfather once erected a TeePee at this location? Did he build my house? Did he bring in plumbing, and floors and walls and a roof? Did he turn a piece of dirt into a house? How can you have claim over my production? And if I did not pay my fair share, how did I steal it? By what mechanism? BTW, who determines what is a fair share? The State?

In my planet, fairness is determined by those making the trade. I offer you a value and you offer me a value. If we come into agreement, we make a fair eschange. If we dont, we part friends and find someone else who may wish to trade.

 

GoinFawr's picture

I'm 'Tribal'? I guess, if by that you mean I am a human being, and not a sociopath with a deliberately over developed sense of self worth. I'd like to think 'pragmatic' would be closer to the truth.

Bah, either your reading comprehension is nonexistent, or you're a blinkered zealot; a propagator and product of indoctrinated rote composed of swiss cheesy syllogisms. I've answered all your inane questions already, and you have yet to address the most basic of my points; wilfully and long-windedly evading them, more like.  I'm not about to start chasing you in circles.

Good luck with your "I'm all right so fuck all the rest" ethos, Mr.Island-unto-Myself.

Regards

IQ 145's picture

 I feel like apologizing for your "junk". I wish there was an "un-junk" button. What you say is simply true, of course. All democracys fail because the mob discovers it can vote itself funds from the treasury, (eg. vote buying). We are far along that path.

GoinFawr's picture

FWIW:

I didn't junk you.  But I should have.

Manthong's picture

The 17th Amendment was the beginning of the end of states sovereignty and the beginning of Senators for sale to the highest (donor) bidder.

Under Woodrow Wilson, the 17th Amendment, along with the 16th Amendment (income tax) and the establishment of the Federal Reserve banking system, ushered in domineering federalism.

It’s taken 100 years, but the devolution from United States to Federalized Districts of America is about complete.

Next step; socialism, fascism or despotism.. pick your poison.

GoinFawr's picture

I choose none of your isms. I choose 'mixed economy with secularly oriented and democratically elected municipal/'state'/national governments all protected by a constitution, and a healthy, well-educated, politically active population'. So: a 'Republic'.

<Stands tall and sticks out chin>

Anyone wanna go toe-to-toe on the semantics?

malek's picture

Effectively the republic ended in the Civil War.

G-R-U-N-T's picture

"The 4th of July is a marker, an oasis in the annals of history, when the true potential of humanity could be glimpsed, even if only for a moment."

I'm with you Brandon, however I was hoping America would NOT be an anomaly in the anals of world history.

I am proud, honored, deeply patriotic and proud to be an American even though many in the world are American haters. Those haven't a clue even though in it's brevity in history America did indeed "transformed the shape of the Earth forever. The impossible was now, indeed, possible. The great shadow of elitism and autocracy was not only vulnerable; it could be crushed by the likes of so called “peasants”."

Thank you brother for your impressions! Happy Independence Day my friend!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whmVGRSgAe8

Ahmeexnal's picture

Major riots breaking out in Belarus.
Internet has been taken down and there's a media blackout.

The collapse of civilization has begun.