This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Moral Relativism And Patriotism As Weapons Of The State

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,

Over the weekend, a suicide bomber suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda struck a funeral in Yemen, killing forty five individuals.  The funeral was attended predominantly by members of a militia which aided the Yemeni Army in recapturing a town held by Al Qaeda.  The attack was rightfully condemned by major media outlets.  Viciously killing mourners at a funeral is the very definition of terrorism as it sends a message that no time or place is off limits from a surprise attack.  It shows a complete lack of respect for the sanctity of life.  Al Qaeda has become known for these attacks in recent years.  American national security officials and politicians have reacted by denouncing such attacks as a sign of the utter savagery of the terrorist group.

Yet Al Qaeda is not alone in this tactic.  The CIA’s not-so-secret drone campaign is also guilty of targeting funerals attended by civilians.  According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, drone attacks have been responsible for the deaths of “dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals.”  As of February of this year, at least 535 civilians have been killed by drone strikes since President Obama took office; 20 of which were killed while attending funerals.  Last June, a gathering of mourners was targeted for a strike in Pakistan.  The 10 people killed in that attack had come together to grieve over the death of a “brother of a militant commander” killed just a day before in another drone strike.

There is little denouncement of the civilian casualties that are a product of the U.S.’s foreign policy.  The narrative presented by Washington lawmakers and the press is that of a struggle between the forces of good and evil.  The terrorists of the Middle East are ruthless barbarians while the troops and Pentagon officials are goodhearted protagonists trying to liberate an oppressed people.  The blood of innocent women and children on the hands of Al Qaeda is damming evidence of their depravity.  That same blood on the hands of the U.S. defense establishment is a sign of triumph.  It is moral relativism on a national scale; slaying of the innocent is terrible on one hand while honorable on the other.  As LRC columnist Laurence Vance notes in regard to how atrocities committed by private individuals are perceived differently than those committed by the military:

 

I don’t know if there are theaters in Afghanistan, but if U.S. soldiers enter a building in Afghanistan and kill twelve and wound fifty-eight – like James Holmes allegedly did in Colorado – they are lauded as heroes.

Military officials frequently go on television and tell not just Americans but the rest of the world that they are making a sacrifice for maintaining safety and freedom around the globe.  They invoke patriotism to justify their actions.  Taxpayers forced into picking up the tab for the endless warfare repay the favor by unquestioningly handing their respect over to crusaders of state-sanctioned mass murder.  From the perspective of enhancing and enlarging the central state, it’s the prefect scheme.  Force feeding the concept of “patriotic duty” is a great way to get people to accept the otherwise deplorable actions of government officials.  It is why Randolph Bourne aptly recognized war as the “health of the state.”

Today, the conduct committed by state enforcement officials, whether they be imperialistic endeavors or the negation of human liberty at home, are rationalized by the way of apologetic relativism.  This relativism stands in opposition to absolute moral principles.  Theft, murder, eavesdropping, lying, issuing threats, and beating upon others are all actions looked down upon by sensible individuals.  They lead society astray from an amicable coexistence.

The state, by the doings of its executors and administrators, embodies everything you were told was wrong as a child.  Children are usually taught straightforward rules of acceptable behavior at a young age.  As they grow older, they are bombarded with propaganda from school, television, and even their own parents that attempt to remove the government away from basic considerations of right and wrong.  These efforts are part of an ongoing agenda to convince the public what they see as morally repugnant behavior is justified when done under the refuge of government authorization.  The institutional predation of the state is supported by a kind of war on reason fought by those seek most fervently to maintain the exploitive status quo.  The objective is enough consent on the part of the people to overwhelm any high-spirited protest.  While independent and intellectual criticism is the state’s worst enemy, unthinking acceptance is its greatest ally.

The ruling establishment sees little danger in violent uprising.  What they fear most is the turning of public opinion against their legitimacy.  They fear losing consent above all things because soon after, their lordship must come to an end.   Support among the people is what keeps tyranny alive; not a violent clenching down upon personal freedom.

Though the American Revolution is frequently evoked as a display of this truth, a better example exists in colonial Pennsylvania nearly a century before the Declaration of Independence was penned.  Upon being granted the lands of Pennsylvania by King Charles II in March of 1681, William Penn proceeded to establish a colony governed over by a constitution of sorts.  The positions of governor and proprietor were created along with an elected Council that saw to executive and judicial functions.  An appointed Assembly was also formed which had the authority to levy taxes and veto laws passed by the Council.  Because of the liberties guaranteed in the new colony, the low tax burden, and Penn’s selling of land at cheap prices, immigrants flooded into Pennsylvania in its formative years.  Penn would eventually return to England in 1684 but upon doing so found that the colonists were refusing to pay taxes including the land taxes he counted on to maintain a hefty profit.  The Council, which was elected by the people and had the sole authority in executing laws, refrained from collecting taxes and left the colony autonomous.  Penn would eventually appoint a commission to restore his lost opportunity of compensation through force.  The colonists simply ignored the commission which led to its collapse.  Penn then instituted a deputy governor to ensure for the collection of taxes but that effort was also came to be in vain.  As Murray Rothbard summarizes

William Penn had the strong and distinct impression that his “holy experiment” had slipped away from him, had taken a new and bewildering turn. Penn had launched a colony that he thought would be quietly subject to his dictates and yield him a handsome profit. By providing a prosperous haven of refuge for Quakers, he had expected in turn the rewards of wealth and power. Instead, he found himself without either. Unable to collect revenue from the free and independent-minded Pennsylvanians, he saw the colony slipping gracefully into outright anarchism—into a growing and flourishing land of no taxes and virtually no state.

The peace-loving Quakers and colonists were able to dissolve an intrusive government by their sheer unwillingness to recognize its legitimacy.  They properly regarded the various attempts at governance and taxation imposed upon them as thuggish means of exploitation.  In short, they saw through the facade of the state being above moral considerations.  Rejecting state rule did not make them bad citizens but admirable in the sense that they ended up living harmoniously with each other in its absence. As Penn would lament in the midst of Pennsylvania’s brush with halcyon anarchism, he and his appointed rulers had lost “their authority one way or another in the spirits of the people.”  The idea that men are born to be free instead of in shackles was enough to overcome government compulsion.

The first step toward liberty is to see through the masking fog the state engulfs itself in to carry out its deeds of conquest.  It is the realization that murder is murder no matter if it is committed by a street thug or an army captain piloting a remote controlled aircraft armed with hellfire missiles.  It is the realization that debasing of the currency by a select few central bankers is no different from the shysters of old who would shave off small portions from gold bullion so that it would appear to retain the same weight.  Finally, it is the realization that glorifying war in the name of “loving thy country” is a grand swindle used to deceive the simple-minded into falling in line like a herd of sheep soon be slaughtered.

Using reason to discover absolute truths is an essential part of determining how one should live their life in accordance with sound ethics.  Relativism denies this.  It can deny that evil is committed by the state and that reprehensible acts are perfectly okay when done by individuals with guns and badges.  All it takes to reverse such destructive thinking is the realization that state authority deserves no pass in moral scrutiny.  Withdrawing consent comes next on the path to a free society.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 23:20 | 2696262 SgtShaftoe
SgtShaftoe's picture

No, It might work as long as they can hold the economy together, but after that, it's over.  We're spectators watching a race between totalitarianism, and economics (crash).  Though totalitarianism may very well return after the economic crash, so...  good luck.

Fri, 08/10/2012 - 21:51 | 2696034 luna_man
luna_man's picture

 

 

Yeah, very good find...MY MAIN MAN!...

 

keeps the hits coming...Day after day!  Right?

Fri, 08/10/2012 - 22:35 | 2696146 Cabreado
Cabreado's picture

"moral relativism" is a confused, nonsensical, dangerous term in itself.

But mostly a handy cover for the self-absorbed, as they take part in the destruction -- knowingly or otherwise.

Good article.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 13:18 | 2697513 Marco
Marco's picture

Moral relativists is what moral absolutists call people who disprove their view by simply existing and disagreeing with them ... pure cognitive dissonance.

PS. which is not to say one set of ethics is not clearly superior to all others (mine of course).

Fri, 08/10/2012 - 23:04 | 2696214 windcatcher
windcatcher's picture

I can only laugh in wonderment at half-baked, blind snake bit, foaming at the mouth Libertarians defending anarchy to the ignorant as if they knew what it is by definition.

 

The Quakers were not anarchist; in fact they were much regimented around their religion. Any outsider was ostracized and if you received a scarlet letter you were burned at the stake. I am sure hooked-nosed Libertarians would have found themselves right at home as Righteous Deacons of the church.

 

Libertarians by and large are an ignorant bunch of oafs appealing to other ignorant oafs

Fri, 08/10/2012 - 23:25 | 2696273 SgtShaftoe
SgtShaftoe's picture

You're not seeing the forest for the trees.  Small (usually local) systems - low scale, however imperfect, are more stable than highly scaled systems.  We're under the gun of scalability, waiting patiently for the avalanche.  Scaling must be decreased, and nature will force it that way, warts and all. 

If you have enough people advocating libertarian ideas, and enforcing in law, the individual (YOU) are pretty safe, otherwise, anybody that doesn't fit in usually dies.  So, good luck.  I hope you are in a tolerant community, or you don't stick out.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 02:15 | 2696506 HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

So how do you define a 'libertarian' (which is a relatively new term equivalent to a Jeffersonian classical liberal of the past) ?  The term 'liberal' was stolen by the illiberal.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 08:23 | 2696743 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

You are ignorance personified.

As these Quakers lived in a stateless society for twenty years, that is anarchist by definition. Though anarchist hadn't been thought of at the time.

Quakers were very fair in their dealings with Native Americans and helpful to strangers. Scarlet letters? You are confusing puritans with quakers. 

They were very much religious and tied to that religion as a social contract. The point of the article is the use of a stateless society by the quakers that was very successful economically and politically. It is not a discussion of their religious faith. 

Hooked- nosed? 

Are you forced to think like this? What a nightmare.

Fri, 08/10/2012 - 23:14 | 2696243 q99x2
q99x2's picture

I've seen through the fog. Boy is it sunny out. I never trust anyone with black hair.

Fri, 08/10/2012 - 23:38 | 2696292 dunce
dunce's picture

It has been my observation that the people that seek political office do so because of a lust for power that no one in the private sector will grant them because of no displayed competence, competence is not a prerquisite for political office, not even the presidency. Their incompetence is usually  marked with the absence of a moral compass. As government grows so do the effects of these character flaws.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 00:38 | 2696369 Nikao7
Nikao7's picture

well said dunce

Sun, 08/12/2012 - 07:28 | 2698509 Withdrawn Sanction
Withdrawn Sanction's picture

It has been my observation that the people that seek political office do so because of a lust for power...

I absolutely agree.  Take it one step further.  What does your observation suggest about a person who actively, deliberately seeks out the presidency and its attendant capacity to murder millions and even destroy the world.  What kind of sicko wants to wield that sort of power over his fellow human beings?  Anyone seeking the presidency ought to be disqualified for the very reason that they are mentally unfit.

Fri, 08/10/2012 - 23:38 | 2696298 tony bonn
tony bonn's picture

the united states is a barbaric murderous state.....the thousands and millions upon millions it has murdered is disgusting all done by the plutocrats and academicians who see world conquest as the only worthy pursuits for their times....they are wicked men....

the usa government has murdered john f kennedy, martin luther king jr and his grandmother, robert f kennedy, john lennon, ronald reagan (attempted), richard nixon (political assassination), mary meyer, jonestown, foreign leaders by the boatload including olaf palme, patrice lumumba, salvador allende, the list is too too long.....

and while the perpetrators are wall street thugs led by the bush crime syndicate, the american people go along with these lies and murders because of moral relativism.....the state is always right because i want to be a powerful jedi master of the universe like jamie dimon or lloyd blankenfein, or some other cretinous crook....americans are conditioned to worship wealth and power and thus murder by authority in the name of power is ok.....

and the lies spewing forth from even useless clerks at macy's is a disgust - we are always right and you are always wrong...too bad lilly tomlin sold out like the cheap whore that she is because she nailed the arrogance of power back in the day.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 00:11 | 2696346 I am on to you
I am on to you's picture

Agree on the most you wrote.

But lets not forget,the Americans,that are ,not in on this,and lets not  forget, The Europeans who are in on this.

 

Sun, 08/12/2012 - 07:36 | 2698512 Withdrawn Sanction
Withdrawn Sanction's picture

...the american people go along with these lies and murders because of moral relativism...

Yes, that's one possible explanation.  An alternative is they (rightly) feel powerless to stop the slide.  And in a head to head match of citizens against the armed forces of the US, they'd be right.  But that's not the only way.  Withdraw your sanction in countless small ways.  Pay cash, dont stand to "salute" the troops at sporting events, declare yourself unfit for jury duty, dismiss the door to door canvassers for politicians with a wave of your royal hand, laugh at those who still vote...the list is nearly endless.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 00:00 | 2696334 I am on to you
I am on to you's picture

So thats where it started,Bill Pen,was selling land,wonder who,s land he was selling,well Columbus was ahead??

The land that was found,for the ones who lost it,wonder who they might be!

Oh yes they drone people to death.

Remember,they devostated a Land called Irak to,some one forgot that,the land of Ups,no weapons in the Bushwagon,might be in the pocket of Powels,i am innocent,they forced me to lie.

I dont belive all americans are evil,like i dont belive the rest of the world are all good.

Ill say it again,humans had two choises,they choose the wrong.

The right one,the easy,would had led us all,in to a wonder full world,instead,we stand in a nightmare,up to the neck,its so bad,that to speak the truth,could get one killed?????Please dont drone me CIA!

How the hell, did we come so far out,ill smoke a litle on that one?(and you are wrong,its plain tobaco,remember the one, a doctor inhaled ,and said it makes me feel Freesh, 50th,s),even i know the anserw!

Greed ,simpel ugly, greed!

Peace?Yeah,but we got to kill the war first,sadly to use this word,kill!

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 00:11 | 2696345 JR
JR's picture

Governor Paul LePage Threatens RNC Boycott If Maine Ron Paul Delegates Are Not Seated!

Submitted by LittleWing on Fri, 08/10/2012

"Today, conservative talk show host Ray Richardson announced on Faceboook that Governor Paul LePage, the only elected member of the delegation not challenged by Romney’s supporters, has announced that he will boycott the convention if the Ron Paul delegates are not seated. From Richardson’s post:

The Governor of Maine, Paul LePage, in a conversation five minutes ago said that if they do not seat the Maine Delegation at the RNC, he will not go. These folks need to be seated.

The Governor gave me explicit permission to make this public.

This declaration ups the ante in this conflict and, if the challenge to the delegates is not resolved amicably before they arrive in Tampa, will likely make the Maine disagreement into national news.

http://www.dailypaul.com/

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 00:34 | 2696363 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 Unilateral "party" bashing is not a good thing. Thanks for the link J.R. Paul LePage? A French conservative?

   Jeesus H. Christ , "Ballot Box"... ASAP!

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 02:19 | 2696512 HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

I've lost all interest in what the demo-republicrat chicken-shits do or not do.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 00:38 | 2696368 michigan independant
michigan independant's picture

 Penn would eventually return to England in 1684 thus he walked away from said local family and friends. They had correctly as a community excluded his claim to there labors. I do not feel any community will submit, or should to self imposed tyrants no matter who they are. If the enemy appears some may say that is to late. I tell my children if they appear, I shall fall with my winchester in hand, so bury me like Tellus if I do fall so other than that the constable can do his paid duty. The question to me in this complicated affair is I do not agree with the extreme Left or Right  and we never should. We can tax enough for those means tested and not every flippiant claim to ours or labor. Evil indeed is real, so in the theme of the article, yes they are on both sides as we are it appears. Only ignorance can be cured since the rest is wasted effort.  Vote your poison in or out.

 

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 01:29 | 2696457 Boxed Merlot
Boxed Merlot's picture

Anarchy occurs with the absence of law.  Freedom is the ability to live within the law.  Freedom grows when those that write, teach and enforce the law abide by them as well. 

 

Revolution occurs when certain individuals are exempt from any law that others are required to obey.  When lawmakers are required to be first in obedience, just the most basic laws needed will be the result.  As long as they exempt themselves, collapse is only a matter of time.

imo.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 05:29 | 2696612 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Your definition is incorrect.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 05:43 | 2696617 i-dog
i-dog's picture

That's being kind! His whole post, with its idiotic re-definitions, is fucking nonsense.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 11:30 | 2697240 Boxed Merlot
Boxed Merlot's picture

That's being kind!...

 

I'd like to attribute the nonsensical tenor to late night and meds, but my mind was thinking in shorthand.

The point I was trying to make is anarchy occurs when the rule of law is scoffed at, in which case there is by definition no law but "natural" law being complied with.

Also, even though one may not like the laws one finds himself having to live under, one may experience "liberty", i.e. no fear of persecution if one complies with them.

The third observation is just that people will only put up with living under odious laws for so long before they rebel, and one of the ways to accelerate the rebellion is to have the people that control the lawmaking and enforcing hold themselves out as exempt from the laws they force everyone else to comply with.

So water is wet, sue me.

 

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 11:40 | 2697283 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Also, even though one may not like the laws one finds himself having to live under, one may experience "liberty", i.e. no fear of persecution if one complies with them.

So, you're saying liberty through slavery? Sure the meds aren't working their way through the old system? 

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 12:30 | 2697423 Boxed Merlot
Boxed Merlot's picture

I guess it's here my understanding of liberty makes a distinction between voluntary and involuntary obedience.  This is the crux of the matter because it takes extraordinary self control to comply with a law when one doesn't by "right" have to.  I maintain rebellion will occur more frequently, sooner and with greater ferocity when those that establish and maintain the law blatenly disregard it as applicable to / for themselves and use the law to oppress those to whom they apply it to.

 

This is just an observation.  Personally speaking, I find the practise reprehensible and wish our current crop of lawmakers would apply the laws they pass to themselves first before they try them out on the rest of us.

 

Same fight, different century.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 12:49 | 2697468 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

I appreciate the distinction. However, it takes little self control if you feel you had enough individual sovereignty to help create the social contract in the first place. With the exception of the civil war (whereby the State made it illegal to contest the contract) we have not seen rebellion, neither ferocious nor frequently and yet the law has continued to be applied unevenly between the classes since 1789.

There is a small case to be made for the labor movement prior to 1915, but all in all-they continue to get away with it. 

I think you will always find the practice reprehensible, unless there is a dramatic change in the make up of the state as an instrument of law and rule. 

 

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 13:15 | 2697511 Boxed Merlot
Boxed Merlot's picture

I’ve heard it said the most ideal form of government would be a benevolent monarchy, but since this has yet to occur for any length of time in the course of human existence on earth, the next best thing would be a constitutional republic.  When the US was established, the “rulers” saw their activity as “ruler” as a temporary condition and longed for the day when they could be done with the shackles of “ruling” and return to the freedom and sovereignty of the status of person.

It sounds foreign to our ears today, as too few (s)elected officials appear to understand that distinction.  Maybe some do, I’d like to think so.  But the rest of the world looked on in wonder when our first president left the presidency to return to life as a farmer.  (I know, slavery, existed then, and whether sanctioned or not, it was a sign of the particular era in which he lived.)

The fact remains, the system that began did allow for the “freeing” of the slaves which was nothing short of remarkable and points to the legitimacy of the form of government established.  imo.

 

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 17:01 | 2697809 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

That is said because a philosopher king is an contradiction in terms. However, you are limiting yourself to the choices described by Plato, over two thousand years ago. A people that felt democracy was for the ruling class and slaves were a fixture in society.

There is nothing magical about a constitutional republic, a reading of Lord Acton's works will cure you of that in a few long chapters.

The question for him was this: what is the power that will force bad men to behave? If a king was God's representative on Earth as a ruler, he had certain standards he must live up to. This was a regulating factor in his behavior. 

In a Constitutional republic, what is the regulating factor? The Law, but what if the law isn't followed or enforced upon the power brokers? That if the SCOTUS ends up supporting the government over the people and the law? The regulating power is stronger on the monarch then in our form of government.

There was nothing special about our system regarding the freeing of slaves. Britain outlawed slavery long before we did. As for legitimacy, the Constitution was more of a coup. We had a government that was fully functional and a product of the American people. It contained an amendment process, but was decentralized. This government was not disolved through democracy, it was superceded with a new constitution voted on by a landed gentry (whom many would benefit from repayment of war debts) that comprised between 3 and 13% of the population. 

Hardly legitimate. Further, we as a people have never been asked to approve it in all the years since. We are never given an opportunity to choose yea or nay. This is the very function of a contract. 

There has yet to be a government that has been self limiting and under the direct control of the people. They are always run by an elite for their benefit. For me, this means the form itself is a failure- IN ALL OF IT'S VAROUS GUISES. Therefore, the only reasonable action is to seek something other than a central government system. Sovereignty must reside in the individual.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 21:59 | 2698124 Boxed Merlot
Boxed Merlot's picture

We are never given an opportunity to choose yea or nay. This is the very function of a contract...

Thank you for a very reasoned response. I can see your point of a government run by the elite for their benefit. I agree that sovereignty must reside with the individual, but how?

I can also see and agree that a king was viewed as "God's representative on Earth" and when the "word of god" was in the control of a very select few, (by virtue of birth, favor/education or force,) this was (more) easily manipulated to assure control. Since the reformation, (and advent of the printing press), and the thrust to put the "accepted word of god" into the hands of laity in their own language, more people / individuals began to question this model. (and rightfully so, imo.)

We now find ourselves in the current time /space. How effectively can the past structure's progeny currently in "control" accept, exert future control and / conceal their activities from those they wish to dominate? I contend it will be the same worn out, tried and true methods of promises of relief of human needs, promise of importance for having been / lived and praising them (the ones in supposed “control”) for their providing these temporary, (70-80 orbits), "solutions".

Again, I must apologize, the meds were required a little sooner today and may be interfering with a cogent response, but I do appreciate the fact you responded and have allowed me to bloviate further on the matter.

(One last thing, the term contract I believe is roughly equivalent to the archaic term of covenant but may not be viewed currently with as dire consequence of non-compliance)

 

Sun, 08/12/2012 - 07:23 | 2698181 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Unfortunately, you're probably correct on the matter of future control, but there is hope in education. The Elites have worked long and hard and they have a few "Institutes" they use to study us humans. They have presidential handlers and they control the currency of the world (less a few countries without CB's). 

Still, there are opportunities in the creation of community webs of like minded people. Communities that can divorce themselves from the present finacial and legal system to the degree possible without risking federal terrorism. It is a difficult problem and the available answers are not completely satisfying, but then, what is? What we have now?

First, the battle must be won in the hearts and minds. 

A civil convesation is a wonderful gift. I appreciate your responses.

Mon, 08/13/2012 - 01:45 | 2700213 Boxed Merlot
Boxed Merlot's picture

In the US system, the SCOTUS is supposedly held in check through the jury system. Here though, the education system has a greater influence than many may wish to believe, because when properly understood, the jury's decision can over-ride a judge’s ruling, even though a judge may pronounce "instructions" to a jury prior to deliberations.

I understand attorneys can prevail in submitting appeals and judges can even over-ride jury decisions but when these activities occur, the stakes should be raised due to the disregard for sovereign people's decisions.

The three branches of governing designed initially are / were not haphazardly arrived at but are by design woven together well to continue to allow for representative governing through odious laws by allowing juries to find parties not guilty though technically found in violation. Thus negating the will of tyrannical (s)elected lawmakers, executives and their minions responsible for inundating a sovereign populace with unrelenting and absurd rules, regulations and bureaucratic nonsense.

 

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 01:35 | 2696468 MikeMcGspot
MikeMcGspot's picture

Excellent article and thread.

One of the best things I like about Quakers is the "consent" rather than "consensus" model of decision making they use in their community.. BTW Windcatcher Quakers still exist and will even have a polythiest agnostic such as me over to the house for a chat,

Anyway when I asked the question "What is the cost of freedom?" my practicle and stoic Swedish brother in law answered...

"Wallmart is rolling back the price!"

As we looked at how China is throttling back their production, knowing transportation cost will also drive the price to the moon..

We decided that now is the time to buy.

We also set up a web site and 900 number for you to call, for $49.90 per month you can get all the freedom you want from us...

Yea we can beat Wallmart prices since it is all virtual.

No brick and mortar costs, Passing the saving on to you!

A weekend toast to you all..

"The frantic grasp for power and control, maintaining stasis via machine manipulation of preconditioned minds… Oh what a busy week in the world of dominion and subjugation.
Let’s hear it for the weekend! "

Cheers to all,

May you enjoy it so much, you carry on into next week!"

 

 

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 03:46 | 2696566 Monk
Monk's picture

Not just the state but the capitalists whom it serves and profits from war made by multinational corporations.

 

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 07:29 | 2696592 NuYawkFrankie
NuYawkFrankie's picture

Re Withdrawing Consent.

 

Yes, that's the way to go - and a good start would be to NOT VOTE in ANY Congressional or Pesidential election.

I consider the office of POTUS, as presently constituted,  with ONE MAN (puppeteered or not) lording it over the WHOLE COUNTRY - issuing Edicts & Directives  like some demented Zeus farting out thunderbolts from Mt Olympus - while simultaneously attempting to cower a large part the PLANET with threats of aggression, to be absolutely indefensible and preposterous. 

What self-respecting individual, with just one ounce of common sense, can actually believe in such a ludicrous arrangement? 

Likewise,to somehow think that a supine, servile, subservient Congress is anything other than a rubber-stamp enabler of such madness  requires a similar leap into absurdity and self-abasement. Ditto the Judiciary.

 I hereby uneqivocably withdraw my consent.

 

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 06:49 | 2696645 silverdragon
silverdragon's picture

End the one party state nonesense, pretending to be a two party state.

Starve the beast.

Hang the banksters.

Buy physical Silver to save the country.

 

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 07:19 | 2696661 Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture

 

 

"War(and militarism - me) is the health of the State" - Bourne

 

I would like all the usual suspects, who run around screaming about shrinking Big Govt., welfare queens, food stamp recipients, greedy entitled Social Security recipients, etc., but at the same time cannot countenance any cutbacks to the Dept. of 'Defense,' to explain themselves.

Do you not understand that the Dept. of 'Def' is just as much a part of the "Big Govt" you claim to despise? What is the difference between a soldier(or anyone else in said Dept. of 'Def') receiving a check from the govt as opposed to those groups I mentioned in my first sentence?

Do you comprehend that this is why folks like me who once long ago identified myself as Republican and "Conservative" have left or are leaving your ranks? The "left's" hypocrisy is no worse than your own.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 07:41 | 2696685 silverdragon
silverdragon's picture

F*ck the one party state nonesense, starve the beast.

And buy some physical silver while you are at it.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 08:19 | 2696736 DeliciousSteak
DeliciousSteak's picture

Al Qaeda my ass. They are rebels, with outside help(call these Al Qaeda if you must, but it's inaccurate) but because Jemen is rulers are pro-US these rebels are simply portrayed as "terrorists" etc - exactly like Assad portrays the rebel element in his country. It's just another example of total, utter, absolutely disgusting US hypocrisy. Just like ignorging the violent crushing of the Bahrain protests, with the help of the Saudi military. FUCKING DISGUSTING.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 08:31 | 2696762 j d esh
j d esh's picture

Any essay on relativism that doesn't include a single mention of advertising/marketing is incomplete at best.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 08:31 | 2696764 j d esh
j d esh's picture

double post...deleted

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 10:16 | 2696978 shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

 

USA - Murder = Crime

Anywhere else - Murder + flag decal =Nation building/ preserving freedom/ exporting democracy/etc.

War requires that word definitions become fungible.

Equal effect vs. altered perception of effect.

j d is correct. Advertising is a key component that aids the substitution from a concrete concept to a more ephemeral appeal to 'patriotism'. The flag decal is the fulcrum that transfers the motion.

They may be told, but they must be sold.

Justice needs precision, murder does not.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 13:07 | 2697490 Gadfly
Gadfly's picture

The State versus the Indiviual is a false dichotomy.  Individuals create the State for their own benefit -- defense, commerce, orderly governance, etc.  But States, like all organizations, tend to accumulate power, and then proceed to take away individual rights in order to enhance and protect the State's power.  All political and ecomonic theories that do not recognize human nature's desire to acquire and accumulate and maintain power are just that: unworkable theories.  That goes for Communisim, unbriddled Capitalism, Libertarianism, and all the rest.  The real issue is how to prevent the accumulation of power in all human organizations.  The Founding Fathers made a good start.  But based on the angry, emotional, and ideological posts on this thread, it looks like we are rapidly reaching the point where we are willing to throw out the baby with the bath water.  When we lose our ability to cooperate for the common good, to engage in intellligent and rational debate, supported by undisputed facts, then we will go the way of all empires.  And the fall will not come from enemies or terrorists "out there," it will come from a decay within each of us, in the way we think and act and treat one another.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 18:19 | 2697913 css1971
css1971's picture

Money is power. If you take away the ability to create money you take away most of the power, they have to switch to taxation rather than inflation to pay for their power.

 

Start migrating away from credit to cash and from cash to peer to peer money like gold.

Example:

Credit payment - full price or add a surcharge for processing.

Cash (notes & coins) - discounted 5%.

Silver/Gold - Further 5% discount on the price.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 23:41 | 2698248 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

I'm for panarchism.

Choose your poison.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 13:22 | 2697518 stiler
stiler's picture

Dominion theology or Kingdom Now plays into this. Starting with only a symbolic interpretation of the scriptures you come to the idea that the tribulation was in the Roman era and we are now in the millenial reign of "Christ". So with this heresy Christianity is going to take over the world, right? And you have the Crusades, ad nauseum. And the Jews are inconsequential at least, at most they are persecuted (and have been by the church for 1700 years). They have been replaced: Israel the church. Replacement Theology.

Instead start with correct interpretation of the scriptures. Literal, unless by every angle it makes no sense, then symbolic. You'll arrive at this: Christianity is Jewish, coming from a covenant with Israel. (Jere 33:31) and they have a large part to play. The Tribulation is coming. It has no comparison with anything that has happened on earth ever. God's purpose with it is to rid the earth of sin and sinners, so He can bring in the Millenial Reign of Messiah. Israel is very sinful, but she will repent @ Armageddon. 

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 14:51 | 2697630 Global Jackie
Global Jackie's picture

"While independent and intellectual criticism is the state’s worst enemy, unthinking acceptance is its greatest ally."

Insightful article. Unsettling.

Critical thinking, as you so insightfully note, is the enemy of the state. Authoritarianism relies on the compliance of its citizens. The problem with "relevance" -- as you note -- is that it keeps the gaze on "others" and fails to honestly self criticize. "They" have the problems and dictatoraial styled governments, not "us." The ignorance is chilling. Despite the trend towards "critical thinking" and the US drive towards being more competitive internationally, the nation is creating a populcae of widget makers who cannot think but "do" the work of functioning w/o mindfulness. Students can produce answers but not meaningful questions. Eliminating sports and creative arts programs in public schools eliminates necessary emotional pain (failure to perfom) and the resilience ongoing sports and such require and cultivate. Sports and art require thoughtfulness and creativity; ridding our educational system of them results in creating coporate managers, "leaders" and other adults who function as widget makers... very few enlightened creative visionaries who can imagine a better future and create a path to it. 

So, I've digresssed... sort of... critical thinking shines light on a populace ignorant of its own wrongdoings. Education plays a signiicant role in this effort; sports and the arts are vital contributions to the goal of an engaged citizenry. 

 

http://www.theglobalroundhouse.com

@GlobalJackie

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 15:06 | 2697646 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

Eliminating sports and creative arts programs in public schools eliminates necessary emotional pain (failure to perfom) and the resilience ongoing sports and such require and cultivate.

 

Our school district was given permission by the state to raise property taxes in a county with the second highest elderly population in the country.The rate increase was granted because the district is in debt and has been laying off teachers. Meanwhile replacement of the turf on the football field costs an average of $100,000 annually.The school district prioritizes based on their ability to spend money they haven't earned. No individual in the community would voluntarily spend such outrageous sums on the grass for a ballfield.

Sat, 08/11/2012 - 22:14 | 2698082 toomanyfakecons...
toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

"The peace-loving Quakers and colonists were able to dissolve an intrusive government by their sheer unwillingness to recognize its legitimacy."

 

So true... but why do the fear-bot keyboard jockeys want you to believe today's government can't be deemed illegitimate and dissolved as well? Is it too big and scary? Is it the Police State? The smoke and mirrors? Without the fear machine and ignorance machine running in high gear, today's government would crumble and BE ARRESTED overnight... http://tinyurl.com/cd5cyjo/

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!