What We Believe Part IV: Natural Law

Bill Whittle's Part IV of the explanation of Tea Party/conservative beliefs:



Natural law means the right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
Political law means that the "authorities" decide you need to be have your limbs fettered and bound because you might swing your fists.

John Locke wrote much about Natural Law in his Second Treatise of Government, and he starts by addressing man kind in a condition of nature - wherein man is free, and left to his own devices. There is no government to determine what an individual can or cannot do - his actions are subject only to the limitations of the individual's imagination and capability. In a state of perfect freedom, an individual is subject only to the triumphs and tragedies and vicissitudes of life. Government exists as a compact between indivuduals to provide for mutual safety and improvment.

Often times, once government has established itself as a power, be it the tribal chief, the invading warlord, or the gerrymandered-district eternal senator; the government as an institution is simply a tool of power for a tyrant - not a tool for groups of individuals to provide for their common defense and well-being.

Consider this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Governments exist by the consent of the governed, and are rejected by those who are governed, but no longer wish to be. Contracts exist by consent of those involved, and are to be honored.

Government existing at the behest of the governors - the ruling class - is tyranny.

Free Speech on Draw Mo Day - 5/20

There's an issue that a lot of folks aren't willing to tackle. Many folks are willing to bury their heads in sand. A lot of folks want to address it.

It started over on Facebook, apparently, with the idea of a "Draw Mohammed Day" to stand up for free speech. Since I'm a dinosaur and not adept at Facespace or Mybook, I've mostly been kept abreast of it by The Jawa Report. (I highly recommend visiting the site - they have much more info and several links.)

Apparently, though, there's been some typical muslim intolerance of free speech.

Call them the religion of peace. Or they'll kill you.
(Also big thanks to Jawa Report.)

So insulting Mohammed = Death? Again?


Y'know what, islamic community? You don't want to be portrayed like your prophet, who spread his religion by the sword, forced conversions, and murder?

Y'know, like Mohammed, pictured here in my artist's rendering:

Free speech & the 1st Amendment. Got a problem with it? Tough.
Want to change my mind? That's up to your behavior.

(For those of you paying attention, Mohammed was portrayed as a kind superhero on South Park. The above image is my creation, using a South Park character generator.)

Then stop threatening people with death for joking about your religion, or your founder (who raped a 9-year old girl). Jews can take a joke about Moses, Christians can sure take a joke about Jesus, Buddhists can take a joke about buddha, animists can take a joke about anything. Hell, even snotty atheists can take a joke... about nothing.

While you're at it, stop murdering gay people for being gay, and stop punishing rape victims for being victims of rape.

Now, in the unlikely event that actual moderate muslims like Irshad Manji, Wafa Sultan, Ozma, Marwan or his sisters, or Tony (our 'terp) ever read the site, no true disrespect is intended towards you, and I'm sure you can stomach the insult to the prophet you believe in in order to have the barbarians in your midst shown for who they are by their foaming-at-the-mouth response, and for those who do have some capacity for tolerance to be able to develop it. You may scowl in distaste, but no harm is done, and a positive reaction from you enhances your image and character, and ultimately simple mockery of Mohammed without any depth to the discussion will go away. We'll all be able to recognize you as civilized people capable of reasoned discourse - again, it's testament to your character as individuals.

Those who would be offended are free to make pictures of whatever religious or secular figure they like. Enjoy. Be advised, we've already had our tax dollars pay for a crucifix in urine and a Virgin Mary made of elephant shit, so you'll probably be unable to offend us any moreso than our own domestic iconoclasts. BTW, they're cowards who wouldn't dare put Mohammed in the same "art".

Those who would make death threats or worse yet, commit acts of violence based on PICTURES or WORDS are dangerous psychotics. A scathing criticism of Theo van Gogh or Trey Parker & Matt Stone would be a lot more effective critique than proving their mockery entirely justified. Note that every act of violence solidifies islam as a religion that is by its very nature violent, no matter how much anyone says "religion of peace." 15312 terrorist acts in the name of islam since 9/11/2001 (as of this writing) already has made it pretty solid.

Multiculturalism! Diversity! Tolerance!

Oh, and for those cowards who won't stand for free speech, like Comedy Central, and the numerous newspapers who refused to reprint the Mohammed cartoons out of fear - either stand up for your rights or get used to kneeling. Every acquiescence you make to terrorists validates terrorism as a tool to force your compliance. You have no standing as a critic of any religion or anything if you bow to islam's threats. You fucking cowards.

Also, to those muslims without tolerance and who wish to make threats and terrorist attacks, perhaps you need to be reminded of what backs up the 1st Amendment in the United States.

2nd Amendment. Protecting its loudmouth little brother the 1st Amendment since 1791.

What Freedom Demands

What Freedom Demands
posted at 10:12 am on March 22, 2010 by Doctor Zero

Tonight, self-appointed wise men in Washington are steamrolling the objections of sixty to seventy percent of the population, and forcing a massive health-care bill down our throats “for our own good.” Presumably the backroom deals, corrupt payoffs, Congressional Budget Office accounting tricks, threats of unconstitutional parliamentary maneuvers, and betrayals of principle are also for our own good. What do you know? Banana republics turn out to be the highest evolution of government – the only form of the State equipped to take proper care of its citizens, by lying to them and trapping them in legislative cages over their howling protests.

Read it all here.

Some folks are already just saying no.
http://repealit.org/

---
“This is what change looks like.” - President Barack Hussein Obama 3/23/10

“To state the obvious this is a historic day... history is made when a leader's passion is married to principal.... Mr. President you are that leader." - Vice President Joe Biden 3/23/10

---
President Obama said last night this proves this is a government of the people, and by the people, except for the 55 percent of the people who opposed him. - Jay Leno, 3/22/10

In Obama's America, Government Leads You!

Coffee Party Leftist Parasites

From Legal Insurrection:
The New York Times and Washington Post are promoting a group called the "Coffee Party" organized by filmmaker Annabel Park.

In fact, a simple internet search (which the NY Times apparently is not capable of doing) reveals that Park organized the Coffee Party for the specific purpose of undermining the Tea Party movement.

Park is a former Strategy Analyst at the NY Times who was one of organizers and operators of the United for Obama video channel at YouTube.

---
Numerous links are provided at Legal Insurrection, as well as screenshots of Park's tweets. Definitely worth reading for a quick background.

Looks like a steaming pile of Kopi Luwak to me.

The left at work. Just like they did with TeaPartyIsOver.

Hard leftists here are just following Alinsky's rules. They pretend to be centrist, then ridicule, isolate and polarize the tea party as radical right (when it's really quite centrist), and then they replace it with their own Coffee Party. The leftist media is doing part of the work for them, as Legal Insurrection notes - as the big leftist papers support them and do stories on them, while up to 1.2 million Tea Party protesters in DC are ignored.

Tea party = BIG motherfuckin' tent

A hardcore leftist is out to make the Tea Party look extreme, and their own "Coffee Party" look moderate. The idea is to temper the enthusiasm and destroy the Tea Party. Which is to say, destroy people fighting for their own freedom and against greater power of the state.

From WaPo:

The Coffee Party believes the middle is consensus. The Tea Party believes the middle is the Constitution.

America is not a consensus. It was not founded on consensus, and it is not a nation of obsequious limp-wrists who compromise their lives. It is, by its founding and nature, a nation of liberty extremists. If it ceases to be a nation of those who believe in their own liberty, then it dies (the slow death is already witnessed in various nanny/progressive states like CA, NY, IL, etc.).

A democracy is a tyranny of 51%. Consensus is one side that pushes and the other side that is forced in order to be polite. The "middle" between freedom and slavery is still slavery.

America is a republic, a nation of laws. The Coffee Party, like any "reaching across the aisle" leftist - especially one illustrated as leftist via search engine, seeks only compromise from the other side. The Coffee Party seeks to actively undermine the Tea Party - American citizens standing up for their rights. The Coffee Party was specifically founded for that purpose.

For those who would forsake their freedom for consensus and compromise, may your chains rest lightly upon you.

The New Colossus

Today is the first time I can recall hearing this in its entirety, which amazes me in several ways.

---
The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

—Emma Lazarus, 1883

---
We usually only hear the last few lines. The comparison is made in an excellent speech here, around the 3 minute mark.

Or watch the entire speech here.

World's Smallest Political Alignment Quiz

http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

I've taken this quiz before, but now having seen the effects of the liberal fascist/statist mode of govt, it appears I've gotten way more hardcore in support of liberty.

My only non-100% libertarian question is one that basically consists of "how the hell you gonna do it?"

There is a problem with the quiz and its results. Statist and liberal are the same thing, as the fundamental basis of modern liberalism is that they have no beliefs beyond pandering to emotion.

Jonah Goldberg rather eloquently illustrates this by pointing out that the basis of modern liberalism begins in the 19-teens with Woodrow Wilson and his cadre, who all believed they knew what was best. HG Wells coined the term "Liberal Fascism" to describe the progressives of the era - and meant it in glowing terms. The left was enamored with fascism and the trappings of ultimate power and still is - as evidenced by the bow to the Saudi king, the hug with Hugo Chavez, etc.

Thus, the modern liberal is a statist, and vice versa, though he'll call himself a progressive or whatever lie he needs to in order to get by. Van Jones was a communist who proclaimed himself a liberal and progressive - but all are the same thing - people who crave power over others and are those who should NEVER have it.

The liberalism of the founding fathers was libertarianism coupled with some degrees of conservatism based on traditional Christian values. It was liberal in opposition to monarchy and despotism - it was revolutionary in contrast to that. It was vehemently not the "revolutionary" of tyrannical dictators like Hugo Chavez or the mass murdering coward Che Guevara or of even greater mass murderer Lenin. That's simply one more tyrannical despot replacing a weaker government.

Nor does any "liberal" policy in the quiz follow true liberal principles - which are libertarian principles, or conservative principles - as conservatives are seeking to CONSERVE the liberties and virtues derived from them that they see as most beneficial to the survival of the American people.

It's flawed on the whole statist dictatorial side. No true liberal should be taking from one group to give to another, as welfare does. That's theft - it starts with money and ends with prima nocta.

Nor does a traditional conservative - based on conserving the principles that made the country great - demand that government interfere in people's home lives.

I suppose the conclusion is that, given liberal-statists identical status and thought, and the opinions of an American conservative versus an American traditionalist (who doesn't adhere to the Constitution so much as their cultural opinions - which may not be a bad thing for culture, but perhaps shouldn't interfere in government and laws) - the test is invalid.

Diatribe over - but consider it no matter your result. Classic liberalism, American conservatism, or just libertarianism, call it what you will - it all adds up to this:

And this:


Liberty looks pretty damn good to me.

Some Light Reading

Image via Wikipedia

JBH is on a little hiatus. It's almost Memorial Day (which I surprisingly have off - go fig). For those of you out looking for something to read while sitting on the boat waiting for the fish to bite, or something to read while you're watching the kids frolic and play, or something to read while you're grumbling that you have to go to work on Tuesday but you're privately thankful that you're still employed, here are a couple of ideas:

ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand
It's the story of what happens when a government of moochers and looters crack down on men and women of intellect, from whose minds spring the wealth of man's existence. When the fountainhead of man's creative and productive ability is diminished, society becomes diminished. But those with drive don't simply accept that the state of man is one of decrepitude.

(From what I understand, it's also the second-longest novel in the English language.)

In the linked article that provides more modern context, it's also telling the future day by day. I've heard the Cliff's Notes are often recommended as a way to make sure you're able to digest all the huge ideas thrown about.

Ayn Rand's stark moral and philosophical judgements on good and evil lend themselves to harsh criticism by relativists. Most criticism of Ayn Rand is groundless, the criticisms of her philosophy being made by people trying to justify their own vices and immoral "looter" ideals, and angry at being portrayed accurately in the novel as villains. It's frightening to see her most intentional parody and ridicule of collectivist/leftist/statists (moochers & looters) being used by popular figures and accepted by the public as legitimate debate positions to hold today.

Ayn Rand lived in and escaped from the USSR. Anyone who has lived in a socialist/communist/collectivist country usually has little good to say about them. Canadians, contrary to popular belief, aren't big fans of their health care system. Those who stood in bread lines in the former Soviet Union, or who lived in flats with their entire family, quite often have good things to say about the American system. Former Soviet subjects are rarely fans of disarmament, either. They are intimately familiar with what the "good intentions" of what non-productive people seeking to redistribute wealth of the productives results in.

This is often overlooked by people who haven't been lucky enough to speak in depth with former subjects of the USSR. There is a distinct political gap between a witless US-raised professor who's been insulated in academia all his life and never had to live in the real world and those USSR-raised professors who've had colleagues vanish in the night for saying the wrong thing. Those who've escaped the perfect collectivist/leftist/socialist/communist system have the wisdom of experience. The other keeps insisting "socialism/collectivism/communism will work this time, they just did it wrong" - this is the logic that leads them to believe it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

When Rand's work sheds light on the turd in their hand, the collectivist/leftist/statist/looter will invariably try to defend the mess they're holding and justify their own idiocy, or at best try misdirection. Illuminating and thus abolishing the failed ideas of fools is something my other suggestion for light reading also does rather well. Also, this one is a light read in volume, but very heavy in content.

LIBERTY & TYRANNY
A Conservative Manifesto
by Mark Levin

Levin's most recent book (which was #1 on both the Amazon and NYT Bestseller lists for several weeks, and is #2 on Amazon as of this post) is surreptitiously sweeping the nation. Listeners to his radio program are already familiar with many of his opinions and ideas, but it takes a fair amount of listening to hear his reasoned opinions on such an array of topics.

He starts in the first few pages by breaking down what conservatism is. In America, conservatism is adherence to the principles of the constitution - which was founded on classical liberalism. Classic liberalism, American conservatism, are founded on the preservation individual liberty being the function of the State.

The state (especially the federal state) is not there to regulate how people live, nor how they should worship - or not worship. The state is not there to take from one group and give to another. The state is not there to redistribute wealth. The state's purpose is to protect individual liberty and protect one's ability to earn wealth and to keep it. The state is not to dictate how one group must live, or how the people are to be "cared for" by the state. The state, in America, is to be a model of the social contract - government exists by the consent of the government - government of, by, and for the people. Government does not exist to rule the people.

When the Founding Fathers wrote our Declaration of Independence, it was from the king's state that sought to redistribute from the colonies to the king, where the king ruled the people of the colonies.

Winston Churchill famously said "“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” Classic liberalism and conservatism are the same, allowing both a heart to care for the individual and a brain to know it's historically proven to be the best for the individual. Both reject a king dictating to free people.

Today, "liberalism" is the doctrine of taking from one group to give to another group. A narrative is written, and one group is portrayed as the villain, while the other is the victim - always to justify the consitutency/perpetuety of office of the "liberal". In the recent banking scandals, the bankers have been portrayed as "predatory lenders" - giving loans to people who couldn't pay them back. The government forced these loans through the CRA. Now the government, under the guise of "liberal" empathy takes over the banks and buys the banks. This is but one example.

Levin identifies this and strips it away. This is not liberalism, it is a course of action that is solely supporting the state and expanding state interests - it is statism. He identifies that the first issue in understanding conservatism is understanding what it is - supporting individual liberty and individual rights and limiting the state.

It's a good primer for a newcomer to classic liberalism/conservatism, or anyone who thought they were a liberal, but found themselves suddenly made outcasts when they said they were voting for Hillary in the primary.

Levin's Liberty & Tyranny comes in at around 200 pages, but is well written and concise. Rand's Atlas Shrugged comes in at around 1100 pages or more, and is exceedingly well written and well paced to allow ideas to sink in. It is considered a literary masterpiece of importance second only to the Bible.