Conversations inspired by Joe Sobran’s article
"NATIONAL SERVICE" AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
I am posting an edited version of email traffic with some friends because I enjoyed the conversation.
C - You know you reach a point with liberals and relativists, whereupon there is no point to continue to try to till. You can point out how government doesn't work, but they would say, "yes, but it makes me feel good."
ME – It’s a good article. When I say that government has only powers listed in Article 1 Section 8 they think it is crazy. "We wouldn't even have a government if they stuck to that list", they say. "Who will think of the children?!" If they don't stick to that list then what list of powers do you want them to adhere to? "oh, I learned about this debate in my history class in school. You are one of those that would have argued for state-rights and strict constructionism"I also do not believe that Law = Truth and Justice. Law is neither. I wonder how many, when they realize they are slaves, will accept slavery because they find out it is legal and upheld in the courts.
C - Perfectly said. Law = Truth or Justice. Once again, the Bible has a good basis for this. I believe the Bible provides a good foundation for liberty. The principles are there (Free Will, Responsibility, Consequences, Absolutism, Law as not being a substitute for Justice, Truth being found in God, Government not being the source of Rights nor the object of Worship).
You have also provided a perfect example of why the government schools are so damaging. They are the problem. People simply can't understand a concept if the limits of their thinking only extend so far, once government schools have set the limits. Try to tell a fish he is wet. "We wouldn't even have a government if they only did what you say" indicates that they have a very limited idea of the very essence of what government is and what it can possibly be. Checkmate. You can't imagine if you can't think beyond a certain point. "We wouldn't be fish if we didn't live in the ocean". Well, no, not exactly, you would just be a different kind of fish.This goes back to something called the Hegelian Dialectic.
Don't know if you're familiar with that, but it sums up this bankrupt thinking and sums up how most everyone views issues today. It is also one of the founding principles of Marxism. Marx combined this Dialectic with "materialism" to make Marxism.
ME - Don't know nothing 'bout HegelianI got in an argument once about how one could privatize anything. Roads, FDA, EPA, whatever. I said people can have all that stuff in a private agency. It doesn't have to be government run. Then I made the mistake of adding three more letters: FAA. They could not conceive of air travel without government control. He was a pilot and informed I knew nothing if I thought air travel was possible under private control. I guess everyone has their limits to freedom.
C - My "libertarian mentor", since he introduced me to the philosophy shortly after I started work) once said (probably copying the phrase from another guy somewhere), "Everyone's a libertarian for the liberties that they care about". I have found that to be true. Libertarianism, for me, is just realizing that I have to be a libertarian for the liberties I don't care about (drug use, homosexual "unions" (not marriage) etc.). That is why the "acid test" for libertarians is "should previously convicted felons have guns?" or the acid test can be something that applies to one's direct sphere of knowledge or profession, like this pilot, or like me, who will admit that I am guilty as charged for working at this white collar welfare factory.Ultimately there is a great deal of arrogance involved, an arrogance that few will openly admit. Liberals, the "humanists" of our time, are among the most arrogant people I've ever known, though many of today's neocons are simply liberals in different clothing. "I know what's best (for you)". I think it takes a certain degree of emotional maturity to get past a desire to run, direct, influence, control and stop projecting this desire on others. It is difficult to sometimes say, "I know more than most about how to make a decision in this area of knowledge, but I will still leave it up to you and your specific case, though I will offer you what I would do."
Doctors are my favorite example of this personality disorder, and, shock of all shocks, they overwhelmingly tend to be liberal. The "elite, educated, licensed experts" love to pat themselves on the back about how much good they do for people and disguise their central planning elitism as compassion. Hence one of my favorite stats is showing how many people AMA licensed doctors (the only ones who can "legally" practice medicine) kill or maim people every year, often from mis-prescriptions or just from properly prescribing drugs that have otherwise been approved by these doctors and the other government bureau of murderers, the FDA. I also think it's funny how so often you can find examples of how "medical consensus" changes, whether you're talking about recommendations for diet, SIDS, heart patients, vaccines or even dental fillings. As time goes on, you inevitably hear them say, "New info suggests.....". But when they're leveling their elitism at you, it's "I know, I'm infallible, you are wrong" as if they've never been wrong before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Another conversation from the same article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Main Entry: slave
Pronunciation: 'slAv
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sclave, from Old French or Medieval Latin; OldFrench esclave, from Medieval Latin sclavus, from Sclavus Slavic; from thefrequent enslavement of Slavs in central Europe
1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
3 : a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
4 : DRUDGE, TOILER-
slave adjective
C - The first definition means that someone owns you as property, or that someone owns you or your property first before it is yours. This is exactly the case with the subjects of the United States. Your property is theirs first. You are "free" to have what is left over after payingtribute.
N- ...don't defend the borders, don't defend property rights (Kelo decision), don't defend the right to engage in contracts (ban unskilled labor through minimum wage prohibitions), bypass Congressional due process in the power to declare war, bypass legal due process in presumption of innocence under Patriot Act, but for me the last straw is not being able to buy pseudafed for my allergies without being treated like a criminal or an airline passenger. How far we have fallen these last few years....
ME - What is the effective feedback system? Does a tyrant (even the compassionate ones) care when he has exceeded his authority? Example: President Bush claims authority to use military to quarantine bird flu victims. Is he running up the flag to see the response? I don't think he will get a response. Not from me. I have no inclination to write him a letter and explain that he has no authority for such actions. I buy another case of beans and shells instead because I see his declaration as an act of hostility.
He won't get a response from most people, I think he will be as surprised as the British were when the colonies revolted. "I thought everyone was happy. Haven't we protected them and provided for them? Why do they complain about stamps?" Tyranny never rolls back on its own. Is there any way to resist peacefully? Any feedback to provide a tyrant to say, "You have gone far enough. Don't push me any more."?
Can't we just all get along?
C - The reason I am so critical of today's conservatives when they come to power, is because they often are in a position to actually roll back the score to put some points back in the liberty column. This to me seems to be the main way to avoid tyranny. But if they can't be counted on to do this (and if they prevent real grassroots progress by conning those who would otherwise work for liberty, to vote for them) then they're simply helping the long march to totalitarianism, all the while thinking maybe that they're just "working within the system". The problem is that tyranny does advance, so liberty must also advance at times for conflict to be avoided. Kind of like, if you have many expenses 6 months out of the year, you had better use the other 6 months to SAVE, so that overall at least the balance is maintained. If you squander the opportunity of those 6 months to save, then you will be hurting all the more when you're in rougher times (when someone like Hillary is elected).
beginning of
"NATIONAL SERVICE" AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDEby Joe Sobran
Here in and around the Beltway, a local talk-radiohost started the day with a bright idea: Let's putwelfare recipients to work. This brainstorm was inspired,as you might guess, by the news footage of rioting andlooting in New Orleans.
The idea of nonmilitary "national service" has astubborn charm for many Americans who should know better. Even William Buckley has endorsed it. So do some of myliberal friends. If the government is paying peoplemoney, shouldn't it be able to require something of themin return? Even rich people occasionally speak of "givingsomething back to the community."
What we are talking about here, of course, is slavery, more delicately called "involuntary servitude"-- not giving something back, but taking something thatisn't yours. Military conscription, or the draft, fallsunder the same heading, a violation of the unalienableright to life and liberty.
American courts have always exempted the draft fromthe Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against slavery. Thecourts do the same for taxes. If the government owns youand your labor, including your property, the thinkingseems to run, it isn't really slavery.
One caller to the talk show got it right: "nationalservice," he pointed out, is unconstitutional; and so arewelfare programs, which the government has no authorityto create.
The U.S. Constitution was an ingenious butunsuccessful attempt to specify and thereby limit thepowers of the Federal Government.
.
.
.
.........
