Total Pageviews

Monday, May 27, 2013

Reflections on Memorial Day 2013

Facebook asks me, "What's on your mind?"
Some thoughts on Memorial Day.
I come to this Memorial Day with mixed emotions. I do not want to insult any of my friends who rally behind the idea that those who died in past wars or current and past non-war conflicts did so in defense of our freedom and liberty.
I have many friends who know better, many of them are a bit ruthless with their position about the above.
I know that most of those who went off to fight THOUGHT they were doing so to protect our freedoms "here at home" and I do not want to diminish the loss of lives, limbs, minds, nor loved ones. However, they were victims of propaganda when they concluded they were fighting for my right to say this.
Hell, I was one of those propaganda victims myself. I spent 6 years in the submarine navy. And I most likely just did it for the education, the GI bill, and because the economy sucked so bad at the time.

So, let me just say I honor the intent of those who were convinced they were protecting us here at home. I mourn their losses. I grieve for them and their families and friends.

On the other hand, I also grieve for all those men, women, and children who have died or been maimed or had children with horrible birth defects in all the countries we are now invading or have invaded in the past allegedly to defend our freedoms here at home. It does not take more than about 15 seconds of reflection upon the words "attack" and "defend" to understand that what we are doing overseas, and all those who have suffered, both "our guys" and "them over there" have suffered for a lie.

Which one of those who died, "ours" or "theirs" was the one who would have discovered the cure for cancer? or written the next great symphony? or penned the novel that caught enough attention about war and the devastation of war that people really did wake up to the fraud that has been perpetrated on us all that perpetuates the "war mentality"? or raised enough resources to feed and clothe those in need? Or, well, you get the picture. There are minds in all those bodies. Minds that could have been of benefit to humanity if they were not snuffed out before they had the chance to reach their full potential.

We can defend our freedoms here at home here at home. We can't defend our freedoms here at home by "killing them over there before they kill us over here," because then we are the invading force. We are the ones in the wrong. We are the ones who are destroying everything we claim as good.

I long for the Memorial Day when we have no standing army and the defense we have here at home is simply us. Armed and defending ourselves from all enemies foreign and DOMESTiC. I honestly think our domestic enemies are much more of a threat to our freedom and liberty than any foreign enemy could ever be.

Freedom isn't free, but then again, neither is slavery.

Saturday, April 6, 2013

We should require welfare recipients to take a drug test

Someone on my FB feed had posted a picture with a caption saying "Like if you think we should have mandatory drug tests for welfare recipients" or something close to that.
I replied:

I can't "Like".
A. I don't think drug tests should be mandatory for anyone, anywhere, any time. If an employer, with no coercion from government, chooses to require them as part of the conditions for a voluntary relationship, there can, logically, be nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of options for people who don't want to be subjected to drug testing in a voluntary society. One not based on the threat of the initiation of violence.
B. There should be no welfare recipients. There should be no one receiving property that was taken from another by the initiation or threat of initiation, of violence. In effect, that is receiving stolen property.
C. Welfare recipients exist as a result of government intervention into the economy in the form of licensing and regulations, none of which exist to actually protect the consumer. They only exist to grow the state.
D. I do not mean to abuse the theory of the victim mentality, but in a sense, these people are victims.
One for instance, just to bring some perspective. A young woman is really great at doing nails or styling hair, and could make a decent living at it, but can't afford to go to school to take a test to get a license.

Then I accidentally hit Enter without shift. That "commits" the reply.
I was going to edit it, then I decided to just add another reply, then I decided I should just post it to my blog, Here.

Oh, and if I choose to use drugs, do you, acting on your own as an individual person, have the right or authority to prevent me from "using" drugs or from trading something of MINE with another person in exchange for drugs?
How do you come by that right?
If you do not have that right or authority, in a REPRESENTATIVE government, how can your representative, your delegate, your proxy, obtain that right or authority?
You can only delegate to your representative an action you could take on your own. And generally, if someone would have to choose whether or not to risk his life defending himself from your attempts to prevent him from taking an action, then you do not have the right or authority to make that claim.
I cannot understand how, in a society supposedly based on this,

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, ..."
people can have grown to think that somehow voting changes that relationship.
How can you vote yourself any right or authority you do not already possess?
How can you say that because a large enough gang called this taking of your property or pushing you around a "law" that that assertion somehow is able to supercede the natural law stated above?
How can you and I be equal if you can take my stuff or tell me what I can't or must do?
No matter who actually understands them, and I don't think most of the founders really understood what they were saying, the principles don't change.
All men are created equal is practically axiomatic. Please tell me what is a more fundamental principle than that, which could logically negate it?
Unless someone can state a more fundamental principle, that actually negates "all men are created equal," and it does not yield to contradictions; or if there are contradictions found with "all men are created equal," someone can find the question that yields the contradictions, then we can work to find an answer that resolves whatever the contradiction is.
Because I can immediately find a contradiction in calling something a "law" that claims to provide authority to violate the rights of another.