Two hundred and thirty-three years ago, in Philadelphia, a bunch of guys
> got together and wrote a letter to their king. The letter was very
> eloquent, and well thought out, but it basically boiled down to this:
>
> "Dear King George,
>
> You're not the boss of us!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> A Bunch of Troublemakers"
>
> That's essentially what the Declaration of Independence was: a bunch of
> radicals declaring that they would no longer recognize the right of their
> king to rule them, at all, ever again. They went on to create a new boss,
> which turned into a
> new oppressor, but we'll get to that in a moment. First, let's consider
> the essence of that attitude: "You're not the boss of me!"
>
> This July 4th, like every year, millions of Americans are celebrating
> Independence Day with various parades, picnics, fireworks, and so on. But
> how many of those people celebrating have ever actually considered what the
> Declaration was actually about, and what the colonists actually did? The
> colonists did not merely beg the king to change his ways. In fact, the
> Declaration explains how they had tried that, to no avail. Instead, the
> colonists were doing something far more drastic.
>
> In short, they committed treason. They broke the law. They disobeyed their
> government. They were traitors, criminals and tax cheats. The Boston Tea
> Party was not merely a tax protest, but open lawlessness. Furthermore,
> truth be told, some of the colonists were even cop-killers. At Lexington,
> when King George's "law enforcers" told the
> colonists to lay down their guns, the colonists responded with, "No,
> you're not the boss of us!" (Well, that was the meaning, if not the exact
> verbiage.) And so we had "The Shot Heard 'Round the World," widely regarded
> as the beginning of the American Revolution.
>
> Looking back now, we know the outcome. We know who eventually won, and we
> don't mind cheering for the rebels. But make no mistake:
> When you cheer for the founders of this country, you are cheering for
> law-breakers and traitors. As well you should. But, for all the flag-waving
> and celebrating that goes on every July 4th, do Americans actually believe
> in what the colonists did? Do they really believe in the attitude expressed
> in the Declaration of Independence? Are they really still capable of
> supporting a mantra of "You're not the boss of me!"?
>
> In, short, no. Imagine the equivalent of what the colonists did so many
> years ago, being done today. Imagine a group of people writing a
> letter to the United States government, sending a letter to Congress and
> to the President, saying that they would no longer pay federal taxes, they
> would no longer obey federal laws, and that they would resist--by force, if
> necessary--any attempt by federal agents to enforce those laws. How would a
> group which did such things be viewed today, by most Americans?
>
> They would be viewed as nut-cases, scofflaws and terrorists, despicable
> criminals and malcontents. They would be scorned as the scum of the earth,
> despised by just about everyone who today celebrates Independence Day.
>
> How ironic.
>
> So why the double standard? Why would the American public today condemn
> the exact same attitudes and behaviors which they glorify and praise in the
> context of the American evolution? Quite simply, it's because, for all the
> proud talk of "land of the free and home of the brave," the spirit of
> resistance--the courage to say "You're not the boss of
> us!"--has been trained out of the American people.
>
> We have become a nation of wimps.
>
> For years and years, in the churches and schools, on the news, in the
> media, and from everywhere around us, we have been taught one thing above
> all else: that obedience to authority is the highest virtue, and that
> disobedience is the worst sin. As a result, even most of
> Those who now claim to be zealous advocates for individual rights and
> personal liberty will almost always couch their "demands" with disclaimers
> that, of course, their efforts for justice will be done "within the
> system," and that they would never advocate anything "illegal." They claim
> to be devout proponents of freedom, and yet all they ever do is seek a
> political solution, whether through lobbying of politicians, elections, or
> other government-approved means.
>
> Of course, government never approves of anything which might actually
> endanger government power. As the bumper-sticker says, "If voting made a
> difference, it would be illegal." And why should civilized people assume
> that change must be done "legally" and "within the system"? That is
> obviously NOT what the Declaration of Independence was about. In fact, the
> Declaration states quite plainly that when a government ceases to be a
> protector of individual liberty, it is not only the right, but the DUTY of
> the people to ALTER or ABOLISH that form of government. In other words,
> when the government becomes an oppressor, instead of a protector--as is
> obviously the case today--the people are morally obligated to adopt an
> attitude of, "You're not the boss of us!"
>
> So how many Americans are doing that? Almost none. Instead, even the most
> vocal critics of corruption and injustice usually do little more than
> banging their heads against a brick wall, begging, in half a dozen
> different ways, for the tyrants to please be nicer to us. (Meanwhile, they
> go to great lengths to distance themselves from
> people like me, for fear of what the general public might think of them.
> As a result, I believe the general public, and those in government, view
> them pretty much as I view them: as harmless and irrelevant conformists,
> destined to forever beg for freedom, and never achieve it.)
>
> Make no mistake, begging and whining is not what the Declaration of
> Independence was about. It was about breaking the law, when the law is
> unjust. It was about committing treason, when the rulers became oppressive.
> It was about disobedience--civil disobedience, when effective, and
> not-so-civil disobedience when necessary. It was about open resistance,
> including violent resistance when called for.
>
> So where is that attitude today? Where is the candidate advocating such a
> thing? Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams—where are the modern
> equivalents? For all the whining about extremists, where are those willing
> to openly resist injustice? Not only don't
> most
> Americans believe in resisting tyranny, they feel extremely uncomfortable
> just hearing others talk about it, even in abstract terms (like this).
>
> Maybe it's just that we're not quite at the level of oppression to justify
> resistance. Is that it? Hardly. If two or three percent taxation justified
> rebellion in 1776, why doesn't fifty percent
> taxation justify it now? If a few puny excise taxes on tea and pieces of
> paper justified it then, why don't the myriad of unavoidable, crushing
> taxes at all levels, and the hordes of callous, vindictive tax collectors
> justify it now? If the relatively unusual cases of Redcoats abusing
> colonists justified it then, why doesn't it justify it when American police
> see no problem with randomly stopping, detaining, interrogating and
> searching anyone they want, whenever
> they want, for any reason or no reason at all?
>
> Does anyone think Thomas Jefferson, if he were alive today, would quietly
> allow himself to be
> strip-searched, and allow his belongings to be rummaged through, by some
> brain-dead TSA thug? Read the Fourth Amendment. They had a revolution over
> that sort of thing. Does
> anyone think that Patrick Henry would take kindly to being robbed blind to
> pay for whatever war-mongering the politicians wanted to engage in this
> week? Read what the Founders said about standing armies. They had a
> revolution over that sort of thing. Think James Madison would go along with
> being disarmed, by the various state and federal control freaks? Read the
> Second Amendment. They had a revolution over that sort of thing. Think
> George Washington would be happy to have both his earnings and savings
> constantly looted by a parasite class, to pay for all manner of wealth
> redistribution, political handouts and other socialist garbage? Think
> Thomas Paine would gladly be extorted to give all his money to some giant,
> failed
> corporation or some huge international bank? Think the
> founders would have quietly gone along with what this country has become
> today? Think they would have done nothing more than vote, or whine?
>
> Well, the founders are dead. And, unfortunately, so is their spirit of
> resistance. In short, just about all of the flag-waving and celebrating
> that happens every July 4th is nothing but empty
> hypocrisy. How many Americans today can say, loudly and proudly, like they
> mean it, "Give me liberty or give me death!"? Or, at least, in the modern
> vernacular, "You're not the boss of me!"? Anyone? In this nation that
> imagines itself to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, where
> are those who dare to resist, or even dare to talk about it? And I don't
> mean voting, or whining to your congressman, or begging your masters to not
> whip you so hard. I'm
> talking about resisting, refusing to obey.
>
> America, where is your Independence Day pride now? Exactly what are you
> proud of? I have a message for
> you, from a guy named Sam. Samuel Adams, that is. Yeah, the beer guy. But
> he did a little more for this country than make beer. Here is his message:
>
> "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
> better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We
> ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed
> you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye
> were our countrymen."
> When's the last time you heard a modern so-called "statesman" say
> something like that?
>
> So what happened? When did Americans lose their ability to say, "You're
> not the boss of me," and why? Yes, most people are scared, and for good
> reason. With the capacity for violence of the current police state, and the
> willingness of the politicians and their thugs to crush anyone who
> threatens their power, everyone has to choose his battles carefully, and
> decide for himself what he's willing
> to risk, what is worth fighting for and what isn't.
>
> That makes sense, but there is more to it than just fear. Because not only
> won't most Americans resist, but they will condemn anyone who does. If you
> do what the founders did, most people in this country would call you a tax
> cheat, a malcontent, a criminal, a traitor, even a terrorist. Why? Why do
> Americans now vehemently condemn those who say and do exactly what the
> Founders did a couple hundred years ago? When did our priorities and view
> of the world change so drastically, and why?
>
> I'll tell you why. Gradually, and very systematically, we have been
> trained to measure our own worth, not by what we produce, not by how we
> treat other people, but by how well we obey authority. Consider the term,
> "law abiding taxpayer." How many people wear that label as
> a badge of honor? "I am a law-abiding taxpayer!" When they say that, they
> mean, "I'm a good person." But is that what it really
> means?
>
> Well, "law-abiding" just means that you do whatever the politicians tell
> you to do. We speak with great reverence of this thing called "the law," as
> if it is the decree of the gods, which no decent human being would dare to
> disobey. But what is it really? It's whatever the politicians decide to
> command you to do. Why on earth would anyone think that obedience to a
> bunch of liars and crooks is some profound moral obligation? Is there any
> reason for us to treat with
> reverence such commands and demands? No rational reason, no. The only
> reason we do it is because we have been trained to do it.
>
> Some might point out that obeying the laws against theft and murder is a
> good thing to do. Well, yes and no. It is good to refrain from committing
> theft and murder, but it is NOT because "the law" says so. It is because
> theft and murder are inherently wrong, as they infringe upon the rights of
> others. And that was true before any politician
> passed a "law" about it, and will be true even if they "legalize" theft
> and murder (as every government has done, in the name of "taxation" and
> "war"). What is right and wrong does not at all depend upon what is "legal"
> or "illegal." And if you need POLITICIANS to tell you what is right and
> what is wrong, you need your head examined. Instead, you should judge the
> validity of so-called "laws" by whether they match what is inherently right
> and wrong. Thomas Jefferson put it this way:
>
> "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
> limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within
> the limits of the law,' because the law is often but the tyrant's will, and
> always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
>
> So why should anyone be proud of being "law-abiding," when all it means is
> blindly obeying whatever arbitrary commands the parasite class spews out
> this week? And pride in being a
> "taxpayer" is no better, since all that phrase means is that you give the
> politicians lots of money. When, exactly, did obeying politicians and
> giving them money become the measure of whether you're a good person?
>
> Consider Nazi Germany. Were the law-abiding taxpayers in Nazi Germany the
> good guys? No. By obeying the so-called "laws" of that time, the majority
> allowed, or even assisted in, a nearly incomprehensible level of evil. And
> by being "taxpayers," they provided the funding for it. No, the good people
> in Germany were the criminals and tax cheats, who refused to assist, even
> passively, in the oppressions done in the name of "government."
>
> The same is true under the regimes of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot,
> Castro--you can go right down the list (and it's a very long list). Under
> every nasty regime in history, the obedient subjects, who quietly did as
> they were told, the law-abiding taxpayers, were not the good guys. The
> law-breakers and
> rebels, the so-called traitors and terrorists, those were the good guys.
> How about in this country, when slavery was legal? The cowards were the
> ones obeying the law, while the good guys broke it.
>
> How about here, today? Is it good to fund what the government is doing? Do
> you have some moral obligation to give your "fair share" of however many
> thousands of dollars, so Obama can give it to his banker buddies? Is it
> noble to fund whatever war the politicians decide to engage in this week?
> Do you like paying for the detention and torture of people who haven't been
> convicted, or even charged with any crime? (By the way, instead of doing
> away with that,
> Obama just gave it a new name: preventative detention.) Is it some great
> virtue to have helped to finance the police state growing up all around
> you, on both the federal and state levels? In short,
> is being a "law-abiding taxpayer" really something you should be proud of,
> or is it something you
> should be ashamed of?
>
> Over time we have forgotten a very important secret--a secret the control
> freaks don't want you to know; a secret some of the Founders hinted at,
> though even most of them didn't seem to fully grasp it. Ready for it?
>
> You own yourself.
>
> You are not the property of the politicians, or anyone else. I own me, and
> you own you. Each of you owns himself. Sounds simple enough, right? And
> most people respond with, "Well duh, of course. That's no secret. We knew
> that." But in reality most people don't know that.
>
> If you own yourself, would anyone have the right to take, without your
> consent, the fruits of your labor? What you earn, with your time and
> effort, does anyone have the right to take that from you by force? Of
> course not, most will answer. Really? And what if they call it "taxation"?
> "Oh, well, that's different." No, it isn't.
>
> If you own yourself, would anyone have the right to force you to pay
> rent for a house you already paid for, under threat of taking your house
> away? Of course not. What if they call it "property taxes"? Oh, that's
> different. No, it isn't. And you can go right down the list: if you truly
> own yourself, the vast majority of so-called "laws,"
> at all levels, are absolutely illegitimate. As Jefferson put it, ANY
> so-called "law" that infringes upon individual liberty—which is dang near
> all of them--is inherently bogus.
>
> But let's take it one step further. If you own yourself--your life,
> liberty and property--doesn't that imply that you have the right to defend
> those things from any and all aggressors? Yes. What if the aggressors call
> themselves "government" and call their attacks and robberies "law" and
> "taxes"? You still have the right. Changing the name of an act cannot make
> something bad into something good. And if you have the right to defend your
> life, liberty and property from all aggressors, it stands to reason
> that you have the right to equip yourself to do so. In other words, you
> have the right to be armed--the right to possess the equipment to exert
> whatever force is necessary to repel any attempts to infringe upon your
> rights to life, liberty and property.
>
> I know it makes people uncomfortable (especially people who work for the
> government) when I say the following: I want every sane, adult American to
> have the ability to use force, including deadly force, against government
> agents. I don't want people randomly gunning down cops, but I do want the
> people to retain the ability to forcibly resist their own government. The
> very concept bothers a lot of people, but what is the alternative? The
> alternative is something a lot scarier: that the people should NOT have the
> means to resist their own government.
>
> But, once again, even most people who claim to be vehemently pro-freedom,
> don't like to talk about what that really means. Many "gun rights"
> organizations, for example, go to great lengths to beg the politicians to
> LET them remain armed. Why? At Lexington, when the British troops told the
> colonists to lay down their weapons, what was the response? Did the
> colonists say, "Awe, can't we keep them, pretty please?"? No, they had a
> very different attitude,
> something alone the lines of, "You're not the boss of us!"
>
> If you own yourself--and this is a big one--it is not only your right, but
> your most profound obligation as a human being, to judge for yourself what
> is right and wrong, and to act accordingly. But what if people claiming to
> be "authority" want to force you to do something contrary to what you deem
> to be right? Do you have an obligation to obey them, and ignore your own
> conscience? No. What if their threats are called "legislation"? It makes no
> difference.
>
> You are always, at all times, in every situation, obligated to do what you
> deem right, no matter what so-called
> "government" and "authority" and "law" have to say about it. And when the
> tyrants and control freaks, authoritarian thugs and megalomaniacs, try to
> tell you that are an evil, nasty, despicable criminal and traitor for
> daring to think for yourself, you have a right and duty to stand firm, and
> say, with confidence, "You are not the boss of me!"
>
No comments:
Post a Comment