On a previous page I talked a little about what it means to be a slave, and how being dependent on something makes you one. Here I'll go into a lot more depth on this, because the sad fact is that as long as someone is not having chains slapped on them then, then they will view themselves as free.
Hopefully by the end of this page you will see that freedom is not the default state of mankind. Slavery is. In order to be free you must work it. You must make the conscience choices necessary to be free, or you will be a slave.
This shouldn't be that hard to understand. After all, we're all born as slaves to our parents, and it's not until we break free of them that we become adults. But many choose not to see things that way. They see that if their parents are taking care of them then they are 'free,' and as long as their parents don't hold them responsible for their lives, they are quite content to stay where they are, which is not living a life entirely of their choosing.
Yet the very definition of freedom is living a life your own choosing.
Some of what follows I've covered previously, but I'm repeating it to put it in proper context.
Below is the definition of slave pulled unaltered from dictionary.com.
Slave [sleyv] – noun
1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.
The first definition is the most commonly understood and accepted definition of slave, but it doesn't concern me. There are no credible advocates of it. It's the second definition that I will focus on. The difference between the two is that the first requires a master, or someone with an evil intent. The second doesn't require that at all. It could be someone who means well, or something with no conscience at all, such as cocaine.
What's really interesting is that when you search on the antonym of slave, you get the word master. Most will accept this, but it is not satisfactory to me. As I will explain later, a master is not likely to be someone who is free, and in fact is often dependent on the slave, which ironically, makes the master a slave by definition 2.
This goes towards what I was stated at the beginning. The default state of man is a slave unless he makes a conscience choice to be free. Further searches on antonyms of slave will turn up things like free man and independent. Free man is OK, but it's not a word, and independent doesn't quite convey the meaning I'm looking for. So with the lack of any other viable option, whenever I refer to the opposite of a slave, I'll call the person a freeman.
Instead of being sexist, how about using the word freeperson?
No. I enjoy offending the easily offended. Anyone who believes that I am disrespecting women by using such a term are the very people I want to show disrespect to. Freeman works just fine with me.
The distinction between these two forms of slavery are very important in order to assign the responsibility for the slavery. In the first definition, the blame obviously lies with the master, and these masters are far more prevalent in our society than you think. If a thug comes up to me with a gun and demands my wallet, he is making me his slave, at least until he has what he wants. For my part, there would be no dishonor in accepting the role of slave and handing over my wallet to him.
The blame in the second definition is also obvious. It is the slave that has responsibility for his enslavement. A lot of people like to muddy the waters by blaming drugs for those that become addicted to them, but any true freeman knows that the blame is with the addict.
I would go even further and state that drug addicts are of a particular mind set that in the absence of any drugs to get addicted to, they would have gotten themselves enslaved to other things. So the best method of dealing with drug abuse in this nation is not to perpetuate our drug war, which only shifts the blame to the drug, but to expect the citizens of this nation to accept the responsibilities of their actions.
Finally. Something we can agree on. We should definitely end the war on drugs
Oh, don't give me that. One of the greatest con jobs you liberals have going is how the conservatives are to blame for the war on drugs. It is your liberal utopia that is most threatened by those whose lives are ruined from the abuse of drugs. Socialized medicine can't meet the needs of even a healthy population, let alone one that would be devastated by the up swing of addictions that would come with a surrender in the drug war.
I'm quite sure you would be horrified if enough conservatives caught on to your scam and went to the people of this country and said that they would dearly like to end this war, but because of all of the citizens of this country who are too dependent on the nanny state, we have no choice but to continue to support it. They idea that you liberals would have no problem outlawing transfats, yet would think there is nothing wrong with legalized heroin is laughable – absolutely laughable.
That's the problem with you conservatives. You're never consistent. First you say the war on drugs is wrong, and then you go and defend it. I'll never figure you guys out.
Of course you don't understand us, that's why you're a liberal. There are two important things to consider about us conservatives. One is that we don't change anything unless we know for sure it's going to benefit our society (that's where the word conservative comes from). The other is that we tend to focus on the reality of the situation, and not some fantasy about how things should be.
There is no doubt that the drug war is a net loss to our society, but for now it has to remain, because to just abandon it would be a disaster. It's like the huge mistake President Reagan made by sending the Marines into Lebanon, which got many killed, but that mistake pales to the disaster that he created when he pulled the Marines out. Later I'll get into the fact that sometimes when you make a mistake, the worse thing you can do is to just stop what you are doing.
Getting back on track... The only reason I brought this up is that in order to correct any problem, you have to begin by holding those responsible for their actions. And the problem with drugs is the demand, not the supply.
More to the point, ending the slavery that is so pervasive in this nation requires the same kind of refocus. The liberal elites that seek to enslave us have no power without their tools giving it to them. We need to hold these tools responsible for their actions, and not give them a pass just because they don't understand what's going on.
DA: The mental gymnastics you have to go through to see liberals making slaves of anyone is without merit. The facts are that we all depend on each other. That's how societies work. So this nonsense about creating dependency creates slaves is preposterous.
There is nothing nonsensical about it. Liberals first seek to enslave people by them doing it to themselves (definition #2), and when that fails, they resort to force (definition #1). Living in denial of that reality doesn't change that it is a reality.
What force are you talking about?
It's what I call the Berlin Wall Mentality. Walls and fences have been in mankind's history from the beginning, and they have always served one of two purposes. They are built to either keep our enemies out, or keep our property in. When you build a wall to keep people in, then you see those people as your property – as slaves. From the very beginning of socialism, the elites that institute it have always had a problem with their most productive people leaving their great utopias. For the first time in mankinds history, walls have been erected to prevent their so-called citizens (slaves really) from leaving, with the most iconic example being the Berlin Wall.
We're not erecting any walls.
In a manner of speaking you are. Look at the disaster that is California. It's about to go under from its liberal spending policies, but who do they blame? Why, the wealthy of course. They are leaving in droves (I'm one of them, although I wouldn't call myself wealthy. Left 3 years ago), but rather than erect walls, what liberals want is to eliminate any place for the wealthy to go. That's why they are so focused on eliminating states rights, and want a powerful federal government.
Liberals see the wealthy as their property, and any kind of competition between states for them as immoral. Competition is the breeding ground for freedom, and central authority is the breeding ground for slavery. The reason liberals want a strong central authority is the same exact reason the Berlin Wall was built, and that is to enslave people through force.
Yes, you view all people as slaves. You either enslave them directly, or you convince them that they are slaves of the rich, so that they will volunteer to be your slaves instead.
That's not true. We are trying to protect the powerless from the powerful. How dare you accuse us of enslaving them. We seek to empower them.
You're wrong. You cannot both protect and empower them. It's one or the other. If they are empowered, then they don't need your protection. If you are protecting them, then you have the power, not them. Or as I put it before, give a man a fish and make him your slave (protect him); teach a man to fish and set him free (empower him).
Truly, liberals have no clue what empowerment means. They view it like they view money. As if it can be taken from someone they feel has too much power, and given to another they feel has too little. This is nonsense. When someone is empowered, they have the power. If they have to go to someone else for protection, then they have no power.
To understand what I mean, let’s look at labor unions. They could be great sources of empowerment for their members by training them so that they are highly valued and sought after by companies. These unions could also empower their members by being a focal point for those companies to find them. This type of power is the only form of power that can be referred to as empowerment.
It’s too bad that unions have no faith in that power. They view their members as weak, and thus need to be protected. They instill in their members hatred and fear of the companies they work for, so that they see the companies as a threat, instead of seeing the threat created by the competition of the company they work for.
My own personal experience with a union was horrific. When I left the Navy I went to work for a manufacturing company whose workers were represented by a labor union. I didn't last long there because I couldn't stomach the environment of the absolute hatred these union members felt towards management – and people like me who refused to join. They made my life hell there.
When I was in the Navy, I knew some guys who just hated being in it, and when their enlistment was up, they left. But none of them could hold a candle to the hatred of some of these union members had for the company they worked for. Yet they never left! What an absolute miserable existence to have to work for a company you despise, and only by working for a union can that be possible. Only a union could convince you that your enemy is the company you work for, and not the competition of the company.
I, on the other hand, sought to empower myself at this company. I made myself valuable to it by solving problems in the most efficient manner. This allowed me to move up within the company and away from that divisive union environment where the leadership sought to protect its membership from 'exploitation.'
Hold on a second. I saw those quotes. Are you saying that companies don't exploit their workers? That it’s all just a figment of their imagination?
Not at all. Let me ask you. When you go out shopping, do you seek the least quality product for the highest price, or the best quality product for the lowest price?
Of course you look for the best quality product for the lowest price. So if it’s OK for you, why not companies? Why can't companies seek to pay their work force as little as possible while still getting the best quality out of them? If that's exploitation, then I want more of it, because that's how an economy grows, which in turn creates new opportunities for others. Lowering the cost of any commodity is what allows societies to advance.
You're kidding me, Right!?! We're talking about peoples’ jobs here. How can you be so heartless!?!
So I take it from your response that you always buy the higher priced product, because producing it is also someone’s job. Employers can only offer jobs when consumers are buying their products.
Face facts. Unions instill in their members that when a company does the same thing you do every day, then some great evil has occurred. They do this because it serves the interest of their so-called leadership. There is absolutely no way any liberal elite or union boss is ever going to tell the truth, and that is that the only guaranteed effective means of protecting workers is through marketable job skills, and a strong economy.
Only with actual empowerment can anyone believe they are truly protected.
Power comes in many forms, but I like to differentiate them into two categories. There is the power of the individual, and then there is the power of the collective. Empowerment is the power of the individual, and that is how I'll refer to it. These two powers are not mutually exclusive, but their goals are. The power of the collective enslaves you, while empowerment sets you free.
A great example of this is the US military. Armies have always been the power of the collective. This is the best power to select when you are being attacked. At the same time, the reason our particular army is so powerful is because of the empowerment that the army now fosters in its soldiers. Our all volunteer army is second to none, because our soldiers are free to make battlefield decisions. A strict command and control force like the Nazi's had or even Napoleon's army, don't stand a chance against armies that are committed to the power of the individual.
Ah, so then you are for eliminating 'Don't Ask Don't Tell,' because that empowers our gay soldiers?
You clearly don't understand what I'm talking about. Most acts of individual expression are nothing more than petulant cries of immaturity. From tattoos to body-piercing to pants-on-the-ground, these acts limit your choices in life, thus decreasing your empowerment. The last thing any army needs are insecure, self-absorbed children that need everyone around them to accept them as who they are. The only kind of men and women the army needs are the kind that are willing to put aside their individuality in order to fight for a common goal. It's the freedom of execution to achieve those goals that makes our army great, not the freedom to chose what those goals are.
As for repealing DADT, if it happens, I don't think it will be the disaster that many people think it will be, but I also see no benefit in doing it. The purpose of the military is to kill people. It's not a social welfare program. Any gay that finds DADT too damaging to their psyche really needs to find something else to do in life. I honestly have no sympathy for them.
Getting back to the topic at hand, unions are often viewed in this dichotomy of power of the collective and empowerment, where they employ the power of the collective through laws, force and intimidation (all three are the same) to achieve what they want, and at the same time they could be empowering their members through training and such, but the reality is that they have no faith in empowerment.
Like I said at the beginning of this section, these two powers are not mutually exclusive, and as shown with our military, can be very beneficial when combined. Yet liberal institutions like labor unions do see them as mutually exclusive, and I should know, because I've experienced it first hand. When I stated earlier that my experience with unions was horrific, I wasn't speaking in hyperbole. When I tried to empower myself by exceeding the expectations of my job description I was viciously intimidated and had lies of incompetence told about me. These union leaders saw a threat to their power because I was excelling outside their power structure.
You may have a hard time believing this, but it's really no different than what an African-American goes through when he does something sacrilegious like voting Republican. Wherever there are liberal collective power structures built to 'support' a specific victim class, anyone that is supposedly part of that class who excels outside these power structures will be vilified as a traitor.
Look. My father was a shop steward for the I.A.M. You make union leaders out to be evil people, and I can't reconcile what you are saying with what I know these people to be like. I cannot believe that they are trying to harm the members they represent.
I never said they were evil. I don't believe that they have done what they have done because they want to harm their members. They just have no faith in the power of the individual. They firmly believe that without the power of the collective their members will be harmed. If the power of the individual is destroyed by their actions then so be it. It is what they believe is necessary to protect their members.
The reasons liberals have this tortured view of things begins with understanding that the power of the collective is only useful against an enemy, so to employ it, there must be one. That leads to two very interesting questions. First, was the company the enemy, which resulted in using the power of the collective, or as I believe, did the company become the enemy because the power of the collective was used against them? The second question that really begs to be answered is, why on Earth would you work for a company you consider to be an enemy?
The power of the collective is pure evil, and always will be pure evil. To believe that it is good will corrupt your soul as I described on a previous page. One of the reasons that our military works so well is that they know that their purpose is evil, so they don't kid themselves about their function. Liberal collective power structures are viewed by those inside of them as good, so anyone excelling outside of them must be evil. So people empowering themselves must be attacked, and the power of the individual must be seen as in conflict with the 'protection' of their members.
Yet nothing can be further from the truth. People who are empowered are people who are valuable, and valuable workers need no protection. But to empower yourself you need to shake free from a need to be protected – that, and you will have to compete with others for available jobs, or better yet, create your own.
You've got it all wrong. We have no problems competing with others as long as it is fair. We need unions or the government to protect us from the jobs that are shipped overseas or south of the border. These people are working for slave wages, so how can we compete with that?
Your concern is severely misplaced. The vast majority of jobs are lost to innovation, someone either comes up with a better product, or better way to produce the product. Automation has eliminated more jobs than out-sourcing ever can. Yet the jobs to run those automated plants require far greater skill than those being replaced – and pay much better.
To be so focused on the slight possibility of your job moving out of the country, and not focused on what is far more likely to result in your job being lost, which is innovation, is the kind of thing that causes so many people (not just liberals) to seek out enslavement. It's so much easier to play the victim card than it is to be responsible for your life.
Most people know that they can't blame innovation for the loss of their job without being accused of being some sort of Luddite, so they flail around until they land on something that might garner them sympathy. This is no different than accusing illegal aliens from taking other peoples jobs, as if only they were legal it would solve the problem.
But it would. If they were legal then they can seek protection from the government and would not be forced to work for slave wages.
You're wrong on two counts. Slave wages is an oxymoron. If you get paid for it, you're not a slave. Just because you wouldn't do the work for that amount of money, doesn't mean others would not do it of their own free will.
Where you're really wrong is believing that making them legal solves their problems. They're still not assimilated into this culture, so they can't ask for comparable wages. Why would someone pay the same for someone who could barely speak the language?
What you really want is more slaves. With things like classes taught in languages other than English, and voting ballots in their native language, you don't want them to assimilate. With assimilation comes empowerment, because only when you truly understand the society you're living in can you maximize your ability to produce wealth.
Your problem is that you equate assimilation with surrender, as if assimilating means to abandon your past. All it really means is that you can function within our society. It's not by rejecting the dominate culture that you become free, you become free by understanding the culture well enough to earn the wealth necessary to live however you want. People who don't adapt to this culture will live miserable existences, and will always be at the mercy of groups that want to keep them right where they are, because they can draw power from people who believe they need protection.
What if I view this culture as evil? I'm not going to become evil just to earn money.
If you truly believe it is evil and want to make it good, then you still must assimilate into it in order to understand it well enough to influence change within it. That's the problem with you liberals. Even you don't want to assimilate. You've rejected our American way of life so much that you don't understand it anymore. Since you can't change what you don't understand, your only option is destruction. You seek to destroy what has made this country great in order to build your utopian dreams upon its ashes.
All liberals are slaves. The tools are slaves because they seek protection by their masters who are the elites, and the elites are slaves because they are dependent on their tools to keep them in power. Liberal elites don't know how to convince people that their way of life is better, which is why they need their tools to keep them in power. As I stated earlier, most slave masters are slaves themselves because of their dependency on the slaves.
But there is another way that all liberals are slaves, and that comes in the form of what I call conspiracy slaves. The hallmark of slaves by definition #1 is that they are not to blame for their current situation. So when you blame others, you are declaring yourself the slave of them. Conversely, when you credit others for your current situation, you are declaring that they helped set you free.
Ironically, both declarations are often wrong. When a liberal tool declares that an elite has helped set him free, it is usually through freeing him of the responsibility of his current situation, which actually makes him a slave. The same is true when people blame others for their situation. In most cases the blame is misplaced, like liberals blaming conservatives for why their utopian dreams aren't realized.
The best example that I like to use to reflect what I'm mean by this are those that fear the conspiracy of the 'North American Union.' There are thousands of slaves in this country that believe our sovereignty is under assault by those that want to merge the US with Canada and Mexico, and want to replace the dollar with the 'Amero.'
This is pure crap. On the face of it, it can be dismissed because the European Union took decades to bring about with many politicians publicly advocating it. There are absolutely no politicians promoting a North American Union, so this is much ado about nothing. Even the adoption of the Euro among all the members of the European Union has stalled.
So why do so many people fear what obviously can't come about (at least anywhere in the near future)? It's because they want to be slaves. Only by being a slave can others be blamed for their failures. So they take very innocuous acts that do nothing more than provide cooperation between the US, Canada and Mexico and blow them out of proportion to the very publicly stated and modest goals of the actual actions taking place.
Whatever conspiracy you ascribe to, such as the government being involved with 9/11, you are someone who is a slave to a figment of your imagination. If you fear organizations such as the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council On Foreign Relations, you are a slave because you are seeking protection from something that you need no protection from.
You don't seriously believe that there are no conspiracies to harm or control people?
Of course not. There are many of them. It's just that there are no examples in human history where an evil cabal of conspirators have taken over anything without the cooperation of the populace in general. Take China's One Child policy as an example. When people hear about it, they think 'Oh what a terrible thing the Chinese government is doing to its people.' Well, their wrong. The vast majority of people in China agree with the policy, and that is why the government is capable of enforcing it.
It's never the cabal you need to worry about. It's the people – and it will always be the people that should be your focus. Evil cabals cannot derive power from free people. These cabals need people seeking protection from real or imagined threats. Even if you were able to thwart the plans of some cabal, a populace of slaves will be ripe for the next group that seeks their enslavement. Focusing on the cabals will always be a never ending battle to protect your freedom. Only by focusing on the populace, and instilling a sense of freedom in them can this battle be won.
But real threats from real cabals is not what I am discussing here. It's the imagined threats to our freedom that cause people to seek protection from those that are trying to convince them they are real. So it's a very good bet that when someone tells you that you need to be concerned about an evil cabal, it's not the cabal you should be worrying about, it's whoever is telling you to be concerned that is seeking your enslavement.
Aren't you being a little hypocritical here. You've mentioned several times that you are concerned with a Muslim take over of this country. Why is that OK to be concerned with?
First of all, I'm responding to the very public goals stated by those that wish to enslave us, and not some fevered conclusion derived from connecting dubiously relevant dots. It amazes me how people make up the most ridiculous stuff to be concerned about, yet live in complete denial of the obvious threats in front of them.
More to the point, it is not the jihadis I fear directly. These people are stuck in the seventh century who need our technology to pull off any attack against us. They represent no credible military attack whatsoever – unless we allow more dangerous technology to come into their possession. And that's the point. It's not them that I fear. It's our reaction to them that concerns me.
I thought we had learned our lesson the last time we elected a dhimmi (Google it) for a president with Jimmy Carter. But no, we did it again with 'The One.' There are far too many people in this country that are willing to negotiate with terrorists, not realizing that it is the mere act of negotiation that gives the jihadis hope that their evil deeds are working. The jihadis have learned, just as the North Vietnamese army learned after their complete failure in the Tet Offensive, that liberalism will bring them the victory that they can't achieve on their own.
There are only two ways to stop the terrorist attacks against us. We either have to completely surrender to them, or unite to send an unambiguous message that we will not give one inch on their demands, and place full responsibility of their actions on them without blaming Israel or 'American Imperialism.' There is no middle ground here. As long as they believe that we feel some of their claims are at least partially legitimate, their attacks will continue.
Sadly, the former is far more likely than the latter. There are just too many people in this country deriving power from the belief that we are an imperialist nation to ever give up on it. In order to put all of the blame on the terrorists, these dhimmi's will have to stop believing in their core principles, and start seeing this country for the greatness that it is. In other words, they have to stop being slaves of conspiracies, and that just ain't gunna happen.
DA: Your silly semantics are wearing thin. Slapping a name like slavery on actions that we all know is in our best interest isn't going to change our minds.
But it's not in your best interest. That's my whole point. If this was about nothing more than humiliation from groveling to your 'betters' for the mediocrity that they offer, I'd just say, have at it – good luck and good riddance. But slavery does not work, and destroys the lives of all involved.
Slavery has never worked as intended, and it doesn't matter whether the enslavement was done by choice, or by force. Going back to the dawn of man, slavery has never enhanced a society. It has always been a ball and chain weighing it down.
Even archeologists had to re-evaluate how the great pyramids of Egypt were built. They once believed that structures as large as them needed slaves to be built, but careful analysis proved that to be wrong. There’s just no way slave labor could have built them.
The most obvious example of the failure of slavery is to look at the Civil War. The South, with its economy that was too dependent on slavery, never stood a chance against the more prosperous North. The South had better weather and resources, but slavery weighed them down. Even the few slave owners who were made wealthy through slavery could have been far wealthier if they had only abandoned it.
It's true. At the end of the 18th century, slaves were going for less than $100 each. Many abolitionists at the time thought the slavery was just going to whither away as the anachronism that it was, but two things came together to resurrect it. The industrial revolution in England, which needed cotton, then finally the cotton gin, which allowed the mass production of it. A vast opportunity like no other – before and since – was presented to the Southern States. They could either slowly build through free labor the production capacity to meet this need for cotton, or they could go for the quick fix of using slaves.
Actually, I'm being a bit facetious. No other option than slavery was considered. There were already lots of slave owners who were by then had enslaved themselves to the principle of slavery. As I have said, most slave masters are slaves because of their dependency on slaves. Their addiction prevents them from seeing a better way.
There is no doubt that the riches they desired could be attained quicker with slaves, but as a comparison with their far wealthier northern states can attest, they were greatly limited by their dependency on (enslavement to) slaves. Slavery is as addicting and destructive to slave masters as heroin is to any drug addict.
Most would say that what didn't work about slavery was how people were forced to perform the labor they did against their will. This alone is a great evil, but it’s not why it didn't work. Specifically, slavery prevents people from being assets. It prevents them from using their own God-given abilities to be more than a machine, and devise never before thought of innovations in what they do.
That is why it doesn't matter whether you are a slave by force or by choice. The slaves of today, who believe they are dependent on the government to give them a job, or especially expect the government to protect their job, are not assets to our country. Only free people who take responsibility for their lives, and are looking for unique ways to contribute as only they can, are assets.
As I stated earlier, an important characteristic of slaves is that they cannot be held accountable for their actions. They are, after all, only carrying out the orders of their masters. Take the auto workers in Detroit. The only reason people are for bailing out the auto industry is because they don't believe the workers are to blame for the poor products their companies produce. If the citizens of this country thought they were accountable (and they should be), then there would be no talk of bailing them out.
So the degree to which you do not hold an adult accountable for his or her actions, is the degree to which you consider that person to be a slave. Personally, I never did anything just because my boss told me to do it. I either believed that my actions provided real value that I knew our customers would pay for, or I sought other employment. This is the only sure path to job security. So contrary to the lies told to the members of the UAW, strong-arming ironclad contracts that are not in the best interest of the company they are working for, doesn't make their jobs safe.
The best course of action any company should take is to hire freemen, not slaves. Only when all employees consider themselves accountable to the success of the company are they true assets to the company, and thus can be considered free. This occurs when they fully understand what the company is doing, and why their work produces products or services others will value.
Let me restate what I have been saying all along, because I know there are far too many slaves in our society that consider this to be contradictory. Only when you are accountable, and consider yourself responsible for your actions, are you a freeman and not a slave. When you blame someone else for your predicament, you are declaring yourself to be a slave. This either occurs willingly, like most slaves in this country, or it happens to you by force, such as when you are a victim of a crime.
Sorry. I'm not getting this. Just because I am protesting the actions of white-male imperialists, that doesn't make me their slaves. By protesting them, I am rejecting their attempts to enslave me.
Of course you don't get this. Your mindset is all wrong. It's a mindset that links my last two topics of conspiracy slaves and why slavery doesn't works. It has to do with what real power is, and how I stated earlier that you guys believe that power is transferable, like money. As if it can be taken from those you perceive have too much power and given to those you perceive have too little. This mindset can best be seen when you and your ilk spout
Power to the people! What you fail to realize is that the power has always resided in the people, and can only be surrendered when they are duped out of it by people like you.
Take that accusation you just made. Since slavery is illegal in this country, you either need to produce the evidence to throw these 'white-male imperialists' in jail, or admit that you are only demagogueing them to drum up the political power you need to implement your ideology.
I will do neither!
As I suspected. You once again cement your status at a liberal tool. But in all honesty, I think the elites believe the same thing, which is why I consider liberalism to be the finest example of the 'blind leading the blind' that can be found within human history.
The reason why I don't buy into conspiracies and know that slavery doesn't work is because I understand the true nature of power and how it has always resided within the people. It's also why I don't buy into liberalism in general. I don't believe any central authority is capable of running any complex society. It's not so much liberalism's over-arching goals that I disagree with. I too would like peace, happiness and justice to reign over this land. It's that I know the mechanisms used by liberals to achieve those goals will fail.
And they have to fail, because any central authority is a lie. It is a myth. It is absolute pure fiction. It only exists at all because we deceive ourselves into believing it's true. A central authority is like money, and money only has value because we choose to believe that it does. And just as believing that money is wealth, rather than only representing wealth, will lead to terrible things like run-away inflation, believing that any government is powerful, rather than merely representing power, will lead to enslavement.
I think the best way to explain this is to look at the civil rights legislation of the 1960's. This legislation was important because of what it did to governments. At the time, organizations like the KKK enjoyed a great deal of protection and endorsement from the local governments, so Federal legislation was needed to break that up. In other words, the parts of the legislation that were designed to destroy the central authority that was supporting segregation worked fine. The rest of it, and certainly anything since that has been about creating more central authority at the Federal level, those parts have been an unmitigated disaster against the very people they were meant to protect.
No it hasn't. Without government intervention, oppressed people are highly disadvantaged at living a meaningful life. Things like affirmative action are needed to level the playing field.
I'll respond to that nonsense shortly. The point I'm trying to make now is that the civil rights legislation was actually behind the curve in our society. Desegregation was already taking place on its own. The legislation only confirmed what was going within us anyway. This has always been true of the so called accomplishments of any government. Governments can pass all the laws they want, but if 'we the people' don't buy into them, they will be a disaster. Just look at the alcohol prohibition, or even more recently, Obama's health care reform.
Again, government is force, and force only destroys. It never accomplishes anything good. Only by understanding that the
power of the people is the reality, can effective solutions to today's problems be implemented. There are no short cuts. We all must be operating on the same page to achieve true justice. This is not something that can just be legislated into being.
Slavery doesn't work for the same reasons. Slavery will always be a very poor use of resources, because the people doing the work will always know better how to do it than those that want it done. Any business that recognizes this, and fosters empowerment within its work force are the ones most likely to succeed, and adapt to the changing market place.
I don't care what you say. Without a strong government regulating our country, horrible injustices will run rampant. You say you don't buy into conspiracies, but your obvious distrust in our government definitely belies that.
You are still not getting it. It's not a question of trust. I don't care who is in power, I don't believe the government can do anything good.
Take the concept of campaign finance reform. Everybody is all up in arms over politicians 'buying elections' with the money given to them by their supporters, and all we need to do to solve this problem is to regulate campaign donations to fix it. The real problem here is the stupid populace that is influenced by campaign commercials, and as long as they are influenced by them, we're screwed. There is no legislation that can fix stupid.
If our citizenry were freeman and not slaves, they would be researching on their own as to how to vote, and all of the money given to politicians would dry up, because those seeking influence would just be wasting their money. Imagine how wonderful our lives would be if come election time their would be none of the insulting campaign commercials that bombard us, because no one would be paying attention to them anyway.
So you really are an anarchist. Just eliminate all taxes and regulations and everything will work itself out on its own. Right?
I want no such thing. Government has a very important role to play in our society, but in all honesty, taxation does have to go. In order to have a just and responsive government, all of its revenue must be acquired voluntarily.
Hah! I knew it. You really are a whack-job. Don't you know that the only two sure things in life are death and taxes.
Many people thought our military couldn't survive when the draft was eliminated, yet we now have the finest military known to man. We even should take the final step and eliminate the draft registration, because it will never do us any good. If we can't get the people to volunteer, we are either fighting an unjust war, or the populace isn't worth fighting for.
Of course, just like we can't end the war on drugs immediately, we can't end taxation right away, because we are still mostly a nation of slaves.
You honestly believe that a nation can function without taxes? That's just ridiculous!
I have already stated that I don't think this nation can survive unless it is something worth fighting for. What's really ridiculous is to believe that people would be willing to die for this country, but would not be willing to pay for it. The real issue is that no one is willing to pay for things you liberals want, which is why eliminating taxes is so unthinkable for you.
The very definition of slavery is that you are not allowed to benefit from the fruits of your own labor. That makes taxation merely about what degree you are a slave. The greater your taxes, the more you are a slave. Since slavery is the most inefficient way to go about accomplishing anything, politicians are essentially making the same mistake as the one made at the beginning of the cotton economy by the slave masters of the Old South, which is to chose the quick fix of using taxes instead of the more solid and effective solutions offered by the free market.
The slave masters of the Old South were blinded by their belief that slavery was needed to accomplish what they want. Politicians, and liberals in general, are blinded the same way. And just as using slaves means that you will commit great evil to get what you want, taxation also means the same thing. If our government is funded by free market ideals, then it is far more likely to move in a direction that benefits us all.
The same is true for regulation. But first, I want to draw a distinction between laws and regulations. This is another example where I deviate from commonly held understanding of words, but I do so to give you clarity behind them. The technical distinction is that a law is something voted on by politicians, but a regulation is what is established by a government bureaucracy. This is a phony distinction because they are both forms of force used against the citizens of this nation. Ultimately, all laws and regulations are the responsibility of our politicians, so how they came about is irrelevant.
Instead, let's look at the practical differences between them. The implied difference is that laws are in acted to prevent evil acts, while regulations are in acted to prevent acts that are not necessarily evil, but that if done, could lead to evil acts.
A good example of this distinction is hand gun regulations. Just having a gun is not evil. It's what you could do with it that is. Since outlawing murder has not prevented murder, desperate politicians (liberals) want more laws passed to supposedly prevent the opportunity for murder. But has it? If you take the guns out of the hands of the people who are willing to comply with the law against murder, then all you have done is created more opportunity for murder with those that don't comply with the laws anyway.
Take the example of Bernie Madoff. Here was this big liberal who donated handsomely to democrats and democrat causes, but at the same time, was running a massive ponzi-like scheme. It's hard to imagine a more regulated industry than the financial markets, but that didn't stop him. The real knee-slapper is that people screamed for more regulations following this scandal, not realizing how regulations actually enabled him, if for no other reason than his investors assumed regulations would prevent them from being swindled.
I cannot state this more forcefully: All criminals love regulations because they only impact those willing to comply!
Creating more laws does not increase the likelihood that those with evil intent will be caught. The more laws you have, the more clutter you make that has to be sifted through to find the criminals. Regulations are far more likely to harm innocent people attempting to comply with them, than they are to actually stop crime. Further more, they turn people into criminals who would other wise be law-abiding, because they see no practical way to comply with the regulations.
And it's not just criminals that love regulations. Corporations love them too. Have you ever wondered why there once were dozens of car companies in this country, and now there are only a few? Of course the complete answer is a bit complex, but oppressive regulation works in their favor, because only major corporations have the resources to comply with them. The more regulations that people have to comply with, the more you are tilting the market place in favor of large corporations.
So I take it that you think car companies should be allowed to build death traps?
No. I only want to start trusting the people to decide for themselves what constitutes a safe car.
I recently read this hypothetical about mandating hotels to provide beds. It seems ludicrous that such a regulation should be necessary, but can't you just imagine what would happen if a hotel did stop providing them. Liberals, of course, would be all up in arms and demanding that a law be passed to ensure hotels provide beds. On the other hand, conservatives would just stop patronizing that hotel.
What's so bad about requiring beds? Do you think hotels shouldn't provide them?
The point is that it doesn't matter what I think, and particularly what you think. It's what the free market thinks that matters. What if their are people who are horrified by bed mites that want to bring their own inflatable beds? So the question should never be what's so bad about requiring beds. The question should be what's so bad about letting the people decide for themselves what is an appropriate accommodation.
All regulations are about fixing in time attitudes and ideas that will not be allowed to change as people do. And once a regulation has been established, things have to go horribly wrong before they are repealed – the Prohibition is one such folly that comes to mind. There are already laws against fraud to handle situations were people do not receive what should clearly be expected, and any establishment that does not deliver on what people expect will not be in business long (at least not without government coercion, such as the DMV).
You are talking in circles. You begin by saying that government has an important role in our society, then proceed to bash everything government does. What gives?
Your confusion comes from the perspective you have on the expectations of government. As a slave, you expect the government to protect you. As a freeman, I know it can't. Laws or regulations that are in acted with the intention of preventing crimes are doomed to fail because it is the criminal that decides whether or not they will commit their crime. That's why liberals want gun laws. Laws against murder haven't stopped murder, and since they believe that's what laws should do, they will continue to seek more and more laws in their hopeless endeavor to end murder.
Since I don't believe the government can protect me, I want laws that are in acted with the intent of holding criminals accountable for their actions. Anyone who seriously studies human nature will tell you that the best deterrent to crime is increasing the probability that they will get caught, and receive a swift and sure punishment.
Crime cannot be controlled as long as we continue to focus on prevention. This focus makes it appear that the problem is with our laws, and if we just get them right, then crime will come to an end. What complete and utter nonsense. The problem is with the criminals, and they need to be held accountable.
What I am asking for is that the government stops treating us like slaves by regulating our behavior, and starts treating us like freeman by holding us accountable for our actions. Yet I don't reject all regulation. The standard that I judge laws by is whether they increase my freedom. If they do, then they are good, and if they don't, then they are evil and will ultimately harm us.
Take traffic regulations as an example. If every driver just did what they want when they got on the road, there would be absolute chaos, and my ability to get where I need would be greatly hindered. But with proper and consistently enforced vehicle regulation, I have a great deal more freedom in getting to where I want. On the contrary, any regulation forcing hotels to provide me a bed do not increase my freedom. They only limit my options and lock in a mind set that will be profoundly difficult to break in the future.
DA: I don't understand why you have to be so absolute about all of this. Why can't we have the best of both worlds? Let's use the free market where it works best, and the government where it does.
Ahhh. The moderate approach. Or as the so-called moderates would put it, the sensible form of governance. What this is in reality is no form of governance at all. It's about going this way then that way with no real objective in mind. And if you can actually pin one of these guys down to describe what is their political philosophy, the most coherent thing they'll say is that they just want to ensure that no one on either extreme can gain any advantage. In other words, the reason they believe they are right is because they believe those on the extreme must be wrong.
Personally, I liked the way Ayn Rand put it in Atlas Shrugged, when she writes about a compromise with those that seek government solutions to our problems. She wrote,
The compromise between food and poison is death. In other words, it doesn't matter how much food you eat, when you eat poison, you die. The point she is trying to make about government solutions is that when you choose slavery once, it makes the next choice of it much easier.
A fatal flaw of all mankind is that we tend to re-enforce the choices we have made, rather than look critically at them. So the more you accept slavery, the more of it you will likely choose again because of how much you had to justify the original choice. The obvious proof of this is when you look at all of the things that you expect government should do now that previous generations would never have dreamed of. Given that, can you imagine what you will expect the government to take care of tomorrow. There really is no limit.
This process of ever encroaching enslavement has lead me to believe that the default state of mankind is slavery. If you are not committed to seeking freedom, then you will only get slavery – whether you have consciously sought it or not. One thing I am absolutely certain of, is that freedom cannot be given to you. While it's true that if you are a slave by definition #1, someone else can set you free, such as President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, those that are slaves by definition #2 must set themselves free. No one can do it for them. Either you are actively making choices to be free, or you are a slave. There is no middle ground here.
You're the one that refuses to look critically at the choices you have made if you can't see the good that the government has done.
Leave aside the truth that government is nothing but force, and all force is evil. I object to what it does because it doesn't make our lives better, and it makes us slaves to this mediocrity (at best) in the process.
To make my point perfectly clear, allow me to give you an example of liberals enslaving us without the government. There is this program called 'The Giving Pledge' where a bunch of wealthy liberals have pledged to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Sounds real nice, until you critically examine what this means. First of all, the wealth they plan to give away isn't stacked up on their mantles for them to admire every evening. It is in banks, or otherwise invested in the capitalist economy. This allows others to use their wealth to create jobs, which is the best way to help people be free. Then there is the question of where the money will go. Since it has been taken from the best place it could be to set people free, then it must be going to a place that will more than likely enslave them by making them dependent on their 'charity.'
DA: Oh come on! Even you're not that cynical.
If setting people free were anywhere near their concern, they would have left the money where it was. Heaven forbid that they should earn (gasp!) a profit on their wealth. As long as our society sees making profit as evil, then slavery will always be our default state. Absent of the coercive force of government, all profit is representative of the benefit that this economic activity has on our country. Anyone who doesn't believe that is a slave.
As a side note, that's why I never buy 'Newman's Own' food products. Not only do I believe the jobs created by the other food companies are good for our society, but I would rather donate my money to charities that really help people, and not ones that just breed dependency.
There is no doubt in my mind that slavery is the default state of man, if for no other reason than I had to make up a word to identify someone who is the opposite of a slave, which is freeman. And the degree to which you are a slave has more to do with the choices you refuse to make, rather than the ones you do. I actually have more respect for liberals than I do for moderates, because they are actively seeking to make something happen that in their minds makes them free by placing the responsibility of their lives into the hands of the government. They march willingly and happily into the forced dependency of government, so that makes them at least aware of what they are doing.
Moderates, on the other hand, refuse to make choices, either by not voting, or voting for someone who doesn't claim to represent either extreme. This means they either vote for someone with no convictions or a liar. Personally, I don't believe anyone would run for a political office without a conviction of some nature, so that makes all moderate politicians liars. The idea of a politician who goes through what they have to do to get themselves elected just to simply represent the will of his constituents exists only in Frank Capra movies. The belief of moderates that avoiding either extreme is possible, makes them totally unaware of their march towards slavery.
And that leads to my last point on why slavery is the default. If you're some moderate contemplating who to vote for in an election, are you going to select the guy that says government does work, and promises to do wonderful things for you if elected, or are you going to choose the guy that says government doesn't work, and promises to do his best to hold back the government. Conservative politicians have a very tough row to hoe in convincing non-conservatives to vote for them. Can you imagine yourself as an employer trying to decide who to hire between one guy who says the job is doable, and the other who says it isn't? It's this basic conundrum that makes sliding into slavery so very easy.
Freedom isn't free, because it cannot be handed to you. It's also something you can't delegate the responsibility of to others. Only when your life is defined by you are you free. So to be free, you must be actively choosing freedom. Choosing anything else, or choosing nothing at all, is the choice of slavery, because that's when your life will be defined for you.
Probably the best way to identify who are the slaves and who are the freemen is by looking at which has leaders and which has masters. Yet real leadership is so misunderstood in this society that it makes it very hard to tell who the slaves are.
Leadership has nothing to do with giving commands. In fact, the more commands you have to give, the poorer leader you are. The only thing that is required to be an effective leader of people is competence and shared common values with the people you are leading. To place any other requirements on it – and I mean anything else – detracts from what leadership really means.
Who is a leader is decided by the followers, not the leader. Leaders cannot decide who their followers are, only masters can. This means that leadership is always defined from the bottom up, and no amount of force can change that. Liberals want top down authority over the citizens of this country, which is why they want a strong federal government.
As an example of liberals disdain of the principles of shared values and bottom up power structures, lets look at modern feminism. Feminists are not concerned with anyone sharing their values. They look upon men who don't respect them in positions of authority, as mean or ignorant. No consideration is given to get them to see that they share the same values. In fact, feminists would consider such efforts beneath them. As far as they are concerned, their ability to lead is self-evident, and any efforts to engage men who disagree does nothing more than validate those men’s concerns. From their perspective, the only response to gender discrimination is to bring Big Brother to the rescue, and punish those male chauvinist pigs.
A feminist doesn't care about true leadership. All she cares about is the title of a leadership position, which gives her nothing but authority. Yet for a freeman, the idea of authority without leadership has to be an anathema. Leadership has to be the goal, and when properly attained, authority flows naturally from it.
Let me get this straight. You expect women to accept lower ranking positions in the work place until men shake off their gender bigotry.
I suppose from your comment that it’s completely out of the question for women to start their own businesses and put those obviously stupid men out of theirs. Any business that does not recognize talent where talent is due is ripe for loss of market share by more enlightened competition.
Put simply, if feminists want men to respect women, then they have to compete against them. Whining to the government about how unfair men are only confirms every negative thing they believe about women in leadership positions. There is a great deal of respect when you compete against someone, because that is how you demonstrate that you respect them. Just to show my own gender bigotry, I believe that men recognize this easily enough, but women don't. Particularly among liberals, competition is seen as something that should be avoided, and not as something that is healthy for everyone.
This gets to another difference between leaders and masters. Anyone in a position of authority who expects those underneath to conform to their values is a master. A leader either conforms to their followers values, or rejects the role of authority over them.
So you think it's wrong for a leader to expect better behavior from his followers?
You're not paying attention. I have already stated that leaders don't decide who their followers are. They can neither pick them nor reject them. Their only option is whether they will accept authority over them. If a leader disagrees with the values of those that claim to follow him, the honorable thing to do is reject the authority conferred by them so that he can then persuade them to conform to his values. If he maintains authority then he is using force to make them comply. This is what happens when a politician falsely represents himself to the voters to get elected into office.
President Obama is a fine example of this. He campaigned as a centrist, but did so to gain authority over people to force them conform to his values. What he presented to the voters was a lie, so that makes him a master, not a leader. It's true that many who voted for him thought he was a big government liberal, but they did so with the hope that with his election we would be able to put the issue of race behind us. He most certainly gave that impression. Yet his biggest failure was not that he didn't accomplish it, it's that he has made race relations worse.
You are wrong. His only mistake was in believing that you conservatives would have given him a chance. He may not be your leader, but he certainly is mine.
No he's not. The fundamental difference between leaders and masters is that leaders empower you, while masters enslave you. That masters enslave you is obvious, but not that leaders empower you, as your comment so clearly demonstrates. There is nothing about Obama's agenda that has anything to do with empowerment. It's all about having the government force people to do what he believes is best.
Obama is your master, and as I stated previously, just because you get to choose your master, that doesn't make you any less a slave.
In all of my life's experiences, from the discussions I've had, to the books I've read, the movies I've watched, and the talk radio programs I've listened to, nothing has better encapsulated what it means to be a freeman better than John Galt's creed in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. It's so perfect that I refer to it as
The Freeman's Creed
What makes it so perfect is that if you are a freeman, and hear it, the truth of it resonates with you. Yet if you are a liberal (a slave), and hear it, it sounds like pure evil, and is goes against every fiber of your being. Nothing else ever written can convey both impressions simultaneously, and it goes:
I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Boy, have you got that right! Nothing points out the greed and selfishness of the capitalist mentality than that does. Everyone is expected to just fend for themselves. Right?
In a word, yes.
DA: Ha! I knew it! Pardon me if I don't want to be part of your heartless world.
It's not heartless at all. The only way real and honest compassion can take place is to begin with that creed.
At the beginning of this page I asked a simple question, and that is are you a slave? I then laid out a great deal of substantive commentary on how to determine if you are, but all I needed to know to determine if you are a slave is how your reacted to the Freeman's Creed. If you in any way see it as evil or heartless, then you are a slave. No ifs, ands or buts about it.
Now if you're someone who is on the fence about this, and would like to embrace the creed without reservation, I'll walk you through it, and show you how you can.
But before I begin, I want you to know that there are those that I do live my life for the sake of, and that's my wife and children. The difference is that I have sworn in holy matrimony to act on what's in their best interest, and not mine. No one else will get that consideration, nor should they.
The first thing you must understand about the creed is what I mean by 'man' in it. By man I mean an adult, and an adult is someone who is responsible for his or her life. An adult is someone who carries his own weight within our society, and doesn't require charity or protection. Anyone that needs to be taken care of is a child – I don't care what their age is.
What is meant by living for the sake of others in the creed is to do things in the best interest of others. I have already told you what I think about liberal elites deciding what is in the best interest others, but it doesn't matter who does the deciding. Even if you act in the best interest of others based on what they say, you are still harming them. All such cases are no different than a bum begging for the change in your pockets. When you give it, you're just paying them to continue to live in their filth. To believe otherwise about acting in the best interest of others, is to believe that those billionaires are helping our society with their 'Giving Pledge.'
It is not possible to act in the best interest of others unless you deeply know them. Without that intimate knowledge, you are far more likely to be just an enabler of their slavery.
As a freeman, the only way you can act in my best interest is for you to act in yours. If you're a billionaire who wants to help me, then keep on earning as much money as you can, because that activity creates more opportunity for me to succeed as well.
Hold on a second. You stated that this creed of yours is where real compassion begins, and then proceeded to avoid explaining that ridiculous assertion. I'm not going to let you get away with that.
Very well. Do you believe that someone is compassionate when all they have done is forced others to be compassionate for them? I don't.
By expecting the government to take care of those that need help, we all feel less compelled to create and maintain the relationships we need to carry us through the rough patches in our lives. In this sense, the Nanny State acts like an acid on our ability to form the real bonds of compassion.
And the trend is getting worse. Every attempt is being made to de-stigmatize welfare programs, such as food stamps are now called SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. No need to be ashamed about pulling out obvious alternative payment methods. We now give people debit cards that are indistinguishable from regular ones.
I say we need to bring back shame in government welfare to not only coerce those that need help to seek it from others, but also to get those who could offer help to stop thinking that the government should provide it, and it's the Freeman's Creed where that begins. Make it a requirement that anyone that receives welfare must surrender their adulthood, and strip them of their right to vote. Honor requires this because of the conflict of interest created by it. To vote for someone who will take from others to give to you makes you a thief. This action will also keep politicians from increasing their power base by getting people dependant on government.
You may talk real big, but by your own definition, you are slave because you pay taxes and abide by our laws. Why is it you consider yourself any less a slave than me.
Paying taxes and obeying laws makes me a slave by definition #1, and I have already stated that there is no dishonor in that. It is the choices that I make that determine whether I am a slave by definition #2, and that is where I define whether you are a slave or a freeman. The choices I make are to vote for people who will lower my taxes and reduce the regulations that decide what's in my best interest. I, and I alone, want to decide what that is.
That's easy for you to say. As a white male, society confers a great advantage to you.
You are absolutely correct. Our society does confer a significant advantage on us white males, but not in the way you think. As a white male, our society will not show any sympathy for me if I fail in life. I will not be smothered with the Siren's songs of "It's not your fault," or "You are not to blame." Society expects me to succeed in order to carry the load of those society expects to fail. And don't kid yourself. If you are not expected to succeed, then you are expected to fail. And most people generally live up (down?) to their expectations.
More importantly, as a freeman, I don't see the 'protection' offered by the government to non-white non-males as helping them at all. When I do something wrong in my place of employment, my supervisor knows he can speak honestly about my short-comings so that I can better correct my behavior. Government protection only insulates and isolates its victim-classes from the reality of what it takes to succeed.
Some protection is necessary. You can dismiss gender discrimination all you want, but it's not right for women to have to work in a hostile work environment.
Nobody seemed all that bothered with the down-right vicious environment I had to deal with when I worked in a union shop. Why should the behaviors that women find objectionable be punishable by government sanctions, but it's OK to attack white, non-union males? It's not only OK, but with things like 'Card Check' – which is being pushed heavily by liberals – it's encouraged.
Don't get me wrong here. I don't want government protection from this. Since I don't whine about working where people don't want me to work, my life is better off, because it forces me to seek better alternatives. Anyone's life will always be much better when they accept responsibility for their life. Being a freeman is all the protection you need.
Why should a woman have to leave her job when she's not the one who did something wrong? Have you no sense of justice?
That's the kind of thinking that leads to revenge, not justice, which I'll explain more on a later page. Companies that value their female workforce will implement policies that ensure that they continue to work there. Any company that doesn't respect them doesn't deserve them. Again, why would anyone waste their time working for a company that doesn't respect them? Why not start your own if none do? That's how a freeman thinks. Putting disrespectful companies out of business through free market principles is what justice is all about.
To fully understand what it means to be a freeman, you must understand what it's not, and that is anything liberals recognize as freedom. Such as freedom is not being free to do whatever you want. Only children are free to do as they please. To be free you must first work within society to provide real value to it, and then you will be free to do as you please. Liberals think the exact opposite. They believe they should be able to do as the please, and then see how they can provide value to our society.
I recently came across an excellent example of what I'm describing from an unexpected source. One of the daily comics that I peruse is called On The Fastrack. One of the main characters is this caricature of a corporate CEO named Rose Trellis. Her executive assistant named Wendy had just hired an assistant of her own named Dethany (no, that's not a typo). This new assistant is a real Goth chick, almost a caricature of her own.
In one particular panel, Rose commented on Dethany's good work by stating
Looking like you do, I wouldn't have suspected you of being a hard worker. Dethany's reply was,
Of course not, Ms. Trellis. But I've found that if I make myself valuable, employers will allow me to dress any way I want.
Exactly. No company worth working for would fire any valuable employee. As long as what you do does not detract from your value, you are free to do as you please. Freedom begins by first making yourself valuable in our society by either providing what people want or convincing them they should want what you offer. Slavery (liberalism) begins by believing that you should be what ever you want, then expect society to accept you as you are.
Ultimately, being a freeman is not about whether you have chains on you, but whether others have put them on you, or you have put them on yourself. People who have had the chains put on them (definition #1) are likely to fight to get them off. People who put them on themselves (definition #2) are likely to justify why they did so, thus they are fighting to keep them on. As I stated at the end of a previous page,
No chain binds as tightly as the ones you put on yourself.
Most would say that slavery was abolished with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. Not me. It was a good start, but the jobs not finished, and until we are all freeman, our freedom is in jeopardy.
We must keep in mind that the abolitionists that sought to rid our society of the scourge of slavery did not do so because they were concerned about becoming slaves themselves. They did so because they believed that we are all harmed while anyone was a slave. For the exact same reasons, I'm seeking to abolish the slavery of those that have put the chains on themselves.
Yet most of these slaves are far more dangerous to us freeman than the slavery that was abolished a century and a half ago. These slaves give power to those that seek our enslavement by doing an end run around the 13th Amendment. These slave masters may not slap us in chains, but they do consider us their property. They may not tell us what fields to pick cotton in, but they do feel entitled to the fruits of our labor.
The question then becomes just how to free those who are slaves by definition #2. Another amendment won't do it. Slaves by definition #1 require the government to recognize they are the property of someone else, so an amendment to the constitution would work in that case. Those who enslave themselves are like many of the problems we face today, which are ones that the government can't solve, and can only make worse. The fundamental problem with these slaves is that they want the government to solve their problems, and whatever the solution is, we need to reverse their thinking, and get them to tell the government what to do.
And let's not forget all of the other conspiracy slaves who fear the Bilderbergers, or the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral Commission, etcetera . It's true that the truly evil scum bags who feed on these slaves don't have the power to enslave us like the liberal elites do, but there is no solution that disarms the liberal elites that allows them to continue to retain their slaves as well.
The only solution that can work involves delegitimizing all slaves and their concerns, then insisting that they become responsible for their lives. This task appears very daunting, but no true freeman is not up to the task. It is incongruous to expect others to be responsible for their lives while blaming others for your failure in this task. The mere act of declaring this not possible is also a declaration that you are not a freeman. Do not forget that these slaves believe it is just as impossible for them to be free of government protection. You know the truth, and all that they believe are lies. This is not an intractable problem.
As the abolitionists of the past believed, so should we now. Until we are all freeman, none of us are free.