PDA

View Full Version : Grant No Man the Authority to Make You His Slave




Truth Warrior
11-10-2008, 09:15 AM
Grant No Man the Authority to Make You His Slave
by Peter Ragnar
From Number 126

Are there any among us who would not decry the repugnancy of slavery? I am assuming, of course, that you have reached a higher station in your moral evolution than members of the common mob. Yet, isn’t it likely that the lowest serf, imprisoned as a nameless unit of the proletariat, abhors his forced servitude? Like a prisoner gazing beyond his bars, does not the indentured servant, in his most hopeful of moments, dream of freedom? I grant you it is possible some mindless automatons with lobotomized souls would equate their slavery with fate. Such people lack enough vitality in their being to even protest a perfunctory “I wish I were free,” and they are certainly not endowed with a single drop of originality in seeking it.

I salute you - the self-owned, the self-reliant, the independent heroes of freedom! You have refused to submit and surrender to the iron boots of slavery. You eschew tyranny and refuse to sanction the officious, pigheaded, bureaucratic assaults and intrusions upon your life. To you these assaults are as impotent as rag dolls. Yet they continue each day, fed by the mentality of the mindless mob granting what they have no right to grant, sanctioning what no one can sanction, and legitimizing what no one can make legitimate.

If it were not for a swarm of obedient servants, myriads mired in the morass of the mob mentality, even a Caesar or a Napoleon would be reduced to flaccid, vagrant nobodies. For whom is a Caesar, a Napoleon, or an Alexander the Great without their armies, their hordes of servants, and the greedy solicitous masses humbly beseeching them for perks?

Just imagine a Napoleon in his threadbare uniform, standing on a box in the city square and shouting political slogans, much like an itinerant evangelist seeking converts by wildly proselytizing like a madman. The local citizenry give him a wide berth, as one would sensibly do to anyone so afflicted. Such a clown could hardly be taken seriously, let alone obeyed. You would not grant such a one respect, nor approve of his desire to impose his will. Nor would you, as the case is today, sanction the will of the larger mob over the individual who does not wish to be enslaved. Grant no man the authority to make you his slave! Appoint no one your guardian. Accept no handouts from those distributing stolen property. Commit no criminal acts by accepting monies extorted from others.

When a government is installed by the voting majority it imposes a tribute upon all, known as taxation. Confiscations of property and imprisonment await those who refuse to pay voluntarily. Taxation, administered in this manner, is clearly theft. Morally, you have no right to be a co-conspirator in the aggressing and extorting of monies, or properties, or in the forced conscription of your own or your neighbor’s children being compulsorily sent to “school.” If you vote to sanction the unsanctionable, to legitimize the illegitimate, you criminalize yourself. And does your vote really matter (except as evidence that you accept the governmental system)? You only exchange one candidate for another, while the tyrant (the institution of government) remains the same!

Oh yes, you may agree that you have been burdened by government, and so seek solace by voting for change. You may feel that you are choosing the lesser of two evils. Here I implore you to bear in mind that the lesser of two evils is still evil! To endorse a little evil is similar to accepting a little carcinoma. Evil is still evil! This is more than the simple sin of looking in the other direction as a co-worker steals from his employer. This is your sanction of murder and theft! This is your approval of extortion! This is your endorsement of slavery! Can you cast a vote in good conscience that will result in the oppression and enslavement of others? When you vote for a candidate, you are in fact saying it is perfectly right for him to force your neighbor to submit to your desires -- desires which can be enforced at the point of a gun. Except in distancing yourself from the crime, is there really any difference between hiring someone to rob your neighbor and committing the act yourself? Even more serious is the fact that, by voting, you have essentially hired a hit man to kill the “others” with whom you disagree. Of course, if you hired the Mafia to do the dirty work, you’d go to prison if you were caught. You escape responsibility by voting and having government agents act on your behalf. The crimes are identical. The only difference is that the first method is “politically” approved and legal, and the second is not.

Bear in mind, laws of convention made and enforced by the collective are not like the laws of nature, which, when violated, extract perfect retribution. Therefore, in the furtherance of my own evolution, I can only say “NO” to ALL the candidates. So you see, in a sense I am casting a “NO” vote against all of them. My choice is simply “None of the Above!” One candidate may steal from me more or less than the other, but that’s not the point. The basic premise, for honest conscious minds, is that stealing cannot be legitimized. Your integrity should never allow you to cast a vote. Do not sanction your own enslavement. Grant no man the authority to make you his slave. Grant no man the power to enslave your neighbor, grant no man the sanction to steal or murder in your name, lest you cause yourself irreparable moral damage. When asked how one could be a free man and yet a slave, the ancient Athenian sage, Diogenes, answered, “Simply, by the number of times you say master.” Diogenes, who recognized no master, always embraced a NO vote. He argued that Athenians, who voted by casting various-colored beans into a receptacle, should “Abstain from beans.”

Once, while sunbathing by the river, Diogenes was approached by Alexander the Great. Alexander’s shadow loomed over the reclining, naked Diogenes. “Do you know who I am?” asked Alexander. “That’s not the question you should be asking,” retorted Diogenes. “You should be asking if you know who you are.” Alexander, like all avaricious, unctuous politicians, was asking the same banal and prosaic question, namely: Do you recognize my authority to control you? Do you acknowledge my power over you? Diogenes’ refusal to kowtow to Alexander simply meant Diogenes recognized no authority except “the primacy of his own right judgment.” Freedom, in Diogenes’ view, was the “absolute dominion over his own will. This was the inner realm over which no outside force, not even an Alexander and all his soldiers, had any power, whatsoever.”

Regaining his composure, Alexander boasted, “I’m Alexander the Great!”

Unimpressed, Diogenes, in a dismissive tone replied, “So, be Alexander the Great!” No one had ever spoken to Alexander with such self-assured authority before. In fact, no one could, except the individual who knows that no person can truly control another. Now feeling more like the average solicitous bureaucrat, Alexander adopted a more servile attitude, offering, “Is there anything I can do for you?”

Casually waving his hand, Diogenes replied, “Move over. You’re blocking my sunlight.”

So what are you waiting for? You should dismiss these pompous pinheads with a wave of your hands, instead of using them to pull the lever in the voting booth.

You were born free and you should remain free. You need no one to speak for you. You require no guardians. You have no need for an elder brother watching over your shoulder. You will learn from your own mistakes and grow strong by them. You require no handouts. For it is only by your own hand, and by voluntarily trading with others, that you can honestly obtain all the fruitage for the greater life. You may fail or you may succeed, but only so long as you grant no man the authority to make you his slave may you pursue your quest for a more bountiful life.

http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/126a.php

heavenlyboy34
11-10-2008, 09:30 AM
I agree with the article...but what if I were to vote for a noble person, like RP? ;)

Truth Warrior
11-10-2008, 09:40 AM
I agree with the article...but what if I were to vote for a noble person, like RP? ;) How can you agree with the article and even ask THAT question? :confused:

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/freeyourmind.jpg

That merely cointinues your SLAVERY to the system.<IMHO>

Voting IS consent!


"The system is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support!"

Truth Warrior
11-10-2008, 12:30 PM
bump

Crash Martinez
11-10-2008, 01:36 PM
bump? I don't know what kind of discussion you're hoping to have. I have the same question asked above, but your response is that someone who tends to agree with this article couldn't possibly have that question. Great. So what is there to talk about? And why bother "bumping?"

Truth Warrior
11-10-2008, 01:50 PM
bump? I don't know what kind of discussion you're hoping to have. I have the same question asked above, but your response is that someone who tends to agree with this article couldn't possibly have that question. Great. So what is there to talk about? And why bother "bumping?" Preferably intelligent. ;)

Reread the article. Or maybe it just isn't for you.

Why? Because I choose to. :)

Crash Martinez
11-10-2008, 02:20 PM
Yeah yeah. You know I like you, right? (Not like that, you sick freak :rolleyes:)

Anyway, I tend to lean toward the "don't vote at all" principle, as you should be aware from my Voting=Democracy=Bad thread (that's right... "Bad thread") -but surely you can relate to those of us who have a soft spot in our hearts for Ron Paul. And after all, he did get his current job via the election process... If everyone voted for people like Ron Paul, we wouldn't long have this oppressive system, right? So I think it's a reasonable question...

Truth Warrior
11-10-2008, 05:04 PM
Yeah yeah. You know I like you, right? (Not like that, you sick freak :rolleyes:)

Like what, ya lost me there.

Anyway, I tend to lean toward the "don't vote at all" principle, as you should be aware from my Voting=Democracy=Bad thread (that's right... "Bad thread") -but surely you can relate to those of us who have a soft spot in our hearts for Ron Paul. And after all, he did get his current job via the election process... If everyone voted for people like Ron Paul, we wouldn't long have this oppressive system, right? So I think it's a reasonable question...

I have a soft spot for Ron too. BTW, Ron respects principled non-voting. ;) :) But they won't ALL vote for Ron, moot point.

jack555
11-10-2008, 05:09 PM
How can you agree with the article and even ask THAT question? :confused:

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/freeyourmind.jpg

That merely cointinues your SLAVERY to the system.<IMHO>

Voting IS consent!


"The system is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support!"


We have a much higher chance of getting a libertarian minded person elected than living in a world where the things discussed in this article are a reality (or respected by all or even a majority of men). Therefore it can be argued that you should vote for Ron Paul (or another like him) to try and come closer to this authors vision. I understand your point but progress could be made towards the ultimate goal by getting someone like Paul elected.

Truth Warrior
11-10-2008, 05:13 PM
We have a much higher chance of getting a libertarian minded person elected than living in a world where the things discussed in this article are a reality (or respected by all or even a majority of men). Therefore it can be argued that you should vote for Ron Paul (or another like him) to try and come closer to this authors vision. I understand your point but progress could be made towards the ultimate goal by getting someone like Paul elected. Yep, the choices are stark indeed.<IMHO>

Give up barbarism or die at our species' hands. I'm guessing the odds at 8 to 5 against our long term survival for a variety of reasons. :(

Theocrat
11-10-2008, 05:28 PM
Thanks for posting another article which totally misses the point, TW. That article is just a knee-jerk reaction to bad policies legislated and enforced by corrupt members of government. As I keep explaining to you, the problem is not our system of government; the problem is the immoral, ignorant, self-serving, corrupt, and stubborn people who are elected to those offices in civil government. John Adams once said,


[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

as well as,


[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

If we forget those intents and principles which make our republic successful, then the source of the problem is the people, not the system itself. If you don't want to participate in our democratic process, that's fine, but you'll still be victimized by the results of the vote which your own would have cancelled out.

Andrew-Austin
11-10-2008, 05:35 PM
How can you agree with the article and even ask THAT question? :confused:

Because hes not a complete drone like you and can thus think critically enough to realize the article does not address the issue of voting for a man like Ron Paul.

The article only refers to representatives who would expand the government / reduce liberty, but does not discuss men like Ron Paul who would dramatically shrink government and grant more liberty unto all.

Any other unspoken presumptions that need to be addressed, other then the blind equation of satists and libertarians?

Perhaps you think a singular vote for Ron Paul (or for a more extreme example, a vote for someone like Murray Rothbard), would be endorsing the entire government that exists at that time, instead of just endorsing the movement towards minarchy or anaracy? Well that is just your opinion/perspective, not fact.



Thanks for posting another article which totally misses the point, TW. That article is just a knee-jerk reaction to bad policies legislated and enforced by corrupt members of government. As I keep explaining to you, the problem is not our system of government; the problem is the immoral, ignorant, self-serving, corrupt, and stubborn people who are elected to those offices in civil government. John Adams once said,



as well as,



If we forget those intents and principles which make our republic successful, then the source of the problem is the people, not the system itself.

Completely skipping over a large body of philosophical points is not going to convince anyone of anything Theocrat. I know you would like to be able to convert people instantaneously by throwing bibles at their face, but it does not work.

heavenlyboy34
11-10-2008, 05:43 PM
How can you agree with the article and even ask THAT question? :confused:

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/freeyourmind.jpg

That merely cointinues your SLAVERY to the system.<IMHO>

Voting IS consent!


"The system is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support!"

point well taken. :D I humble myself before thy correctness, o warrior of truth! (lol ;) )

Theocrat
11-10-2008, 05:59 PM
Because hes not a complete drone like you and can thus think critically enough to realize the article does not address the issue of voting for a man like Ron Paul.

The article only refers to representatives who would expand the government / reduce liberty, but does not discuss men like Ron Paul who would dramatically shrink government and grant more liberty unto all.

Any other unspoken presumptions that need to be addressed, other then the blind equation of satists and libertarians?

Perhaps you think a singular vote for Ron Paul (or for a more extreme example, a vote for someone like Murray Rothbard), would be endorsing the entire government that exists at that time, instead of just endorsing the movement towards minarchy or anaracy? Well that is just your opinion/perspective, not fact.

You bring up an interesting point, Andrew-Austin. If voting is so bad, then I want to know from Truth Warrior if it's morally wrong to vote for candidates like Congressman Paul. If TW thinks it's morally wrong, then I want to know if he believes that Dr. Paul is immoral for accepting votes which allow him to serve as a statesman in our system of government.


Completely skipping over a large body of philosophical points is not going to convince anyone of anything Theocrat. I know you would like to be able to convert people instantaneously by throwing bibles at their face, but it does not work.

I beg your pardon, but our constitutional republic has always been based on religion and morality. That is just a historical fact, and it's one proven true and documented time and time again. If you don't like the facts presented, then that's your problem, pal. Your secular revisionism and interpretation of our country's heritage is simply moot.

By the way, I don't throw Bibles in people's faces. People have the choice to either accept or reject what God's revelation says on any given subject. I'm simply a messenger, so please don't shoot at me because you disagree with the message from your own Creator.

NMCB3
11-10-2008, 09:10 PM
I dont feel voting is consent. I agree with Spooner on this point, here is a passage from his Constitution of no authority.


NO TREASON.



No. VI.

_____________



The Constitution of no Authority.

_____________

BY LYSANDER SPOONER

_____________

BOSTON:

PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR,

1870.

__________________________________________________ _

Entered according to Act of congress, in the year 1870,

By LYSANDER SPOONER,

in the Clerk's office of the District Court of the United States, for the District

of Massachusetts.

__________________________________________________ _




NO TREASON

NO. VI.

THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY






II.

Let us consider these two matters, voting and tax paying, separately. And first of voting.

All the voting that has ever taken place under the Constitution, has been of such a kind that it not only did not pledge the whole people to support the Constitution, but it did not even pledge any one of them to do so, as the following considerations show.

1. In the very nature of things, the act of voting could bind nobody but the actual voters. But owing to the property qualifications required, it is probable that, during the first twenty or thirty years under the Constitution, not more than one-tenth, fifteenth, or perhaps twentieth of the whole population (black and white, men, women, and minors) were permitted to vote. Consequently, so far as voting was concerned, not more than one-tenth, fifteenth, or twentieth of those then existing, could have incurred any obligation to support the Constitution. [*7]

At the present time, it is probable that not more than one-sixth of the whole population are permitted to vote. Consequently, so far as voting is concerned, the other five-sixths can have given no pledge that they will support the Constitution.

2. Of the one-sixth that are permitted to vote, probably not more than two-thirds (about one-ninth of the whole population) have usually voted. Many never vote at all. Many vote only once in two, three, five, or ten years, in periods of great excitement.

No one, by voting, can be said to pledge himself for any longer period than that for which he votes. If, for example, I vote for an officer who is to hold his office for only a year, I cannot be said to have thereby pledged myself to support the government beyond that term. Therefore, on the ground of actual voting, it probably cannot be said that more than one-ninth or one-eighth, of the whole population are usually under any pledge to support the Constitution.

3. It cannot be said that, by voting, a man pledges himself to support the Constitution, unless the act of voting be a perfectly voluntary one on his part. Yet the act of voting cannot properly be called a voluntary one on the part of any very large number of those who do vote. It is rather a measure of necessity imposed upon them by others, than one of their own choice. On this point I repeat what was said in a former number, <fn1> viz.:

"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot [*8] himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot --- which is a mere substitute for a bullet --- because, as his only chance of self- preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.

Truth Warrior
11-11-2008, 04:41 PM
Thanks for posting another article which totally misses the point, TW. That article is just a knee-jerk reaction to bad policies legislated and enforced by corrupt members of government. As I keep explaining to you, the problem is not our system of government; the problem is the immoral, ignorant, self-serving, corrupt, and stubborn people who are elected to those offices in civil government. John Adams once said,

Perhaps it's not me that is missing the point. :rolleyes: I understand how it is supposed to work "theoretically", I'm much more concerned with the REALITY of it. Give power to assholes and they'll abuse it. DUH!!! What a surprise! :p Stop giving them the power. Not rocket science.<IMHO>

as well as,

If we forget those intents and principles which make our republic successful, then the source of the problem is the people, not the system itself. If you don't want to participate in our democratic process, that's fine, but you'll still be victimized by the results of the vote which your own would have cancelled out.

Screw intention. Hitler and Stalin had "good intentions". Come down from your ivory tower into the REAL world. As are you, as an active and willing apologist and participant with "good intentions". :rolleyes: My vote would have changed ZERO outcomes. I'll bet your's is the same. Shrink the government ANY and then we'll talk about it some more. Until then it's all just smoke and mirrors and spin and BS.



Have a good day! :)

Truth Warrior
11-11-2008, 04:46 PM
I dont feel voting is consent. I agree with Spooner on this point, here is a passage from his Constitution of no authority.

It's debatable. "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." How do you give your consent? How do you withdraw it?

Spooner was a lawyer, I am not. ;)

Truth Warrior
11-11-2008, 04:48 PM
point well taken. :D I humble myself before thy correctness, o warrior of truth! (lol ;) ) Nah, don't bother. It's just wasted on me. :)

Truth Warrior
11-11-2008, 04:53 PM
Because hes not a complete drone like you and can thus think critically enough to realize the article does not address the issue of voting for a man like Ron Paul.

The article only refers to representatives who would expand the government / reduce liberty, but does not discuss men like Ron Paul who would dramatically shrink government and grant more liberty unto all.

Any other unspoken presumptions that need to be addressed, other then the blind equation of satists and libertarians?

Perhaps you think a singular vote for Ron Paul (or for a more extreme example, a vote for someone like Murray Rothbard), would be endorsing the entire government that exists at that time, instead of just endorsing the movement towards minarchy or anaracy? Well that is just your opinion/perspective, not fact.

Thanks for your typical worthless post contribution and for the thread bump.

heavenlyboy34
11-11-2008, 05:52 PM
Would it be ok if I wrote in random names like "Mr Giggles" instead of the real people-just to sort of mock the system? :D

Truth Warrior
11-11-2008, 06:06 PM
Would it be ok if I wrote in random names like "Mr Giggles" instead of the real people-just to sort of mock the system? :D Simplify. Just stop.

heavenlyboy34
11-11-2008, 07:08 PM
Simplify. Just stop.

Can do.

mellamojuana
11-11-2008, 07:11 PM
Each of us has to come to his/her own conclusions about choosing 1) To vote or 2) To refrain from voting. At least, many of us don't have to get gray hair worrying about such a decision for another four years. I propose that we all relax and speak like good friends with each other. :) We're not going to change one another's mind, and that's acceptable. It's an example of freedom. Tolerance isn't always "comfy."

bojo68
11-11-2008, 07:57 PM
By the way, I don't throw Bibles in people's faces. People have the choice to either accept or reject what God's revelation says on any given subject. I'm simply a messenger, so please don't shoot at me because you disagree with the message from your own Creator.

I wouldn't shoot at you, relegate you to the nut farm maybe...:)