Odin
11-07-2012, 03:43 AM
Until Republicans, Conservatives, and even Libertarians embrace it they are doomed to the political scrapheap.
When was the last time a presidential candidate really stood for freedom? I would say it was Ronald Reagan, at least in rhetoric if not in practice. Did Romney campaign on the basis of freedom? No of course not, and whenever he used the word it sounded disingenuous. His slogan was "believe in America" - an empty, lifeless slogan. How about a candidate whose slogan is 'Freedom for America', and who means that. Because freedom is lost in America, and I think there is a big majority in the county that sees it, and regrets it.
The desire for freedom is powerful in almost every individual and trumps anything the Democrats (or Republicans) can come up with imo.
That means we need candidates who know and understand what freedom is - it is a principle, or more precisely a set of principles. I would suggest a definition along the following lines:
No person, group, institution, or government, has the authority to:
---tell another person what to do, without that person's consent.
---to to compel any other person, without that person’s consent, to serve or obey anything created, written, or designed by another person, group, institution, or government.
---to compel any other person, without that person's consent, to enter into any obligation or to labor for any other person, group, institution, or government.
---or to compel any person to surrender all or part of their labor, income or property to any other person, group, institution, or government.
I believe those are meaningful conditions of freedom. The point being to capture the concept of freedom in words - the concept itself is crystal clear, but language can make it tricky to communicate with the same clarity.
To preserve and guarantee this state of being, we must enter into mutual obligations voluntarily. We must not use or threaten violence against others, and others must not use or threaten violence against us. We must not interfere, or threaten to interfere, with the property of others. We must not deceive or make false accusations against others, to deprive them of their freedom, and we must not use our freedom for the purpose of interfering with the freedom of others. If another person assaults us in one of the above ways, we may defend our freedom and assume the worst intentions of those attacking it.
If you think about the above definition of freedom, you will see how far we have drifted from a free nation. You don't need to be told but others do. That's why we need candidates who can communicate it. I hope desperately that in the next few years we can make real progress, not just for individual benefit but for the good of mankind. I really believe that our development even as a species is being stunted by the actions of governments. Peter Schiff said that if we made the correct choices 100 years ago, we would have been far ahead of where we are now and I agree. Let's just hope we don't waste the next 100 years, and that our fellow citizens come to their senses when we have to pay for the consequences of this disastrous presidency, and the last disastrous presidency, and the one before that.
When was the last time a presidential candidate really stood for freedom? I would say it was Ronald Reagan, at least in rhetoric if not in practice. Did Romney campaign on the basis of freedom? No of course not, and whenever he used the word it sounded disingenuous. His slogan was "believe in America" - an empty, lifeless slogan. How about a candidate whose slogan is 'Freedom for America', and who means that. Because freedom is lost in America, and I think there is a big majority in the county that sees it, and regrets it.
The desire for freedom is powerful in almost every individual and trumps anything the Democrats (or Republicans) can come up with imo.
That means we need candidates who know and understand what freedom is - it is a principle, or more precisely a set of principles. I would suggest a definition along the following lines:
No person, group, institution, or government, has the authority to:
---tell another person what to do, without that person's consent.
---to to compel any other person, without that person’s consent, to serve or obey anything created, written, or designed by another person, group, institution, or government.
---to compel any other person, without that person's consent, to enter into any obligation or to labor for any other person, group, institution, or government.
---or to compel any person to surrender all or part of their labor, income or property to any other person, group, institution, or government.
I believe those are meaningful conditions of freedom. The point being to capture the concept of freedom in words - the concept itself is crystal clear, but language can make it tricky to communicate with the same clarity.
To preserve and guarantee this state of being, we must enter into mutual obligations voluntarily. We must not use or threaten violence against others, and others must not use or threaten violence against us. We must not interfere, or threaten to interfere, with the property of others. We must not deceive or make false accusations against others, to deprive them of their freedom, and we must not use our freedom for the purpose of interfering with the freedom of others. If another person assaults us in one of the above ways, we may defend our freedom and assume the worst intentions of those attacking it.
If you think about the above definition of freedom, you will see how far we have drifted from a free nation. You don't need to be told but others do. That's why we need candidates who can communicate it. I hope desperately that in the next few years we can make real progress, not just for individual benefit but for the good of mankind. I really believe that our development even as a species is being stunted by the actions of governments. Peter Schiff said that if we made the correct choices 100 years ago, we would have been far ahead of where we are now and I agree. Let's just hope we don't waste the next 100 years, and that our fellow citizens come to their senses when we have to pay for the consequences of this disastrous presidency, and the last disastrous presidency, and the one before that.