The Second American Revolution

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This one's for Gulch.

I just came across this guy Basso and I am enchanted.

I originally caught him on "that other site" on a video with Glenn Beck:

Glenn Beck Interviews 21st Century Thomas Paine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp-uj_RlMhM

May Basso live long and have great health. His tribute to Thomas Paine by bringing him to bear on current events is a wonderful inspiration.

Michal

[galtgulch]

This one's for Gulch.

I just came across this guy Basso and I am enchanted.

May Basso live long and have great health. His tribute to Thomas Paine by bringing him to bear on current events is a wonderful inspiration.

Michal

Michael,

If you are so inspired will you join us now at the Campaign For Liberty?

www.campaignforliberty.com 21 Mar Noon 125574, 22Mar 5AM 125801, 8PM 125995

gulch

Edited March 23, 2009 by galtgulch

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If you are so inspired will you join us now at the Campaign For Liberty?

Gulch,

No.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is the whole video. An excerpt of it was presented on Glenn Beck above. That universal service thing is a clunker, but for the rest, this dude rocks.

Michael

[galtgulch]

If you are so inspired will you join us now at the Campaign For Liberty?

Gulch,

No.

Michael

Michael,

Do you have a reason? Just maybe there is a misunderstanding.

www.campaignforliberty.com 21Mar 12:48PM 125586, 22Mar 5AM 125801, 8PM 125995

gulch

Edited March 23, 2009 by galtgulch

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Gulch,

I'm not much of a joiner. Never have been.

I do my own thing in my own way according to my own choice. I understand individualism in this manner.

I am not hostile to movements like the Ron Paul organization. I think it's OK for those who like these things. It's awfully good to get the ideas of freedom and individual rights out in the daily public discourse.

Michael

[anonrobt]

<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

This is the whole video. An excerpt of it was presented on Glenn Beck above. That universal service thing is a clunker, but for the rest, this dude rocks.

Michael

That seems always the problem with 'conservatives' - the craving to impose religion on others, and the notion of national servitude [which is really just an outgrowth of their religion, that 'sacrifice for others' gambit] - their refusal to grasp the nature of what individualism really is ...

good video, otherwise, as you said...

Edited March 21, 2009 by anonrobt

[galtgulch]

Gulch,

I'm not much of a joiner. Never have been.

I do my own thing in my own way according to my own choice. I understand individualism in this manner.

I am not hostile to movements like the Ron Paul organization. I think it's OK for those who like these things. It's awfully good to get the ideas of freedom and individual rights out in the daily public discourse.

Michael

Michael,

I understand. I just wonder whether you would have picked up the gun if you heard Paul Revere ride by and call out that "the redcoats are coming!?"

I just think we are in an analogous situation. The govt steals our hard earned money without having to confront us face to face as an "honest" thief would. Men in three piece suits decide how much of your money they get to take and you get to keep.

Now the govt is counterfeiting our currency in enormous quantities which will further reduce our purchasing power as prices will be driven up in coming years while our dollars are worth less. In effect, King George still lives and is taking our powder.

If there were enough of us we could do something about this once and for all. Do you fear reprisals if you were to become one of us. There is no cost. Are you at all afraid of a knock on the door during the night? Good grief you are already out there with this great website you created. If they ever decide to come for me you will already have been picked up.

I assume that you do vote. The Campaign For Liberty does hope to run candidates for office at every level in every state in the near future in addition to our educational and activist endeavors. For example we are trying to encourage our very own Congressmen to sponsor HB1207 to enable the Federal Reserve System to simply be audited. We do have a Congressman who is supposed to represent us. You might consider it worthwhile, and I know it is not a "duty," to let him or her know that you want the Fed to be audited.

I tried the number listed on Thomas Paine's video but it has been disconnected.

www.campaignforliberty.com 21 Mar 1 PM 125593, 3PM 125630 Notice how the numbers keep rising. Fortunately we still have the ballot and have no need to take up arms, rather we have to use our heads. 6PM 125672; 22Mar 8PM 125995

gulch

Edited March 23, 2009 by galtgulch

[Barbara Branden]

Michael, a number of aspects of Bob Bass's speeches make me deeply uneasy, and represent the worst aspects of conservatism.

Basso rails against multiculturalism, and I agree with him. Multiculturalists preach that all cultures are equal in value -- that each culture has its own truth and so must be respected, that America cannot claim superiority to, say, North Korea or to any cannibal tribe. But he then states that the alternative is a "uniculture"-- one culture for all Americans. "We want similarity, not diversity," he claims. Do we? Enforced by whom? Diversity of opinion is not equivalent to multiculturism; it is, rather, essential to a free society. Uniformity of views has been the goal of every dictator in history; it cannot be the goal of an authentic defender of liberty. I welcome diversity -- but I am not therefore required to claim that every instance of diversity is morally and intellectually equal to every other.

"What's next?" Bass asks ."Allowing the Ku Klux Klan with their hoods?" In my opinion -- Yes. The free speech guarantee of the Constitution applies to all opinions-- not just to those we like. Do you know the famous 1977 case of Skokie, Illinois versus the Klan? Skokie is a suburb of Chicago where a great many Holocaust survivors lived,. The Klan announced a planned March through Skokie, and the town was understandably appalled. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Klan could not be barred from peacefully marching. One federal judge explained: "It is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on a dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear."

We libertarians are considered by many to be a radical, therefore dangerous group. If we refuse to allow despicable groups such as the Klan to speak, we may be next on the government's list.

Bass is adamant that "we must not separate God from public life." That can mean any of a dozen things, all of which make me nervous.

And, he states, we must "stop exporting our nation's vital industries to foreign shores. American jobs must go to Americans." Would he like laws passsed that prohibit American businesses from establishing foreign branches -- branches that make it possible for those businesses to charge lower prices for their products than if those products were made in America?

And last but surely not least, he is for "universal service." The draft --in peace time or in war time -- is, quite simply, involuntary servitude, For a supposed defender of the Constitution to sanction such a monstrosity is to announce that he has no idea what freedom means. If we don't want Obama to carry out his promise to establish compulsory universal service, is it an improvement and a blow for liberty if conservatives do it?

Barbara

[galtgulch]

Michael, a number of aspects of Bob Bass's speeches make me deeply uneasy, and represent the worst aspects of conservatism.

And last but surely not least, he is for "universal service." The draft --in peace time or in war time -- is, quite simply, involuntary servitude, For a supposed defender of the Constitution to sanction such a monstrosity is to announce that he has no idea what freedom means. If we don't want Obama to carry out his promise to establish compulsory universal service, is it an improvement and a blow for liberty if conservatives do it?

Barbara

Barbara,

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

What troubles me is that the realization that "the draft, in peace time or in war time-- is quite simply, involuntary servitude" is so obvious to us but is lost on the Supreme Court of the U.S. and on so many of our fellow Americans.

Obama supporters appear to include a contingent of unquestioning fools who would follow him anywhere suspending their critical faculty altogether. The proverbial "blank out!" Obama's approval rating is dropping and his disapproval rating is rising but he is still on the positive side by about 4 points. That may not be enough for him to ram through his oppressive health and energy plans. Where is the cavalry when you need them?

I just came across this quote from Murray Rothbard:

"inherent incentive structure that an institution of coercive force (ie. a government) sets in motion.

As libertarian scholar Murray N. Rothbard once said:

"If, in fact, we cast a cold and logical eye on the theory of "limited government," we can see it for the chimera that it really is, for the unrealistic and inconsistent "Utopia" that it holds forth. In the first place, there is no reason to assume that a compulsory monopoly of violence, once acquired by the "Jones family" or by any State rulers, will remain "limited" to protection of person and property." -- http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard160.html"

I suppose we, or some of us anyway, have learned from history that the chinks in the armor which is our Constitution will allow seeds of tyranny to take root. Watching politicians pay lip service to upholding the Constitution as they take what is to them a meaningless ritual is profoundly disturbing. The Constitution itself spells out explicitly what that oath of office is. Perhaps it is not enough of a test to make sure that power lusters are excluded from power.

After all it is not just the words on paper or parchment that secure our freedom. This country has taken the wrong fork in the road. It is the easy street it is on filled with promises of the fulfillment of ones wishes, desires and needs by the government, admittedly tempting but the price of loss of freedom is too high to pay.

Once again I think we, meaning Objectivists, should get involved with and ally ourselves with the Campaign For Liberty so that we can enlighten them as in time they will be future leaders and representatives if they are successful. If that success is in the works, which can be judged by the growth of their numbers presumably dedicated to the restoration of the Constitution and individual liberty, sooner or later we should make ourselves known to them locally so they will listen to the wisdom of our philosophy.

Rothbard didn't believe that a Constitution would contain the lust for power by some men over others. He thought limited government was an illusion. I disagree despite the apparent truth so far in the real world of our current political landscape.

First mysticism, altruism and collectivism must be relegated to the scrapheap of ancient history. Replaced by you know what.

www.campaignforliberty.com 22Mar 5AM 125806

gulch

[BaalChatzaf]

And, he states, we must "stop exporting our nation's vital industries to foreign shores. American jobs must go to Americans." Would he like laws passsed that prohibit American businesses from establishing foreign branches -- branches that make it possible for those businesses to charge lower prices for their products than if those products were made in America?

And last but surely not least, he is for "universal service." The draft --in peace time or in war time -- is, quite simply, involuntary servitude, For a supposed defender of the Constitution to sanction such a monstrosity is to announce that he has no idea what freedom means. If we don't want Obama to carry out his promise to establish compulsory universal service, is it an improvement and a blow for liberty if conservatives do it?

Barbara

You have made very, very important points.

There is no such thing as an "American Job". A job is a contractual relation that a business firm or individual will voluntarily enter to employ the services of individuals (who themselves freely accept the terms of and enter into said employment). So an "American Job" is such a contractual relation offered by a firm based in America, or by an American individual. By definition, the job offered need not go to another American although for reasons of ease and cost often does go to Americans. Jobs are not possessions or rights. They are contractual relations.

Secondium:

Universal Service is slavery simpliciter. The Draft was slavery, i.e. involuntary servitude. A compulsory peace corp or community service institution is likewise slavery. Our historical predecessors fought the bloodiest war in the history of this Nation to make slavery go away. Over six hundred thousand Americans (from both sides) died from this conflict and over a million and a half were maimed losing arms and legs (sometimes both) in the conflict to end slavery. Reintroducing it betrays the memory of those who died or were crippled in order to end it. An America that has such an element and institution of compulsory service is no longer the America one would die to protect. (NB: I am even uneasy with jury duty and I accept it reluctantly, only as a possibly necessary evil to assure fair trials).

I detest chauvinism. It is one thing to value the good the Nation affords its citizens, it is another to become a "super-patriot". I am a 9/11 patriot. In a single day I was compelled to see how this country is my house and evil strangers came to my house in order to burn it down and harm me, my family and my countrymen with whom I dwell as relatives, neighbors, customers, co-equals and sometimes friends. To that extent I am a patriot. I want to protect that which protects me and affords me and mine the social and economic matrix for our safety and prosperity. I value my country in rationally self interested ways and terms. I do not worship it as a deity. I am no idol worshiper (as if any self respecting Jew could be!).

So I share your unease with someone who wants to promote a secular religion, Frankly I regard organized and institutionalized religions be they theological or secular as dangerous, potentially divisive and if combined with political power absolutely dangerous to life and liberty. By my reckoning all of us must formulate some view to comprehend how we as individuals and families are related to the world about us. We all have to find our place in the Cosmos (Forgive me for sounding like Carl Sagan!). The way we ought to do this is as individuals, each of us integrating our particular life story and way traveled to formulate such a comprehension. I get very antsy when persons of similar outlook band together and start to affect public policy. I absolutely despise going out to make converts. There is a charming phrase in English -- Mind Fucking (pardon he crudity of my locution) but that is what going out to one's neighbor and strangers to impose ones view on them or disrupt their own reconciliation with the World is. If anything is sacred it is the right to reckon his place in the World, in his own way, by whatever wit and power his has. Leave Him Be in that effort. Do Not Touch!

Well, I have had my say (or more precisely my type-write). Thank you for providing the occasion to express myself, Barbara.

Ba'al Chafatz (Don't tread on me and I will tread on anyone who tries to tread on you).

PS. I think English should be made the official language for doing public business with the government with translation services offered to those who cannot speak or write English well enough to do such business. In no way should English be compulsory for use in private and voluntary interactions.

Edited March 22, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[Barbara Branden]

Ba'al, at last we agree on something! However... I take exception to one part of your post. You wrote: "I get very antsy when persons of similar outlook band together and start to affect public policy. I absolutely despise going out to make converts. There is a charming phrase in English -- Mind Fucking (pardon he crudity of my locution) but that is what going out to one's neighbor and strangers to impose ones view on them or disrupt their own reconciliation with the World is. If anything is sacred it is the right to reckon his place in the World, in his own way, by whatever wit and power his has. Leave Him Be in that effort. Do Not Touch!"

You seem to assume that attempting to convince one's neighbor of a particular idea or position is somehow an act of force. I have more respect for my neighbor than to accept this. I cannot "impose" or force my vews on him; he's not a helpless child. At most, I can give him a perspective he may wish to consider. Before the election I did my best to convince many people that it would be a mistake to vote for Obama. How is that an imposition on their freedom? I wasn't holding a gun to their heads. And you contradict your own thesis: you have very often attempted to convince OL readers that your attitude toward war and bloodshed and revenge is the correct one. You haven't forced anyone to agree with you, have you?

Barbara

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al, at last we agree on something! However... I take exception to one part of your post. You wrote: "I get very antsy when persons of similar outlook band together and start to affect public policy. I absolutely despise going out to make converts. There is a charming phrase in English -- Mind Fucking (pardon he crudity of my locution) but that is what going out to one's neighbor and strangers to impose ones view on them or disrupt their own reconciliation with the World is. If anything is sacred it is the right to reckon his place in the World, in his own way, by whatever wit and power his has. Leave Him Be in that effort. Do Not Touch!"

You seem to assume that attempting to convince one's neighbor of a particular idea or position is somehow an act of force. I have more respect for my neighbor than to accept this. I cannot "impose" or force my vews on him; he's not a helpless child. At most, I can give him a perspective he may wish to consider. Before the election I did my best to convince many people that it would be a mistake to vote for Obama. How is that an imposition on their freedom? I wasn't holding a gun to their heads. And you contradict your own thesis: you have very often attempted to convince OL readers that your attitude toward war and bloodshed and revenge is the correct one. You haven't forced anyone to agree with you, have you?

Barbara

I had in mind the sort of thing religious proselytizers do. I am sorry for not being more clear in what I said.

On your second point, quite so. I would force no one. I merely stated my view and I took a lot of flack for it. So it goes.

I don't necessarily think my bloody mindedness is correct. All I can say is that it is my bloody mindedness. Very frankly I would love for someone to show how to achieve the goals of safety and security without wiping out one sixth of the human race. So far no one has done so. But such a day might come, and if it does, I will be happy about it. It is a view I reached reluctantly (please believe me when I say this). It was brought about by despair from the terrible doings on a terrible day. On 9/10/2001 I would have been just as appalled by it as you are. On 9/12/2001 I saw no other way. I freely admit my view on this is the product of despair, not desire.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

I'm glad you mentioned these points as they also make me uneasy. I have become so accustomed to tuning out appeals to hot current events for political emphasis (like the "American jobs" thing) and religion and so forth, that I get weary of bringing them up. It never changes.

Believe it or not, we agree!

But...

What enchants me about this production is the whole concept and execution. This guy has to be a trained actor. He has nearly perfect delivery for this kind of message. And the lighting, setting and costume!

He made listening to fundamental ideas and challenging the government entertaining, while nudging people to check out the literature of our Founding Fathers. At the end he even gave people something concrete to do that actually does work (calling and writing the government, including the Tea Party thing).

On the ideological level, at best this will be an intellectual foil for the socialist madness that is now unfolding. But it will help the political seesaw, not be a long-term solution.

At least the seesaw more-or-less works in bumping along, with the side in power undoing some of the really bad damage the other side did while in office (but doing its own in the meantime). Even with all the current problems, the USA is still a great place to live. I think this is proof positive that America is a great country with great people in it. Not even politicians can wreck it.

The problem with the conservatives versus liberals dichotomy (or seesaw) is that it is a false one. Both sides have strong virtues mixed with deplorable ideas, and both are tied together by being American and using a lot of the same jargon.

Imagine if the level of creativity and talent presented by Basso were employed for ideas from the Founding Fathers, but without the former errors and without sounding like an ideological ad for the Republican Party. I wonder if this guy holds to the ideology he presented or if he is hired help.

Despite all the misgivings, I still remain enchanted with him. He did a hell of a good job. His view hit stats (and the attention from Beck) show he is having some solid influence with the public. This shows that this stuff, if it is done right, works.

Michael

[syrakusos]

"What's next?" Bass asks ."Allowing the Ku Klux Klan with their hoods?" In my opinion -- Yes. The free speech guarantee of the Constitution ...

I thought that his point was that for a Muslim woman to cover her face for a driver's license photo defeats the purpose of the Identity Card.

That problem touches on the deep roots of a old vine. If the government operates roads (assumption) and validates drivers (assumption) with a secure identification card (assumption), then the card must work as intended.

I thought that his point was that if a Muslim woman can cover her face for the DL, so can the KKK -- and that does ask a more basic question, does it not?

In the wake of the spread of rap and gangsta music and culture, our little town passed a law against covering your face in public. (Gangs -- actually, little white kids wanting to act like gang members -- would wear red or blue bandanas for Bloods and Crips.) When I was in Florida, I followed the rules (laws?) and removed my sunglasses when entering a bank. It certainly makes Halloween problematic and can be pressed to the limit with simple feminine make-up, hairpieces, etc.

I mean, if a Muslim woman cannot cover her face, then can you be prohibited from wearing tinted contact lenses? My moustache comes and goes. My hair is longer or shorter. I stopped calling it "brown" a couple of years ago and now admit to "gray" -- but what if I dye it black?

And all of this reflects the problem I have with the monomaniacal "Tom Paine."

[DavidMcK]

Barbara, your post #9 was beautiful, I love it and feel inspired by your words. If I may bring up something that galtgulch said in his reply, the anarchist branch of the libertarian philosophy represented by Rothbard and his followers has never made sense to me. I shudder to think where we would be without a constitution at all right now. They remind me of socialists because they insist that there will be competitive governments if there is no government, and if social reality formed a totalitarian regime if you destroyed the current government, the anarchist would be responsible for what actually happens rather than what they wished or hoped for. Limited government still works, there were just wedges in our constitution that gave the government something to work with and grow into the present day. It ain't over yet.

[Chris Grieb]

I'm glad I finally watched this. He's very good.

If he is supposed to be Thomas Paine he is dressed a little better than Paine ever did.

Speaking of Thomas Pained when I was looking at the Amazon 100 yesterday(March 21). I noted that a collection of Thomas Paine was in the top 100. The Federalist Papers were also in it.

This means Atlas is not the oldest book on the list.

[Barbara Branden]

Ba'al: "I don't necessarily think my bloody mindedness is correct. All I can say is that it is my bloody mindedness. Very frankly I would love for someone to show how to achieve the goals of safety and security without wiping out one sixth of the human race. So far no one has done so. But such a day might come, and if it does, I will be happy about it. It is a view I reached reluctantly (please believe me when I say this). It was brought about by despair from the terrible doings on a terrible day. On 9/10/2001 I would have been just as appalled by it as you are. On 9/12/2001 I saw no other way. I freely admit my view on this is the product of despair, not desire."

I'm very glad you posted this. It helps me to understand an attitude that before this I found impossible to understand. I deeply sympathize with the rage, helplesssness, and despair you felt on 9/11; I felt it, too -- and emotionally I wanted to respond out of that murderous rage. And when I saw Palestinians and others dancing joyously in the streets because three thousand innocent people had been murdered, the rage and the desire for revenge grew even greater. But then I reminded myself why I felt such anger. It was because, unlike the murderers, unlike those glorying in murder, there is one thing in this world that is sacred to me, and that is the individual human being. And I knew I would never allow myself to take pleasure in murder and death, no matter how noble the cause that might necessitate it. I remembered how I felt after we dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima; I understood that it was necessary in order to save perhaps half a million American lives -- the lives of soldiers who otherwise would have had to invade Japan -- but I mourned the Japanese lives that had had to be sacrificed. If, as you suggest, we could only achieve safety and security by wiping out one sixth of the human race -- which I don't believe for a moment -- this would be as great a tragedy as I can conceive of, never, never something to gloat over. If I believed we have immortal souls, I would say that the least scintilla of pleasure would put those souls in jeopardy.

Perhaps this will help you to understand why I have so strongly objected to posts of yours that suggested at best a cavalier indifference to and at worst an active liking for the death and desruction brought by war.

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

Michael:"Believe it or not, we agree!"

Good!

You understand, of course, that I will now take that statement and apply it to every issue on which we have differed. :

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

Galtgulch, I am not willing for the umpteenth time to explain why I cannot support Ron Paul.

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

David McK: "Barbara, your post #9 was beautiful, I love it and feel inspired by your words."

Thank you, David.

You wrote: "If I may bring up something that galtgulch said in his reply, the anarchist branch of the libertarian philosophy represented by Rothbard and his followers has never made sense to me."

Nor to me. My not-so-private name for anarchism is "Permanent Civil War."

Barbara

[Rich Engle]

Isn't it nice to read Barbara's writing? Tell you what: I'll take that in a minute. I just want to see what she does next. Her writing is, above all, highly lucid. You can agree or disagree with her, but the writing stands quite nicely by itself. I like the way the woman thinks, and she conveys it clearly. One can call that "basics," but it is surely nice to watch; moreso these days because I see less of it so well-done.

rde

Edited March 23, 2009 by Rich Engle

[galtgulch]

Galtgulch, I am not willing for the umpteenth time to explain why I cannot support Ron Paul.

Barbara

Barbara,

As I keep reiterating, Ron Paul ignited a movement of presently 125995 people all of whom are individuals with minds of their own. Most I believe are impressed by his character and integrity. Most were exposed by him to certain issues which are overlooked by most people, adherence to the Constitution, which is unique to Ron Paul, as most others just take an oath which they have no understanding of nor do they intend to follow it or think they are no matter what they propose.

My point is that I am not imploring you to support Ron Paul rather to participate in the movement he has ignited. It is a mistake to consider those who have joined to be clones or him nor are they devoted to him as a leader. Their objective is to restore the Constitution not to put Ron Paul on a throne. They will outlive him and our input would be invaluable.

For you to keep your Objectivist ideas to yourself by not getting involved in the movement makes no sense to me.

gulch

[Rich Engle]

I don't know how Barbara (aka "Babs") feels about it, but...

Ron Paul is a nice guy, he has good Libertarian values. He's one of the best of the best recently-emerging politicos out there that even gets remotely close to talking about core things. He's a good runner, but the real sadness, to me, is that there should be at least a few more of his kind. There used to be better ones. But he's pretty good, considering.

You know, psychologically speaking, you can profile the type that does politics, and none of them escape it, once having gotten into the game, and done the de rigeur. The profile lies somewhere in the narcissism/sociopath area. So you have that to consider off-rip: certain people gravitate to certain jobs.

But I will say that he's done a decent job maintaining his nice-guy dealio. Occasionally, he has mild flashes of brilliance.

However, to try to ram your case to BB to make her fully endorse is a bit Don Quioxte; the woman will make her own decisions, and her experience will guide her.

rde

[Alfonso Jones]

My not-so-private name for anarchism is "Permanent Civil War."

Barbara

That one goes in my quote file!

Bill P