Few Americans realize that they surrender over a third of their wages to a collection agency (IRS) that, in turn, deposits it directly into a private banking consortium (the Federal Reserve). Personal income taxes are applied toward the interest on bank-created credits that were spent by the federal government years ago, often on bail-outs and other schemes that only benefit the banking interests. Our government has been completely usurped by a sinister financial element. Society, at large, is controlled on the one hand by government regulation and taxation, and by economic pressures and the media on the other. These mediums of control are dominated by a few financial wizards who manipulate rivers of wealth behind the scenes.

When the truth of our enslavement is fully grasped, perhaps one can understand why President Andrew Jackson raged against the ambitious bankers of his day. To those seeking to establish a national bank in 1829 he said, "You are a den of vipers and thieves and I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out!" In a speech before congress Andrew Jackson declared, "If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning!"

"The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole." Prof. Carroll Quigley in Tragedy and Hope.

Free men and women do not support the enslavement and oppression of their fellow citizens. Infamous demonstrations of this oppression were witnessed at Waco and Ruby Ridge, the horrors of which were compounded by government cynicism and cover-up. The list of oppression goes on and on, from our rapidly expanding prison population to the use of military forces in law enforcement. From expanded surveillance and wiretapping authority to massive seizures of private property. Our constitutional republic has quietly evolved into a post-modern police state. The executive branch mocks the Constitution daily, ruling by decree and subverting what is left of congressional authority. The president hobnobs with terrorists and homosexuals while he vilifies the few patriotic citizens who call for a return to constitutional government. One patriot has accurately described the political elite of this country as "psychotic", demonstrating a vast array of "sadistic, brutal, obsessive-compulsive, hypocritical, self-serving, power-hungry, two-faced, duplicitous, sociopathic tendencies." Welcome to the real world!

It is also immoral to support the enslavement of other nations. Little do Americans realize how their own foreign policy establishment and military are used to enslave other nations to the great beast of global finance and control. Americans see their troops abroad as "peacekeepers" handing out food and giving medical treatment to refugees. They see U.S. troops in Bosnia mingling with children at Christmas time or containing Saddam in the Middle East. They see their government spending billions on developing countries and struggling economies. Americans do not see the complex subjugation behind the scenes.

For example, before the U.S. and the IMF would loan South Korea the money it needed to avoid collapse, it had to agree to an "appropriate set of macroeconomic and structural policies", according to Secretary Rubin. Interpreted, this means South Korea must open its economy up to globalization. It will also have to bust the labor unions who will certainly oppose massive layoffs that result from corporate downsizing. "Efficiency" -- the Orwellian watchword of the global sweatshop -- must be increased to ensure foreign investors the kind of profits they desire. The government may no longer protect key industries or restrict the flow of capital. In light of the extortionate demands placed on South Korea by the financial wizards, it makes the sudden financial troubles of the region look highly suspect. Did someone set them up?

Americans see their "peacekeepers" on television and their compassionate politicians offering financial help to struggling countries. They do not see the dapper men in dark suits setting terms for loan repayments, dictating "human resource" policies, defining terms for capital investment or demanding the privatization of public assets. When the U.S. comes to the rescue of any other nation, either militarily or financially, it comes with an offer that few are in a position to turn down. Only history will completely reveal the path of misery and ruin left by the "benevolence" of our financial and political elite.

All Men Must Stand

"I cannot and I will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience." Dr. Martin Luther (16th Century A.D.) before the German Emperor.

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote that America's Founding Fathers "did not invent all the ideas and ideals" embraced by the Constitution, but that they "drew on the wisdom of the ages to combine the best of the past in a conception of government..." The Protestant Reformation in the 16th century provided a large backdrop for the American Revolution in the 18th century. Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation, boldly defined in medieval times the truths that the Founding Fathers declared to be "self evident" -- the freedom of man to live according to his conscience and to "obey God rather than men" when the commands of both were contrary to each other.

When Luther was put on trial for his seditious and heretical teachings, the national council demanded that he retract. In his reply he stated, "I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the councils, because it is clear as the day that they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the word of God, I cannot and I will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me."

Pope Pius IX recognized these Protestant principles in the American Revolution. In an Encyclical Letter of August 15, 1854, he fumed, "The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience are a most pestilential error -- a pest, of all others, most to be dreaded in a state." He should know as those "absurd" doctrines brought down the papal world government of the Dark Ages and helped the American colonists deal with another despot.

In medieval times the church possessed civil as well as ecclesiastical power. It could lay taxes as well as hold court, fine, imprison and even execute capital punishment. The intrusion of the church into civil affairs bore a resemblance to our present government's unnatural intrusion into the affairs of the conscience. Instead of a church- dominated state, we now have a socialist state that has usurped the role of defining morality and is every bit as threatening to the liberty of conscience. Evolutionary humanism - the worship of collective human power - is the state's religious surrogate and is taught in the schools, churches and the work place. Instead of corrupt priests and prelates dominating every aspect of public life, society today is dominated by a money cult with its various ranks of political and ideological lackeys. Society's plunge into the amoral abyss has brought a crisis once again.

Martin Luther was a patriotic man who was faced with our moral dilemma. He was a "true son of Rome", a devout Catholic and an ordained priest, and the idea of opposing the established order had never entered his mind. Soon after entering the priesthood, he became angered by the way the church used and manipulated the superstitious multitudes, all for the sake of money and control. He did the unthinkable at that time -- he attacked as fraudulent the power of an "infallible" pope. He exposed the lies of corrupt and self-serving priests. He also taught that man is first accountable to God and that the conscience is sacred ground, to be illuminated and guided by sacred principles and not controlled by the dogmas and decrees of men.

Instead of bringing reform, he brought down on himself the wrath of the church hierarchy and the multitudes who felt their security blanket being stripped away. However, there was a substantial decrease in money flowing into the church treasury. It wasn't long before he was served with a papal edict pronouncing his condemnation. Before publicly burning the pope's edict in the city square he said, "I despise and attack it, as impious, false ... I rejoice in having to bear such ills for the best of causes. Already I feel greater liberty in my heart; for at last I know that the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself." (D'Aubigne, book 6, chapter 9).

There were conservative churchmen of Luther's time that decried the corruption in the church but remained loyal to the system itself. Mr. Alonzo Jones, a Christian writer and statesman of the late 19th century wrote that this class of men believed "the church was 'the ark of God,' 'the ship of Salvation.' The pilot, the captain, and the crew, might all be pirates, and use every motion of the ship only for piratical purposes, and load her to the sinking point with piratical plunder, and keep her ever headed straight toward perdition, yet 'the grand old ship' herself was all right and would come safely to the heavenly port. Therefore, 'cling to the ark,' 'stand by the old ship,' and you will be safe and will land at last on the heavenly shore.

"...So long as this delusion was systematically inculcated, blindly received, and fondly hugged, of course reformation was impossible. But as soon as there arose men with the courage of conviction and the confidence of truth and spoke out plainly and flatly that the Roman system is not The Church at all in any feature or in any sense, then the Reformation had begun."

Political conservatives of our generation imbibe the same error. It goes something like this: "The New American has long opposed the federal income tax, but it should be eliminated through the legislative process and not civil disobedience." ("Patriot Beware!" by Thomas R. Eddlem 2-17-97). Many conservatives decry the corruption and abuses within this nation's political system, but they still "stand by the old ship", condemning anyone who appears disloyal to it. They point to the system's rich traditions and quote the heroes of yesteryear and they warn of the consequences of disloyalty. "You might go to jail," they say, as though it were an unanswerable moral argument. They remain in good standing with the system itself because they are the greatest bulwark against true reform.

As in Luther's day, the established system of our time has become hopelessly subverted and corrupt. The political process in the U.S. has become a gigantic fraud, a system that uses and manipulates the multitudes while deceiving them into thinking they are the ones in charge. The federal government is dominated by a corrupt political and bureaucratic elite that is carrying out the reconstruction of society, harnessing the masses to the whims of a few financial manipulators. This government, originally chartered to secure God-given rights and the liberty of conscience, has become antagonistic to those principles and, therefore, to its only purpose for existence.

While it may be true that a majority of Americans are happy for things to continue as they are, the majority have no right to trample on the consciences of the few who cannot submit themselves to be slaves. This minority cannot, in good conscience, support a system that enslaves others. This minority cannot knowingly surrender half of their labors to a system that is destroying mankind. They must be true to the Divine ideal of freedom. They must obey God rather than men.

There may be some that believe gun ownership is a protection against government tyranny. Others study the myriad laws in regards to taxes and sovereignty as a remedy for oppression. Some think that if we can restore the U.S. Constitution to its original interpretation, we will all be safe at last. Others prepare for an economic and social collapse by stockpiling food and weapons and learning survival skills. People who do this are afraid and hope to find that safe place where they may live safely and unmolested with their families and property. In seeking to empower themselves in some way, most put their trust in a vain hope.

What Is the Answer?

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, writing from experience, described the great test that all men and women must meet in some fashion when living by a pure conscience in a corrupt slave society. He wrote, "So what is the answer? How can you stand your ground when you are weak and sensitive to pain, when people you love are still alive, when you are unprepared? What do you need to make you stronger than the interrogator and the whole trap?

"From the moment you go to prison you must put your cozy past firmly behind you. At the very threshold, you must say to yourself: 'My life is over, a little early to be sure, but there's nothing to be done about it. I shall never return to freedom. I am condemned to die -- now or a little later. But later on, in truth, it will be even harder, and so the sooner the better. I no longer have any property whatsoever. For me those I love have died, and for them I have died. From today on, my body is useless and alien to me. 'Only my spirit and my conscience remain precious and important to me....' Confronted by such a prisoner, the interrogation will tremble.... Only the man who has renounced everything can win that victory." (The Gulag Archipelago, Vol.1, New York Harper Perennial , 1973, 1974, p.130).

There are many who cling to their guns and hate taxes and the government, but are operating out of rebellion instead of conscience. These are tyrants themselves and would not be happy in any society, always suspicious and resentful of civil authority. If there were a breakdown in the current social order, these will be first to declare themselves dictator. Others complain about the corruption in politics but will not do anything that endangers their toys or their little kingdoms, not to mention their lives. Both of these classes melt when the heat comes, and they would do better to learn to be good slaves than worthless complainers.

As citizens, we are obligated to perform certain duties in society. This includes paying taxes and obeying the laws, even the ones we don't like. Without these we would not have a civilization. But when conscience is stirred by higher principles of right and wrong, and there is an irreconcilable conflict between the earthly government and the heavenly, then it is time for men and women of principle to "obey God rather than men." These must refuse obedience to the earthly entities where they have aligned themselves against righteousness and truth. History has always vindicated the few who have made a conscientious stand against tyranny and corruption.

Of the ten to twenty million people who failed to file their federal income tax return last year, it is reasonable to assume that many "failed" deliberately. If any of these deliberate non-filers were acting according to conscience rather than rebellion or self-interest, if they can no longer work to support a corrupt and despotic system without compromising their moral principles, then they must make their stand on those principles rather than endless and flawed legal theories or supposed constitutional guarantees. Regardless of what the law says, they find themselves bound to refuse filing or paying the tax which they believe is the source of power for the beast which grinds the innocent under its oppressive heal. The Supreme Court of the universe, the Court that has the final word on matters of conscience, is the great interpreter of the Word which says, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the the things that are God's".

-- Peggy Sue (peggysue@aol.com), July 25, 2000

Answers

Is the Moon Full?

The Anti-IRS people seem to come out once per month.

Your taxes go for : D.of D., roads, police, Coast Guard, border patrols, and 1,000s of services you take for granted. You could move to an uninhabited island and not pay taxes. You might even like it there.

Meanwhile, if you choose to live in the USA, pay your taxes and demand reform on waste at the polls.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 25, 2000.

What's that song? "Peggy Sue, Peggy Sue......

My Peggy Suuuuueeeeuuuueueueue"

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 25, 2000.

Trouble is that effective governmental waste reform would have to be approved by the very people who benefit most from the status quo. It would be much simpler if we just legally allowed politicians to outright pay each one of us (cash, no checks) for our vote.

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), July 25, 2000.

What's that song? "Peggy Sue, Peggy Sue...... My Peggy Suuuuueeeeuuuueueueue"

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 25, 2000.

Rather appropriate coming from a guy named "Buddy."

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 25, 2000.

So?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), July 25, 2000.

And by the way (Rant On):

No one has the right to infringe on my right to not have or believe in a God. To spout of a bunch of shit about how we have to answer to a higher power is a waste to the millions of atheists and agnostics who live and contribute in this country. Thank God there is a seperation of church and state. You religious fanatics need to have your heads examined-YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TURN THIS COUNTRY INTO A THEOCRACY. People with good christian values thought it was fine to own slaves, enslave women without a vote, deny minority citizens in this country the right to vote, ran corporation that thought it was okay to force workers to wrok 16 hours a day in coal mines or meat-packing factories without a modicum of safety features.

I am sorry, but I just get so fucking tired of people who think that if we "just returned this country to a god-fearing country" everything will be okay. EVERYTHING WAS NOT OKAY WHEN THE FUCKING FUNDAMENTALISTS AND OTHER CHRISTIANS, WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT TO CALL THEM RAN EVERYTHING AND WROTE ALL LEGISLATION. We have spent the greater part of the last half of this century trying to liberate people from their religious opressers.

And how dare someone say it is problematic that Clinton "...hobknob with...homosexuals..." Are you fucking serious? This is a problem? If our president has homosexual friends or a homosexual child, this is a problem? Okay, you can all respond that I am attacking all christians- but I am not-You know who you are. I am not going to go on and on about how this is wrong. It is DEAD WRONG to reject any human being due to his/her sexual orientation.

Fuck you and your plans for a Theocracy. I will take my present government with all my faults, for a return to back-alley abortions and virtual imprisonment of the unpriviledged is not for me.

Rant off

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), July 25, 2000.

Well, I really can't add anything to that, FS. I just have a couple of questions for "Peggy Sue" (ah, thanks Buddy, now that song will be in my head all day long...[g]).

Does this mean I now have to remit my tax payments to God? Do I have to notify the payroll department? Do you have an address, or if I just address it to "God, Heaven", will the P.O. know where to send it? (Kind of like "Santa Claus, North Pole".)

BTW, just a couple of things I'd like to point out in addition to what FS said. You wrote: "One patriot has accurately described the political elite of this country as "psychotic", demonstrating a vast array of "sadistic, brutal, obsessive-compulsive, hypocritical, self-serving, power-hungry, two-faced, duplicitous, sociopathic tendencies.""

Hmmm. Odd how this sounds a lot like the so-called "patriots" who would seek to overthrow the U.S. government because they happen to feel it does not conform to THEIR standards or THEIR interpretation of the Constitution or THEIR morality (which, BTW, is supposed to be EVERYONE'S morality), etc. ad nauseum. Ah yes, but of course it's All In The Name of God (that would be THEIR version of God).

Timothy McVeigh and Company, anyone?

When are you going to realize that the nation is NOT the same as it was when it was formed? That the circumstances under which the Constitution was written are vastly different than what they are now? That the majority of people would NEVER want to return to those days? (Life was not all that great way back then.) Why is it so difficult for you to accept change? And when you find something you don't like, why do you whine and moan and bitch about it? Do you honestly think that NOT paying taxes is going to bring about change? What makes you think that your brand of religion and your version of God and your definition of morality is going to make everything peaches and cream? What gives you the right to dictate what anyone else should think/do/believe?

Jeez, and I thought *I* was naive.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 25, 2000.

TRUE-CHRISTIANS, have no desire tO FORCE [ANYTHING] ON ANYONE. ''the religiuos -right is bullcrap!!JESUS said=go preach =the good news!!-if it,s rejected=move on-shake the dust from your shoes-leave the JUDGMENT=TO GOD!!

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), July 25, 2000.

Al:

First time I have heard you say leave the judgement to God. Follow that advice personally and I may really learn to like you, fella.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), July 25, 2000.

OK, which one of you house niggas gonna warm Massa feet tonight?

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), July 25, 2000.

for what it's worth, i think that the constitution is no longer worth the paper it's printed on today...it has been stretched, twisted, and wiped on so many nasty body parts that it is beyond hope to wish for any kind of return to the orininal ideals of classical liberalism (ie., people have fundamental rights they are BORN WITH--not GRANTED by any human in authority--and that these rights include life, liberty, self-defence, the ownership of property, freedom of speech, and the right to mind one's own business).

having said that, i think that the good ole u.s. of a. is still by far a much freer country than most places on earth. we've come a long way, too. (once upon a time if you were black you could be cut to pieces and hung from a tree simply at the whim of the local kkk. forget a fair and speedy trial! forget innocent until proven guilty!...) still, what i find immensely disturbing is how we've suddenly forgotten what the whole struggle for freedom was about, and how it must continue in spite of prosperity and global hegemony.

if you think i'm wrong about the about face towards fascism(sp?), ask any high school graduate what the concept of federalism is, what the three branches of government are, and who has the power to declare war? i guarantee you--9 times out of 10--you will find that they haven't a clue. not to slam the young people--i too was young not long ago--i will also bet that most so-called "authority figures" will be nearly as likely to not know about their constitution.

it is no surprise that politicians trample on our rights. NOBODY CARES!!

as long as this is the case, people genuinely concerned about their fleeting freedoms, increasing tax burden, and overextended imperial garisons will be lumped into the same mold as all other kinds of "extremists" including followers of Charles Manson, white supremicists, Elvis-is-alive believers, UFO abductees, Farrakan devotees, and so on.

you see, there WILL BE NO revolution you were hoping for. in every single dissident group, there is likely to be an FBI informant(s) waiting in the wings to turn in any violent people and/or arrange a set-up--or more likely corrupt the group with loony-bin actors who will turn the cause into a classic and well-publicized "straw man." nobody wants to be tied to that old straw man. when the cold water gets dumped on you by the establisment, you will get lonely very quickly.

i understand people are concerned. it is in our blood to be wary. amercians are the world's rejects: ADD-addled ramblers thrown out of every decent and respectable country known to man. we left (some not of our own will) and found this great land where we tried to mind our own business and escape the red tape on the frontiers. it wasn't all roses, but the intentions and motivations were always pure. wellsir, the red tape, taxes, and repression is back. what to do?

it's time to form a new country. that's right, find (or MAKE) a new piece of land where people can feel free again. i think a rather large island would be ideal, actually. (it may be that some states may want to secede, but that could get hairy since Abe Lincoln stamped out that little impulse 135 years ago.) perhaps if the moon or asteroids could be colonized, a nice free city-state in low-g would also suffice. ah well. rambling again. in a nutshell, bear up people. no one can enslave you as long as your mind is free. the taxes are the least of your problems. the real people with problems are the people who are mentally enslaved by the system--but have no clue that they are--and live their lives peacefully and happily in their pleasant little gilded cages.

-- coprolith (jacothecat@yahoo.com), July 25, 2000.

coprolith,

As near as I can make out your point, it is that we are doomed, doomed, DOOMED!

I combed your rant for some glint or hint of a positive idea and found this:

>> ...it's time to form a new country. that's right, find (or MAKE) a new piece of land where people can feel free again. i think a rather large island would be ideal... <<

Great. If this is your best idea of how to save yourself and others from doom, then GO for it! Stop tossing off whining, sniveling, complaining bombast, get off your duff and do something positive.

Of course, there's always the chance that you haven't got a clue how to make anything positive happen. In which case, nothing good is ever likely to come out of all your bitching and moaning, making you a mighty empty package indeed.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 25, 2000.

0h c0me 0n, Brian. I d0 l0ts 0f p0sitive things, which is why I 0nly RARELY hang 0ut here anym0re with all the "whiners" wh0m y0u, y0urself, like t0 whine ab0ut. (fancy that!) All I was saying was that the whiners s0metimes have a p0int.

respectfully,

c0pr0lith

-- c0pr0lith (jac0thecat@yah00.c0m), July 25, 2000.

It's simple. An essential government service is one that benefits me. Waste is anything that only benefits someone else. The rest of the discussion is all window dressing. And obviously, there's too much waste.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 25, 2000.

surely y0u kn0w that it is wr0ng t0 turn s0me0ne else int0 n0thing m0re than a means t0 y0ur 0wn ends. at the heart 0f ethics lies freed0m. t0 be evil is t0 r0b s0me0ne else 0f their ch0ices.

I, f0r 0ne, d0n't like t0 be used by the tyranny 0f the maj0rity which sh0uld have been limited by the c0nstituti0n. instead my 0wn tax d0llars are paying f0r stuff that is at best inefficient (where b0th state and feds are redundant while fighting 0ver jurisdicti0n) and at w0rst imm0ral: the war 0n privacy and liberty (f0rmerly kn0wn as the war 0n drugs) and the c0nstant gl0bal meddling and gunb0at dipl0macy c0me t0 mind.

frankly my friends, in spite 0f all y0ur wit and intellect, s0me 0f y0u have really ticked me 0ff. d0n't I have a right t0 "bitch" and "whine" every s0 0ften when i l00k at the current state 0f affairs and see utter bullshit? have we g0tten s0 friggin PEECEE that all must be sweet and nice as depicted in the DKs s0ng "Calif0rnia Uber Alles?"

-- c0pr0lith (jac0thecat@yah00.c0m), July 25, 2000.

"c0pr0lith", you certainly do have a right to "bitch and whine" as often as you like. Thing is, most people who "bitch and whine" do very little to change the circumstances that cause the "bitch and whine" in the first place.

Now, I really don't "know" you, so it is entirely possible that you are the exception to that "rule". Fair enough.

But please explain to me one thing. You wrote:

"I, f0r 0ne, d0n't like t0 be used by the tyranny 0f the maj0rity which sh0uld have been limited by the c0nstituti0n."

So, would you rather be "used by the tyranny" of the minority? I thought (and correct me if I'm wrong) the entire point of our form of democracy is *Majority Rules*. Obviously, that is simplistic and it's quite unrealistic to believe that (a) it necessarily works; or, (b) it's even a GOOD thing (i.e., what "the majority" has chosen). There's ALWAYS someone who's going to be "pissed off" by the decision of the majority (or the "perceived" majority).

But what are your alternatives?

Everyone's tax dollars are paying for inefficiency, redundancy, bloat, and ineptitude; but what you consider "immoral" is a matter of opinion (and it's completely irrelevant whether or not I agree with you). Simply stated, neither you nor I has the right to decide what's "immoral" for anyone else.

Again, what is your solution? What are you doing to rectify the injustices you claim are all around? It's fine to "bitch and whine" about it, but unless one DOES something about, one is simply part of the problem.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 25, 2000.

Patricia,

You are wrong.

The entire point of our republic is that there are certain rights that exist no matter what the current misguided majority may believe. The Constitution spells them out so that they may not be carelessly disregarded by those who are currently in power.

The question of what the alternatives are when government no longer honors the rule of law is a tough one. There is much at stake if you stand up against the government. It becomes less tough when it impacts you directly. When it impacts enough of us directly, there will be an armed revolution.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 26, 2000.

A couple of Hong Kong exchange students are here learning about our "retirement" living, everything from skilled nursing to retirement centers. We had dinner with them at (you guessed it) a Chinese restaurant. It was a wonderful evening, the owner spoke to the students in their native tongue and we got a perspective from a foreigner's point of view.

I was very tempted to, but steered away from, talk of the lack of human rights in their country and stuck to economy and touched lightly on treatment of women. The owner, who had been here for twenty years, had lived in numerous places, born in Hong Kong, moved to Vietnam drafted at 15 during the war, and lived in Japan, London, and Nigeria. All in all been around a lot. He had only praise for our country, having seen a good part of the world where human rights doesn't exist. For example, he spoke of watching as the government lines citizens along the shore line and shoots them. No life liberty and pursuit of happiness there. He settled here because of our wonderful country.

Yeah, it's not perfect; nothing is. But we are the best that's out there. When I visited New Zealand and discovered a little about their government, I found that 50% went to taxes to socialized medicine and other "benefits". Canada has that same leaning. I'm thankful, we haven't taken that route.

Agree with some of the comments. Stop your complaining and do something about it. If you don't, then no one will listen to you.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 26, 2000.

Whew, looks like I'm caught up in this discussion! Allow me to apologize if it sounds like I'm lecturing or being boring. You should know by now to tune me out if you don't like what I have to say.

(Also let me apologize for the previous messages where the letter "o" was replaced by the number "0". The keyboard I'd used at home did not permit "o" to be typed--instead a "j" gets typed whenever the "o" key is struck..)

"c0pr0lith", you certainly do have a right to "bitch and whine" as often as you like. Thing is, most people who "bitch and whine" do very little to change the circumstances that cause the "bitch and whine" in the first place.

I am thinking all the time of things to "do about it" outside of my busy schedule of cancer research, excercise, married life, and music recording. While I don't agree that the Libertarian Party espouses ALL of my views (not being convinced on its answers to very real environmental problems, or what to do with education, or basic scientific research), I think it is a voice that needs to definitely be heard amidst the same old mealy-mouthed sleaze of the republicans and democrats. So I'm trying to contact the people in charge so I can volunteer for them and get the necessary signatures so they can appear on the ballot. A small step, but a step nonetheless.

Now, I really don't "know" you, so it is entirely possible that you are the exception to that "rule". Fair enough.

I don't know you either, and I'm sure you're a decent, well-meaning and principled invididual. I really don't know if I am an exception to your high standard. It's entirely possible I'm a big hypocrite. If so, mea culpa. :)

But please explain to me one thing. You wrote:

"I, f0r 0ne, d0n't like t0 be used by the tyranny 0f the maj0rity which sh0uld have been limited by the c0nstituti0n."

So, would you rather be "used by the tyranny" of the minority? I thought (and correct me if I'm wrong) the entire point of our form of democracy is *Majority Rules*.

In many ways, "majority rule" is the end result of our government, in practice. I don't think it should be the ideal, though. For example, Hitler was actually voted into power by a majority before he conveniently burned the legislative building and became one of humanity's worst tyrants (along with Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc.)

Here is an allegory of the "inhospitable hospital": People come in to get well, and most do. A majority come out happier. A minority does not, however. These patients leave (alive or dead) missing eyes, legs, and other imporant body parts...why? Answer: they're farmed for their body parts to make the others well. This minority is not happy at all, but a majority come out happier. There is a net gain in happiness and wellness. But is good being done? Although this situation (today, anyway) is purely hypothetical, it casts light on the limits of so-called "majority rule."

Ayn Rand said the the smallest minority is the individual. I think she's right. Without respect for basic individual rights, there can be no respect for minority rights. During "majority rule," there is always a minority that gets shafted somewhere. This is an inherantly INSTABLE situation which leads to conflict and/or war, pitting the "us's" against the "thems." For recent examples of this, consider the Balkans and Rhwanda. To lessen the conflict between majority and minority, what is essential is that the individual's basic rights are made supreme over all laws. What is an individual right? It is, in the most abstract sense, the freedom to engage in behavior that does not take away someone else's freedom.

Obviously, that is simplistic and it's quite unrealistic to believe that (a) it necessarily works; or, (b) it's even a GOOD thing (i.e., what "the majority" has chosen). There's ALWAYS someone who's going to be "pissed off" by the decision of the majority (or the "perceived" majority).

But what are your alternatives?

I think you and I both acknowledge that "majority rule" has limitations. That is why it is best to rule oneself rather than give away your own responsibilities and freedoms (two sides of the same coin, ay?) to others who do not share your values.

Everyone's tax dollars are paying for inefficiency, redundancy, bloat, and ineptitude; but what you consider "immoral" is a matter of opinion (and it's completely irrelevant whether or not I agree with you). Simply stated, neither you nor I has the right to decide what's "immoral" for anyone else.

Okay. I am not saying outlaw government. It is a necessary evil as long as evil people exist in the world. It must be designed, however, to LIMIT the control it or anyone else has on the natural rights we are born with. I suspect that our situation now has changed from this ideal. Not that their aren't good people in government. Probably most want to do good. There are those, though, who see it simply as a stepping stone for personal glory, wealth, and media attention. I believe that our system is becoming increasingly less immune to these sorts of bad apples.

Do you or I have the right to decide what's "moral" for someone else? OF COURSE WE DO!! To say otherwise as you have done implies fuzzy moral relativism. There is no point in morality, period, unless there are general standards that can be applied equally to all. I'm sure that you would say it was immoral if I barged into your house and and raided your refrigerator without asking, for example. If you believed fervently in a religion that demanded human sacrifice, I would say THAT was immoral.

Are we always correct in moral judgements? Hell no. People are flawed creatures. But just because moral judgements are sometimes flawed does not mean that they are unnecessary. If we want good, we want what is moral.

Again, what is your solution? What are you doing to rectify the injustices you claim are all around? It's fine to "bitch and whine" about it, but unless one DOES something about, one is simply part of the problem.

The first thing to do to correct a problem is acknowledge it. I am not always confident in my judgement of what a "problem" is, and so I air my complaints to the the cyber community in the hopes that I am wrong, and my reasoning can be shot down by intelligent people like yourself.

-coprolith

-- coprolith (jacothecat@yahoo.com), July 26, 2000.

keeping the forum alive with shameless promotion

-- coprolith (jacothecat@yahoo.com), July 26, 2000.

Patricia, Maria - well stated. Righteous indignation is a beautiful thing - when I agree with it. Way to vent, FS. That HAD to feel good.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), July 26, 2000.

coprolith,

Congrats on entering the state of wedded bliss - that seemed like a long engagement.

The libertarian position on the environment should give you pause.

-- flora (***@__._), July 26, 2000.

Wow -- I just now read this very interesting thread -- after I started a new one that's somewhat related to some of this conversation. (It's weird how sometimes a good thread can be right under my nose for days and I don't notice it.) Anyway, the other thread's on the right-wing militia movement and explains how they're really ANTI-liberty and collectivist, as well as the errors in their methods and philosophy. Had I known about this one at the time, I might have posted it directly here. Anyway, certainly feel free to repost it here.

My political views are pretty much Libertarian, with a focus on individual rights and a reduced government (one that, practically speaking, would be very gradually reduced, over a period of decades). But, I think the only reasonable and practical ways to fight for any change of the type alluded to here is through a program that's both political and educational in nature. We should first keep in mind that what people do is determined by what they think. So, if we want to change the political environment, by far the most reasonable way is to try to change people's political philosophy and economic theories. And this would be done through many different means of education, the formation of a new political party if necessary, etc.

I think that change by overthrow or secession might be reasonable only as a last resort in the most dire and desperate circumstances, which I certainly don't believe is anywhere near the case today.

And, despite the problems we do have (yes, there's lots of things that drive me up the wall these days), I can't see our rights and freedoms disappearing wholesale, due to the system of checks and balances (e.g., the separation of powers) that we have in government, and the people (and therefore in most cases their elected representatives) simply not standing for it.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), July 26, 2000.

This has turned into an amazing discussion. Thanks everyone.

"coprolith": You have no reason to apologize; to me, it didnt sound like you were lecturing or being boring at all. (And I wondered about that 0 thing.)

I am thinking all the time of things to "do about it" outside of my busy schedule of cancer research, excercise, married life, and music recording. While I don't agree that the Libertarian Party espouses ALL of my views (not being convinced on its answers to very real environmental problems, or what to do with education, or basic scientific research), I think it is a voice that needs to definitely be heard amidst the same old mealy-mouthed sleaze of the republicans and democrats. So I'm trying to contact the people in charge so I can volunteer for them and get the necessary signatures so they can appear on the ballot. A small step, but a step nonetheless.

And I should have added that I am guilty of this myself; as you stated, were all guilty of it at times. There just doesnt seem to be enough time in a day... I think Im going to have to disagree with you on the Libertarians being any sort of an answer, though I do believe its probably a good start. I did have this conversation elsewhere, but Ill re-state briefly. I dont think that effective and lasting change is going to come from outside of the system (i.e., a third or fourth political party). The only way to effect such change is to do so from the inside of the broken system. Please dont misunderstand me, though: I do believe there is a real need for additional parties. My concern is that they will simply become third and fourth versions of what already exists (and I believe there are already signs of that happening).

I don't know you either, and I'm sure you're a decent, well- meaning and principled invididual. I really don't know if I am an exception to your high standard. It's entirely possible I'm a big hypocrite. If so, mea culpa. :)

I dont think you are being a hypocrite. I dont see you post very often but when you do, it has substance. You are obviously an exception as you do seem to be trying to do something to change what you view as an incorrect/unacceptable situation.

In many ways, "majority rule" is the end result of our government, in practice. I don't think it should be the ideal, though. SNIP

I see what youre saying here, but I think youve used too extreme an example to illustrate. I dont believe the situation is quite as bad as either a Hitler-type or the inhospitable hospital. Generally, people DONT die from our form of majority rules (at least not to the extent of Hitler or even the hospital).

I also think youre a bit extreme in your belief that (and I could have misread what you wrote) majority rule takes away individual rights. Ive seen this theme repeated many times amongst those who complain the loudest about the DOT-GOV. What individual rights are being trampled upon or taken away? Perhaps Im being naove, but I just dont see it. I think we have more rights and more freedoms today than at any point in time in our history. I would tend to agree with your definition of an individual right, at least on the surface. But in order that individual rights remain, there must be rules to define what takes away someone elses freedom. This is not arbitrary; there are very definite actions that would take away someone elses freedom.

I further do not believe that majority rule is an inherently unstable situation at all, at least not in Western nations. Once again, you have used two very extreme examples to illustrate your belief. We do not live in the Balkans or Rwanda; we live in the US of A. The rules that apply in those places do not generally apply here, or in most Western nations. And this is not to denigrate the citizens of those or any other nations.

Further it is not what I equate to morality. My version of morality does not necessarily coincide with your version of morality. Yes, there are basic ideals that are out there that can be considered unspoken moral guidelines. But these are decided upon, for the most part, by the majority.

I think you and I both acknowledge that "majority rule" has limitations. That is why it is best to rule oneself rather than give away your own responsibilities and freedoms (two sides of the same coin, ay?) to others who do not share your values.

Yes, I do believe that majority rule has its limitations; but so does every other system out there right now. I think its the best one out of the possible choices we see around us. But what responsibilities and freedoms are being given away? I do not see how they are being given away to those who do not share my values. I guess I dont understand what youre saying here.

We also seem to agree on the government, insofar as there are many good people who genuinely want to do their job and insofar as there are (and probably always will be) those who use it as a personal stepping stone.

But I absolutely, positively cannot agree that you or I have a right to decide someone elses morality. But I suspect we are coming from two completely different definitions of morality. I think of morality as what the religious right claims I should believe; as what they claim I should do, how I should act, how I should think. As I said above, there are many unwritten rules that can be considered morality issues, and civilized society, in the majority, agrees to these rules. Perhaps thats what you mean by morality.

There are no easy answers, but as long as people like you (and I) work towards betterment of what we perceive as bad situations, I dont think we can go wrong. However, there will be times when people such as you and I will be working at odds from one another.

That should be interesting :-)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 26, 2000.

As I see it, morality is indeed a loaded term. It has been co-opted by both the religious right and by the religious right's detractors.

During all that discussion about concepts of morality, the notion of morality itself became diluted.

Here's what I meant by morality: good actions arising from ethical principles. If you are doing good, you are being moral. Simple as that.

I believe firmly that there are universal principles behind goodness. If this is true, then there is such a thing as universal morals. Good things and good deeds all share certain features, no? What are those shared features? I guess there's lots of room for argument there. But that does not mean we cannot try to figure them out. Our perceptions of it may be subjective and differ from person to person, but i think the Reality of it is quite objective.

-- coprolith (jacothecat@yahoo.com), July 26, 2000.

Then we do agree on "morality". That is the concept I was trying to put into words; you defined it much better than I did. Thank you.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 26, 2000.