On report about the land of America:
"Jews, there, are treated just like human beings, instead of dogs. They can work at any business they please; they can sell brand new goods if they want to; they can keep drug-stores; they can practice medicine among Christians; they can even shake hands with Christians if they choose; they can associate with them, just the same as one human being does with another human being; they don't have to stay shut up in one corner of the towns; they can live in any part of a town they like best; it is said they even have the privilege of buying land and houses, and owning them themselves, though I doubt that, myself; they never have had to run races naked through the public streets, against jackasses, to please the people in carnival time; there they never have been driven by the soldiers into a church every Sunday for hundreds of years to hear themselves and their religion especially and particularly cursed; at this very day, in that curious country, a Jew is allowed to vote, hold office, yea, get up on a rostrum in the public street and express his opinion of the government if the government don't suit him! Ah, it is wonderful."
-Twain, Mark. "The Innocents Abroad," 1869.
It bothers me to no end how too often do people nowadays completely take for granted the amazing country we live in. It's so cliche already, but the real freedoms we have here as well as the opportunities which permit us to reach as high as we are able are gifts unprecedented in all of human history. Sure, America is not perfect and there's plenty to criticize in its history and recent events, but the ideals it stands for, as embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, are among the best and highest ever set in text.
So it's quite proper now to take a moment and acknowledge the great sacrifices (some with the ultimate sacrifice) given by American servicemen to protect us and our way of life. May we soon see the day when no further American soldier need give so much.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Hear, hear!
Amen.
I 100% agree. America has been the best contry. The soldiers that died to give us this country and to help us keep it deserve our gratitude. Anyone that denies that is just a fool.
This is indeed a wonderful country and (too) many soldiers have given their lives defending her.
Too often, though, people talk about soldiers "defending our freedoms" when they're doing nothing of the sort. (E.g. in the Iraq war.) Let's not be mindless propagandists -- that idea just causes more soldiers to die.
Pardon me Orthoprax, perhaps you can explain whats up with the centuries old imperial adventures overseas the US and the Brits have been conducting.
Yeah americans have freedom, but at what cost. The ones who end up paying are people overseas. When you understand how the whole capitalist framework demands the superpower to economically exploit every other country, then you'll realize that the US is not all that great
And your ignorance of human history is speaking volumes if you really believe that societies of freedom, thought and expression are unprecedented since the US. Numerous examples contradict what you are saying here
The US has a kool Constitution but what's written on a piece of paper rarely reflects what a country stands for. The Scandinavian countries are the most liberal, most tolerant (at least more than the US) and with some of the lowest crime rates in the West. And they did it without the US Constitution. Arguably they have achieved this through a majority liberal population. The more liberal you are as a people, the more openness there in your society (which can have bad side effects as well)
That said I would like to advocate Canada as the best country on the planet. Most people don't know this but it was Canada that INVENTED "multiculturalism". It runs in contradiction to the "melting pot" scenario founded in the US where immigrants were expected to adapt to values/cultures in the US. With multiculturalism came the paradigm that you should respect other people's beliefs, culture and so forth.
Something started by Canada, eventually made its way to the US and now other countries like Australia have adopted the same national attitude as well. The US does not do that at all, in fact as espoused by Lou Dobbs America is still a "melting pot" nation, not a multicultural one, as far as national ideology is concerned.
My point is Canada trumps the US' as far as tolerance is concerned.
As always Shalmo, the balance of your wisdom is most enlightening.
I'd like to invite you to a private blog of mine that a few of us are putting together for our own, personal discussions.
Would you be interested?
If so, email me at
lollishops@gmail.com
~Sadie Lou
What happens if you don't pay your taxes?
YA,
I don't follow.
Well you made a post about how the government we have is so wonderful and all. And you went on to say how the IDEAS that it (our government) stands for as embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, are among the best and highest ever set in text.
Well okay. Yes, out of all the governments the US would probably be the best. Not all governments are equally oppressive, just like not all religions are equally violent, or factually unfounded.
But lately I've been thinking. And I can't help but feel troubled by the way government works in general, including a democracy.
Take taxes for example:
What happens if you don't pay your taxes?
Well, you get a fine of course.
What happens if you don't pay the fine?
Well, then you go to jail or have your property forcibly re-possessed.
What happens if you resist going to jail, or try to defend your property with the tools at your disposal? (guns and such)
Well, then you will get shot and killed.
So basically, the foundational support for taxation (even in a democracy) is an inverted pyramid with "I will kill you" at it's base.
Now this is not 100% the equivalent to saying "Pay me money, or I will kill you" but it can be close.
Try removing any element from the inverted pyramid and the taxation system falls apart.
Remove the base (killing) and if someone pulls a gun on an officer trying to arrest the person, and the officer just says "Oh OK, I won't arrest you now because I won't kill you and I don't want to die, so I will just let you go now. You can get away without paying your taxes" Then everyone would do this.
If you resist hard enough the true foundations of the state will reveal themselves: The barrel of a gun.
If someone doesn't want to pay taxes and opts out of any benefit that those taxes do for him, what is wrong? Should he be forced to pay for things that won't benefit him? Should we threaten him with "give me money or I will lock you up in a cage" or "give me money or I will kill you" to pay for things he doesn't even want in the first place?
And now you might say: "Yes, it's an evil, but a necessary evil: If we didn't have men in funny hats with weapons threatening every citizen with locking them up in a cage or killing them to pay taxes, no one would pay taxes and society can't exist without taxes or the state"
But I am not so sure this is true. I am not a full fledged anarchist, but lately my political views have shifted drastically closer to that position.
Even if it is true and it is a necessary evil, my entire view of democracy and everything it stands for has changed. If it is a necessary evil, than I don't see it as something wonderful. I see it as it is: A necessary evil.
But I will have to think about this stuff more. It took almost a year for me to go from Orthodox to Atheist. I shouldn't just jump from statist to anarchist that fast.
Yeshivish Atheist, you should read Lysander Spooner. He is....enlightening.
A small quip from his essay No Treason:
"It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected.
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."
You can download the whole thing in audio here. Or just Google it to get the text if you prefer reading.
>And they did it without the US Constitution.
Why would they do it WITH a US Constitution? They have their own, which also separates powers just like we have.
>The US does not do that at all, in fact as espoused by Lou Dobbs America is still a "melting pot" nation, not a multicultural one, as far as national ideology is concerned.
Well sure, and I am glad for it. The concept of a melting pot goes together with the concept of "E Plurbis Enum." You don't get that with multiculturalism (or at least, much harder). Yes you have respect for sure, but don't think there isen't a down side either with multiculturalism.
YA,
"Well you made a post about how the government we have is so wonderful and all."
No I didn't. I made a post about how the country we have is so wonderful and all - a country founded on liberty with a government established to be limited by the rights of the people.
"So basically, the foundational support for taxation (even in a democracy) is an inverted pyramid with "I will kill you" at it's base."
Well, yeah. It is ultimately coercion with the proverbial "barrel of a gun." Read any Ayn Rand lately?
Honestly, I have great reservations about the ethical legitimacy of compulsory taxation at its base, but as you say, it may very well be the best of all bad options.
"I am not a full fledged anarchist, but lately my political views have shifted drastically closer to that position."
You should take a look at history and some current places where anarchy sometimes reigns. It isn't pretty. There's nothing less stable than an anarchy - it turns into warfare and eventually shapes into some form of dictatorship as one gang takes supremacy.
"If it is a necessary evil, than I don't see it as something wonderful. I see it as it is: A necessary evil."
Being the least evil of all other possibilities can be something wonderful.
"No I didn't. I made a post about how the country we have is so wonderful and all - a country founded on liberty with a government established to be limited by the rights of the people."
Ok. But can you say that a country that forces its citizens to pay the state at the threat of death is really founded on liberty? It just doesn't seem that analogous with freedom to me.
"You should take a look at history and some current places where anarchy sometimes reigns. It isn't pretty. There's nothing less stable than an anarchy - it turns into warfare and eventually shapes into some form of dictatorship as one gang takes supremacy."
Ok, this is one of those key issues I will have to look in to further. So far I have seen literature spinning this both ways. They use different examples of course, and they put their own spin on it.
"Being the least evil of all other possibilities can be something wonderful."
I agree, but it can also be something terrible.
I guess it's just difficult to wrap my brain around having to keep people in line with threatening them to put them in cages or kill them as being "something wonderful"
one of the "positive spin" examples:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf
Scott,
Thanks. I'll check it out.
(Just to clarify, by this :"I guess it's just difficult to wrap my brain around having to keep people in line with threatening them to put them in cages or kill them as being "something wonderful" I mean taxes (obviously))
YA,
"But can you say that a country that forces its citizens to pay the state at the threat of death is really founded on liberty?"
In theory, since it is the people who elect their government - it is the people who tax themselves.
"I guess it's just difficult to wrap my brain around having to keep people in line with threatening them to put them in cages or kill them as being "something wonderful""
As always, it depends what the alternatives are.
"one of the "positive spin" examples"
The frontier-west is something of a special case where the majority of people were of comparable economic class, resources were plentiful, and there was lots of space to move away from people you didn't like.
"In theory, since it is the people who elect their government - it is the people who tax themselves."
I don't think this is an accurate way of looking at democracy. I think a more accurate statement would be: "It is the majority of people who elect their government - is the majority of people who tax themselves"
If 51% of the people vote for a 5% tax increase
And 49% of the people voted against the tax increase
The 49% of people say: "Ok, you can pay your tax if your want, but I won't pay it. And I also opt out of any benefits that those taxes will give me"
What happens? The 49% of the people will be forced under potential threat of death to do what the 51% wanted.
This is NOT freedom for all. This is a method for the majority to forcibly subject the minority to use their money however they want, based off a popularity contest.
You can call democracy a necessary evil, you can call it wonderful, you can call it a lot of things. But the way I see it now, I would never use the word "liberty" or "freedom" to describe it.
"As always, it depends what the alternatives are."
My point was that simply because there are no better alternatives doesn't mean it's wonderful.
Take this radical example:
Lets say you had 10 kids. You were somehow placed in a position such that you had to either:
A) Kill 1 of your kids
B) Kill all 10 of you kids
Of course, the lesser evil is A, but it is still an evil. It's not wonderful simply because there is no better alternative.
"The frontier-west is something of a special case where the majority of people were of comparable economic class, resources were plentiful, and there was lots of space to move away from people you didn't like."
Ok, what about Ireland? Page 3
http://mises.org/journals/lf/1971/1971_04.pdf
Yeshivish Atheist said: "It is the majority of people who elect their government - is the majority of people who tax themselves"
An even better way might be "It is the majority of VOTERS who elect their government", which is an even smaller slice of the populace. Take the latest presidential election in which about 67 million people voted for Obama. In a country of 300 million this could hardly be considered a majority. In truth, it is a VERY small minority.
Orthopax: as to the historical impact of anarchy in real life applications, the argument could easily be made that anarchy is complicated and we are on a learning curve to see what works and what doesn't. By 1950 there had never been a successful organ transpant - and every one that was attempted ended up failing or killing the patient, but does that mean that there was something intrinsically wrong with organ transplantation? No, it just meant that we had to learn how to refine our methods.
;)
YA,
"I don't think this is an accurate way of looking at democracy. I think a more accurate statement would be: "It is the majority of people who elect their government - is the majority of people who tax themselves""
Yes, of course. I fully appreciate and understand the dilemma of public liberty taking advantage of private liberty - that the power of the people to do something to a large minority of the people that they do not like is a fundamental problem of democracy. However, this is not limited to taxation and a thousand other impositions are put on some minority of people all the time and in virtually all societies.
Yet with that said, I fail to see how other systems of social organization protect minorites better than a liberal democracy. Do you think anarchy is a better system where the segment with literally the largest force of arms can force a minority to do anything they want - without a remote possibility of redress?
"My point was that simply because there are no better alternatives doesn't mean it's wonderful."
Fine, call it what you wish. It's just semantics.
"Ok, what about Ireland? Page 3"
I'm at work and can't check on that right now, but I'll get back to you on that. I don'tbelieve there's anything inherently wrong with anarchy, I just don't think it's stable. It's hard for me to imagine it ending except by an established social order taking control of the area or by descending into what is essentially gang warfare.
Scott,
"Orthopax: as to the historical impact of anarchy in real life applications, the argument could easily be made that anarchy is complicated and we are on a learning curve to see what works and what doesn't."
Sure, by all means: go experiment. But don't experiment where I live because our system is working pretty well. It's well established that you don't do experimental surgeries on healthy people.
Places where genocide is taking place is about as sick a society as you can get.
OP,
I don't have a complete formulation to produce a stable, stateless society. The practicality of anarchy is an issue that encompass many different areas. This is something I will have to look into. I would also like to hear what full-fledged anarchists have to say on this issue.
If there is a way to make anarchy stable, I think it will be something that can be called true freedom.
YA, is the gamil account that is listed in your profile one that you check regularly? I'll send you an email with some thoughts on where you can continue your research.
I guess the most stable "stateless" society would be Athens during its absolute democracy. Even then they would rotate who would preside over certain public duties, but anyone who was a citizen voted on laws and everyone basically had an equal share in the government.
Scott,
Yes, it is. And thanks, I would appreciate it.
סעו לטרבלינקה
פקחו את עיניכם לרוחה
חדדו את השמיעה
עצרו את הנשימה
והקשיבו לקולות הבוקעים שם
מכל גרגר אדמה -
סעו לטרבלינקה
הם מחכים לכם שם
צמאים לקול חייכם
לאות לקיומכם,
לצעד רגליכם
למבט אנושי מבין וזוכר
ללטוף של אהבה על אפרם -
סעו לטרבלינקה
סעו מרצונכם אתם, החופשי
סעו מכוח הכאב על האימה שהתרחשה
מעמק ההבנה והלב כואב ולא משלים -
הקשיבו להם שם בכל החושים!
סעו לטרבלינקה
שם הדממה הירוקה, הזהובה או הלבנה
העוטפת אותם בכל אחת מעונות השנה
תספר לכם סיפורי סיפורים
על החיים שהפכו אסורים ובלתי אפשריים -
סעו לטרבלינקה
ראו איך הזמן שם עצר
הקשיבו לזמן העומד, לשתיקת המתים הרועמת
ולאבנים בדמות אנוש הבוכות שם בדממה
סעו לטרבלינקה לחוש זאת לשנייה -
סעו לטרבלינקה
הצמיחו פרח בדמעה חמה, בנשימה אנושית
מול אחת האבנים - זכר לקהילה שלמה
על אדמה שהיא גופם ואפרם.
הם מחכים שם בטרבלינקה שתבואו ותקשיבו לספורים
הזועקים בתוך הדממה
ובהזדהות מחלטת אילמת, מאחדת
תביאו להם בכל פעם
את ספור החיים הנמשכים
האהבה המחיה.
סעו לטרבלינקה לדורי דורות
Post a Comment