(originally launched into cyberspace on 08/27/2007)Slave: "Master, will you please stop whipping me?"
Master: "No."
Slave: "Ow. Pretty please?"
Master: "No."
Slave: "Ow. Darn."
There you have the entire political process, in this country and
every other. Instead of asking nicely, should the slave be allowed
to forcibly stop the master from whipping him? Surely we can't have
that! That would be against the "law"! No single sentence better
sums up the belief that we are the PROPERTY of the politicians,
than this one: "You have to work within the system."
In other words, we have no right to do what we want, until we first
get the politicians, via "legislation," to SAY we have the right
(which means it isn't a "right" at all). "Mom, can I please go out
and play?" "Congress, can I please keep more of what I earn?" The
asking itself implies that THEY have the right to decide, which in
turn implies that they OWN all of us.
The Declaration of Independence speaks of unalienable individual
rights--which we didn't get from "government," and which no
"government" has the right to deprive us of. Why, then, when the
politicians do violate those rights (as they do on a daily basis),
do we ask THEM to please stop it? It's because the general public
does NOT believe in unalienable rights at all.
If someone is trying to steal my car, do I need the THIEF'S
permission before I have the right to try to stop him? No. So if
tyrants are stomping on my rights, why would I need to ask them for
"legal" permission to resist their oppressions? The very idea is
idiotic.
When it comes to "lobbying" politicians, I find the example of "gun
control" particularly amusing. Lots of Americans believe, as the
Founders of the country did, that an armed populace is the best
guard against oppressive government. In other words, the common
folk should be armed so that, if the government becomes overly
abusive and oppressive, the people can violently overthrow it. So
how silly is it to "lobby" politicians to please "legalize" private
gun ownership? Consider the absurd message it sends: "We have the
right to forcibly resist you if we decide you're being oppressive!
So, um, can we please keep our guns? Pretty please?"
The Founders said these things a lot more politely, and in a more
respectable, civilized manner. I'll say it so anyone can
understand: If someone tries to disarm you, when you haven't
committed force or fraud against anyone, you have the absolute
right--"law" or no "law"--to kill the person who tries it. Oddly,
even most "gun rights" advocates don't like putting it that way,
though their stated reasons for "gun rights" is to protect against
tyranny. Well, duh: if you need the tyrant's PERMISSION (via "law")
before you'll resist tyranny, what's the point?
A consistent message from people who believe in gun rights--which
admittedly would make most people very uneasy (because of their
underlying "government"-worship)--would be this: "Dear Congressman,
I understand you are considering voting for so-called 'legislation'
that would disarm me. Be advised, if you do that, I have the right
to kill any thugs you send to disarm me, and the right to kill you
for sending them to do it. Have a nice day."
I know a LOT of you cringed when you read that. No offense, but the
only reason you would cringe is if, deep down inside, you believe
that we are all OBLIGATED to obey whatever commands politicians
decide to dish out. And in order to believe that, you must believe
that each of us BELONGS to them. If some private individual
threatened to come into your house to disarm you, most of you
would, without hesitation, condone a response such as: "Try it, and
I'll blow your damn head off!" And if ten people, or a hundred
people, threatened to disarm you, you'd have the right to violently
resist ALL of them.
So why would you have any less of a right to do it--and why does
the idea of forcibly resisting make most people uneasy--when people
wearing the label of "authority" try it? Aren't they just people,
too? In most peoples' eyes, NO, they aren't just people; they are
representatives of our collective master, our OWNERS: "government."
And as long as the people hold that view, the ONLY power they will
ever have is the power to pitifully beg their masters to please be
nice. In other words, they will have no power at all.
A lot of people have said that they want something somewhere
between what I speak of and what we currently have. They want a lot
less government, but not none at all. But once again, when it comes
right down to it, there are only TWO options: either we each own
ourselves, or we are all owned by "government." There is no
inbetween, and there can be no compromise between the two. EVERY so-
called "moderate" solution concedes that we are slaves, but asks
our owners to be nice. If we own ourselves, we don't NEED their
permission to be free, their "laws" carry no obligation to obey,
and we have every right to forcibly resist their infringements just
as we would have if our neighbor decided on his own to start
"taxing" and "regulating" us. If you ask me, being a slave who can
only beg his master to be nice isn't good enough. If that makes me
an "extremist," so be it.
If I had to pick the primary reason why I am NOT encouraging people
to go vote for Ron Paul, it is this: Every election, every lobbying
effort, every petition to government, REINFORCES the idea that we
need their PERMISSION before we're allowed to be free. To engage in
the ritual of "democracy" conveys the message that we CONCEDE that
whether we are to be free or not depends upon whether our MASTERS
will, by legislation, allow us such freedom. See the contradiction?
If I own me, by definition I don't NEED anyone else's permission.
If I were a slave, I'd prefer a nice master. If I had to be the
property of someone else, I would prefer Ron Paul over anyone else
in public office. Furthermore, if 500 clones of Ron Paul
miraculously were elected into every seat of Congress, we'd be
oppressed so rarely, and to such a small degree, that even I would
rarely bother to complain about it. Nonetheless, there is still a
fundamental, crucial difference between being the property of a
wise, benign, permissive and kind master, and owning yourself. The
former should never be accepted as being good enough.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com
(P.S. As an aside, I do sympathize with those who know that they
own themselves, but who nonetheless choose to engage in the cult
ritual of "democracy" just out of self-defense, hoping to get a
less psychotic and megalomaniacal person into the illegitimate
position of national slavemaster. But even in the extremely rare
instance in which that actually happens, it is no solution at all
to the real problem; it is merely a temporary patch to treat the
symptom of the most dangerous superstition in the world: the belief
in "authority.")
