Growing Up Into War Culture

Growing Up Into War Culture

With the release of the film American Sniper, which chronicles the life and military career of Chris Kyle, an American sniper in the US military, I sat down to think of what are the effects of growing up in what I call "War Culture"? What influence does the constant barrage of pro war and pro military images, songs and the almost mandatory glorification and appreciation that must be bestowed upon those who "serve" have on individuals.
How does the use of militarism and imbued detached emotional conditioning in entertainment lend to this culture?

I think first I need to explain what I see as "War Culture"
War Culture is the constant inoculation of militarism and perpetual war to the people of the world. It is not an isolated subject and is seen in just about every country on earth. It is the conditioning through various means to make war seem as just another aspect of life. It is the systematic conditioning to raise new generations to believe that the only way man has lived is in this perpetual state of alarm or conflict. Through the entertainment industries we see video games, movies and music that revolve around the occupation of the military or its missions, in essence Propaganda. Through the political sphere it is a constant stream of fear manipulation and the misuse of resources for destruction rather than diplomacy. The schools teach the military conquests from their home countries and gloss over the destruction that resulted. Again this is not an isolated occurrence, it happens all over the world.

Those that were born in the US after 2001 have never known a time when the US military was not engaged in a conflict, war, occupation or mission in one or another Middle Eastern country. Those who were born after 2001 may never know of a time when the US military will not have some sort of presence or installation in these countries.

Those that were born in these Middle Eastern countries after 2001 have never known a time when there wasn't a foreign military moving into their homes and communities. They would not know a time when their family were not targets for violence by men from far away. They grow up into a system of seeing this everyday, their family fighting for their own homes and their own way of life and they follow into this mindset. It doesn't take too much of a leap of logic to see that when someone sees this behavior day in and day out from childhood that they would continue on with the cycle later in life.

Then too we can think of the child soldiers from some other countries. Those who have entered this "service" by voluntary means have also been in large part brought up into this War Culture. They have never known a time, most of them, that their fathers were not at war, that their homes have not been threatened or even that their minds not set to these actions by the learned behavior or expressions of their religious leaders.

Kids, in the US especially, are approached early in their lives to consider joining the gears of the war machine. They are fed the scripts and lies of recruiters who have to fill new boots as fast as they fill caskets. By high school age in the US a person is to have been familiarized to the concept of war, used to the blind obedience to authority and have had their heads filled with the idea of protecting freedom by killing whoever their government is fighting with at the moment.

The media and entertainment industries play a major role in this idea. Think about this past year, how many movies were released that were based around military and war themes. Unbroken, Monuments Men, The Boys of Abu Ghriab, Seal Team 8, Jarhead 2,Fort Bliss, Good Kill and many many more. Now what about the gaming industry. In recent years with the rise in military actions around the world the gaming industry has turned into putting out more and more titles that deal with war and militarism. Now there is a lot of debate about the effect the games have on the players, if they turn out to be any more or less violent than those that do not play those types of games. But the theory is still valid, as far as the desensitizing effect it may have. Getting used to shooting at another human, destroying homes businesses, taking orders from authority and doing so unquestionably. Titles like Call of Duty, Destiny, Fallout, Titanfall, all lend to this issue. Again this is still a disputed theory and has not been determined to be viable at all. It is only in mentioning this that I hope to illustrate the tendency of entertainment companies to follow events happening in the world and to bring about some sense of entertaining qualities of war and the military theme to each new generation.

{ Speaking with a friend on this theory as I am writing this he makes a notation that this theory, that violent images from games or movies can have an effect on the minds and responses of individuals, makes the case that if the theory were incorrect there would be no reason to sit your child in front of a television or use and audio program to help them learn certain traits or characteristics. Sesame Street being an example, it is said that the majority of parents feel that by allowing their child to view this show they hope to reinforce good behaviors and learning skills. IF this theory were true in this instance it would be true in the case for picking up violent behavior as well. }

Even before some kids make it to an age that playing these games or watching these movies become an option they are brought into the war culture through their public and private educations. The National Anthem in America is a song of the battle at Fort McHenry in Baltimore MD September 7th 1814. It is a song about battle, of war, glorifying the action and triumph of the American colonies from the invading British troops. This anthem, being recognized as a National Anthem of the US by a law signed on March 3, 1931 by President Herbert Hoover. This being one of the first encounters with the theme of war even on a subconscious level. But this isn't just left to schoolchildren any more, no the national anthem is played at most if not all major sporting events, public ceremonies, political events, funerals, weddings, birthdays, national holiday celebrations and in some areas just because people love to sing a song of war. Many other nation's national anthems depict war themes as well. Many calling for rivers of blood, domination over enemies, revolutions, the firing of weapons to defeat foes and the beating of war drums and superiority of the country in battle.

 The anthem of Algeria is a example of this: "We swear by the lightning that destroys, By the streams of generous blood being shed" 

"When we spoke, none listened to us, So we have taken the noise of gunpowder as our rhythm, And the sound of machine guns as our melody"

For more on Anthems used as the drums of war see here.

http://users.dickinson.edu/~history/product/perry/national_anthem.html

Then there are those parents that raise their children with an expectation of joining the military. With parents that wish to ship you off to either kill someone or die trying to do that, who needs enemies? Often heard are the pro war people, "I would be so proud if my son/daughter joined the military." Under this implication they are under a false impression that 1. the military fights for freedom or security and 2. that their career choice is somehow a service to the country. 

That being said, what do we see from the culture of war?

Being raised and seeing the media portray the figures and images of war, without the true nature of destruction that it leaves in it's wake has left us, the world, desensitized to it all. The ability to be entertained by the use of violence has disconnected us from the real tragedy of the brutality of war. The constant barrage of subdued tones of Patriotism means serving in the military, the threats of violence from those the defend the institution of war and of the military's that wage them to those who seek peace through diplomacy and free and open trade. The boogie men created by institutions of government that turn into the very real monsters they were meant to look like. All of these things have added to a culture that sees war as the health of the state, that sees heroism in being able to kill another human being, that sees patriotism and nationalism as the wanton release of all personal morals or beliefs in the name of orders.

The Glorification of soldiers and the illogical justification for actions that in any other setting are immoral and unjust is a hard barrier to break. Any attempt is usually met with a onslaught of defenders and a constant stream of physical violence and threats of violence, again a product of the culture. The almost mandatory subjection of oneself to a life of praise and glory being bestowed upon those who "serve".

*I used quotation marks when mentioning the word serve in relation to military members. This is because the false sense that they are serving a nation, a country, the citizens of a certain land. Their service is to the government imposed over that land and those people. It is true that the paycheck does come from the citizens but not by voluntary means, not as a signal of worth or seen value but it is coerced and forced from them by government mandate.

 

War begets War it is said. And it would be correct given the history of the world SO FAR. But we do have the capability to end the cycle of perpetual wars, unneeded killing and dying, destruction and conquest. I refuse to glorify or propagate a system of despicable behavior under a twisted logic. Hero's are not those that go along with immoral orders, they do not revel in killing other human beings, they do not use a justification cooked up by some other person or entity to inflict destruction and death.

Government according to P.J. Proudhon

To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.

To be governed is be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped,measured, numbered, assessed,licensed, authorized, admonished,prevented, forbidden, reformed,corrected, punished.

It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, be placed under contribution,drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, funded, vilified harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned,shot deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored.

That is government; that is its justice, that is its morality

P.J. Proudhon 1923

A response to "Want to Destroy ISIS? Congress Should Implement the Draft and Raise Taxes Immediately."

This is the headline from a recent Huffington Post blog post, authored by H. A. Goodman. In this post he gives a case for implementing the re emergence of a national draft and raising taxes to afford another war. In the face of another boogy-man in the sand box of the Middle East some will actually endorse these ideas and promote their full and swift introduction. Thrusting the US into another war inside Iraq, Syria, and other Middle Eastern and African nations will amount to what could be considered World War 3. And just as those two previous World Wars saw the forced conscription of citizens into the military forces, it seems some would still use this to obtain their wartime ends.

"It's time to get off the couch, America, and collectively sacrifice for national security, both through taxes to fund the next conflict and a draft, like previous generations in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. ISIS wants to bankrupt this country and drag us into another quagmire, so if you believe these maniacs need to be destroyed by bullets fired from American guns, it's time for you too to start firing these bullets and paying for the next war. Once we defeat ISIS, we can then begin to destroy the next terrorist group that pops up (like Al-Qaeda Iraq morphed into ISIS) with money from higher taxes and from the additional troop levels from a national draft."

This idea, to force people to fight in a war they did not start, or to give their lives for another person's sake and even worse the ends of their own government is arguably the worst form of absolute slavery in the US.  Those that choose to volunteer are admirable in their selflessness and sacrifice, but our military isn't a 100% voluntary idea. Since the US military is funded by the US Government and the US government is funded by yearly budgets. Those budgets are approved with the knowledge that every dime will be borrowed from the US central bank The Federal Reserve. What most Americans are unaware of is the added interest that is then owed back to the Federal Reserve for loaning that money. Also unaware to most is the fact that the "debt" that is now owed to the bank is then sold to foreign nations by the central bank.

So how then does this debt get paid back? Since the US Government does not produce anything, they rely on the citizens through taxation. Increased Taxation is the second point of this article. The author states, "To my fellow Tea Party Americans who care about debt and who, like me, want these terrorists gone, I ask you to remember the cost of war. According to Harvard University, "The US has already borrowed some $2 trillion to finance the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars and the associated defense build-up -- a major component of the $9 trillion US debt accrued since 2001." The total cost will reach $6 trillion when healthcare costs from both wars are taken into account and the interest from borrowing could reach trillions."  

He adds, " Taxes and military service is what America owes its veterans, future generations, and any terrorist who gets in the way of freedom and democracy. Open up your pocket books, pick up a gun, and say goodbye to your family, because America needs everyone to chip in and protect liberty."

This gives great alarm to me as well as millions who see the costs of wars as unnecessarily burdensome to our generation as well as those that will follow. Anyone who calls himself a Conservative or recognizes the insanity and exploitation of taxation should be completely against any such increase of the great draining of personal wealth for the idea of war. Now some will say that we do not pick these fights and that we, meaning the US as a whole, should be ready to defend our culture and our country at all personal cost. This is the great collectiveness of Nationalism. To assume that one would and should hold all personal sacrifice for a geographical area they were cosmically dropped upon birth assumes that all such persons should be ready to volunteer their lives and fortunes to defend the areas government in whatever troubles they may find themselves. That is a dangerous place to find oneself, a slave upon birth to the nation one was born. Just a teat to be suckled until no longer needed or producing.



But the author gives us a glimpse of his true intention of the article in the comments section.

"Yes, a great deal of it is indeed satire aimed at showing that if Americans in aggregate had to pay for and fight wars themselves, instead of letting the 2.5 million veterans of the recent Iraq and Afghanistan Wars fight for a nation over 300 million, we'd think twice about war. We'd also think twice about fighting a third Iraq War if we had to pay for it appropriately, through a war tax. My article is meant to ask the question, what if the average American had to pay and fight for the constant wars we engage in, and would Americans be as quick to send our troops everywhere and anywhere in the name of security? Also, we still have a VA crisis so what will happen to that when a third Iraq war starts? These are all issues I've presented in the article.The answers I believe can be found in these comments, both liberals and conservatives have their own view of this article, and I thank you and everyone on here who took the time to read my thoughts. "

 Taken at face value this article is full of the worst ideology and the worst policy that can come to my mind. I believe the author sets about this article in the most facetious way, and it worked, I was dismayed at the prospect that this man would push this idea forward with such a large audience. It does not bestow any confidence in the author that he kept his intention to the comments, but gives great caution that those who read his words and took them at face value would hold any such views. I do realize that there are many, many people who do hold these views and that do propagate these ideals, and that is a very prospect as to what may come in a short while.

Note: As of 9/16/14 the author has placed a editors note preceding the article. It seems more than just I were having trouble picking up on hints of satire.  Here is his note.

Dear Reader,

This article is satire. Its goal is to highlight that Americans would never engage in decade-long wars and put war on a credit card if a draft and taxes correlated to military engagements.

I am against a draft and please read my article prior to this one, or after this one, to see where I stand. My writing is also very much against perpetual war and I've had numerous posts on this subject, as illustrated within my bio page.

Also, I'm all for constructive criticism, but please remember that threats of death take place in fascist and totalitarian regimes against writers, so if you claim to be for freedom and democracy, try to simply argue a point through words like normal people.

In addition, one website claimed that my viewpoint is "we're a nation of selfish sloths"and tried to psychoanalyze my motives. I do not feel this way and if I adhered to conspiracy theories, I'd wager that such analysis was meant to create hatred of satire, or create something that isn't presented within my thoughts or this article. I absolutely do not think we'e a slothful nation, I just think we vote on emotional issues like taxes or a draft, or a beheading video, and not on things like the VA crisis still ongoing, or the repercussions of counterinsurgency wars on our veterans and nation, or other relevant issues to our security. Therefore, to conspiracy theorists who enjoy putting words in other people's mouths, please simply disparage my writing, or lack of knowledge, or the fact that my arguments might be flawed, not your cookie cutter view of vast conspiracies that coincidentally coincide with arguments, issues, or satire you disagree with or fail to accurately interpret. My body of work speaks for itself and I am against perpetual wars and if I engage in future satirical articles, please understand that satire works to illustrate the insanity of war and bloodshed, sometimes better than preaching. Sometimes connecting the dots means simply reading another's thoughts without the agenda of correlating them to a grandiose narrative and evaluating their work in aggregate. Don't worry, there aren't any codes or secret agendas in my satirical articles, simply addressing human fallibility and propensity for never-ending wars through an apparently flawed method.

Finally, anyone using this article to foment controversy or the belief that a draft is imminent, or that a conspiracy is taking place, or that their ideology is validated in this writing must remember the thoughts below are satire, and a satirical take on why our country continually engages in never-ending war.

I might write more satire in the near future and will specify within the article that it is indeed a satirical piece. I apologize to anyone I've offended, this was certainly not my intent.

Have a wonderful day,

On Hobbes the Philosopher

Reading the book, The Standard Bookshelf, Great Philosophers by S.E. Frost Jr., I came across the authors view of Hobbes in his Chapter Man and the State 

  pg. 216.
Frost writes,
"The materialist, Thomas Hobbes, based his theory of the state upon the fundamental principle that man has the natural right to do anything which he pleases. The most primitive urge of all men is that of self-preservation. To accomplish this end, man may use any means he deems necessary. In this state of nature man may invade the rights of others with the  result that chaos reigns"

In this assessment of Hobbesian theory, any man can and will violate the very basic rights of another for their own gain and this is to be seen as a natural state of man. In this theory, a man who wishes to obtain land or wealth simply must be stronger than those that he wishes to obtain them from. By that it stands to reason that what Hobbes describes as rights are in fact only permissible actions or objects, since any man can come along and take them away. In a way, we live in that Hobbesian world now.

The next paragraph, "Man is, then, fundamentally a ferocious animal, one who engages in war and pillage, seeking always his own gain. But in such a state no man can be strong enough to preserve himself for long. Each man will destroy the others and he in turn will be destroyed by others."

In this part of the theory all actions are seen to only benefit the one at the expense of all others. The author makes it clear that in the Hobbesian model all men are expendable to the strongest other and in the end it shall be the strongest that survives and thrives until another rises to be stronger still.

He continues, "Thus, to escape from this inevitable end, man creates a society in which he voluntarily gives up his rights in many matters. This is a contract which men make with each other by which they give up certain rights in order to obtain others which they desire. To insure this mutual contract, men transfer power to one ruler or an assembly. After the ruler has been set up and given power, the men must obey."

The creation of "society" is done by the mergence of all interactions and individual actions of all living beings in any geographical area. What the author is trying to establish is Hobbes' inclination to the voting of given power, but then negates that by establishing the subjecting class of individual to obey this ruler. The inherent fault of modern voting is that even those that do not wish for that particular ruler or any rulers at all are subjected to the will of the majority because of some cosmic happenstance of geographical location relative to others. If one objects to those rulers or rulers in the general sense they are vilified and accused of "Utopian Idealism". The author charges that Hobbes was a monarchist, trying to defend the right and rule of the King of England. He made his theory to fit a mold of this belief.

Later in this dissection of Hobbesian theory Frost writes, "Hobbes recognizes, that at times the ruler will be unjust and will wreak hardships upon men. But they have no right to rebel. Hobbes justifies this position by holding that even at their worst, the injustices of a ruler are never so bad as the original state of man before power was given to the ruler."  

This is the mindset of those minarchist, monarchist, communists, socialists and all other forms of rule against individual secession and anarchy. Those that can give up their rights, and in turn the rights of others, for the gain of rule over them and given no form or function to remove these self locked chains are the sort this world is full of at the moment.

This theory is obvious in its practice today in our modern world. Its adherence is cast into all young people through mandatory hours of subjection to state made educational programs. This theory is not one that recognizes the inherent natural rights of man but rather forms them to be basic, aggressive and completely arbitrary to the will of the strongest man around. In nature the theory of " the strongest survive" is given leeway to man's ultimate desire without the least inclination to the fundamental rights of others. It is a theory of "you have right to what you can take and what you can keep, and you have a right to elect those that will take for you, but have no right to reduce or refuse that elected power". Seems pretty counterintuitive to a wholly moral philosophy in my personal opinion.

John Locke, philosopher, had a very different idea of the rights of man. I will detail this authors writings of Locke in a later post.

Follow The Jefferson Papers on Facebook.
Or you can follow me on Twitter.

Remembering Aaron Swartz

Aaron Swartz was an amazing person. Inspiring and influential. His impact on this generation and future ones can and will be seen in the ways information is shared and the type of digital world we leave to posterity. His voice resonated around the world, with his message that all information should be free, the new education of people can take shape. It was through his mind ideas like Reddit, Think Progress, Creative Commons and a host of government accountability websites were brought into existence or improved upon. He was an incredibly intelligent person and will be missed by millions, some without even a knowledge of who he was or the impact he has made.

This is a copy of the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto, though not confirmed to be his lone hand that wrote this, it was signed with his name. It's message is strong, it is needed and it should be heard and carried further.

Guerilla Open Access Manifesto 

Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for 
themselves. The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries 
in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of 
private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the 
sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier. 

There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought 
valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure 
their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But 
even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future. 
Everything up until now will have been lost. 

That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their 
colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them? 
Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to 
children in the Global South? It's outrageous and unacceptable. 

"I agree," many say, "but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they 
make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it's perfectly legal — 
there's nothing we can do to stop them." But there is something we can, something that's 
already being done: we can fight back. 

Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been 
given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world 
is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for 
yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords 
with colleagues, filling download requests for friends. 



Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been 
sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by 
the publishers and sharing them with your friends. 

But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It's called stealing or 
piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a 
ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn't immoral — it's a moral imperative. Only 
those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy. 

Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate 
require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they 
have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who 
can make copies. 

There is no justice in following unjust laws. It's time to come into the light and, in the 
grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public 
culture. 

We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with 
the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need 
to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific 
journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open 
Access. 

With enough of us, around the world, we'll not just send a strong message opposing the 
privatization of knowledge — we'll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us? 

Aaron Swartz 

July 2008, Eremo, Italy

To quote Tim Berners-Lee proclaimed inventor of the world wide web...




"We’ve lost a fighter. We've lost somebody who put huge energy into righting wrongs. There are people around the world who take it on themselves to just try to fix the world but very few of them do it 24/7 like Aaron. Very few of them are as dedicated. So of the people who are fighting for right, and what he was doing up to the end was fighting for right, we have lost one of our own. … We’ve lost a great person. But also, we've lost somebody who needed to be nurtured, who needed to be protected. I didn’t work with Aaron as closely as many people here, but I got the sense that all who have known him realized that he needed to be protected. He needed to be held carefully in our hands. He needed to be nurtured. So nurturers of the world, everyone who tried to make a place safe to work or a home safe to live, anyone who listens to another, looks after another or feeds another, all parents everywhere — we've lost a child. And there’s nothing worse than that."
Aaron was a genius in his own way and a brilliant mind, one that we sorely need. His perseverance in the fight for the uninhibited sharing of information and knowledge was amazing and his passion for doing all he could to release the grips of censorship, especially in academia. His devotion to the idea that ideas and knowledge should not be hidden away in storerooms and servers but instead freely broadcast is a brave goal.  His idea was to change the world and in his own way he did just that. 

There are multiple sites to look at his life, his work, those that knew him and those that benefitted from his work. Wikipedia, being a model of like mind to Aaron's is an excellent starting point.

As I was doing some reading on the life of Aaron and his mission, his message and his influence into todays tech culture I found this, a documentary of his life, as he lived it, with those he shared it with and his brilliance and his untimely death. 

To watch the movie "The Internet's Own Boy" a documentary of Aaron Swartz and his life, his accomplishments and his impact go here... 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/internet-own-boy-story-aaron-swartz/

Discussion on Human Nature

In 1956 C.E. Harris, under Wadsworth Inc, published a book titled Applying Moral Theories. 
I took some notes while reading, they will be in red italicized text.

In this work Harris writes in the chapter The Ethics of Natural Law, " How do we find out what these natural inclinations are? We might first consult psychologists, sociologists, or anthropologists. Some contemporary natural-law theorists use studies from the social sciences to defend their conclusions. However, the natural-law tradition developed before the rise of the social sciences, and a more informal method of observation was used to discover the basic human inclinations. Most natural-law theorists would maintain that these observations are still valid. We can divide the values specified by natural human inclination into two basic groups: (1) biological values, which are strongly linked with our bodies and which we share with other animals, and (2) characteristically human values, which are closely connected with our more specifically human aspects. (We will not call this second group uniquely human values because some of the inclinations that point to these values, such as the tendency to live in societies, are not unique to human beings.) We can summarize the values and the- natural inclinations that point to them as follows:
 1. Biological Values

a.  Life. From the natural inclinations that we and all other animals have to preserve our own existence, we can infer that life is good, that we have an obligation to promote our own health, and that we have the right of self- defense. Negatively, this inclination implies that murder and suicide are wrong.

Who do we owe this obligation to? If our lives are our own then who should we be holden to to determine the value of our own lives? If there is no other will than our own that we must be subjected to, the obligations to promote our own life or health do not exist. If the freedom to do these things exists, obligations to others do not exist on the theory of natural biological values.


b.     Procreation. From the natural inclination that we and all animals have to engage in sexual intercourse and to rear offspring, we can infer that procreation is a value and that we have an obligation to produce and rear children. Negatively, this inclination implies that such practices as sterilization, homosexuality, and artificial contraception are wrong.

The position to say that there is a "natural inclination to engage in sexual intercourse" is to deny the fact that some humans choose not to have children and even more that refuse to have sex, based on social or religious beliefs. Again Harris tries to objectively place value on these actions, when in life these choices would be made from a subjective value by the individuals. What Harris is trying to define is the search for personal satisfaction and pleasure, it may not have anything to do with intercourse or reproduction at all. 

Harris also tries to place an individual moral view on Homosexuality. If under his theory all humans are drawn to seek sexual pleasure he places no definition on from where this pleasure shall come from. 

His point on Sterilization needs to be taken into consideration as well. Some humans are born without the needed faculties to reproduce and other from biological or medicinal reasons are encouraged not to. But if one chooses to believe that sterilization is wrong one must continue to believe that the natural inability to conceive s inherent as well as now made possible by science.


 2. Characteristically Human Values
a.     Knowledge. From the natural tendency we have to know, including the tendency to seek knowledge of God, we can infer that knowledge is a value and that we have an obligation to pursue knowledge of the world and of God. Negatively, this inclination implies that the stifling of intellectual curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge is wrong. It also implies that a lack of religion is wrong.

Again Harris insists that there is some obligation to seek  knowledge and religion.But makes no mention of to who this obligation is to. Since the choosing of religion is made after a conscious thought of what religion is and its subjective value to the individual in their own lives, this would discredit the theory of obligatory religion. And since knowledge is obtained by experience or reactions to situations, if one man were to experience a life much different than another which would you call unknowledgable of what he has not experienced? 

b. Sociability. From the natural tendency we have to form bonds of affection and love with other human beings and to associate with others in societies, we can infer that friendship and love are good and that the state is a natural institution and therefore good. We thus have an obligation to pursue close relationships with other human beings and to submit to the legitimate authority of the state. We can also infer that war can be justified under certain conditions if it is necessary to defend the state. Negatively, this inclination implies that activities that interfere with proper human relationships, such as spreading slander and lies, are wrong. Actions that destroy the power of the state are also wrong, so natural law finds a basis for argument against revolution and treason, except when the state is radically unjust.

This case cannot be made more clear, under the theory set forth in this passage Harris has subjected every human to the will and rule of others. He has offered the natural state of liberty to the rulers and rule makers. Harris tries to make the case that everyone that is not part of "the state" is to be mastered by it. This goes against the idea of personal responsibility, sovereignty, and freedom itself. The Natural state of man does not call for a subservient class led by those who feel the need for power and control. The sociability of man is not concrete, it is not a set parameter or level, each person chooses the levels of sociability they are comfortable with, while some choose no social interaction with others and become hermits and shut ins, this natural social obligation is thrust aside by personal value of interaction with others.

In any state where a man is not allowed to leave on a voluntary basis, the state is unjust. It is tyranny of man to not allow his departure from the state and its control and influence. Harris here tries again to apply his personal view of such acts and situations, ignoring the ability and will of the individual over the mandate of the collective state.

  These natural inclinations are reflections of human nature, and the pursuit of the goods they specify is the way to individual fulfillment. Aquinas himself makes it clear that the list of values, which in most respects follows his account, is incomplete; other natural-law theorists have expanded the list to include such things as play and aesthetic experience. However the list given here has had the greatest historical influence, and we shall assume it is basically complete.

  The more important issue raised by this list is the potential for conflict between the various values. What should we do when our need to defend ourselves requires that we kill someone else?
Defense of life is a primitive drive of survivability, it would be under the natural law theory a subjective value according to the individuals value of his own life over that of another. For some this seems a ridiculous statement, Of course one would want to live, but what then do we say of those that commit suicide, they did not value the life they had and chose to end it by their own means, 

What should we do when sterilization is necessary to prevent a life-threatening pregnancy?
Who is "we"? This imaginary collective, state or society has no bearing on the choices and outcomes of the individual, at least not when one recognizes that each individual is a sovereign being and his alive in them own selves. 

What should be done when contraception seems necessary in order to limit family size so that families can properly educate the children they already have?
This again implies action or will of an outside source or governance takes precedence over the sensibilities and actions of the individual. This places the value of the education of children outside of those to whom they are in the care of or have given birth to.

In each of these examples, one aspect of natural law seems to conflict with another, and the question arises whether these values have a hierarchy on which a decision can be based. The answer to this question brings into focus one of the most important and controversial aspects of natural law—moral absolutism.
While I do  not agree with Mr. Harris on moral absolutism, he is correct that these examples conflict with one another in the basic sense that they exist in a subjective view. 
While Mr. Harris and many other may feel that what he has stated here and what is perceived in the world as right or wrong, there exist others who differ on these points. Whether either be wrong or right on their beliefs remains based on experiences and resolutions made of conscious control.

On Immigration: Legal and Illegal

Immigration seems to be the brightest blip on the map right now, and it seems it is the most popular topic among people. Immigration by itself doesn't seem to be the real issue, at the heart of it is the economics of Immigration. That is what needs to be addressed. Together and separately, the economics aspect, at least for some, can resolve these issues in a mutually beneficial way. This is not to say that other aspects of the issue are not important, the supposed health risks for example cannot be simply eradicated by economics, but addressing the issue at the root helps us to get past the emotional reactions and allows us to clearly define and resolve the issue completely.

Immigration is nothing new. The moving of people from one place to another for various reasons has been a mainstay of human life since the beginning. A chance to increase the quality of life or to advance knowledge or social rank have been the previous reasons for migration of people from homelands. For centuries this was the way cities and towns, and eventually states and countries grew. From the dust of the immigrant workers, nations grew to their current levels. But now it seems, this belief has been replaced with fear, misunderstanding, ignorance, nationalism and hate. Could the solutions to what some call a crisis be found in economics?

While the media portray a rising tide in illegal immigration, statistics shows another story.

According to statistics from Pew Hispanic Research and the Department of Homeland Security the estimates of Unauthorized or "Illegal" immigrants has remained roughly unchanged from the past year but has seen a relative decline since the recession began in 2008. Looking over the graphs provided on that page we can also see that the rise in Immigration happened between 2002 and 2007, adding almost 4 million more immigrants between those years. Fig 1.

While the current fuss is being made during the Obama Presidential administration the real blame should go to the prior administration. Under President George W. Bush an average of 4 million immigrants found their way to the US. But where was the outrage then?

There wasn't one. Why? The economy seemed stronger under Bush due in part due to the Housing Market Bubble that eventually, in late 2007, burst. This false prosperity brought in a higher demand and a need for more workers. Immigrants filled the void of low-skilled workers as native born citizens took over higher skilled positions. In 2007 unauthorized immigrants made up a total of 5.5% of the labor force in the US. And very few minded having these immigrants come here at the time, because a financial strain was not being put onto American workers, and jobs were plentiful and expanding. These points will not be made in the current discussion on Immigration.

The additional production gave way for American and Legal immigrants to take up higher skilled jobs while "illegals" took in the lower skilled jobs. Immigrants play a large part in the unskilled and low skilled workforce, in part to the barrier in language and education or experience. These "illegals" will take lower paying jobs due to these shortcomings, where citizens and legal immigrants will tend to be drawn to higher skilled jobs with higher pay ranges.

After the "They Took Our Jobs" line the next line will be "They took our Government Handouts"

Another issue in the immigration debate is that "illegal" immigrants use government programs more than they put into them through taxation, since most believe illegals are not taxed this would make sense. Next we can look at the claim that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. This claim has been around for years, I even at one time believed it. First the point should be noted that ALL Federal, State, and Local "Welfare Programs" are funded by taxation, it is a redistribution of wealth.

Are they really costing more than they put in?

According to Shikha Dalmia in her 2006 article at Reason Foundation more than 8 million of the then 11 million immigrants actually paid into social security, medicaid and other taxes. But how is that you say...


In 1996 a welfare reform bill was passed. In this bill were "restrictions on benefits for noncitizens accounted for 44% of this total, and food stamp revisions for 43%. The 105th Congress rescinded and modified some 1996 budget cuts, restoring SSI, Medicaid and food stamp benefits to many aliens at an estimated 5-year cost of $12.3 billion. Further, Congress in 1997 created Welfare-to-Work (WtW) grants ($2.7 billion in estimated outlays for 2 years) to help states move severely disadvantaged TANF recipients into jobs, and it boosted funding for food stamp employment and training."

Another thing that happened is a bill that allowed the IRS to issue identification numbers for those illegal aliens that did not have social security numbers. This reform does two things, it allows those aliens to pay into the system to be in accordance to what citizens do in a hope it is seen as favorable if and when they file for legal statuses. Number two, it adds those tax monies into a system that because they do not have an official Social Security number, they cannot benefit from. This adds millions of dollars into the federal coffers. Damlia writing, "Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers — that the Social Security administration stashes in the "earnings suspense file" — added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus. The file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year.

Her statement is pointing to the 2005 numbers. 

This data points to the fact that overall immigrants are not a drain on any programs but actually contribute. Add to this that even illegal immigrants pay sales taxes, adding millions more to their local community coffers. Roads, Schools and other services in and around their homes are partially contributed to through this tax. More info on taxes paid by illegal immigrants click here.

So how can we solve the Issue through Economics?

Can we simply abolish the Welfare State?

In order to tackle this we have to look at the statistics of those receiving this assistance and address it properly. Many have been saying for decades that the welfare state needs to be completely dissolved and regulations restricting voluntary aid programs given their chance to return. Prior to the 1930's the welfare state did not exist, it was before this that private organizations were the main source for any form of welfare or aid. Donations given by Individuals and Businesses alike kept Americans fed and housed on a larger scale than today. So where did this go? After government aid programs began the amount of funds used in voluntary donations were extracted by taxation and those who gave some were able to give less. This caused the great plethora of charities, to be replaced by bureaus and departments, each getting larger and larger, taking more and more to run their offices, less and less aid actually made it to those that needed it.

Where does that lead us to today?

Spending on largest Welfare Programs Federal Spending 2003-2013*[33]
Federal Programs	Spending 2003*	Spending 2013*
Medicaid Grants to States	$201,389	$266,565
Food Stamps (SNAP)	61,717	82,603
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)	40,027	55,123
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)	38,315	50,544
Housing assistance	37,205	49,739
Child Nutrition Program (CHIP)	13,558	20,842
Support Payments to States, TANF	28,980	20,842
Feeding Programs (WIC & CSFP)	5,695	6,671
Low Income Home Energy Assistance	2,542	3,704
Notes: * Spending in millions of dollars

Would abolishing the Welfare State actually have any effect on the economic issue of Immigration? It could, in a way, rid the system of an incentive to the minority that use the system without contributing. Taking away that incentive could cause many to rethink the opportunity costs of coming in illegally.

Benjamin W. Powell writes "Before, immigrants assimilated into a culture of hard work and self-reliance. Those who failed here often had to go home. Few go home today because of failure today. Instead, they are taught to assimilate into a system of government reliance where failure and laziness are not punished. The post-1965 immigration wave is the first that has come once we had a welfare state in place. Unfortunately, that welfare state not only makes them less productive, it also teaches them to undermine our old culture that made America successful."

Since there would be no guaranteed way for them to live off of the state, many may just decide to go the legal route or choose another place to move to.

Getting the Government out of businesses and allowing the markets to work properly could be the greatest and most needed change in policies. Deregulation, Getting rid of barriers to work, Abolishing minimum wage laws, stop with the corporate welfare programs, price controls, sending false signals and creating bubbles and busts in markets would easily give everyone, Immigrant or Natural Citizen, a better chance at building wealth and prosperity. Add along with this the ability for all people to keep 100% of their earned wages and abolish taxation, all taxation. Leading us into a voluntary state, a way for the preferences, wants and needs of everyone to be met by competitive businesses and entrepreneurs.

Speaking of legal immigration, one way to reduce the amount of illegal migrations is to make the legalization process easier to navigate and less costly. Those persons not willing to wait months on end and pay in thousands of dollars usually opt for the illegal route knowing the risk of deportation is lower than shelling out money and time. Reducing the time it takes to get through the legalization system and the amount of money put into legalization could drastically reduce the amount of people who enter illegally. 

The real issue of the Illegal Immigration debate isn't at all about the moving of people into a certain geographical area, but rather the implications and effects those people have in current models of operation. Looking at the issue form a reasonable economic standpoint can lead to real sustainable answer rather than the tug of war political party lines being offered now. Turning America into a thriving economy can give incentive to those wishing to better themselves, their families and their new homes as well.

Here is another post I wrote dealing with Borders and US Marine Tahmoorsi being held in a Mexican Jail.

More reading on this issue.
http://www.cato.org/policy-report/septemberoctober-2013/tear-down-wall-immigration-versus-welfare

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/immigration-friend-or-foe

http://www.fee.org/files/docLib/547_24.pdf


Follow me on Twitter @PatriotPapers
Find me on Liberty.Me @BeardedLibertyGuy
And remember to like the FaceBook page HERE

Independence Day has become In Dependence Day

Another favorite Nationalist holiday is here. Independence Day or the day America officially broke away from the hold of England and its King. This day is one of the most celebrated inaccuracies in American History. To be sure, this day will continue as long as the lie of American Government remains in the place of power over people, and so long as people allow Government the power over them. Those that formed this new form of sluttish slavery in disguise of freedom, and those that seek to reinstate the old ways of republics and democracies have no more authority to write, sign, and decide the futures of people other than themselves.


The present state of affairs is not much different than it was in 1776, and as the Declaration of Independence was drafted and approved by those wishing to form a new government, a new form of subservience, it is now that we, in our time, must thrust the chains of servitude from our backs and necks, we must secede from the tyranny of Government. Though much smaller and contained to what we are under now, the King of England and his henchmen reminded the citizens of the 13 original colonies of their servitude to the crown and its dictates, decrees, laws and taxation. And today the American King is in the despotic attitude of the Kings before him.

  

The many counts against the King set forth in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 can be seen today, not just in the sitting president but in all aspects of American Politics. The same acts that led to the separation of ties between England and the Colonies are in full view and full practice as it was then. Trade restrictions, overreach and subverting laws, holding large militaries and protecting them from prosecution of actions deemed criminal to the citizen populace.

To set ourselves differently from our predecessors we do not enact to bring new government from the old, we do not hold that any government would in fact be a good or moral government; we do not believe that a small government would remain small and their powers concentrated. From the past we work for the future; that future is freedom and no amount of government can give you or even allow you unconstrained and absolute freedom. 

Americans are dependent on their belief in government. They are unable to see the ways which every action of government can be accomplished in peaceful and voluntary ways. They are dependent on a system of theft and redistribution. They are dependent on a system of forced security and compulsory welfare. They are dependent on the destruction of foreign lands and the brutality and empire spreading. They are dependent on regulations and restrictions, licencing and fees. They are dependent on drugs while criminalizing the very nature that they come from. They are dependent on the new form of government they have allowed to run rampant over them. They are dependent on Corporatism and blame the effects on Capitalism. They are dependent on the altar of Government, sacrifices to Government, and unrelenting subservience to Government. 

You are NOT free.

They are slaves to their own Ignorance, their own Apathy, and their own Complacency. They are subjects to their own Confliction in Ideology; a slave to their own Indifference, Statism, Nationalism, and Sensationalism.

They are more interested in the latest Celebrity Wedding, or Sports Star Baby, Dancing with the Stars, and Tabloid gossip. They let the media dictate what they think; the church what they believe; the corporations what they buy and what they eat.

Allowing their own self to be bound to the edicts of central planners and a superiority complex has shackled them in chains far greater than they realize. They have locked the chains on every generation to come after them and have denounced their right to prosperity and the exercise of their natural rights.

You are a slave to the belief that you are free.

“When in the course of Human events, it becomes necessary for one person to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which Laws of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation”

Your Declaration of True Independence is yet to be written.


Follow me on Twitter @PatriotPapers
Find me at Liberty.me @BeardedLibertyGuy

What Can They Do To Make You Say "No More"?

What would your government have to do to make you fight back? What would they have to do that caused the population to dissent? What act would one agency have to commit for you to stand up and say “NO, I am not taking this anymore!” Not merely voting to change what is being done but to completely abolish those doing it. Question yourself this.

Distrust in the government is nothing new. It is not a new era thing or even something only the younger generations are starting; in fact dissent to control has been taking place since men formed any sort of governance over others. This dissent has seen every age and every reason. It has lived throughout centuries and all over the globe. It fueled The American Revolution and The Civil War. Dissent can be seen as different actions. Maybe it is just the questioning of government, seeking accountability, exposure of immoral acts perpetrated against innocents. It could be the actual physical actions against the state. Either aggressing against the state or not recognizing the State's self-appropriated power. It could be the act of non-compliance, agorism, or removing one’s self from the situations and going “off the grid”.

But the question is What Would Make Someone to Do This? What could be the final straw for YOU that absolutely break any sincere reverence for the state or its offices and officials? For most this isn't even a question they would attempt to answer. For most, the blind allegiance has been ingrained since birth that compliance is fate and resistance is futile. The “Statists” as they are called, see themselves as the masters of the government power and those officials as employees and representatives to their will. This is clearly not the case in American Politics, but let’s let them keep their fantasy. They seek power over others and to form a moral civilization by force, those morals being their own. In their belief of these powers and representation it may be easier for them to answer “Nothing” to this question at first. But could there be something suppressed in them that would cause them to answer? Could there be a line that cannot be crossed? Can there be that unforgivable event that occurs and is the catalyst to a real level of dissent?

Ask yourself these questions.

Is there anything that the TSA could do to me that would make me say “I am not going to let this continue”?

Is there any amount of spying that the NSA can do to me that I will reject their ability and power to do so? 

How much does the IRS have to take before you say it is too much? How much of a slave are you willing to be?

Is there any place that in the world that the military could start a war that would incense me enough to demand them to cease? Is there any amount of people they could target  that would raise a question in your mind about the morality of what they do?

Is there any amount of regulation or mandates that I am uncomfortable enough with that I will resist or simply not comply? 

When is Enough Enough?

This is a question that everyone should try and answer. Everyone should at least attempt to come up with their last straw, their red line in the sand, their own final event.

Why is this so important a question?

The level of intervention into the personal and business lives of all people is of concern to me. It is not a question of how much, but that there is any interjection of government mandates, regulations, restrictions, licensure, theft, murder, coercion and incarceration in the private affairs of citizens. This question gives your self the very definition of what you are willing to put up with, what you will subscribe to, what you will allow to happen, before you finally realize the intrusion into your freedom, the violation of your natural liberty.

So now I leave it to you to answer this for yourself. These answers will be different for everyone.

Is there anything that would make you resist the control of the state?

Is there anything they can do to you that you would fight back?

Is there anything that any department can do to you that you will say “NO”?

Follow me on Twitter @PatriotPapers

Find me on Liberty.me @TheBeardedLibertyGuy

Like the Jefferson Papers Facebook Page

Do Philosophies Change Because of Children?

Yesterday my wife and I were at the gym, when a woman interjected herself into our conversation. The conversation we were having ,before this interruption, was on a small bit of success I had that day talking to a co-worker. This woman, who unbeknownst to us had been listening in, asked us if we have any children. We responded with a no, and she told us that our thinking would change if we had kids and it is nice to be idealistic. This caused me to just turn and silently laugh to myself. I honestly do not know where people come up with some of this stuff, but OK, let's address this real quick.

My wife and I do not have kids based on choices we have made to be financially secure enough to not have to struggle if and when we do have children. Our goal is to have a single income home with my wife homeschooling our kids, as it is right now, with debt we had put ourselves into and other very visible issues with the World and US economy it is not feasible at this particular time, that is a decision we live with daily, as both of have a goal to have children.

What this woman had assumed is that with having children our ideology or philosophy would change. That may be true in some cases, but she failed to realize or even acknowledge that she had not the faintest idea of what our philosophy is or what our beliefs are. To understand that what we advocate is freedom for every person and the economic conditions to prosper for everyone, free of state or government control, to rid the world of any semblance of servitude or slavery of any kind. I am not sure how this would change having a child.

This is not the first time I have heard this being said. It is quite a popular expression to tell others that their ideals, their morals, and their values change with the addition of parental roles. I have never understood this concept.

I believe theft is wrong, would this somehow become moral if a child was involved? Taking someone's life is also wrong in my eyes, would this somehow be altered if I had considered the effect it would have on my child. I am not sure what people who use this saying are trying to express or even what they believe how a moral standing, a philosophy would change with having a child.

I did not respond to this woman's claim, though looking back I should have. I could have asked these questions to her, maybe to find she doesn't actually believe in what she just said, or maybe to find her justify what she said with fallacies or even popular myths and excuses.

What needs to be said is this. By changing the dynamics and structure of family units a real philosophical and moral standing should not change but become ever stronger. It should be passed on and expressed to the heirs and inheritors to the spaces we inhabit and the world we leave behind. It should be lived, experienced and taught to those we bring into this world, with no exceptions or justifications for going against these beliefs.

To this woman I say this. Your unfounded accusation and assumption that a belief would change as the family unit count increases was completely unwanted and unwarranted. What you said may be the case with some people, but in those cases I would say that the beliefs or morals of those people were not solid, they were not the philosophical foundation  that these people try to live their lives around and they were not the values that were likely to be taught and carried on to later generations.

Brutalism As A Trend

As many in the Libertarian circles and liberty movement general groups are aware there is a stir growing around an article by Jeffrey Tucker. His article, "Against Libertarian Brutalism",Tucker tried to explain the thought of what he calls the brutalist, or  for me better labeled the coarse libertarian. These coarse and abrasive libertarians, explains Tucker, are drawn to the ability "to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means, to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions, to be openly racist and sexist, to exclude and isolate and be generally malcontent with modernity, and to reject civil standards of values and etiquette in favor of antisocial norms."  As I read the article I had my ideas of who this could be directed at or who at least fit the description and the various reasons why I could see a quick and unrelenting response from the person. Sure enough, within an hour of reading the article there was a response, and from none other than who I felt the original post defined well.

While I do not agree with the severing of the small group of libertarians, I can see where Tucker was coming from. The language and demeanor of the now self gratifying and self identifying Brutalists is something I had noticed before, but shrugged it off as just a way for someone to express themselves.Though it is not the way I would do things or even a way I see as beneficial to advancing the case of liberty.  Even if I don't agree with the ways in which someone wishes to be, I have no power to stop them from doing as they see fit.

Jeffrey Tucker compared this nature of people to an architectural style used from the 1950's through the 1970's. "Brutalism asserted that a building should be no more and no less than what it is supposed to be in order to fulfill its function. It asserted the right to be ugly, which is precisely why the style was most popular among governments around the world, and why brutalist forms are today seen as eyesores all over the world."  What Tucker says here is important, and mostly missed by the responses I have read into since its publication. It is seen that the right to be crude or abrasive is inherent in the rights of all men, but it does not do well in the stand of time, what is seen today as form or function will later be seen as an eyesore or impediment to the advancement to an idea. An idea of individual freedom should not hinge on a case to be offensive just for the sake of being offensive and then to justify the behavior by stating you have the freedom to do so. Of course the freedom to say and do things is a natural right of all people, and of course the right to be offended is in there too. One note that I did take from a lot of the responses to this article is the assumption that Tucker would want to somehow limit or restrict the ability to being a brutalist, I could not find one mention of this idea in any of words he has written on the subject. He even says in his article,"Thus do the brutalists assert the right to be racist, the right to be a misogynist, the right to hate Jews or foreigners, the right to ignore civil standards of social engagement, the right to be uncivilized, to be rude and crude. It is all permissible and even meritorious because embracing what is awful can constitute a kind of test. After all, what is liberty if not the right to be a boor?" Yes you do have a right to be the way you are and are even encouraged to be this way; for what is freedom but the inner most expressions of oneself to the world without the restrictions or regulations of outside forces?

In order to build a city many styles will be used; some used out of necessity, some out of function, some even for subjective beauty. This is an important idea in the building of any city, while what may seem as an eyesore in the later years, or in the present seen as a style without style, so to speak, still contributes the basis for the idea of that city, it performs a function of being a vessel inside whatever environment it inhabits. The houses and building in any city vary from one another and each has its own value attached by those in and around those structures. Just as in the Humanitarian Vs. Brutalist argument, these two styles will naturally draw and dispel certain people to its respective ranks. As time goes on we will see the effects of what we do and say to other in the progression of this idea of Liberty we all hold dear.

In all the conversations about this topic there is a clear dividing line, and this is the worst of what is happening in my opinion. Instead of being able to work together for the common goal there has come this divide in sections of the same general groups. Mending this gap, I don't think is possible at this time. But we hold hope that together we can move past the smallest details and work for that common end. Individual Liberty.

A friend of mine on Facebook stated it wonderfully.
Say you are to buy a car. Would you want the sales person to come at you with an attitude, to belittle and offend you? Or would you be more receptive to the offers given if the salesperson has a pleasant attitude and disposition? For me this signifies the greatest belief in the good of people and the good that people can bestow upon others. Just because you have the freedom to be brutal doesn't mean you have to be. Selling the idea of liberty and freedom does far more for those that see it in the most positive ways and can again present it in a most positive way.

I hold no discontent or judgement against those that view themselves as the Brutalists, and I hold no higher esteem or reverence for those who identify as the Humanitarians. I see everyone as the individual they are and the many different things they bring into my life and the surrounding environments we both enjoy.