The Essential Rules Of Liberty

[dysbtwn]

The Essential Rules Of Liberty

By Brandon Smith

https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28519.htm

July 08, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- There is nothing worse in this world than an enslaved man who naively believes himself free, except, perhaps, trying to explain to that same man his predicament. You can lay truth after truth before his feet. You can qualify your every position with cold hard irrefutable data. You can plead and scream and raise veritable hell, but before he will ever listen, he must first become aware of his own dire circumstances. As long as he views himself as “safe and secure”, as long as he imagines his chains to be wings, he will see no reason to question the validity of the world around him, and he will certainly never invest himself into changing his own deluded destiny.



Unfortunately, there are many such men crawling and scraping about here in what was once a land graced with a self sufficient and independently minded public majority. The great lie that has been perpetuated in this country over the past several decades is that we can defer our responsibilities of vigilance and place our well being and our futures into the hands of others for the sake of “collective efficiency”, or leisure. We have been conditioned to live in a state of constant indifference, a society which prizes compromise over principle and steadfast resolve. Those who refuse to compromise that which is honorable for the sake of ease and comfort are indicted as “extremist” or even criminal. The idea of personal revolution is treated with discomfort, and all we claim to stand for becomes muddled in a fog of inaction and cynicism. As Americans, we have forgotten what it means to earn and protect our own freedoms. We have forgotten that in liberty, there are standards that must be defended.


This, however, does not mean we cannot yet again remember ourselves. The desire for freedom is as inborn and natural as our own heartbeat, as our own breath. It is instinct. It cannot be erased from within, only oppressed from without. The tide has always been against tyranny, always, though we may find that hard to believe. If liberty was not ingrained into our very DNA, humanity would have succumbed to bondage and self destructed long ago. This is not the case. Stretching under the surface of our superficial force-fed mainstream culture are the roots of something real, and honest. Simmering beneath our so called “civilized” veneer, many Americans are finally rediscovering their wild and defiant origins. In the recent past we have been taught to feel ashamed of our rebelliousness. Now, we are learning to hold it quite dear.


For those of us who are awake, and for those who are on the verge of understanding, certain rules come into play that strengthen our stance and shield us from folly. Liberty is not a self perpetuating social condition. It requires guidelines, and effort, and sacrifice. Liberty will not survive without our willingness to maintain it. If you are not ready and willing to fight for your own independence, then you are not truly free.


Let’s examine some of the inherent laws and guidelines of free will and free action that will allow us to not only win back our self determination, but to keep it for generations to come. You want liberty? This is what it takes…


Rule #1: Never Take Anything For Granted
A lot of people today seem to have serious issues with expectation and assumption; what we in the alternative media often refer to as “normalcy bias”. We have grown used to the idea of abundance and relative safety. So much so, that we fail to notice when our abundance and safety begin to disappear. We assume that the condition of the world today will be the condition of the world tomorrow, and for all time. In the U.S., we have even come to expect not only that our prosperity and our freedom are inevitable, but that they will also increase exponentially with each passing generation. This is a relatively new and narrow cultural mindset likely caused by the explosion in industrial growth after WWII which seemed to erase all memory of the Great Depression in our society, leaving us with the belief that surely, our circumstances would never become so desperate again.
Those who are truly independent realize that nations, no matter how affluent, can self destruct at a moment’s notice, especially when they fail to recognize their own weaknesses and confront their own demons. Never suppose that that which is good and just will remain without your own initiative. Never wait for others to fix those problems which you could just as easily solve yourself. Never expect that freedoms won cannot also be easily lost. Always prepare for the worst outcome, and strive for the best outcome.


Rule #2: Educate Yourself
Never become a useful idiot, or a waste of oxygen. Being a part of the herd is nothing to be proud of. Strive for knowledge, and thirst for the truth every moment of every day. Many of the things we deem “important” in modern society are in the grand scheme hollow attempts to fill our lives with distraction, only wasting time until we finally bite the dust filled with regret. Pretending to further the depth of one’s life is not the same as actually doing so. I can’t think of anything more horrifying than becoming a man who rushes around frantically every waking moment, but ultimately accomplishes nothing.
Do not assume that you already have a tangible grasp of the truth, especially if all your knowledge has been handed to you. Instead, research that knowledge for yourself. Put that which you have been taught to the test. Only in this way will you finally learn. Expand your horizons. Learn something useful. Remove unnecessary distractions for at least part of your day and focus on increasing your awareness of the environment you live in. There are very few things in this world more important than this, and self education should take precedence over everything else except your family. “Lack of time” is no excuse for ignorance. Make time! The ignorant are led. The knowledgeable lead themselves.


Rule #3: Don’t Be A Pansy
Liberty is not for the faint of heart. Emotional courage is paramount to freedom, and it can be expressed to incredible effect by even the most unlikely heroes. I’ve seen children with more courage and tenacity than some full grown men.
If one recognizes the gravity of the situation we face as a people, if one understands the considerable danger involved in the fall of a Republic to the depths of fear and autocracy, but still does nothing, that person has not only failed the world, he has also failed himself. “Making waves”, or drawing the ire of “authority”, is the least of our worries. If you have utilized an objective eye, and know you are right in your position, then there is no reason to fear criticism from anyone.



Sociopolitical action, nonconformity, noncompliance, and self defense, are unavoidable aspects of a society that wishes to maintain its freedoms. There is no way around it. If you are not willing to stick your neck out and expose yourself to risk, you remove all chance of possible gain. If you are a self proclaimed activist that refuses to sacrifice, that refuses to struggle, then you have failed before you even began. Talk must lead to balanced action. Never thumb your nose at the devil without being ready to trade punches as well, or all is lost.


Rule #4: Stop Waiting For Others To Tell You What To Do
Independent people not only consider and implement the solutions of others, they also work on their own. Complaints abound lately in the Liberty Movement;
“When is someone going to do something!? What are YOU going to do about our predicament!?”
This is the question of a slave, not a free man. A free man asks, “What am I going to do about this predicament? What is MY solution to the problem?” Therein is the key to liberty; decentralized leadership and movements based on fluidity and spontaneity of action, instead of a great mass of people standing around stiffly waiting for orders on high, or a self styled messiah to engineer their world view. As soon as you place your very initiative under the control of others, you have lost the fight. Always consider the solid strategies of intelligent people, and adopt them if they are useful, but do not remain idle because you are too frightened to exert the effort to solve problems bigger than yourself. Spectators only witness history, they do not make history.



Rule #5: Cast Off What Is Unnecessary, Keep What Is Effective
Yes, I stole this rule from Bruce Lee, but it is just as applicable to social movements and economic stability as it is to the martial arts. Invasive debt creation, for instance, is a tool for subversion, and no people forced to bear the burden of liabilities they can never repay is free. Therefore, exorbitant debt must be avoided, or cast off completely.
In our personal lives, how many useless goods do we accumulate on a daily basis, instead of useful items that we may one day desperately need? How much of our life is spent accumulating garbage in order to keep up with “socially acceptable” levels of consumer behavior? How many of us cling to careers we hate in order to service our needless consumption? The ability to prioritize must become a virtue once again, and, we all need to shut off the cable television…
This rule also applies to governments. If a government no longer fulfills its sworn duties to the people, and no longer serves the purposes to which it was originally intended, then it too must be cast off and replaced with one that does serve the people, or, it must be forced to return to its inherent foundations. Today, this kind of talk is often referred to as “extremism”, or insurgency, no matter how correct it might be, which brings us to our next rule…


Rule #6: Ignore Establishment Labels
Tactical name calling is only effective if we actually care what other people think of us. Labels like “homegrown terrorist”, “extremist”, “doomer”, or “conspiracy theorist”, are designed to shame people into self censorship. That is to say, they pigeonhole movements and their participants into categories of public shame, causing said movements to fear social reprisal. They are also meant to forcefully assign “outsider” or “fringe” status to particular political positions in order to marginalize and weaken the resolve of those who hold them. Never mind that almost every powerful and honorable cultural movement in history once started out as “fringe”.



Early in our lives, we are taught that it is far better to be accepted, and to avoid standing out, even at the expense of our individualism. Unfortunately, many adults never outgrow this childish belief, and thus become vulnerable to tactics as absurd as simple ridicule. At bottom, being slandered by a thieving bureaucracy infested with soulless parasites bent on centralization at the expense of innocent human life is a bit laughable (this goes for you too, SPLC). Globalists, along with their media cronies and their think-tank sock puppets, will say ANYTHING to get what they want. Empty words and false labels cannot stop the truth, or a movement driven by the truth.



Rule #7: Cynicism Is The Path To Defeat
It is good to be critical, but not to the point of nihilism. America’s past is riddled with mistakes, bad judgments, horrible crimes, and downright stupidity; that doesn’t mean that the principles on which this country was founded are any less vital. We hear often from cynics that humanity has become too stupid and complacent to do what is right. However, stupidity and complacency are not inherent qualities. That’s an elitist fantasy with no basis in fact. Stupidity and complacency are learned behaviors, and they can be unlearned. What IS inherent is our ability to choose what path we will take. For adherents of liberty, we need only remind people that they have this choice. We can whine and cry all day long about how nobody pays attention and how there is no hope, or, we can exhaust all options before throwing in the proverbial towel. We don’t need to “like” society the way it is, but we do need to recognize the underlying potential of all people to become something much more than what they currently are (I can’t stand blind ignorance either, but I’m certainly not ready to accept it as a fact of American life). Remember, no fight is over until it is over.



Rule #8: True Authority Is Derived From Respect That Is Earned, Not Bought, Or Taken
A corrupt politician is just a criminal conman in a nice suit. A law enforcement officer who refuses to follow Constitutional Law is just a petty little tyrant in a black uniform. An economist who knowingly skews data to fit his own political bias or to serve the political biases of men above him is just a liar or an inept buffoon with an embossed piece of paper from an expensive university. A lab scientist or doctor who flubs experimentation to support the interests of the corporate world rather than the needs of the public is just a quack in a white coat. All too often, though, we find ourselves taking these cretins seriously all because they talk the talk and wear the costume. They are just people, and if they cannot do their jobs honestly, then they are useless people, who deserve our disdain, not our respect. We should never allow such men to wield positions of authority over us.


Rule #9: Take It Personally
When someone tries to steal from you, hurt you, or enslave you, unless you are some kind of nut, you take it pretty personally, right? Why should it be any different when a government commits the same grievances? Americans should be furious over the destruction of their economy, their currency, their infrastructure, and their Constitutional freedoms! They should be enraged over the endless wars overseas that are bankrupting the nation. They should be bellowing to the rooftops over the cooption of their political system by a slimy brood of corporate bankers. Is this “extremist” behavior? Who cares!? If your anger is not visible then it is not worth a damn. Don’t just get active, get emotional! This is about your life, and the lives of those you love. That’s not to say that we should take out our frustrations randomly and haphazardly, but if we can’t at least make known our anger over the misdeeds of government, then what the hell is the point of calling ourselves free?



Rule #10: You Are The First And Last Line Of Defense
Like it our not, this is our job. We have inherited a country on the verge of disaster, and we are tasked with cleaning it up, otherwise, there will be little left to pass on. We do not get to bask in illusory prosperity for the rest of our days. We do not get to feed off the entitlement program trough until we are fat and contented. We are not going to retain our rights without blood, sweat, and tears. We will not be building magical floating cities in the clouds or skyscrapers on Mars. We will NOT be remembered fondly as members of some fantastical “golden era”.



We have been thrust into the muck and the mire. We are being molded as the lost children of an age better forgotten. We have been slapped in the face with a dilemma so volatile and so incredible it may one day be called the greatest crisis of all time. We have drawn the short straw.


This could be viewed as some terrible doom. It could be held as a star crossed act of ferocious fate. We could fall to our knees and lament with despair, overcome with woe at our unbearable lot. But, this would be in violation of rule #3, and nobody wants to be a sobbing pansy. On the contrary, every “bad luck generation” is only so if they refuse to see the great fortune at their fingertips; if they refuse to seize the moment and conquer the giants of their day. The greater the hardship, the greater the enemy, the greater the heroes. We are faced with possibly the most unrelenting antagonists and the most treacherous obstacles in recent memory, or even distant memory. In the same spark of confrontation, we are also presented with unparalleled opportunity to change the course of the world forever. Whether or not we succeed, is entirely up to us.



You can contact Brandon Smith at: [email protected]

[Speak2Truth]

I found this to be a wonderfully clear explanation of liberty and Natural Rights.

Natural Wrongs, Natural Rights - By Victor Sayre
https://usobserver.com/archive/july-...gs-rights.html

[zenekar]

I found this to be a wonderfully clear explanation of liberty and Natural Rights.

Natural Wrongs, Natural Rights - By Victor Sayre
https://usobserver.com/archive/july-...gs-rights.html

Excuse me, sir, but I can't take seriously a website that lists among its International/National news media links, Fox News, which is widely known to be a right-wing propaganda and misinformation source. Also on your recommended site under the title, Conservative Commentary, there is a list of right-wing racist ideologues like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. There is not a list for "liberal intellectual" (as you self-identify) referenced on the site. This website is as "fair and balanced" as Rupert Murdoch and his Fox News.

And you accept this site to give you "a wonderfully clear explanation of liberty and Natural Rights." Thank you for finally being blatantly honest about your source of inspiration.

[Dixon]

Excuse me, sir, but I can't take seriously a website that lists among its International/National news media links, Fox News...

S2T, are you unaware that, just a few years ago, Fox News went to court to defend its presumed right to broadcast things it knows to be untrue as "news"--and won on appeal? Just google ""fox news" "right to lie"" and you'll get plenty of references to the ugly story. So when you soak your brain in the Fox "News" cesspool, understand that you're getting your info from a corporation that spent many thousands of dollars defending its right to lie to you and call it news. "Fair and Balanced"--that's downright Orwellian!

[Speak2Truth]

Excuse me, sir, but I can't take seriously a website that lists among its International/National news media links, Fox News, which is widely known to be a right-wing propaganda and misinformation source. Also on your recommended site under the title, Conservative Commentary, there is a list of right-wing racist ideologues like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. There is not a list for "liberal intellectual" (as you self-identify) referenced on the site. This website is as "fair and balanced" as Rupert Murdoch and his Fox News.

And you accept this site to give you "a wonderfully clear explanation of liberty and Natural Rights." Thank you for finally being blatantly honest about your source of inspiration.

WHOA people!

You took one look at the site and experienced a knee-jerk hate reaction? I may not be interested in some of the material on that site but, jeeze, I won't let that stop me from reading a particular article that may have some merit.

DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE to weigh its merits?

This must be the difference between us liberal intellectuals and the ideologues. We explore and weigh ideas on their merits. The worst part about this is that I linked you directly to the article because I actually knew some of you would have that reaction and I wanted to spare you the horror, the indescribable emotional wretchedness, of seeing other material linked on the site from the folks you love to hate.

I DARE YOU to actually read the article and make some rational attempt to evaluate what it is saying.

Take off the blinders, please.

[zenekar]

WHOA people!

You took one look at the site and experienced a knee-jerk hate reaction? I may not be interested in some of the material on that site but, jeeze, I won't let that stop me from reading a particular article that may have some merit.

DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE to weigh its merits?

This must be the difference between us liberal intellectuals and the ideologues. We explore and weigh ideas on their merits. The worst part about this is that I linked you directly to the article because I actually knew some of you would have that reaction and I wanted to spare you the horror, the indescribable emotional wretchedness, of seeing other material linked on the site from the folks you love to hate.

I DARE YOU to actually read the article and make some rational attempt to evaluate what it is saying.

Take off the blinders, please.

No blinders here, Mr. Speak2Truth/Vic Man or whatever your real identity is (maybe Victor Sayre, since you spout the identical claim to "truth"). I looked at the site and noted the right-wing agenda -- which is displayed throughout the site. I didn't feel an emotion of "hate" as you assume, and I wasn't surprised by the content. You and Sayre both appear to be stuck in a "Cold War" time warp.

I did read Sayre's skewed declaration but I won't play "dare" games with you. I will agree with the first sentence under Natural Wrongs: "In general, the natural wrongs against you might be called Violence, Bullying and Stealing." But the rest of this declaration is to justify government bashing. I wonder if you and your alter ego would accept a true democracy of, by and for the people. What we have now is government co-opted by corporate profit motive.

Neither you nor Sayre mention how the Bible was used to conquer peoples and colonize their lands and resources using violence, bullying and stealing. Neither mentions the violence, bullying and stealing by Wall Street and the corporate looters that buy politicians who are indebted to them and send young people to kill and die in order to secure power over resources and profits for corporations.

Since you claim to be on a quest for truth, here is another recommended read: Thy Will Be Done - The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil.

Adios.

[Speak2Truth]

So, you agree with the premise but hate the fact the article did not mention specific cases of wrongs against us. Well, the author apparently was not trying to create a list but was focusing on the core principles by which we can identify Natural Wrongs. You seem, then, to be in agreement with the article. So am I.

I wonder if you and your alter ego would accept a true democracy of, by and for the people.

Absolutely not. Once the people learn they can outnumber others and vote themselves largesse at others' expense, it all goes to hell.

I only accept a government that restrains the majority from doing wrong to even one single person. Only a restraint on the power of the majority or minority can preserve us against Natural Wrongs. Natural Rights are absolute, no matter how many people want to trample them.

[zenekar]

So, you agree with the premise but hate the fact the article did not mention specific cases of wrongs against us. Well, the author apparently was not trying to create a list but was focusing on the core principles by which we can identify Natural Wrongs. You seem, then, to be in agreement with the article. So am I.


Absolutely not. Once the people learn they can outnumber others and vote themselves largesse at others' expense, it all goes to hell.

I only accept a government that restrains the majority from doing wrong to even one single person. Only a restraint on the power of the majority or minority can preserve us against Natural Wrongs. Natural Rights are absolute, no matter how many people want to trample them.

The above is your reply to my inquiry: I wonder if you and your alter ego would accept a true democracy of, by and for the people.

My question in reply: What type of government do you propose that will "restrain the majority?" Fascism based on "Christian" fundamentalism?

Don't jump to conclusions about what I agree with, esp. with what you consider to be "Natural Wrongs" and "Natural Rights."

[Speak2Truth]

MY FIRST POLITICAL POST FOR AUGUST 02, 2011:

My question in reply: What type of government do you propose that will "restrain the majority?" Fascism based on "Christian" fundamentalism?

It seems to me the type of government created for the United States by those Christian Fundamentalists is the one most likely to not only restrain the majority from wronging the minority, but also to ensure the most liberty by every individual from Natural Wrongs.

Wrongs are most commonly inflicted by Government, especially seizing the hard-earned product of one's labor to be redistributed to whomever the folks in power favor. That is one of the greatest wrongs, essentially enslaving one portion of the population to enrich another. The folks at the receiving end have no legitimate claim to ownership of what was seized and handed to them - but they'll sure vote to keep more coming!

So, our Constitutional Republic, with public servants swearing an oath to obey and defend the Constitution, is the most likely to secure individual Rights, Justice and defense against Natural Wrongs. However, it is NOT THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT that accomplishes this, it IS THE CONTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION and the willingness of The People to compel their public servants to obey that contract.

Heck, even a Monarchy might limit the Wrongs, if only humans could be trusted to use their power toward that end. They can't be. So...

Our Constitution was constructed to give very, very limited power to public servants, so that they would be able to do the least Wrong and be unable to turn themselves into Rulers with arbitrary power. Again, the most common abuse is redistribution of wealth from those who produce it to those who are favored by and support the rulers.

"The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." - Samuel Adams


There are plenty of Republics that do not protect the individual against Wrong, even by their own Constitutions.

[pbrinton]

Wrongs are most commonly inflicted by Government, especially seizing the hard-earned product of one's labor to be redistributed to whomever the folks in power favor. That is one of the greatest wrongs, essentially enslaving one portion of the population to enrich another. The folks at the receiving end have no legitimate claim to ownership of what was seized and handed to them

Even if we take into account people who actually work day to day in their businesses, I would venture to state that the vast majority of the top income "earners" can not in any reasonable sense be said to labor. Managing money is not laboring. It may be hard work sometimes (though people at this level pay others to do that); it is certainly not labor. In truth, neither is being CEO of a company. Therefore we can rule out this entire class as people who are being robbed of the product of their (non-existant) labor. They are in fact, as I have pointed out in another thread, the very people who are robbing others of the well-earned fruits if their labor, while simultaneously operating a system of debt slavery. (The Company Store is alive and well, only now it goes by ames like Visa and MasterCard.) I agree that these folks have no legitimate claim to ownership of what they have seized. They are also the principal recipients of the largesse of governments. Welfare for low-income people is vastly eclipsed by corporate welfare. Who do you think owns the corporations that profit from the ludicrously overpriced hardware that is so profligately wasted in constant warfare?

So let us indeed stop seizing the product of labor and giving it to those who do not labor. Let us instead tax the income of those who do not labor, but instead live off the labor of others.

And while we are on the subject of legitimate claim to ownership, I would like to know where you stand on the topic of inheritance, which is one of the mechanisms by which institutionalized power is concentrated and maintained. I would like to hear an ethical defense of this system from the point of view of a conservative who believes in personal responsibility.

There are two ends to this, and most argument on the subject centers around the right of someone who has earned a fortune to distribute it as he wishes upon his death. I would argue that no such natural right exists. There is no natural law that mandates what rights inhere in the concept of ownership, and we are free to define those rights as we choose. We might decide, as we do with many activities that we define as crimes, that the social cost of this practice outweighs the desires of those who wish to indulge in it. We might take the view that a dead person no longer has any interest in the game, and therefore should not have an decision-making power beyond the moment of death.

But even if we concede the right for someone to dispose of his estate, we have a much harder time justifying allowing the recipient to receive it. Where is the personal responsibility there? What has this person done to deserve the money? Should he not be required to earn whatever he receives, as you are so fond of saying, by his own labor?

So other than "It has always been that way" and "People want to leave their money to whomever they want", neither of which is a persuasive argument for the continuation of something, what justification can you offer for inheritance?

And please, let us remain above the level of "well, what are you going to do, give it all to the Government to distribute?" stuff. If we can indeed agree on the principle, it should not be hard to come up with a reasonable mechanism. After all, the Social Security system works extremely well, and performs a similar function. It could be run like a giant mutual fund, and we are well-practiced at running those. It is untrue to say that government can never do anything right. If government departments function poorly it is because they are managed poorly by those we elect to see to their proper functioning. There is nothing inherent in the concept of government that prevents it being run properly. Unfortunately our electoral system has been hijacked by means of the campaign finance laws by people who have an interest in weakening government (which is the protection the people have against powerful interests.) So by deliberately mismanaging and underfunding government departments that do not function as money conduits for them they are able to demonstrate how badly government works.

In the other thread you also said:

You seem to be saying that if a person applies his own ingenuity to building a company, hiring people to perform various tasks (and paying them a rate they voluntarily agree to), whose company is so successful and well run he can leave its daily management in the hands of people he has organized and and delegated such tasks to, that at some point the employees of his company should have the power to seize control of it from him and decide how much of a benefit he can continue receiving from it.

I did not go into the question of redressing past wrongs; I was concerned with the question of what a more equitable system might look like. I would say that right from the start even if you are going to have a capitalist style system for financing businesses, it would be quite feasible to redefine the rights given to the money people such that others who have a legitimate interest in the success of the business (and in some cases in fact are the engine of that success) would have a say in the running of the business. This would include management, workers, even the community that may depend on that business for its existence. All of them would be represented in the decision-making process. I would start out by implementing such a system in existing publicly traded companies and in all new businesses larger than a certain size. When a business grows to the point where the decision makers no longer interact on a daily basis with those affected by their decisions, you open up the potential for decision to be made without regard for the welfare of anyone but the owners and top managers. I think there may be a good case to be made for limiting the size of businesses, or at least invoking increasingly stringent controls with increased size.

So my question to you, S2T, is are you interesting in exploring the question of fairness and equitability in society, to the extent that this can be managed, and in actively seeking to make societal decisions with that as a prime consideration, or are you only interested in justifying and supporting a system that exists to enable the already powerful to maintain and increase their power?

Patrick Brinton

[Speak2Truth]

Even if we take into account people who actually work day to day in their businesses, I would venture to state that the vast majority of the top income "earners" can not in any reasonable sense be said to labor. Managing money is not laboring. It may be hard work sometimes (though people at this level pay others to do that); it is certainly not labor. In truth, neither is being CEO of a company.

Have you gone through the effort of building a company, managing its finances and handling the duties of CEO? I have. Not a fun thing at all and most people won't go to the great effort that it takes to do that. The responsibility for the survival of the company depends upon one's intellectual efforts and careful avoidance of mistakes, at least as much as any other job in the company.

You choose not to define it as "labor" therefore feel okay with seizing the gains the person has made from doing this job. I say that is Wrongdoing. You (and everybody else) have no legitimate claim to the earnings of the person doing that job unless you (or they) are doing that job.

I don't know of CEOs who require employees to provide paychecks to the CEO for the privilege of working with the company. As far as I know, working for a corporation is voluntarily and the CEO is the one who delegates the job of paying people to work there (not robbing them, GIVING them something), or he signs the paychecks himself.

You seem to be saying that something is being "taken" from the employees by the CEO, rather than paychecks being paid to them.

It seems to me your real issue is whether workers at a company are getting compensation that is justifiable for the work they do, for the amount of effort and education it took to prepare themselves for that work. Is that right?

Can you explain what you mean by "debt slavery" by the CEO who signs the paychecks? I don't know any CEO who has the power to compel someone to become indebted to him or the company. If that does happen, it's wrong to claim that all CEOs are guilty because they are in the same "class". Bill Gates paid me quite handsomely, I assure you. So did other corporations I worked for. And I, as CEO, pay my employees and myself in proportion to the net income of the company. If our mutual achievements bring in more income, we all gain by it.

You can do the same, if you want to go to the great effort of building a company and running it, taking legal responsibility for its legal interactions, keeping on top of competitors and making decisions that decide whether your employees will continue to have jobs or not...

I could take offense at your insults against me, the CEO, but I'll let them slide for the sake of conversation.

So my question to you, S2T, is are you interesting in exploring the question of fairness and equitability in society, to the extent that this can be managed, and in actively seeking to make societal decisions with that as a prime consideration, or are you only interested in justifying and supporting a system that exists to enable the already powerful to maintain and increase their power?

I am absolutely interested in exploring the question of fairness and equitability.

I start with this notion: EVERYBODY in our society has the freedom to work hard, educate themselves, build their own business, become the CEO and run things the way they like, since they are the lawful chief executive of the company. This is a fair and equitable system in which the person who strives to achieve in that manner owns the results of his efforts.

I am against the Wrong of one person seizing the gains achieved by another. Nobody else owns those gains and it would be robbery to seize them.

Only if a person can own the product of their achievement (whether it's the paycheck they willingly agreed to receive for their labors or the paycheck they get for working up to CEO) is society "fair". The moment one person (or collective of persons) pretends to own someone else's stuff, it all goes to hell.

[Shake]

Please tell me this post is tongue-in-cheek...

Even if we take into account people who actually work day to day in their businesses, I would venture to state that the vast majority of the top income "earners" can not in any reasonable sense be said to labor. Managing money is not laboring. It may be hard work sometimes (though people at this level pay others to do that); it is certainly not labor. In truth, neither is being CEO of a company. Therefore we can rule out this entire class as people who are being robbed of the product of their (non-existant) labor. They are in fact, as I have pointed out in another thread, the very people who are robbing others of the well-earned fruits if their labor, while simultaneously operating a system of debt slavery. (The Company Store is alive and well, only now it goes by ames like Visa and MasterCard.) I agree that these folks have no legitimate claim to ownership of what they have seized. They are also the principal recipients of the largesse of governments. Welfare for low-income people is vastly eclipsed by corporate welfare. Who do you think owns the corporations that profit from the ludicrously overpriced hardware that is so profligately wasted in constant warfare?

So let us indeed stop seizing the product of labor and giving it to those who do not labor. Let us instead tax the income of those who do not labor, but instead live off the labor of others.

And while we are on the subject of legitimate claim to ownership, I would like to know where you stand on the topic of inheritance, which is one of the mechanisms by which institutionalized power is concentrated and maintained. I would like to hear an ethical defense of this system from the point of view of a conservative who believes in personal responsibility.

There are two ends to this, and most argument on the subject centers around the right of someone who has earned a fortune to distribute it as he wishes upon his death. I would argue that no such natural right exists. There is no natural law that mandates what rights inhere in the concept of ownership, and we are free to define those rights as we choose. We might decide, as we do with many activities that we define as crimes, that the social cost of this practice outweighs the desires of those who wish to indulge in it. We might take the view that a dead person no longer has any interest in the game, and therefore should not have an decision-making power beyond the moment of death.

But even if we concede the right for someone to dispose of his estate, we have a much harder time justifying allowing the recipient to receive it. Where is the personal responsibility there? What has this person done to deserve the money? Should he not be required to earn whatever he receives, as you are so fond of saying, by his own labor?

So other than "It has always been that way" and "People want to leave their money to whomever they want", neither of which is a persuasive argument for the continuation of something, what justification can you offer for inheritance?

And please, let us remain above the level of "well, what are you going to do, give it all to the Government to distribute?" stuff. If we can indeed agree on the principle, it should not be hard to come up with a reasonable mechanism. After all, the Social Security system works extremely well, and performs a similar function. It could be run like a giant mutual fund, and we are well-practiced at running those. It is untrue to say that government can never do anything right. If government departments function poorly it is because they are managed poorly by those we elect to see to their proper functioning. There is nothing inherent in the concept of government that prevents it being run properly. Unfortunately our electoral system has been hijacked by means of the campaign finance laws by people who have an interest in weakening government (which is the protection the people have against powerful interests.) So by deliberately mismanaging and underfunding government departments that do not function as money conduits for them they are able to demonstrate how badly government works.

In the other thread you also said:



I did not go into the question of redressing past wrongs; I was concerned with the question of what a more equitable system might look like. I would say that right from the start even if you are going to have a capitalist style system for financing businesses, it would be quite feasible to redefine the rights given to the money people such that others who have a legitimate interest in the success of the business (and in some cases in fact are the engine of that success) would have a say in the running of the business. This would include management, workers, even the community that may depend on that business for its existence. All of them would be represented in the decision-making process. I would start out by implementing such a system in existing publicly traded companies and in all new businesses larger than a certain size. When a business grows to the point where the decision makers no longer interact on a daily basis with those affected by their decisions, you open up the potential for decision to be made without regard for the welfare of anyone but the owners and top managers. I think there may be a good case to be made for limiting the size of businesses, or at least invoking increasingly stringent controls with increased size.

So my question to you, S2T, is are you interesting in exploring the question of fairness and equitability in society, to the extent that this can be managed, and in actively seeking to make societal decisions with that as a prime consideration, or are you only interested in justifying and supporting a system that exists to enable the already powerful to maintain and increase their power?

Patrick Brinton

[Speak2Truth]

And while we are on the subject of legitimate claim to ownership, I would like to know where you stand on the topic of inheritance, which is one of the mechanisms by which institutionalized power is concentrated and maintained. I would like to hear an ethical defense of this system from the point of view of a conservative who believes in personal responsibility.

Then go ask Ann Coulter.

Okay, I'll tackle inheritance.

What you earn is yours. You can choose to spend it or give it to whomever you wish and nobody else has the Right to take it from you. If they try, that would be Wrong.

You, too, can work hard, generate and collect wealth then pass it on to whomever you wish. Just hope they have your work ethic and will build upon that rather than live like a spoiled trust fund baby and squander it.

I have no claim to your stuff and cannot legitimately demand that you let me inherit it.

As an aside, you have presented a lot of material for my response. Barry threatens to ban me when I try to be polite and answer people's messages to me. Let's try to address this material in smaller chunks, please.