Is there a difference between state-subsidized churches and state-subsidized schools?
In the grand scheme of things, there are really no differences between any two state-subsidized buildings. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and rest assured that the government is not paying for anything that doesn’t support their agenda 100%. Money is only handed out according to rules and regulations. So, despite the fact that one building supposedly teaches religion and the other supposedly offers education, they are both calling people to commit to the same authority figure because they are both trying to meet, in essence, the same state regulated requirements. From both buildings comes the very same bought-and-paid-for lesson, wrapped in two different cloaks.
The four freedoms pin-pointed in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s speech on January 6, 1941 were what he believed to be “essential human freedoms”.
The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants–everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.
The main idea here is to disarm the people, and create complete and total dependence on a one-world government. Despite specifically stating that this itself was the “very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny,” he was clearly calling to New World Order. Framing disarmament as a peace-promoting act, and rallying the very same people for war (at the same time); build the governments gun armory, and relinquish your means of defense. (Now if that isn’t blindness…)
Roosevelt was pro-war, and anti-liberty; presenting himself as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
North, Gary. “Government 1A: Lesson 80.” Ron Paul Curriculum. Ron Paul Curriculum, n.d. Web. 25 May 2015.
“Four Freedoms.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 6 May 2015. Web. 25 May 2015. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms>.
Can the Remnant ever become the majority?
In chapter 13 of The Freedom Philosophy, “Isaiah’s Job”, Albert J Nock speaks on mobilizing the masses. More specifically, he talks about the conflict between the masses and the Remnant. When touching on the Remnants, he speaks of them as few in number (though not directly indicating their size as a group). Though the true number remains unclear, why couldn’t it be said, that there were many Remnants? There is no reason why they could not grow to become the masses (the majority). Although it may be unlikely, it is not impossible in the least.
Which promotes greater personal responsibility, the free market or the welfare state?
The free market promotes greater personal responsibility than the welfare state, by a landslide, to say the least. In fact, the welfare state exemplifies the exact opposite of promoting personal responsibility by using coercion as means by which they steal from working party A, to support party B. What this is really teaching people is that they don’t need to be worried about themselves, or their families, because they can depend on the government. They need not look for a job, because they have comfortably large checks coming in to feed and clothe their children with; checks that were filled with money stolen from the people actually working to earn a living. (Reward the dependent citizens, punish the independents workers.) The free market, on the other hand, not only promotes personal responsibility, but it requires it. If one can not keep up with their finances, supply and demand, marketing, etc. then they can not survive. One must be disciplined and hard working to become a top competitor; no state granted monopolies here.
What is one of Kipling’s copybook headings that applies to recent public opinion?
The copybook heading that I chose to apply to recent public opinion was “stick to the devil you know”. To me, what this means is that you should choose the lesser of two evils given the option; if all that lays before you are bad situations, pick the one you’re the most familiar with and most likely to survive. I chose this heading not only because of recent happenings with protesters and the media, but because of widespread public blindness. The verse goes like this:
“When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace. They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease. But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: ‘Stick to the Devil you know.'”
When I read this now, all I can see are the thousands of Americans surrendering their rights every day to the state, “for the greater good”. More specifically, I see the violation of our Second Amendment rights. Be not so naive and trusting of those controlling of you, and fight the battles you know you can win. If you don’t know enough to protect yourself from those with who you’re involved, don’t get involved in the first place.
Is the state the source of human rights?
The state is not the source of human rights, I believe, because I am a sovereign human being. For the state to be the source of my rights, would also mean that they could deprive me of those very rights. This is not the case. Some people believe that God is the source of our human rights; other people believe that the source of their rights is, well, themselves. It is also widely accepted that the constitution is the source of these rights. Personally, I believe that God made me a sovereign being, and has granted my rights and liberty here on earth. It is up to me however to defend those rights against the state, and any other false source claiming authority over me.
Please Note: As simple as this question seems, it is not. I even brought it to an online forum to discuss with other liberty-minded people because I was so stuck. Then I realized my fault; the question is not black and white. I cannot offer a one-or-the-other answer without more information, and so this is my take on it. I would love feedback on my response, as well as other opinions and explanations!
Is restitution to victims better for society than jail sentences for criminals? Explain.
It is not unknown that cages create criminals; according to the NAACP “the US is 5% of the world population, and has 25% of the worlds prisoners”. When we place a human being into a prison environment, they are exposed to a high concentration of infectious diseases, dangerous and malevolent behavior, and violence. They are not in a setting to recognize their behaviors and correct them; they’re in prison for punishment, not rehabilitation. Because of this fact, two thirds of prisoners will re-offend. Billions and billions of dollars are stolen from people each year to fund the degradation of society.
So, given the circumstances, restitution to victims would seem the correct route to travel. However, then one must consider, who will decide the restitution? Who will enforce the restitution? What happens when a thief steals food and then by the time he is caught, the goods are gone? Should he have no money, how could they force him to pay restitution? It would be physically impossible to force him to give up something he did not have. All of these questions it seems can be easily answered with “the government”. But, one must consider, if they conclude that restitution to victims would greater benefit society, would the government intervention that comes with it also benefit society? No.
Both of the options offered result in the coercion of another being, which I do not support. That brings me to the conclusion that these answers offer me a lose-lose situation. Sending a criminal to jail only worsens his future, and the future of society. On the other hand, restitution may not be practical or applicable. I do not believe that either of these options (as is) are going to better society.
Should the group in a legislator’s district that got him elected monitor his votes, and recruit someone to run against him in the next primary if he starts voting wrong?
The group in a legislator’s district that got them elected should absolutely be paying close attention to all of the legislator’s actions in power. This is crucial to a well functioning team because, as a local legislator nears top dog, their direct local connections wear thin. Before long, they are in the pocket of the state, and they have made new friends. These new friends have deeper pockets, and stronger desires; they’re extremely persuasive, especially when they’ve eliminated all local influences. At some point, the original goal is is drowned out screaming green and ulterior motives. One way to postpone the demise of a legislator could be to recruit someone to run against them, should they begin to sway from local opinion. Each vote is telling of character, and if a group isn’t paying attention enough to realize their representative is backing the ‘wrong’ team, then who is really the one in the wrong?
Should the police be allowed to enforce a politician’s verbal restriction against making a video of him at an open meeting?
The police should not be allowed to enforce a politician’s verbal restriction against videotaping him at an open meeting because it is an unconstitutional act, and it directly violates the rights of those trying to properly document a public event. The first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (First Amendment Rights). Freedom of (speech and) press, as stated, grant that if one is on public property, they may lawfully photograph (or videotape) anything in plain view. This includes persons within range of sight, whether they be located on private or public property. The only way that a politician could lawfully restrict the use of video cameras or photography during a meeting would be if both the photographer and the politician were located on private property; in this case, the property owner is within their rights to personally set rules and standards for what they will allow on their land (Know Your Rights).
Pick any chapter in How to Argue, and write 100 words on this: “How could voluntary arrangements solve this problem if the state did not impose the politics of plunder?”
Enforcing equality by law means, more specifically, enforcing equality of outcome using coercion. This issue could be simply resolved if the government would butt-out, and allow free-market voluntary exchange to take over, because then there would be equality. However this would be equality of opportunity, rather than the government’s enforced equality of outcome. Free market competition means that everybody would have the same chance to get the same job as everyone else, and could bargain their price. The hardest worker offering the best wage would get the job, just as he should. This extends much father than the job market though, and it fits comfortably into every aspect of life.
To break this into simpler terms, imagine yourself in a class of 29 other children. You each had to take a test, and were given a week to study. On the day of the test the teacher told you that the winner would get a cupcake; this upsets some students because they did not know there would be a prize, therefore they did not study. You on the other hand, being the hard worker that you are, studied all week. You ace the test, get the highest score in the class and you get the cupcake. Fair, right? Right. But some students do not think so. Typically, these students are the ones who do not want to do the work for themselves. So, little Timmy, who didn’t study because he didn’t know there would be a cupcake, gets mad. He tells the teacher that everybody should get a cupcake because that is the only way for her to be fair to all of her students. She responds by saying “you all had the opportunity to study. The circumstances were completely fair and equal for each student; one student studied harder than the other students, he made that decision without an incentive. He got a cupcake for doing what everyone was supposed to do in the first place. Do you think that the one cupcake should be shared evenly among 30 students for all their combined efforts when some people are scoring zeros and some are getting 100’s? Should you be rewarded for someone else’s hard work Timmy?” He contemplated this for a moment, sat back in his chair, and said “well, no. I guess not. I wouldn’t want to be the one pulling the weight of the whole class and getting skimped on my treat.”
We live in a world where the government is always testing, and our only incentive to pass is to avoid being plundered and abused. Voluntary arrangements completely abolish the threat of force the government has imposed on our decisions.