March 20th, 2013 - Open Letter to Colorado
When in the course of human history we, The People, come face to face with unspeakable acts of ignorance and fear that are aimed not at the vast majority of freemen, but at a tiny sliver of the society that does not, in action, wish to agree to the fearmongers anyway, we, all free men, find ourselves facing down a giant that does not wish to be slain.
But slay these dragons we must.
For they represent not the acts of free thinking men, but the chains of labor restrictive egoists, bent on dictating the lives of others through courts, laws, and a blatant attempt to subvert the facts in order to make their case.
For they, these enemies, do not act in the best interest of progress, but instead, pull, with their laws at the very hands of advancement and say to it that it should stop moving forward and instead regress to a point where these little men have rested their own minds. These men are not progressive, but children really, whom never grown up and feel that all of man should be delegated back to a time when things were simpler. Think for a moment about all the great progresses that have ever occurred: Going from walking to horse to vehicle, for example. Yet, the progressives limit your actions with vehicles, they set speed limits (a horse or my own feet have no such laws), they 'police' public roads (without the direct authority of the People. In fact, police forces affectingly usurped the right to do so and continue to do so to this day), they restrict whom can move themselves and their property by requiring objects to have licenses (your vehicles license is a functional chain that ensures it can only be moved when the state agrees. Do they ask you to license your clothing?). This is but one example. And what of the gun? Are these so called progressive thinkers really progressing society by ignoring the technological advancements of firearms over the last sixty years? Is their argument really based on the idea that the gun itself has advanced to far? Or, more probably, that they in their ivory towers, have somehow come to the incorrect conclusion that man himself has not evolved (grown up) enough to own such tools of 'war' and that they themselves, are the only ones responsible enough to own such tools? Think on this for a moment, reflect on it. The effects of limiting the number of organized bullets to ten does in fact regress the firearm's technology back to pre-WWII days. They, then, are telling us that as of today, We The People aren't capable of living with 21st century technology, but should instead be forced to live with 1930's technology. Then one must really wonder what the hell those people in California's Legislation are doing, for they are trying to push that there not even be such a thing as semi-auto, reverting us even further back to bolt action firearms from the turn of the 20th century. Progressive indeed! They are so small and child like that they carry us backwards in time, not forward!
One must, then question, the motives of such minds. It is the provincial thing to do, to look 'locally' back not at the distant castles of government officials, whom are lost to the truth of individuality, but to look back into the self and ask: Should technology be reverted to a different time or should mankind advance along with the technology? There is no historical point of evidence from any scholar or philosopher that would clamor for a people to throw their eyes at the string of time and only look back (even as it yanks them forward). In fact, all men of thought would scream in terror at the possibility of living life in such folly. Yet, in modern US politics, many of the so-called advancements from our inapt leaders are actually fetters that shackle us to some distant point in the past. If one, then, questions the self and asks this important point about the following of technology and the advancement of people along with the flow of all things passing through time, one is left with two possibilities: Either evolve or stagnate. There is no middle ground. There is no possible middle ground. In fact, beyond theory, the act of staking a place in the past is an impossibility, for the the time is gone and nothing of that time remains. In order to plant such a flag, one must first create the illusion of material ideals and property and functions from whole-cloth and set it up, and then well protect it against the ever encroaching reality. Living in the past is illusion! It is worse than mere stagnation, in that it eats not only those that live in it, but all of the universe around it.
There can be then, only once conclusion: to evolve, side by side with all fellow men and his advancements with technology. One need only look at computers and television to see how the hand in hand approach works to see it is a far better way of moving mankind than to say, pass laws restricting us back to black and white 13 channel televisions. The technological genie is out of the box, only a child would try to stuff it back in.
Evolve then, is the only answer. Therefore what does that mean? It means, that we need to not only outright reject ideas that push us backwards, but ardently with vehemence cast out politicians that have taken this stagnation approach to life. Letters of demand to return our freedom, to stop playing possum, and votes against them should be easily poured in by individuals whom understand that this is not a partisan issue, but a human issue about the nature of living.
These dragons, pulling our flesh out of the present and trying to pin us to a distant point of the past where they believe incorrectly that happiness reigned, is the worst kind of moral ineptitude.
Your life is yours to choose, and concession on this point is the worst kind of slavery, when in the question of society over individuals comes to play, say not, "I understand and am willing to do my part to protect society by giving up my freedom", but say:
I am a free person in a free society who's continued freedom is society, for it is my morality that sways me to maintain all freedom, for myself and thus, for you and by doing, plants the seed of social interaction between myself and all others. It is my morality of freedom and individuality that maintains my desire for peace against my neighbors, not laws or opinions made up by the detractors of life. It is my morality that stems first from Natural Rights and by the grace of these, it is by them, that we are capable of good and free thought. I am moral because I'm an individual. Therefore society is moral because of individuals. When, instead, you ask me to give up these things, you ask me to give over my moral choice of individuality and to supplant my Natural Rights with laws and this, I will not do. Not today, not ever, even at the cost of my own life, if it must come to that. For by asking me to give away even one God given Right, you ask me to undo myself, and an undone man, is a ship without a sail.
But slay these dragons we must.
For they represent not the acts of free thinking men, but the chains of labor restrictive egoists, bent on dictating the lives of others through courts, laws, and a blatant attempt to subvert the facts in order to make their case.
For they, these enemies, do not act in the best interest of progress, but instead, pull, with their laws at the very hands of advancement and say to it that it should stop moving forward and instead regress to a point where these little men have rested their own minds. These men are not progressive, but children really, whom never grown up and feel that all of man should be delegated back to a time when things were simpler. Think for a moment about all the great progresses that have ever occurred: Going from walking to horse to vehicle, for example. Yet, the progressives limit your actions with vehicles, they set speed limits (a horse or my own feet have no such laws), they 'police' public roads (without the direct authority of the People. In fact, police forces affectingly usurped the right to do so and continue to do so to this day), they restrict whom can move themselves and their property by requiring objects to have licenses (your vehicles license is a functional chain that ensures it can only be moved when the state agrees. Do they ask you to license your clothing?). This is but one example. And what of the gun? Are these so called progressive thinkers really progressing society by ignoring the technological advancements of firearms over the last sixty years? Is their argument really based on the idea that the gun itself has advanced to far? Or, more probably, that they in their ivory towers, have somehow come to the incorrect conclusion that man himself has not evolved (grown up) enough to own such tools of 'war' and that they themselves, are the only ones responsible enough to own such tools? Think on this for a moment, reflect on it. The effects of limiting the number of organized bullets to ten does in fact regress the firearm's technology back to pre-WWII days. They, then, are telling us that as of today, We The People aren't capable of living with 21st century technology, but should instead be forced to live with 1930's technology. Then one must really wonder what the hell those people in California's Legislation are doing, for they are trying to push that there not even be such a thing as semi-auto, reverting us even further back to bolt action firearms from the turn of the 20th century. Progressive indeed! They are so small and child like that they carry us backwards in time, not forward!
One must, then question, the motives of such minds. It is the provincial thing to do, to look 'locally' back not at the distant castles of government officials, whom are lost to the truth of individuality, but to look back into the self and ask: Should technology be reverted to a different time or should mankind advance along with the technology? There is no historical point of evidence from any scholar or philosopher that would clamor for a people to throw their eyes at the string of time and only look back (even as it yanks them forward). In fact, all men of thought would scream in terror at the possibility of living life in such folly. Yet, in modern US politics, many of the so-called advancements from our inapt leaders are actually fetters that shackle us to some distant point in the past. If one, then, questions the self and asks this important point about the following of technology and the advancement of people along with the flow of all things passing through time, one is left with two possibilities: Either evolve or stagnate. There is no middle ground. There is no possible middle ground. In fact, beyond theory, the act of staking a place in the past is an impossibility, for the the time is gone and nothing of that time remains. In order to plant such a flag, one must first create the illusion of material ideals and property and functions from whole-cloth and set it up, and then well protect it against the ever encroaching reality. Living in the past is illusion! It is worse than mere stagnation, in that it eats not only those that live in it, but all of the universe around it.
There can be then, only once conclusion: to evolve, side by side with all fellow men and his advancements with technology. One need only look at computers and television to see how the hand in hand approach works to see it is a far better way of moving mankind than to say, pass laws restricting us back to black and white 13 channel televisions. The technological genie is out of the box, only a child would try to stuff it back in.
Evolve then, is the only answer. Therefore what does that mean? It means, that we need to not only outright reject ideas that push us backwards, but ardently with vehemence cast out politicians that have taken this stagnation approach to life. Letters of demand to return our freedom, to stop playing possum, and votes against them should be easily poured in by individuals whom understand that this is not a partisan issue, but a human issue about the nature of living.
These dragons, pulling our flesh out of the present and trying to pin us to a distant point of the past where they believe incorrectly that happiness reigned, is the worst kind of moral ineptitude.
Your life is yours to choose, and concession on this point is the worst kind of slavery, when in the question of society over individuals comes to play, say not, "I understand and am willing to do my part to protect society by giving up my freedom", but say:
I am a free person in a free society who's continued freedom is society, for it is my morality that sways me to maintain all freedom, for myself and thus, for you and by doing, plants the seed of social interaction between myself and all others. It is my morality of freedom and individuality that maintains my desire for peace against my neighbors, not laws or opinions made up by the detractors of life. It is my morality that stems first from Natural Rights and by the grace of these, it is by them, that we are capable of good and free thought. I am moral because I'm an individual. Therefore society is moral because of individuals. When, instead, you ask me to give up these things, you ask me to give over my moral choice of individuality and to supplant my Natural Rights with laws and this, I will not do. Not today, not ever, even at the cost of my own life, if it must come to that. For by asking me to give away even one God given Right, you ask me to undo myself, and an undone man, is a ship without a sail.
Comments
Post a Comment