Inspired by the nationwide Tea Parties, today I wrote a song I call "Liberty Man." You can get the MP3 or watch the video.
It's a simple song with a simple message: I am alive, which means I have liberty, which means that I own the product of my liberty, which is the money I've earned and the goods and services I've purchased with them. To arbitrarily and capriciously take away my liberty or my money or my posessions is to strike against my rights as a living human being. This is the essence of liberty.
It's not about selfishness, of course; it's about self-determination. It's not about me not helping others, it's about me deciding for myself whom I help, and how. Say what you like, but at the end of the day, liberty matters, and many of the people in power, on both sides of the aisle, don't respect it.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at April 09, 2009 05:16 PM | Email ThisI wonder who you think you're fooling? The sad thing is that I knew that many on the left would consider self-evident statements of fact to be whining. That's how low my opinion is of you all. :/
If that is considered "whinging" by them, so be it. They are a product of their own dysfunctionality and have evolved into emotional and mental slobs who refuse to be accountable for whatever reason they want to manufacture.
Excellent song, and it's no surprise the fundamental concept that economic freedom is central to every freedom a person can enjoy.
It's also completely predictable that Marxists simply don't understand the problem. I think Slavery Party Failed Abortion should talk to a few people I know who spent 15 years living under Mao, then 10 under Deng, and now under Hu. And how as economic freedoms expanded, personal freedoms blossomed.
But of course, that runs counter to the whole concept that the Government knows best and you're to simply shut up and be a good little worker and produce for your Marxist masters!
HOPE AND CHANGE! DISSENT IS PATRIOTIC!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on April 9, 2009 07:02 PMIf you talk about your rights and privileges but complain about your duties as part of society, then yes, that is whinging. You're like a child, happy that you're getting new toys from your parents, but throwing a temper tantrum when they ask you to do chores.
@7: Depends on where you place the emphasis with the term "no taxation without representation".
If you think that the War of Independence was all about taxation and nothing more, then you're ignorant. American colonists were not being taxed by the Crown at high rates in the 1700s, but they were enjoying benefits that they weren't paying for. Heck, I'd argue that the circumstances around the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion showed that when the shoe was on the other foot, the Founding Fathers were more than willing to tax the people *with* representation.
If it was an issue about representation, though, then no, they weren't whinging. They had less representation than British subjects, and they had no say in Parliament. That is not the foundation of proper government or basic rights, and that really is a grievance worth rebelling over.
Posted by: demo kid on April 10, 2009 07:48 AMIf you ... complain about your duties as part of society
That never happened. In FACT, if you listen to the song/read the lyrics, you see that I explicitly recognize my obligations to my fellow man, but assert that I do not need the FORCE of GOVERNMENT to live up to those obligations.
You're like a child, happy that you're getting new toys from your parents, but throwing a temper tantrum when they ask you to do chores.
You are attacking a straw man, because you have no argument against me so you resort to fallacy.
Heck, I'd argue that the circumstances around the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion showed that when the shoe was on the other foot, the Founding Fathers were more than willing to tax the people *with* representation. They had less representation than British subjects, and they had no say in Parliament. That is not the foundation of proper government or basic rights, and that really is a grievance worth rebelling over.
And we have FAR less representation today in Congress than they did in the 18th and 19th centuries. Our power is pretty damned close to nil. Self-governance has gone the way of the dodo bird in this country: not only is our voice merely one of hundreds of millions in the federal government, but the federal government has far more power over our lives than it has ever had before.
That really is a grievance worth rebelling over.
That's a metaphor for my personal perspective on conservative whingers, not a "fallacy" or a "straw man". I have plenty of arguments against you, but comparisons seem to do the most justice to my personal opinions.
And we have FAR less representation today in Congress than they did in the 18th and 19th centuries. Our power is pretty damned close to nil. Self-governance has gone the way of the dodo bird in this country: not only is our voice merely one of hundreds of millions in the federal government, but the federal government has far more power over our lives than it has ever had before.
In certain respects, I would argue otherwise. Universal suffrage for all citizens 18 or over? Direct popular election of senators? Election of presidential nominees? Poll taxes outlawed? That's far better than the system of representation that many folks in, say, 1828 had with regards to the government.
It does depend on what you mean by "power", though. The political power of the electorate isn't exercised by individuals, but by blocs. It always has been; it's an overly romantic and completely incorrect perspective on how political systems operate to think otherwise, really. If you were to go and petition your senator or representative as an individual back when your congressional district had 60,000 versus 600,000, it would probably matter just about as much. 1/60,000 of a say isn't practically different from 1/600,000 for all intents and purposes. To get your voice heard, then as now, you need to organize into groups: interest groups, PACs, NGOs, thinktanks, whatever you want to call them. The only difference between then and now is the number of people you would need to organize to make yourself taken seriously.
I would agree that there are certainly ways that representation can be improved: getting rid of the first-past-the-post electoral system in favor of other, better voting systems and fracturing the Democrat-Republican duopoly on political power seem like two steps in really positive directions for that. Would you be in favor of rewriting the Constitution to make these changes and improve the ability for the people to be represented, then?
Of course, my opinion is that you're being dishonest here. You're not objecting to a lack of representation, you're objecting to a democratically-elected government not doing what *you* want them to do. As someone aptly put it, don't confuse "tyranny" or a "lack of representation" with "losing".
Posted by: demo kid on April 10, 2009 10:13 AMAnd I already explained the straw man fallacy: you accused me of "complain[ing] about your duties as part of society," which I never did. Ever. Not in this post or any other. Nor did I deny my duties. You're committing the straw man fallacy. I am not "throwing a tantrum when asked to do chores."
Again: I *explicitly* noted my obligations to society in the song. Your assertion that I am complaining about them is entirely false.
And your metaphor is disturbing: you think of citizens as children and the government as our parent, prpviding for us and telling us what to do. This is the warped and sick view of government I parodies in Christine, Christine, Christine. On the contrary, we are the "parents" and the government is our servant ... our security guard, if you will. I do not want "toys" from my guard, and I do not seek them. And my guard has no right to tell me what to do except in very limited circumstances, and I resent it when he tries.
I have plenty of arguments against you, but comparisons seem to do the most justice to my personal opinions.
Except that I proved your comparison to be utterly false and baseless.
Direct popular election of senators?
This is an argument in MY favor. Direct election of Senators has been a significant contributor in the shift of power to the federal government, which has LESSENED our ability to govern ourselves.
Election of presidential nominees?
Ditto, although less significant than direct election of Senators. But if we get direct election of the President himself, this will only hasten the demise of self-governance.
That's far better than the system of representation that many folks in, say, 1828 had with regards to the government.
I am not saying and would not say that there have not been improvements. But the higher up decisions are made, the less self-governance we collectively have. This is a truism. Obviously, many people had no vote before, but that's hardly an argument in favor of shifting power to the federal government.
It does depend on what you mean by "power", though.
It's obvious, isn't it? The power to make my own decisions for myself, and to influence the government when I can't decide for myself. We had more; now we have less. And under Obama, we are getting even less, as more and more functions are being taken over by a government thousands of miles and hundreds of millions of votes beyond our reach.
Even many people who couldn't vote had more power in the 1800s than they do today, simply because much less of what they did was regulated by government. It in no way justifies the lack of representation, but the danger is confusing "I can vote" with "I have power."
If you were to go and petition your senator or representative as an individual back when your congressional district had 60,000 versus 600,000, it would probably matter just about as much. 1/60,000 of a say isn't practically different from 1/600,000 for all intents and purposes.
Anyone actually IN government, or working with officials, knows this is nonsense. I have worked with city and county and lesiglative and congressional officials to get change to happen. It is no surprise to involved people that the more local you go, the easier it is to get change to happen.
Would you be in favor of rewriting the Constitution to make these changes and improve the ability for the people to be represented, then?
No. Your election system change is a terrible idea, and I see no need for changes to the Constitution to change the favoritism toward political parties (which I have worked toward for more than a decade ... I even voted against Bob Dole and for Harry Browne because Dole excluded Ross Perot from the debates [and because I lived in a state where Dole could not win]). These changes can, and often is, done through regular statute, or public pressure.
Of course, my opinion is that you're being dishonest here.
Shrug. I already proved beyond any doubt that you misrepresented me by saying I was complaining about my duties as a part of society. The difference is that you are accusing me of dishonesty by putting words into my mouth. I am accusing you of dishonesty because you actually did put words into my mouth.
You're not objecting to a lack of representation, you're objecting to a democratically-elected government not doing what *you* want them to do.
They are part of the same thing. What I want from government is for it to not tell me what to do, and it tells me what to do because it is too powerful, too non-representative.
Why would I care about lack of representation in a government that isn't substantively telling me what to do? We have a government that takes so much from us -- in liberty and the products of our liberty -- BECAUSE the government is too big and non-representative. This is why lobbying is a problem: the federal government controls so much, and is so relatively few people, that it naturally attracts lobbyists and other people interested in getting THEIR will done. This is how it always works.
As someone aptly put it, don't confuse "tyranny" or a "lack of representation" with "losing".
Except that I said the same things even when my party was in control, so you're, once again, falsely accusing me. My goal, consistently and unassailably, is liberty. Self-governance. To me, the lack of this IS tyranny, and if I don't get it, I consider it losing.
Thanks for fighting to keep our taxes low. We promise to keep that 'trickle down effect' going as long as we can, i.e. while it doesn't effect our god-given rights to drive lots of supercars, fly in private jets, and have and indecent number of mansions dotted around the world in beautiful places.
Anyway, just wanted to say we love you guys and appreciate all the hard work and the fact that you're prepared to give even more of your blood and sweat to us.
Yours Sincerely,
The Rich Minority
ps. Don't think you're getting paid for taking time off work to go participate in any teabagging events. Times are tough you know!
Posted by: Richie Rich on April 10, 2009 12:07 PMBy the way, I have a great list of over 130 pro-liberty songs.
Care to start a thread and ask people to suggest more? I'll e-mail you my list if you like to get things started!
Here is a sample:
Sunshine, Edwards, Jonathan
Everyday People, Rembrandts, The
I Got a Name, Croce, Jim
Redemption Song, Marley, Bob
Lady Liberty, Orleans
People want to be Free, Young Rascals
Get Up Stand Up, Marley, Bob
Freedom's Sons, Clancy Brothers, The
Coalition to Ban Coalitions, Williams, Hank jr
Liberty, Grateful Dead
My Life, Joel, Billy
Closer to Free, BoDeans
Government Cheese, Rainmakers
People Have The Power, Smith, Patti
Tom Sawyer, Rush
Copperhead Road, Earle, Steve
Capitalism, Oingo Boingo
Garden Party, Nelson, Ricky
I hope you can play your song at a tea party on 4/15! I'll be at the one in Everett.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 10, 2009 04:20 PMBut the higher up decisions are made, the less self-governance we collectively have. This is a truism.
During the period when "the land of the free" allowed slavery, each individual state made that call. In some of the states which permitted it, even criticism of their "peculiar institution" was forbidden upon pain of death. The federal government then freed the slaves, made slavery illegal, made the former slaves into citizens, and forbade any state from trampling on the freedom of any citizen's speech. It was a massive federal pre-emption of state power, and every last American became much more free as a result.
A century later, non-whites and non-males were still routinely denied the educational and economic opportunities for which their abilities qualified them. Due to federal civil rights legislation, many Americans gained this precious economic freedom.
Also during this time, "uppity" non-whites could be extrajudicially executed for demanding equal rights. State governments absolutely refused to protect these citizens, so the federal government enforced civil rights legislation, and the racist reign of terror was ended.
Obviously, many people had no vote before, but that's hardly an argument in favor of shifting power to the federal government.
Really? Ensuring the federal constitutional rights of the federal citizenry is not a valid function of our federal government? "That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." is wrong? Wow.
"But if we get direct election of the President himself, this will only hasten the demise of self-governance."
Alright, I give up. How does having more direct control over our highest elected office diminish our liberty?
mere money is a very small price to pay for living in our great country
That is completely beside any point being made here.
During the period when "the land of the free" allowed slavery, each individual state made that call.
I am not talking about civil liberties. I am talking about decisions that government makes on normal government affairs: whether to build a bridge here, tax a business there, subsidize a business here, and so on. Government has no right to "decide" whether to respect civil liberties, as the federal government has the obligation, through the 14th Amendment, to enforce the respect of civil liberties at all levels of government.
Ensuring the federal constitutional rights of the federal citizenry is not a valid function of our federal government?
Again you are conflating those two different things.
Alright, I give up. How does having more direct control over our highest elected office diminish our liberty?
Because when the Senators became directly accountable to the people for their continuance in office, they started caring more about the everday complaints, needs, and desires of the people, which inevitably this hastened the shift of power to the federal government, which necessarily means less liberty.
It's a very simple and obvious equation.
That is completely beside any point being made here.
I cheerfully disagree. I believe every true patriot enjoys paying taxes. Anyone who complains about taxes, without communicating with his or her elected representative(s), is a whiner.
I am not talking about civil liberties.
Then you might not want to write statements such as, "To arbitrarily and capriciously take away my liberty or my money or my posessions is to strike against my rights as a living human being. This is the essence of liberty."
(You see, speakers of English might conflate "my rights as a living human being", with "human rights". And we both know those are mutually-exclusive concepts, hm?)
"I am talking about decisions that government makes on normal government affairs: whether to build a bridge here, tax a business there, subsidize a business here, and so on."
Synonyms for "normal" include "ordinary", "common", and "accepted". How can the normal practice of government intrude upon your liberty? Is our Constitution in need of amendment? If so, please specify.
Government has no right to "decide" whether to respect civil liberties, as the federal government has the obligation, through the 14th Amendment, to enforce the respect of civil liberties at all levels of government.
So, all of the American citizens who were lynched, from 1877 through 1965, died with their 14th Amendment rights intact. Thanks for clarifying that; I had confused such lynchings with terrorism, and had thought our government existed to protect us from terrorism. Perhaps you and I could go to the Deep South, and explain that to their survivors and descendants. I'm sure they'd enjoy hearing us pasty-faced white boys explain what a great job our federal government did in protecting their dead relatives' "liberty", as you define it.
Because when the Senators became directly accountable to the people for their continuance in office, they started caring more about the everday complaints, needs, and desires of the people,
Because the last thing any true patriot could ever possibly want is a government responsive to the citizens. In that lies tyranny. We should advocate -- nay, demand -- a government which totally and completely ignores our "complaints". It is, by definition, un-American to "petition the government for a redress of grievances," at least in the expectation of getting a response. (Of course, if we did demand our government stop listening to our demands, would success = failure?)
the shift of power to the federal government, which necessarily means less liberty.
(Someday you may yet learn that saying "1=2" does not make it so, no matter how many times you say it.) Consider a Southern singer/songwriter who published an abolitionist protest song in 1860. He faces the death penalty for so doing. By 1870, his federal government would ensure his right to publish his song. How did this "necessarily mean less liberty" for him?
Posted by: tensor on April 12, 2009 11:23 PMYou're cheerfully wrong (a.k.a., "happy idiot"). No one was making any point related to what you said.
I believe every true patriot enjoys paying taxes.
You're obviously wrong in that belief, too, but again: it's beside any point being made here.
Anyone who complains about taxes, without communicating with his or her elected representative(s), is a whiner.
The purpose of the Tea Parties is, in large part, to communicate with our elected officials, so thank you for agreeing that the people who particpate in them are not whiners.
Then you might not want to write statements such as, "To arbitrarily and capriciously take away my liberty or my money or my posessions is to strike against my rights as a living human being. This is the essence of liberty."
Again, two different contexts, two different things.
You see, speakers of English might conflate "my rights as a living human being", with "human rights".
They are the same thing.
And we both know those are mutually-exclusive concepts, hm?
I never implied any such thing, no.
Synonyms for "normal" include "ordinary", "common", and "accepted".
No. You really don't understand context, do you?
So, all of the American citizens who were lynched, from 1877 through 1965, died with their 14th Amendment rights intact. Thanks for clarifying that
Thank you for lying. My argument in no way implied what you say, as any rational person can see.
Because the last thing any true patriot could ever possibly want is a government responsive to the citizens.
Are you intentionally missing my point, or are you just ignorant? I ask because it's hard for me to know how to proceed if I don't know. My argument, which you've explicitly and unsuccesfully tried to show it is wrong, is not in any way related to responsiveness of government to the people, but is about federalism.
Someday you may yet learn that saying "1=2" does not make it so
Someday you will learn that a self-evident fact isn't false just because you don't want it to be.
Consider a Southern singer/songwriter who published an abolitionist protest song in 1860. He faces the death penalty for so doing. By 1870, his federal government would ensure his right to publish his song. How did this "necessarily mean less liberty" for him?
Again you conflate two different things. I've already said, repeatedly, that civil liberties ARE something that MUST be protected by the federal government, and are a separate issue. Why do you insist on continuing this error? Are you ignorant, or intentionally misrepresenting me? Which is it?
But hey, if the federal government intruded upon your essential liberty by (a) building hydroelectric dams on the Columbia, (b) developing the digital computer, (c) developing the network to connect those computers, and (d) making this network available to everyone with a modem, then I have a suggestion: protest this unconscionable assault upon your liberty by refusing to use any of that federally-financed electricity to power a computer to reach the internet. That's a protest I'll support 100%.
Will there be teabaggings here in Seattle? I'd love to watch people protest their own tax cuts, but going out of my way does not interest me.
Posted by: tensor on April 13, 2009 01:16 AMWhich is within the context of civil liberties, which I've already said several times is not what I am referring to. Are you learning impaired?
Your not liking a policy does not automatically make said policy an assault on your liberty, no matter how many times you say it.
I've NEVER said it, so that's moot.
I have a suggestion
Not a serious one, no, you don't. Not only does it misrepresent history and misuse hyphens, but it creates a straw man fallacy, as no one is arguing that we should eschew anything government has had a hand in.
I'd love to watch people protest their own tax cuts
That's what the original Boston Tea Party did.
Actually, it's totally false, as the merest examination of American history will show. When decisions about civil rights, citizenship, and voting were made at the state level, women and minorities had no political rights, few economic opportunities, and suffered disenfranchisement. White males could be killed for opposing slavery. Massive federal government pre-emption of state power led to federal laws ensuring civil liberties, the vote, and economic opportunities to women and minorities, and also ensured that no one could be punished for the non-violent expression of political views. While most Americans are very proud of these accomplishments, a small and dwindling minority remains callously indifferent:
Obviously, many people had no vote before, but that's hardly an argument in favor of shifting power to the federal government.
Do you even wonder why most of your fellow citizens reject your statements of 'principle'? You sound totally overqualified to serve on the next Republican Commission to Investigate What's Wrong with Women and Minorities -- Why Won't They Vote For Their Natural Rulers?
You're cheerfully wrong (a.k.a., "happy idiot")
There's some guy over on the EffinUnSound comment threads, jacking your nym to claim that ad hominem attacks are a fallacy. You'd better do something about his besmirching of your hard-won reputation.
That's what the original Boston Tea Party did.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... (wipes eyes) Perhaps some elementary-school student can explain the phrase "No Taxation without Representation" to you. (Note: elementary-school, NOT home-schooled.) Then you could maybe learn why protesting legal taxation by your elected representatives completely lacks any moral base.
Not a serious one, no, you don't
Oh, you're wrong again. I was completely serious. I'm always looking to improve our world, and our civic discourse, and your implementation of my excellent suggestion would effect an immediate improvement in both -- all at no cost to the public treasury.
My putting particulars to demo kid's general description of you really cut to the core, didn't it? It hurt so much, you couldn't even stand to quote it. Had you done so, you might have noticed something:
misuse hyphens
The entire paragraph contains one hyphen. Now, can you look up-thread, and read the wise counsel of the man who had already explicitly warned you about claiming that one equals two? What's it like, being the living validation of liberal criticism?
When decisions about civil rights ...
Um. We already had this discussion. I noted, over and over again, that I was distinguishing what I said from the separate issue of the protection of rights. Did you hit your head and forget?
Do you even wonder why most of your fellow citizens reject your statements of 'principle'?
No, but I wonder why you bother to make crap up when you must know I'll call you on it: you have no basis for claiming that "most" citizens disagree with me.
ad hominem attacks are a fallacy
This wasn't an ad hominem attack. Would you like me to explain why?
Perhaps some elementary-school student can explain the phrase "No Taxation without Representation" to you.
Unfortunately, you apparently have never advanced your own understanding of the Boston Tea Party beyond your elementary school education. All I said there was that the Boston Tea Party protested an act of Parliament that was a tax cut, and this is a fact.
The Tea Act of 1773, which the Boston Tea Party was a response to, eliminated the 25 percent tax on tea the East India Tea Company was paying to the British government, as part of a government bailout of a company "too big to fail." The Act also reinstated a MUCH SMALLER tax, but the end result was a major tax cut, such that this tea was now cheaper than it had ever been before. So, again: the Boston Tea Party was people protesting an Act that significantly cut their taxes.
(Note: elementary-school, NOT home-schooled.)
Home schoolers are much more likely to actually know what happened (you obviously didn't).
Then you could maybe learn why protesting legal taxation by your elected representatives completely lacks any moral base.
That argument has no logical basis.
Self-governance was the point of the Boston Tea Party and the Revolution. Self-governance is not getting to vote for someone to tell you what to do, it is actually getting to make your OWN decisions. Getting to democratically elect your representatives does not magically mean you're free. You've been duped.
I was completely serious.
Whether you meant it seriously, it was not serious, as it had no rational basis. There is no reason of any kind to believe that my opposition to government funding of something means I should eschew it use. It's a logically vapid, unsupportable, non-serious, claim.
My putting particulars to demo kid's general description of you really cut to the core, didn't it?
I have no idea what you're talking about, actually.
The entire paragraph contains one hyphen.
Yes, and it was improperly used. Do you want to know why?
Now, can you look up-thread, and read the wise counsel of the man who had already explicitly warned you about claiming that one equals two?
There was no implication that there was more than one hyphen, in fact. I could also explain this to you if necessary.