27 votes

Who are you?

Who am I?

I look like most of you.

Two arms, two legs, a head on top of my shoulders....

I am fortunate, I can walk, talk and think....

I have the ability to reason and make decisions in my life.

Deciding what's best for me and the impact my decisions will have on the people around me.....

I have the ability to let go of my needs and listen to the needs of others (that's not something everyone has) and have the ability to sacrifice.

I am fortunate to have a family that loves me unconditionally and appreciates me for the person I am....

I am headstrong and driven yet I am able to step back and look at the folks around me and realize they all have aspirations, needs, wants and goals.

I'm no different from them.

I think....better yet, I believe I'm better than most and can achieve greatness...but today was humbled by someone that found a better way.

So then I looked at my wife and children and realized, we just have to do the very best we can.

The best we can do is to plant those seeds in our kids to have the same values and aspirations and drive and focus we have so they can live a more comfortable, productive and fulfilling life.

I'm not out to make trouble...

I'm not out to obstruct....

I just want to be free to be me!

I want my children to realize that they have this one very precious life. What they do with it is important and irreplaceable.

They have one shot at this and have to deal with a lot of hurdles and pitfalls.

But if I can somehow give them the gift of confidence, to be a better man that I am and face this challenging world.....and to realize WHO THEY ARE and the beauty they possess ...I have done my job......

This is why I'm here on the Daily Paul, This is why I'm a delegate in my county, This is why the bill of rights is so important to me, This is why we must preserve this country and the gift our founders gave us...

and

THIS IS WHY I STAND AGAINST THE TYRANNY OF THOSE WHO WISH TO RULE ME! YOU ARE STEALING MY GIFT AND HAVE NO RIGHT!

DEX....



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Or

Maybe we have eternal life and have bigger fish to fry? If it's just this one life, if soon we'll just be dirt, then none of it really matters, in fact nothing at all matters. Liberty would be a concept that we like, that we pretend is important, but meaningless except to whoever chooses to care about it. Purely existential. Real freedom can only come in my opinion from the son of God. If the son sets you free, you are free indeed as the scripture says. If God is not real, no concept is truly important. Even the truth. It's all just silly animals made of space dust play acting. Oh well, just more pondering for the jambalaya. Peace.

You are free to choose to be

You are free to choose to be immoral if you like.

Most of do not chose that and our morality is our own. We don't need a crutch to be moral. There is good and evil in all of us, by evolution or by god, whichever you prefer.

Part of what makes Statolaters dangerous is they think the evil can be overcome by state violence, but this is a moral contradiction, you cannot grow good from evil seeds. This is the honest statolaters. Some do know this and actually prefer evil. Like Bush or Obama or most politicians.

But if there is a god, I think the reason he doesn't provide proof of his existence is so that people can be free to choose.

If that is the case, you're failing the test.

Collectivism* vs individualism is a fight between good and evil. It's in our nature. All of have some predisposition to be predators. All of us have some predisposition to be creators.

To be on the right side requires two things.

You have to know what the fight is.
You have to choose to fight for good.

* I assume I don't have to explain to anyone here that collectivism is not collective action or co-operative action. Collectivism is the justification for one group of individuals to prey on another group. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, is just saying our wants justify killing or stealing from you. As a practical matter collectivism requires the prey group to be disarmed. Which is one reason why we are all safer the more people are armed.

One

One can't be immoral if there is no moral law, and if there is no moral law giver there is no "real" moral law. That's all. People often pretend that there is when they don't believe in a moral law giver, but that is all it is, pretending. Unless of course that moral sense you're talking about comes from that creator. Think of it, what other creature that we know exists has the ability to moralize? We're the only ones, that says something. However without an over arching moral law, all we would have would be personal experience leading to moral preferences. Not "real" or "ultimate" moral or immoral choices. You and I without a creator are no more important than a piece of grass, a dog, a tree. I don't think my cat has done something morally wrong when he kills a mouse and plays with it for fun. So taking someone else' freedom or killing them would be no more wrong than that. The universe didn't write down a pecking order of who or what is important. We're just space dust. Space dust doesn't have a moral imperative.

But if we were created in the image of God, if we have inherent dignity, then it's a whole different ballgame. Then that whole inalienable rights thing might just be true. Sure they can still be easily stolen, but that doesn't mean that those who steal them haven't done wrong and won't have to answer for it, either from us, or from the Law Giver, call him whatever you like.

I've often said almost exactly what you did in your comment, I believe one of the reasons we don't see God reach down and pat you on the shoulder every day is because he wants faith. But he has revealed enough of himself to make it logically reasonable to believe. He wants us to make an educated decision toward faith. But that's a separate topic, I just found it interesting that we share a similar view on that. But the main point is the one on ethics that I started with.

There is moral 'law'

Though 'law' may make it easy to be confused. I would prefer to say simply, there is morality, or better yet, there is good and evil.

However it's hubris to claim we have the final or perfect understanding of good and evil. We do not, not human can, no human has the capacity.

This does not remove our obligation to understand it as best we can, so that we can be a force for good as best we can. (As it seems some people seem to feel an obligation to study also to be the best force for evil they can, but why some people do so is another topic)

I think it's failing to recognize that we do not have the capacity to perfectly understand morality that leads you astray. Because next you say without overarching moral law there would only be "personal experiences leading to moral preferences".

But this is exactly our reality. We both agree humans are inherently and inescapably flawed, for different reasons. But you don't follow through with the logic, though many Christians do, which is one reason I'm so respectful of Christianity.

So again: if we're inherently flawed then our understanding of morality must be imperfect. It doesn't matter (for this purpose) where it comes from, it matters that we somehow perceive it and choose to be moral. But there is a necessary and profound consequence to that imperfection, which is itself the beginning of understanding morality, which understanding is required to become more moral.

To say that we're imperfect and never can be perfect doesn't remove our responsibility to become better. To say that imperfection means we can never completely understand our physical or moral reality doesn't remove our responsibility to understand them better.

But our imperfection does mean that while you can have something like faith that there is a real moral universe, or I can deduce it from our physical reality, what we cannot ever do is have faith that our understanding is perfect.

In fact we know for a certainty that our understanding is definitely imperfect.

So when we see a mugging or a murder or a rape or a kidnapping in progress, we can know with some assurance that intervening is the right thing to do. In fact most of us feel an imperative to do so, which if denied makes us feel guilty. Science tells us much of this is built into us. The Bible also says much of this is given to us by our creator, and very explicitly so in Genesis.

There are many other situations of what I would call evil, that people do routinely accept, and this is where knowledge kicks in. I can often clarify many things in such a way that most good people see an issue in a better light which may help them become better.

But I never presume in these cases that my understanding is perfect, just that sometimes it's better than the person I'm talking to. Sometimes not.

The moral implication to this, and I think the key to all morality, is first accepting you don't know, and then deciding you want to know as much as you can, and then possibly most importantly, never being tricked into believing the bite from apple of knowledge of good and evil, was all of the truth. It was just a little truth, it was from a poison source, and you will never in all of mortal life fully digest even that one bite.

Ultimately we don't know and this basic fact means we must be very careful about insisting our knowledge is somehow better than the next guy, so much so that we would lift arms against him.

Lifting arms against our brothers is exactly what we do every time we walk into a voting booth. IMO democracy is an evil fruit from an evil seed, and cannot be other.

Many Christians in the liberty movement seem to understand this. They absolutely believe in good and evil, but they understand any good we would attempt to do with arms raised against our brothers is almost always the opposite of good, and even if well intentioned, leads to the place good intentions usually do.

The progressive Christians, whose first impulse is to use political force is however not my friend and are on the wrong path. To pay other men with guns to do something they are too cowardly to do themselves, and worse anonymously from the voting booth, can ultimately only have evil results.

If the powers of the government are derived from the people, the government can do no more than the people can. Whatever you think is wrong for others to do or not do, if you do not know enough, and with enough certainty, to do personally what you would send others to do in your name then you should immediately consider if the good you think to do will be made somehow better with the introduction of intimidation, slavery, violence, theft, or death.

You might say there is only one entity in universe that can be trusted with power.

I would say zero.

But I do hope we might agree that either way, no human can be so trusted, because we both agree humans are, and always will be in life, imperfect in all things, especially including their knowledge of morality.

I do

I do agree with that imperfection. My statement is that without a moral law giver, there is no moral law. That is all. Ethics are a play thing that people create. I don't claim to have perfect knowledge of it. There is certainly a sense within us, the question is whether that is authentic, a true sense. If there is a God, at least the potential for a moral law exists, without such a being, no moral law could exist. If we both say there is a moral law, overarching, no matter how well we are able to delineate all its finer points, it is there, we must also posit a God like being, or else our argument self destructs.

If all we have are our preferences and there is no ultimate "right" or "good" we're striving for, then we could never know if we got "better" as you say. These words, "good", "evil", "better", are undefined without that moral law as a context.

Another

Another way to say it is, humans can not create a moral law. We may recognize its existence, but it can't be created by a finite imperfect creature or group of them. It would have to come from an infinite and perfect creature. Call him what you will, just not the unintelligent universe.

I agree we cannot create

I agree we cannot create moral law.

Our duty to god, or humanity, is to discover it.

To do this we must first recognize that, being imperfect, we can only improve our understanding, never perfect our understanding.

You have faith morality is of divine nature, and possibly immorality is of infernal nature.

I have reason to think that morality is of our nature, whatever the source. Seeing no evidence of divine, I still see that we humans do seem to care a lot about good and evil, and have learned a lot about recognizing it. For some, seeing it exists is enough to draw conclusions about it's origin, though not for me.

Whatever it's source, I think we agree it does exist, and it is not ours to define, only discern and document.

My first and primary observation is this: Given humans have evil, or I would say predation, inherently and perpetually in our nature, it is a miracle of no small import that so much of what we do is done harmoniously and without conflict.

The extremely vast majority of human interaction occurs between people who choose to do so without any violence in the equation. This is (small c) creation.

The vast majority of evil occurs from the seeds of violence either directly, through common crime, or mass murder or slavery which inevitably results from allowing just a little bit of systemic ie legal, violence into the society. This is predation.

We like to think there are wolves, wolfhounds, and sheep. Both wolves and wolfhounds seem to sleep better when the sheep aren't armed.

But the sheep don't sleep better.

So I don't think there are any sheep or wolfhounds. I think there are humans, armed and disarmed. And some disarmed try to delude themselves they are safer for being disarmed, and certainly all armed try to convince the disarmed they are somehow safer.

Power.

Ceding it is irresponsible and dangerous, and in degree of that cession.

The thing you cannot ever do is cede your responsibility to be moral. Your moral authority is either innate, or given to you in trust by God. Either way you have no ability to delegate moral authority. Unlike a federal reserve note, responsibility for your actions is neither refundable nor transferable. Perhaps when you die, God will relieve you of this burden. Perhaps. But for this life, it is yours and none other's.

If you cede your ability to act on that responsibility you are aiding evil. You were not given moral authority in order to do nothing to affect good and evil in this world. Delegating power to act, delegating and paying for, men with guns to act in your name does not negate your responsibility for their actions.

But it does certainly increase the risk there will be evil to be responsible for. That is yours forever. Giving away power doesn't negate your burden of sin for what others do with that power. Honestly, I can't conclude other than that giving it away at all, ever, must be immoral. You likely wouldn't go that far.

But I do hope you might consider developing a habit of giving serious analysis to progressive/predatory/statist urges, which we all have, in that light. In giving away your power, you aren't giving away burden.

By way of example: before we send men with guns to put other men into rape cages for doing a different drug than we do, we better be damned sure this is the right thing. We better be sure the voice telling us to force others to conform to our opinion.. isn't from somewhere darker.

Because we do know one thing. The miracle of human peaceful cooperation occurs all around us every day. That seems to be a very large clue being handed to us over and over and over.

The results of giving away our individual ability to act on our moral responsibility also seem very apparent and we see this shown to us over and over and over.

It's almost as if we're supposed to be learning something.

apologies

I don't have time to type or read a treatise. So if you could be more succinct without falling into a full on classroom lecture it would be great. You're obviously very intelligent and your thinking very powerful, but again I think your root is faulty.

You say;

Whatever it's source, I think we agree it does exist, and it is not ours to define, only discern and document.

Where does it come from if not God? Simple question, please a simple answer.

I respect your opinion.

My feeling about this is that because we have 1 shot it makes it that much more significant. It's awesome to be alive right here and right now.

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

egapele's picture

Bump

Top o' the mornin' to ya!

The best ideas

Are built on a solid foundation.

Yours is well thought out and cuts to the core.

+1

Thanks

It's he real deal

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

Treason By Design ~ PAC

Offer

"Ultimately the instrumental blow came after the so-called Civil War."

and

"THE QUESTION IS: Who does know, and are they willing to fix it !?!"

In the first place, I can offer the records that demonstrate how the Usurpation occurred in 1787, whereby a working Democratic Federated Republic or Free Market Government was Usurped with the Crime documented as The Constitution.

In other words the so-called Civil War was already arranged, put in place, in 1787, as it was called The Dirty Compromise at that time in 1787, and then the same "deal" played out as the so-called Civil War later on.

So...the cause and effect of honest, productive, people, or We The People, being IN Liberty, as they make it, and then having that Liberty become Crime made Legal, was done in 1788, here in this Country.

You may want to check this out:

http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html

Crime is prevented with Trial by Jury, where each individual human being is as powerful "legally" as each other individual human being, anyone is as "legally" powerful as The King.

That idea was carried over to America by those who carried it over here, and along with that idea, carried over to America, was the idea of Crime made Legal.

So the battle is constant.

We The People HAD Liberty under The Articles of Confederation, because it was a working example of Free Market Government, and therefore it had the FORCE of competition working to improve government, to make government higher in quality and lower in cost over time, as each member of We The People commanded the power of voluntary choice, and each choice is then added to the whole POWER to force government to be what The People demand it to be, and to not be anything other than what The People demand.

Just words, I know.

Only words, I am aware of my lack of power to communicate accurately.

But...the facts are self-evident, if you care to look.

Thanks for the link, it looks like good work to me.

Joe

Thanks Josf.

Who Knows and is willing to fix it?

It seems that the only ones who can have standing to fix things are the people of the several States, those who are not citizens of the US (DC). They are the ones who have been disenfranchised, and whose lawful de jure governments have been overthrown.

If you are looking to be one of them, if you want to have standing in law to claim injury by the "system," the only action I know of is to correct ones nationality, and sever all contractual relationships with the US. There are a growing number who are learning this truth, learning to apply it to their own lives, and wish to act in unison to achieve remedy.

Thus the tagline to my posts. :-)

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Each one.

Each person who knows, and is willing to fix it, does, each one in their own way.

When there are better ways, and best ways, then those who know, and are willing to fix it, are able to copy those better ways, and improve upon them.

That is how that works, when the problem is Legal Crime, or Monopoly of Crime, since the FIX is actual Law, and when the fix is Competition, or Free Market Law.

Those are just words.

Here are examples of which may serve to exemplify those who know, and those who are willing to fix it.

1.
Ron Paul
2.
Rand Paul
3.
Alex Jones
4.
Adam Kokesh
5.
Gerald Celente
6.
Jesse Ventura
7.
Sibel Deniz Edmonds
8.
Frank O'Collins
9.
David Wynn Miller
10.
Carl Miller
11.
Josiah Warren
12.
Fill in the blank

How?

1.
End the FED (work now to find and use competitive legal money)
2.
End the IRS (work now to accomplish 1 above and then the IRS Criminals have to find other ways to commit legal Extortion since the ONE money power is fading)
3.
Bring the Troops Home (start by looking in the mirror)
4.
Do so by July 4th 2013, sooner is better, too late is too late.

Have you heard of Frank O'Collins or David Waynn Miller?

Joe

Josf, I appreciate what you are saying

I appreciate what you are saying, and to that extent I have held for a long time that every effort, from within and without the system, is helpful. In combat, an enemy ought to be overwhelmed from all sides.

However, in light of the truth of the article, to which I linked at the top of this conversation, working from the inside, as a US citizen, and thus an insurgent to the lawful organic common law Nations of the American Union, merely continues to legitimize the defaco unlawful "legal" tyrannical system that exists, and the thieves that control it.

This is a system that is NOT broken, but one which was DESIGNED to be just the sort of "Tax Farm" and "Plantation" of human resources and wealth extraction that it is. It is supported by its participants - That's anyone who remains a US citizen. If we just walked away from it it would fall down, and We, the true inhabitants of the several States, WE the People, would restore, the lawful governments and institutions that we inherited from our fathers, and which true justice demands.

Further, Congress has the authority to put down insurrections and rebellion with force. So any uprising that US citizens may do will be just that, rebellion against the US. But as with the so called "Civil War" the people of the States were NOT actually in rebellion to their lawful State Governments, or the Federal Government.

Nor would those who now become State Nationals demanding the reinstatement of their lawful governments. The insurgents will now be the ones who are sitting in Office.

http://www.dailypaul.com/288554/what-else-is-there-to-say

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

The answer then is no?

No, is the answer: you have not heard of Frank O'Collins or David Waynn Miller?

If you think that I do not agree with much of what you have to say, then what you have to say is merely a statement, so why would your statement follow the word "However,"?

Do you think that I vote?

I ran for Congress, was on the ballot, in 1996, after Waco, running on the "it is not nice to torture and murder people in a church for fun and profit" ticket.

I was part of the recent delivery of Legal Notices to all Congressmen as Redress of Grievances.

The False Federal Government is, by my accurate measure, based upon my own person experiences, and study, merely a Crime in Progress and the Crime started in 1788 with the signing of The Constitution.

However, it is nice to know that more people are becoming more aware of the crime in progress as it continues to progress.

Joe

you are right.

I haven't heard of either of them. Sorry I didn't see the last line of your earlier post asking me the question. So I searched and found this: http://grizzom.blogspot.com/p/frank-ocollins.html Very informative. Bookmarked. Thanks. Greater knowledge is always useful.

And to be clear, when I said "you" I was by no means referring directly to you, but to the euphemistic you, which is to say anyone. I mean no disrespect in any way to what you have individually done, or your perception of the world. I sense that you may have taken offense where none was intended. My apology if that is the case.

I believe we sit on the same side of the fence you and I. Thansks for the interaction. See you soon again I hope. :-)

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Thanks

I may appear to have thin skin, but I don't think that that is true in the sense of my will to survive.

There is a song that reminds me of people who inspire me, not people writing or performing the song, but people who are the toughest souls around.

I hope that you can be the best you can in the time you have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlq0lYB3iSM

Joe

Johny - Boy

That was the most beautiful thing ever sent.

Thanks brother....

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

Thanks dexterszyd

I've enjoyed reading many of your posts and threads.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/