As the States and the world continue to seemingly grow ever more divided, we see that enemies quickly start to resemble each other more and more. Not in their physical appearance, perhaps. But certainly in their actions and reactions.
As with many other issues, recent events have illustrated (pun intended) that situation. Enemies who fight each other tend to adopt the methods (the tactics and even the strategy) of their sworn and supposedly much different enemies. And not just in wartime.
The Western Journal discussed this with the announcement of new polls. “Just over half of voters say that it is appropriate for private companies to fire employees who have celebrated an assassination online like that of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk’s, according to a new survey.”
Imagine that. A majority of voters in the States would vote to punish people for exercising the right of free speech that Charlie Kirk advocated for 15 years of his life.
We should not be too surprised, of course. We have no doubt that a similar survey would have similar results: a majority would disagree with Charlie Kirk on God. That is, the belief in God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and the need for repentance and action to be forgiven and saved by God. Much less agree with the moral standards that he advocated. Even many of those who mourn his death clearly believe he was wrong on moral issues: abortion, homosexuality, divorce, and more.
Of course, we also point out that this is one reason that the Founding Fathers forcefully rejected the idea of “democracy.” They feared the emotions of people would cause them to do rash and dangerous actions. Especially against their enemies, political and otherwise. Libertarians have long shared the fable of the two wolves and a sheep in a democratic vote. Emotions arise, and we react with passion, anger, and a desperate need to do something! But all too often, we short-circuit our rationality, our common sense, and other beneficial characteristics. Hatred is often a greater motivator, at least at first, than love.
That is less a risk with a constitution that at least tries to establish clear limits on governmental power and protect individual liberties.
Unfortunately, a combination of really lousy political decisions and modern communications technology has nullified most of those safeguards. For example (though a subject for later), the power to declare and wage war, restricted to Congress, has been short-circuited by Congress in essenced granting the Executive Branch a presumptive and seemingly unlimited declaration to wage preemptive war whenever the White House wants. Presidents did not force Congress to do this: they did it voluntarily to satisfy their constituents and those who pay them so well. Today, the spectre of instant democracy is nearly upon us: hundreds or thousands of constituents of Congress critturs and Conscript parents (Senators) can instantly demand such be done. And fearful of losing the next election (and the campaign money), the representative “represents” the loudest voices and demands – at least when they see an advantage to doing so.
We can see that the possibility of a total “instant direct democracy” is now feasible. At least with technology and modern attitudes. We know of a local (municipal) decision that the opponents have been able to gather enough petition signatures to put to a popular vote in just a couple of weeks; and with a strong likelihood of having a special election within days. And that is even with the “archaic” method of having to collect wet-ink signatures from voters one at a time in parks, stores, and even recycling drop-off points! It will soon be possible that proposed “instant” online petitions and nearly-instant online voting – all expedited by AI apps – can be done.
This should definitely arouse and even scare lovers of liberty.
It is clear that The Donald, Pam Bondi, and many in Congress, State legislatures, and companies are responding with gut instincts to punish those who dare (sometimes even hint to) condemn Kirk. It is human to want to lash out in sadness and anger. But it is a human reaction that wise, responsible and accountable people control. And we see some signs of that: the five Republicans in Congress courageous enough to buck the GOP caucas and vote not to censure that royal pain in the neck for her comments.
The articles by many pundits – both political and religious – who point out that hate speech, just like foul language and insults and stupid speech, is still free speech. This is something denied by so-called progressives (who are really Regressive in more and more ways) for a long time now. It again demonstrates that the two generally accepted sides of politics in American government are far too much alike.
Frosty Woodbridge and many others have rightly condemned this immediate reaction by politicians and the public alike. A few celebrities (example: Jay Leno) as well as libertarians like Ron Paul have spoken up about it. Good for them!
The solution to controlling those gut reactions, those knee-jerk results of anger, sorrow, and frustration? Reduce the power of government: let them scream all they want about how they hate hate speech (and hate those that hate them). We reject those ideas; we know they are wrong. But so what? Let them say it. As long as they do not have the power to force us to shut up – and as long as the people around us who vote do not have the power of the wolves over the poor lamb? We do the adult thing: we grit our teeth, try to get a word in edgewise to explain why they are wrong. And do NOT resort to violence or the threat of violence to shut them up.
Are we adults, or toddler or spoiled teenagers? The choice is ours.
https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/O
About TPOL Nathan
Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.
The Price of Liberty 
Shut up!
As the States and the world continue to seemingly grow ever more divided, we see that enemies quickly start to resemble each other more and more. Not in their physical appearance, perhaps. But certainly in their actions and reactions.
As with many other issues, recent events have illustrated (pun intended) that situation. Enemies who fight each other tend to adopt the methods (the tactics and even the strategy) of their sworn and supposedly much different enemies. And not just in wartime.
The Western Journal discussed this with the announcement of new polls. “Just over half of voters say that it is appropriate for private companies to fire employees who have celebrated an assassination online like that of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk’s, according to a new survey.”
Imagine that. A majority of voters in the States would vote to punish people for exercising the right of free speech that Charlie Kirk advocated for 15 years of his life.
We should not be too surprised, of course. We have no doubt that a similar survey would have similar results: a majority would disagree with Charlie Kirk on God. That is, the belief in God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and the need for repentance and action to be forgiven and saved by God. Much less agree with the moral standards that he advocated. Even many of those who mourn his death clearly believe he was wrong on moral issues: abortion, homosexuality, divorce, and more.
Of course, we also point out that this is one reason that the Founding Fathers forcefully rejected the idea of “democracy.” They feared the emotions of people would cause them to do rash and dangerous actions. Especially against their enemies, political and otherwise. Libertarians have long shared the fable of the two wolves and a sheep in a democratic vote. Emotions arise, and we react with passion, anger, and a desperate need to do something! But all too often, we short-circuit our rationality, our common sense, and other beneficial characteristics. Hatred is often a greater motivator, at least at first, than love.
That is less a risk with a constitution that at least tries to establish clear limits on governmental power and protect individual liberties.
Unfortunately, a combination of really lousy political decisions and modern communications technology has nullified most of those safeguards. For example (though a subject for later), the power to declare and wage war, restricted to Congress, has been short-circuited by Congress in essenced granting the Executive Branch a presumptive and seemingly unlimited declaration to wage preemptive war whenever the White House wants. Presidents did not force Congress to do this: they did it voluntarily to satisfy their constituents and those who pay them so well. Today, the spectre of instant democracy is nearly upon us: hundreds or thousands of constituents of Congress critturs and Conscript parents (Senators) can instantly demand such be done. And fearful of losing the next election (and the campaign money), the representative “represents” the loudest voices and demands – at least when they see an advantage to doing so.
We can see that the possibility of a total “instant direct democracy” is now feasible. At least with technology and modern attitudes. We know of a local (municipal) decision that the opponents have been able to gather enough petition signatures to put to a popular vote in just a couple of weeks; and with a strong likelihood of having a special election within days. And that is even with the “archaic” method of having to collect wet-ink signatures from voters one at a time in parks, stores, and even recycling drop-off points! It will soon be possible that proposed “instant” online petitions and nearly-instant online voting – all expedited by AI apps – can be done.
This should definitely arouse and even scare lovers of liberty.
It is clear that The Donald, Pam Bondi, and many in Congress, State legislatures, and companies are responding with gut instincts to punish those who dare (sometimes even hint to) condemn Kirk. It is human to want to lash out in sadness and anger. But it is a human reaction that wise, responsible and accountable people control. And we see some signs of that: the five Republicans in Congress courageous enough to buck the GOP caucas and vote not to censure that royal pain in the neck for her comments.
The articles by many pundits – both political and religious – who point out that hate speech, just like foul language and insults and stupid speech, is still free speech. This is something denied by so-called progressives (who are really Regressive in more and more ways) for a long time now. It again demonstrates that the two generally accepted sides of politics in American government are far too much alike.
Frosty Woodbridge and many others have rightly condemned this immediate reaction by politicians and the public alike. A few celebrities (example: Jay Leno) as well as libertarians like Ron Paul have spoken up about it. Good for them!
The solution to controlling those gut reactions, those knee-jerk results of anger, sorrow, and frustration? Reduce the power of government: let them scream all they want about how they hate hate speech (and hate those that hate them). We reject those ideas; we know they are wrong. But so what? Let them say it. As long as they do not have the power to force us to shut up – and as long as the people around us who vote do not have the power of the wolves over the poor lamb? We do the adult thing: we grit our teeth, try to get a word in edgewise to explain why they are wrong. And do NOT resort to violence or the threat of violence to shut them up.
Are we adults, or toddler or spoiled teenagers? The choice is ours.
https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/O
Share this:
About TPOL Nathan
Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.