End the War on Freedom

The Theater of Freedom

In my divine studio
What I have been working on is this:

Painting the Truth,
Revealing
A more realistic picture of God,

Tearing down the cruel walls
That separate you from the tenderness of Fire.

Someone must be withholding
The crucial lines
In all those stories you have heard of our
Friend,

For there is still too much fear
And pallor upon your cheeks,

And I rarely see you
In the marvelous Theater of Freedom.

Hafiz knows
You could not describe him

Even if we sat side by side on a caravan
For years,

Even if we slept close in my desert tent
And you became familiar

With the holy scent
That the sun and my Master leave
Whenever they visit me,

For something has happened
To your youthful passions,

That great fuel
You once had to defend yourself
Against becoming tamed.

And your eyes now often tell me
That your once vital talent to extract joy
From the air
Has fallen into a sleep.

All that you could ever say of me
Can only describe my camel’s tail –

And that coarse hair
That is barely visible sometimes
On the left side of the moonÂ’s nose.

In my divine studio
Where I am sitting right now
Crafting your heart, lyre
And flute,

I long for the day when you will join me
In knowing

The extraordinary humor
And all the enchanting realities

Of the infinite performances
of
God.

(The Subject Tonight Is Love, versions of Hafiz by Daniel Ladinsky)

David Bamber at The Telegraph - Bin Laden: Yes, I did it - Osama bin Laden finally takes credit for the WTC bombing. He also personally threatens GW and Tony Blair. [picks]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe at LewRockwell.com - Democracy: The God That Failed - An introduction to Mr. Hoppe's book of the same name. Why theory is necessary to understand history. The shattering of three historical myths. Contrary to popular belief: 1) Progress has occurred in spite of, not because of states, 2) Democracy is worse than monarchy, 3) "Natural order" is a desireable alternative to Western welfare-democracies. Good stuff. [lew]

Not only would no one accept such a monopoly judge provision, but no one would ever agree to a provision that allowed this judge to determine the price to be paid for his "service" unilaterally. Predictably, such a monopolist would use up ever more resources (tax revenue) to produce fewer goods and perpetrate more bads. This is not a prescription for protection but for oppression and exploitation. The result of a state, then, is not peaceful cooperation and social order, but conflict, provocation, aggression, oppression, and impoverishment, i.e., de-civilization. This, above all, is what the history of states illustrates. It is first and foremost the history of countless millions of innocent state victims.

...

Theoretically speaking, the transition from monarchy to democracy involves no more or less than a hereditary monopoly "owner" -- the prince or king -- being replaced by temporary and interchangeable -- monopoly "caretakers" -- presidents, prime ministers, and members of parliament. Both kings and presidents will produce bads, yet a king, because he "owns" the monopoly and may sell or bequeath it, will care about the repercussions of his actions on capital values. As the owner of the capital stock on "his" territory, the king will be comparatively future-oriented. In order to preserve or enhance the value of his property, he will exploit only moderately and calculatingly. In contrast, a temporary and interchangeable democratic caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his advantage. He owns its current use but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. Instead, it makes exploitation shortsighted (present-oriented) and uncalculated, i.e., carried out without regard for the value of the capital stock.

Nor is it an advantage of democracy that free entry into every state position exists (whereas under monarchy entry is restricted by the king's discretion). To the contrary, only competition in the production of goods is a good thing. Competition in the production of bads is not good; in fact, it is sheer evil. Kings, coming into their position by virtue of birth, might be harmless dilettantes or decent men (and if they are "madmen," they will be quickly restrained or if need be, killed, by close relatives concerned with the possessions of the dynasty). In sharp contrast, the selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it essentially impossible for a harmless or decent person to ever rise to the top. Presidents and prime ministers come into their position as a result of their efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Hence, democracy virtually assures that only dangerous men will rise to the top of government.

...

Finally, the third myth shattered is the belief that there is no alternative to Western welfare-democracies a la US. Again, theory demonstrates otherwise. First, this belief is false because the modern welfare-state is not a "stable" economic system. It is bound to collapse under its own parasitic weight, much like Russian-style socialism imploded a decade ago. More importantly, however, an economically stable alternative to democracy exists. The term I propose for this alternative is "natural order."

In a natural order every scarce resource, including all land, is owned privately, every enterprise is funded by voluntarily paying customers or private donors, and entry into every line of production, including that of property protection, conflict arbitration, and peacemaking, is free. A large part of my book concerns the explanation of the workings -- the logic -- of a natural order and the requirements for the transformation from democracy to a natural order.

Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk - Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea - The U.S. should not be talking about expanding n.a.t.o.. It's time to pull out of n.a.t.o. and the u.n.

Only by removing ourselves from NATO and the UN can we reassert our fundamental right to defend our borders without the approval or participation of any international coalition. NATO is an organization that has outlived its usefulness. It was formed as a defensive military alliance, designed to protect western Europe against the Soviet threat. With the Soviet collapse in 1991, however, NATO bureaucrats (and the governments backing them) were forced to reinvent the alliance and justify its continued existence. So the "new NATO" began to occupy itself with issues totally unrelated to defense, such as economic development, human rights, territorial disputes, religious conflicts, and ethnic rivalries. In other words, "nation building." The new game was interventionism, not defense.

Kelly Patricia O'Meara at Insight Magazine - Police State - concerning the USA PATRIOT bill, the text of which was not available to house members before the vote. The new "so-called antiterrorism law" walks roughshod over the fourth amendment.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of only three Republican lawmakers to buck the House leadership and the Bush administration to vote against this legislation, is outraged not only by what is contained in the antiterrorism bill but also by the effort to stigmatize opponents. Paul tells Insight, "The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic because I insisted upon finding out what is in it and voting no. I thought it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it -- and therefore I'm somehow not a patriot. That's insulting."

...

The only independent in the House, Rep. Bernie Sanders from Vermont, couldn't support the bill for similar reasons: "I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I'm concerned that voting for this legislation fundamentally violates that oath. And the contents of the legislation have not been subjected to serious hearings or searching examination."

...

What does Paul believe the nation's Founding Fathers would think of this law? "Our forefathers would think it's time for a revolution. This is why they revolted in the first place." Says Paul with a laugh, "They revolted against much more mild oppression."

Brad Edmonds at LewRockwell.com - What We Have NOT Said - bombing Afghanistan will not solve the terrorist problem, and people who say this are NOT cowards.

As to whether it is cowardly to propose that massive and sustained bombing followed by imposition of a puppet government are morally wrong and practically counterproductive, and to propose that government should not be in the "homeland security" business, it should be noted first that the majority of columnists and commentators celebrating bombing and ground assaults are not performing these military acts themselves. Most who use the term "coward" have never been in harm's way. Further, what true libertarians are suggesting in place of government security is personal, community, and corporate responsibility for security. Which takes less courage -- learning to use a gun (and developing the will to use it to defend yourself, your family, and your property), or demanding that the government take over this responsibility for you? Encouraging your government to send young men overseas to kill and die, or being one of the few voices calling for restraint? Those who equate cowardice with distrust of the governmentÂ’s war would do well to study the notion of courage (1, 2). It requires no courage to exhort another to risk his life killing someone else.

Add comment Edit post Add post