Writing on the Stall
“Only in America do we stamp “In god we trust” on our God” -Creed
|
Frederic Bastiat: hero
I recently encountered a piece of literature, which has brought great joy into my life. The name of this work is “The law” by Frederic Bastiat. In his book, printed in June of 1850, Bastiat examines the principals that serve as the foundation upon which law and it’s power are based. Bastiat also performs an autopsy on the socialist beast, providing invaluable information about the motives, inner workings, and false philanthropy of socialism. His book is far too vast to try to summerize into an issue of the stall. This book is a definite must read. It is full of powerful writing and to the point. He doesn’t beat around the bush or spare anyone’s feelings. The logic in “the law” is truth. I doubt anyone, after reading it, can deny the facts set fourth in it, without first lying to themselves. The following is an excerpt from “the law”: Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right -- from God -- to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose of any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, of property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty. or property of individuals or groups. Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principal also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do" to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. I plead with you to read it. If you hate the writing on the stall, read it, and prove us wrong! And if you can tolerate us or even find us amusing read it, you’ll love it!!. |
Did somebody say discrimination ?
Throughout the past decade or two, the word “discrimination” has become the term that defines one of the few injustices that still dwell in our land of freedom and opportunity... To your average, pool of mush, American mind (formed and molded by public schools), this statement sounds reasonable and perhaps even truthful. But let us now examine the word “discrimination”, not by it’s assumed meaning, not by the definition assigned by the all powerful and propagandizing media. Lets whip out the good old Webster’s and see just what makes the supposed demon tick. The word discriminate has several meanings, the one that pertains to people is as follows: “To make a distinction in favor of or against one person or thing in favor of another.” For those of you who don’t know the English Language very well, the definition of “discriminate” basically means to make a decision. And, as any carbon based life form with a brain larger than cherry knows, we all have to make decisions everyday in order to live. So, really, to be accused of “discrimination” is to be accused of simply making a decision. (Dear lord, save us! What a terrible crime!!! I’m so glad the Govt. will stop at nothing to end discrimination ) Think of it this way.... I own my body. (have I upset anyone yet?) Since I own my body, I own every thing my body produces, I own my hair, my toe nail clippings etc. My labor is also a product of my body. I therefore own my labor. (Do you see what I’m getting at?) When someone hires me they are buying my labor. Can Coca Cola press a lawsuit against me because I refuse to buy their products? Hell no! Something like that is absurd!! Why, then, can someone sue a business for not buying their product? (Their labor) It doesn’t matter if they’re qualified or not. I don’t care how unfair it seems. I have the right to not buy what I don’t want to buy. That includes insurance, milk, a life saving hospital stay, or labor from women, blacks, retards, faggots, aids victims (they’re really not victims), or somebody I don’t like cause they remind me of my third grade teacher. Now that it’s obvious that the childishly shallow bullshit excuses given for all this anti discrimination movement are false. Lets peer into the socialist motives behind anti discrimination. Socialism & Communism are different stages of the same beast. We know this because socialism will always lead into communism. We are socialist. |
