Tyranny

Tyranny. It's a powerful word the conjures up powerful images of Hebraic slaves being forced to labor under the pharaohs of pagan Egypt. The national megalomaniac administration of a Teutonic government concerned with racial purity. Or the Orwellian Ingsoc society of Oceania.  Some in the states allude to the splinter cell like operations of our own government and the seemingly ever present secrete agencies spying on their own people in the effort to combat terrorism.  However, while any one of those examples, Pharonic Egypt, National Socialist Germany, the allusions to the Soviet Union, and socialism, by Orson Wells are all examples of tyranny, those acts alone don't really articulate the meat and potatoes of what tyranny is. And a nation or culture need not be corrupted to exercise acts of tyranny.

Look at our American fore fathers. 18th century Great Britain was arguably the most liberal, just, and enlightened country of not only their age, but even when measured against the mores of the 21st century which is something I usually do not like doing, their society was more liberal than most nations today. It isn't so much a sad state of affairs for the world today more as an acknowledgement that truly enlightened and just societies, of which Rome could be considered, are rare. The rule of law, as we too often see with nations like China, is still a concept that is very rarely applied impartially. It would take some major Olympic calibre mental gymnastics to argue otherwise about Great Britain back in the days of yonder.

Even so, our fore fathers fought a revolution against a government that they considered tyrannical. They said as much publicly and in their letters to their love ones.  So, how can this be that the most enlightened nation of its age, whose citizens enjoyed far more rights than their own continental cousins in mainland France or Spain, was considered a tyrannical by its own countrymen? The answer is as simple as its definition.

Tyranny, a noun, it means arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power.  There are other additional definitions of the word, but none that capture the essence of what tyranny is. Enlightened nations can be tyrannical when authority and power is used arbitrary or when the authority vested by its citizens is abused.  For our fore fathers this meant increasingly arbitrary acts of parliament that levied taxes, stationed troops, and even confiscated their weapons without the representation of the colonies in parliament were they could at least try to address their grievances. Ultimately the tyranny of Great Britain over the colonies was that they never extend the rights of their English to their own cousins. America as we know it probably would never have existed if a few Americans had been granted seats in British parliament. Today the ever increasing regulatory and law making power of agencies, whose executives are not voted in, that are often never reviewed by congress are a new kind of tyranny.

Today we live in a society where an individual could be breaking a dozen laws and not have any knowledge, yet we are told ignorance of the law is no excuse, but how is it reasonable to expect the common man to know the byzantine codes, rules, regulations, and laws that exist today? A man today, who could have unknowingly broken the law many times throughout his life along with thousands of his compatriots, could find himself brought before a tribunal simply because he had the misfortune to make a powerful enemy or a prosecutor who was capricious enough to use him to further his own political career, is this not a form of tyranny?

When our government, and our political leadership, demagogue the productive of society and swear that they will punish them via taxation. Saying that the wealth and prosperity that was earned from the hard work of the industrious was ill-gotten, and forcing them to subsidize the life styles of the lazy, stupid, and politically connected; is that not a form of tyranny?

And while something most certainly could be said about christian responsibility to our fellow man, where those who are fortunate render voluntary assistance to those who are less fortunate. Is it not tyrannical when the few are forced to subsidize the many, regardless whether or not the programs being funded by the taxpayer violate their moral code?

Is it not tyranny when an individual is forced by law to join a trade association regardless of whether or not they want to join for certain professions?

Is it not tyranny when our government uses its power to rob from our future in order to fund our present?

And certainly when constant government meddling, interfering, and nanny stating have fundamentally changed American society. Where it once was a society where everyone assumed that an action or activity was legal unless declared otherwise; and it know assume actions have to be declared permissible. That is tyranny.

Democracy doesn't necessarily mean that a government cannot be a tyrannical one; in fact for from it as democracy can be one of the most tyrannical forms of governance.  And while, fortunately for us, our tyranny is not one of blood and terror, it is one of regulation and bureaucracy. And perhaps most disheartening is that our forefathers suffered far less before they rose against their yoke, yet today we tolerate far more injustices and injuries with nary a peep. I cannot imagine our fore fathers meekly accepting the abuses of the TSA, calling the sophistry of so many in academia truth, and the rank indifference by our congressional leaders on the constitution, or the abrogation of their responsibilities to nameless federal agencies.

Yet that is exactly were we stand today, living under the tyranny of incompetents and without principal. For the only thing preventing our congressional leaders from passing even more byzantine and punatitive laws, regardless on whether or not they even have the constitution mandate to do so, is principal and ability. It has become increasingly clear, with the constant lies about the fiscal cliff and inability to even acknowledge the real danger this nation face, that principal governs far too few of our congressional leaders. They are all too willing to sacrifice the prosperiety of our progeny, namy young generation x, y, and beyound, for a few measily votes so they can retain their trappings of power. The only thing then that prevents them is ability, or rather, the ability to enforce laws without massive public retribution.

For example the only reason gun consfication has not happened on a large scale here in America, like it has in so many other developed and supposedly liberal nations, is that it is a rank impossibility to do so. Fortunately for us, there are so many fire arms in this nation that there is no feasible way that it could peacefully consficate them if even a fraction of the American population took violent exception to such actions; but that could change. And this is only one example of circumstance, and not principal that protects our freedoms. The recent liberalization of marujanna laws are another.

The sad fact is that our government will become ever more tyrannical until we can change the fundemental outlook of this nation and its leaders. Until we can get the people of America to collectively say, should the goverment really do this, rather than, why doesn't the government do something, we will continue to suffer under the an increasingly corpulant government. Trading the chains of the aristocracy for the tape of bueacracy isn't freedom, but our elected leaders and intelligesta have convinced many Americans that this is the case.

I still hold some small measure of hope, though I feel my hope is very much like a flickering fame in a gale storm, that we can change the tide of tyranny in America. The last decade saw a few leaders, notably Mr Paul, stand up and ask real pertinent questions on the roll of government, and advance the cause of freedom. Sadly Mr. Paul has retired, though there are others who will take up his mantel, and it is time we move to the next phase.

It is increasingly clear that we, the lover of liberty, are still too small and uninfluencial to fight tyranny on a national level. But perhaps trying to change congress is the wrong avenue of approach to our problems. Appealing to the far off buearacrats in D.C was the strategy of our opponents. It is very hard to win a game where they have created the rules, and more importantly, doesn't address the real problem. Our federal governmen'ts tyranny is only the browning leaves of a tree with rot that goes to deep into our roots. Our tyranny isn't like a snake, where you can cut off the head, but like a weed; you need to kill the roots to kill the weed. Local governments are the roots of the American, and that is were the prunning must begin. It is time we pay far more attention to our local politicans and hold them accountable to the principals of our fore bearers. Not only does it offer the path to remove the yoke off our backs, and not only is it a path where the actions of a small, but committed, group of individuals have a far greater likelihood of success, it is really our only option.

Obese Woman Denied Flight Dies

Here is an article that caught my eye today. Apparently a women turned away by numerous airlines in Europe because she was obese died while trying to get back to America.  Now I don't want to fully exonerate the airline companies because they do bear some culpability.  they apparently didn't have a problem bringing her from the US to Europe, but surprisingly did have one when she was trying to return. Moreover, according she had made the flight from the US to her native Hungary every year. Either the airlines just didn't want to deal with her this time around, or they were being grossly irresponsible in flights past.  But there are some other items that need to be focused on.

She had no business flying. Not because she was obese, millions of very rotund individuals fly every day in America, but because medically it was irresponsible to do so.

(The Woman was) an amputee who suffered from kidney disease and diabetes – with a severely distended belly.

 

A person who has kidney disease should not be traveling. Kidney disease can turn into kidney failure far more rapidly than people expect, and I think that is ultimately what killed her. Her death was entirely preventable if either herself, or her husband, had executed any personal responsibility. I know I am coming off as unsympathetic, and I am not unsympathetic to them, but it doesn't take a stretch of someones imagination to realize that her condition made traveling perilous for many reasons. Furthermore, outside of some very rare condition, an individual doesn't end up becoming a double amputee, with diabetes, and kidney failure unless they absolutely did not take care of themselves.  They should have seen this coming from miles away, and unfortunately, due partly to human nature, and partly due to America's current cultural climate, they failed to do so.

And for all the obesity apologetics out there. Obesity is not a disease, it is a condition, one that is usually the result of actions by an individual. I am sure the women was a nice and decent individual, and I am willing to concede that kidney disease might have come first and started her descent into morbid obesity. But being nice and decent doesn't mean individuals should or will to cater to you and your condition, and disease doesn't remove the responsibility of taking care of yourself to the best of your ability.  Whether or not you believe the husband is justified in suing the airlines or not, I am currently undecided, you should take note of what happened in these unfortunate events and then examine your own life.

Stratfor: Norway's Geographic Challenge

Legislators Starting To See How Dire Crisis Is

Yes he is a small time legislator from an arguably from an unimportant, electorally, state. But individuals should take note when members of the leadership not only recognize the crisis; but act on it.

The EU was D.O.A

Reading this article on Britain contemplating leaving the E.U., which they will most assuredly do, has made me realize one thing. That the E.U. was dead on arrival.  The reason why? The E.U., even though many feared that it was turning into the E.U.S.S.R; it lacked one thing that its erstwhile predecessor did have, teeth. The fact is that if a nation can pick and choose which laws, ostensibly worded as treaties, it will or will not enforce without fear of reprisal then that means that the E.U.'s sovereignty over Britain was only ever so much as Britain would allow.  This contrasts greatly with the U.S.S.R where member republics had to follow the dictates of Russia lest they see tanks and troops marching their their streets and squares.

The most ultimate power a state has isn't force, but the perceived legitimacy to use force against it's member constituents.  Now some would debate this, and rightly so, but if a state tried to secede from the US the fact is that the US government would have the legitimacy to put it down with military force (Like I said this is debate amongst the sphere of blogs I read but the simple truth is that currently most Americans would side with the Federal government). The perceived legitimacy to use force to make members obey its edicts and laws is the greatest power the state can possess. Just ask any dictator. It isn't force that gives them their legitimacy, it is the perceived ability to use that force without retribution.

The fact that the E.U. constitutionally cannot force Britain to accept its laws already shows that the E.U. has no power to compel Britain to stay.  This means that the E.U. was D.O.A from the get go.