All of the backlash, the Tea Parties, the town hall meetings, the rise in the right-leaning blogosphere are all about one thing.
Barack Obama and his fellow marxists* in Washington want to take the thing from us. We even want them to have it. But we are determined that they will not take it from us.
First, what the thing is not.
- The thing is not money
The debates we have often take place in monetary terms — adding to deficits, raising or lowering taxes, etc. Barack Obama and his fellow marxists in Washington want our money, and we want to keep our money from them. But money is just a proxy for the thing.
- The thing is not justice
Barack Obama and his fellow marxists in Washington talk about “economic justice”, by which they mean to ensure, by whatever means necessary, that everyone has enough money. Like the rest of Marxism, it’s a hollow dream, because it’s unattainable, and even if it were attainable, would be worthless. You cannot assure that each one has enough without crushing the hope to gain more than enough, nor without also producing a society of slaves.
- The thing is not equality
Barack Obama and his fellow marxists in Washington mouth the words that they want equality, but as explained above what they really mean is that no one has any more than anyone else. They expressly do not mean equality before the law, for they see the law as a tool for adjusting the place each of us has. In a world build by their accounting of justice, none must ever end with means greater than the next. All they ever really mean by their redistribution schemes is to take power from those who have it and give it to themselves.
- The thing is not success
Like money, “justice”, and “equality”, Barack Obama and his fellow marxists in Washington claim to want power. They say they want change, but what they really want is the power to implement a utopian fantasy of a socialist workers’ paradise. We do not wish them success in this, but wish them to fail.
- The thing is not power
While we really don’t want them to have the power they now hold, the thing is not the power. We don’t want that power for ourselves, for we do not believe anyone should have the power they seek, and in fact now have.
The thing is liberty.
Barack Obama and his fellow marxists in Washington want to take liberty from us. We even want them to have liberty, as well. But we are determined that they will not take our liberty from us.
The beauty of liberty is that you don’t get it by taking it from someone else, but by insisting that they keep theirs, too.
————
*Being a charitiable sort, I’ll give them the small ‘m’
Daniel Horowitz
Neil Stevens
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Jake Walker
Beautifully put, Socrates -nt
E Pluribus Unum (Diary) Wednesday, September 30th at 5:17PM EST (link)Kill the Terrorists
Protect the Borders
Punch the Hippies h/t IMAO
Yet the DC Republicans Have Allowed it to be
farstar99 (Diary) Friday, October 2nd at 4:29PM EST (link)Yet the DC Republicans have (with 2 exceptions) allowed it to be framed as precisely those first few.
The right must get better at stopping Democrat lies COLD.
55555! Well put.
ColdWarrior (Diary) Wednesday, September 30th at 7:07PM EST (link)I can’t find it right now, but I recall reading an interview of a Revolutionary War citizen soldier. He was asked why he took up arms against the British. It had nothing to do with the amount of taxation. He basically said it had to do with the fact that for a long time the colonists had run their affairs pretty well. They just wanted to keep running their affairs the way they had, rather than having the British run their affairs for them. That simple.
Or, put another way, in one of my favorite lines from one of my favorite movies, “The Last of the Mohicans”:
British Officer: You call yourself a patriot, and loyal subject to the Crown?
Hawkeye: I do not call myself subject to much at all.
Thank you.
ColdWarrior
www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com
In 2012, will YOU become a “voting member” of the Republican Party in your precinct?
Where it all started. Twitter @kaltkrieger
Unified Patriots.
Learn how to GOTV at The Concord Project and at Procinct and
Thanks, ColdWarrior.
Loren Heal (Diary) Wednesday, September 30th at 7:27PM EST (link)People often assume that the Stamp Act or the Tea Tax were some onerous levies, but they were tiny, even by standards of the time. The problem with them was that who was levying the tax, and who was forced to pay it, not how much it was.
Today, the thing that burns me about ObamaCare is not the cost, which would be enough to oppose it, but the mandate. I reject idea that the government can force me to take an insurance policy, even on the ostensible theory that I am not responsible enough to pay for my own medical needs.
F that.
–
Join the Concord Project, and follow @lheal, if you dare.
Here Here!
baserunr (Diary) Thursday, October 1st at 5:52PM EST (link)This is EXACTLY the issue! The libs say they are all about choice, but that’s exactly what they want to eliminate when it comes to health care! (Or school choice! Or…) They readily admit that their goal is an eventual single-payer system. But who are they to force a patient to buy any insurance product? Who are they to force a doctor, hospital, or clinic to treat a patient? And who are they to determine what the value of that treatment shall be? Leave me to my own devices, maximize my liberty. The health care system is only broken to the extent that government shackles it. Hear the cries of William Wallace…Freedom!
“The day you think you know it all is the day your trouble starts.”
Minor nit
The_Gadfly (Diary) Friday, October 2nd at 8:46AM EST (link)I’m not positive on the Tea Tax, but the Stamp Act required payment in legal British currency, which caused it to be more onerous than the tax rate would suggest to most modern readers. At the time the tax was passed, much of the American economy ran on barter and state or other local currencies. This rarity made it much more difficult to pay the 3% tax.
You are of course correct that the colonists would most likely (and properly) have stood on principle even if the currency were more available. I just don’t want us to underplay the real impact the collection of the taxes had.
Excellent diary.
Interesting, Gadfly.
Loren Heal (Diary) Friday, October 2nd at 11:20AM EST (link)I can’t find a reference for the British currency requirement, but The Stamp Act
When Parliament passed the Stamp Act in March 1765, things changed. It was the first direct tax on the American colonies. Every legal document had to be written on specially stamped paper, showing proof of payment. Deeds, wills, marriage licenses — contracts of any sort — were not recognized as legal in a court of law unless they were prepared on this paper. In addition, newspaper, dice, and playing cards also had to bear proof of tax payment. American activists sprang into action.
They organized a no-holds-barred boycott, publishing the names of people who violated it. It took a year, but the Act was repealed.
–
Join the Concord Project, and follow @lheal, if you dare.
That was supposed to be a blockquote.
Loren Heal (Diary) Friday, October 2nd at 11:21AM EST (link)from “When Parliament …” to “… sprang into action.”
–
Join the Concord Project, and follow @lheal, if you dare.
Socrates, I did notice in your link
Richard Mullins (Diary) Friday, October 2nd at 11:22AM EST (link)that it did cover the currency act of 1764. I think that’s what Gadfly was talking about.
Richard Phillip Mullins BlogThe Squash Satire SiteNews on Happy Jet Airlines
Rmullins Pics
Rpmullins Twitter
Joe Biden is like a Decrepit Park owner with a Meth lab that happens to not only be a dealer but a user.
Let’s Bankrupt the Democratic paty. Make spend all the money to defend thier candidates.
When I posted I wasn't certain of the exact genesis of the requirement
The_Gadfly (Diary) Friday, October 2nd at 1:19PM EST (link)but I think you’ve nailed it. I just recalled from my ages old middle school learning that it required hard currency, then confirmed it with a quick Google and a lookup on Wikipedia. Their article for that is actually pretty well sourced and I didn’t question it too much since it conformed to my recollection.
I tend to work more from first principles than memorization. In this instance, I know the issues over paper money, although not studied today, were a major point of contention though out our early history. And just from a business standpoint, collecting taxes was going to need to be done with a universally recognized unit of exchange. At that time you are pretty much talking either the British pound or the Spanish dollar. Somebody in London wasn’t going to be able to use a piece of paper issued by the Colonial Government of Virginia to purchase a loaf of bread at the local bakery. If the Virginia note was run through a money exchange, there’s a fee for that, as well as potential currency trading losses. Note that this was also a problem for intra-colony trading as well. It looks like the Currency Act (not unlike the current Obamacare proposal) may have been a well intentioned law to resolve the exchange issue, but ignored the underlying problem which was the actual cause of the mess.
We tend to overlook this because the US finally settled on a gold standard and eventually established a currency we use over the entire continent. And even though Nixon took us off the gold standard, that legacy (at least until recently) has sustained the dollar as a reliable unit of exchange that was relatively stable in maintaining its value over time.
Also note,
The_Gadfly (Diary) Friday, October 2nd at 1:23PM EST (link)the Currency Act could be largely ignored by the colonies except when they interacted in an official capacity with the British government, or with British traders who could demand payment in British currency. In the case of the traders, you were likely to be able to work out something where by only the difference between the values of the exchanged goods needed to be paid in British currency which would lessen its impact. That wouldn’t be true for paying the taxes.
Confederates had something to say about this also
diakrioi (Diary) Tuesday, October 6th at 12:52PM EST (link)There are many quotes of Confederate soldiers who were asked why they fought.
“They (Yankees) are on our land, and they are telling us what to do.” – Unknown Confederate
“Believing as we did that the war was a war of subjugation, and that it meant, if successful, the destruction of our liberties, the issue in our minds was clearly drawn as I have stated it,–The Union without Liberty, or Liberty without the Union.” – Lieutenant Randolph Harrison McKim, CSA
“I don’t believe in Secession, but I do in Liberty. I want the South to conquer, dictate its own terms, and go back to the Union, for I believe that, apart, inevitable ruin awaits both.” – Sarah Dawson
Outstanding Socrates. Another diary that lives up to...
penguin2 (Diary) Wednesday, September 30th at 10:02PM EST (link)your name. The simplicity of it gives incredible depth.
Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. – Benjamin Franklin
When Good stands up to Evil, Evil blinks. – Vassar Bushmills
Conservative Education: Suggested Reading List
Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots
Thank you, penguin2
Loren Heal (Diary) Wednesday, September 30th at 10:24PM EST (link)I have a tendency to get wordy, enjoying as I do the flow of a sentence. But I know from reading too many blog posts that long sentences make for long paragraphs, which make for skipped paragraphs.
There used to be a cadre of writers here at Redstate who labored to write in the tradition of William F. Buckley or George Will, only worse. Very densely composed text, with lots of references to obscure 18th century Prussian political theorists. I tried to keep up, but never really did.
I like it better now that we’re focused on engaging the enemy, not just twiddling words at one another.
–
Join the Concord Project, and follow @lheal, if you dare.
Socrates, a terrific diary!
mailloux (Diary) Thursday, October 1st at 3:28PM EST (link)You really distilled it beautifully . . . all the rest is icing on the cake, but the cake itself is liberty. In my opinion, it even has religious implications. Liberty is part of what makes us human and it is what makes us more like the angels and less like the beasts of the field. Liberty is a reflection of our free will, which is made in the image and likeness of God. That Obama would like to take that away is egregious politically, culturally, and yes, religiously too.
Thanks for a great read.
Take Care, mailloux
Socrates, a terrific diary!
mailloux (Diary) Thursday, October 1st at 3:28PM EST (link)You really distilled it beautifully . . . all the rest is icing on the cake, but the cake itself is liberty. In my opinion, it even has religious implications. Liberty is part of what makes us human and it is what makes us more like the angels and less like the beasts of the field. Liberty is a reflection of our free will, which is made in the image and likeness of God. That Obama would like to take that away is egregious politically, culturally, and yes, religiously too.
Thanks for a great read.
Take Care, mailloux
Question
E Pluribus Unum (Diary) Thursday, October 1st at 3:48PM EST (link)Socrates, does your RW name start with a D? I have an email address I think is yours.
Kill the Terrorists
Protect the Borders
Punch the Hippies h/t IMAO
Nah.
Loren Heal (Diary) Thursday, October 1st at 6:12PM EST (link)Loren dot Heal at Google’s mail.
My real name is not a secret.
–
Join the Concord Project, and follow @lheal, if you dare.
E P U
Loren Heal (Diary) Friday, October 2nd at 12:28PM EST (link)In case I wasn’t clear: loren.heal@gmail.com
–
Join the Concord Project, and follow @lheal, if you dare.
Got it, Socrates
E Pluribus Unum (Diary) Friday, October 2nd at 12:32PM EST (link)I was going to email you this weekend. Sorry for the delay…
Kill the Terrorists
Protect the Borders
Punch the Hippies h/t IMAO
I don't think I realized that
Joe Rivers (Diary) Thursday, October 1st at 7:46PM EST (link)I’ve always been jealously protective of our liberties. But I don’t think I recognized that was the central theme underlying the tea parties, the townhall protests, the AARP meetings, and the like.
That’s a very good point.
Maquisard
It's underneath everything.
Loren Heal (Diary) Thursday, October 1st at 7:56PM EST (link)When people are mad about bailouts, they’re really mad about interference with the “sink or swim” principle.
Likewise, when you hear people complaining about taxes, the next words out of their mouths are “to fund socialist X” or “redistribution”. It’s about government interference in the economy and the violation of property rights, not the level of taxation.
–
Join the Concord Project, and follow @lheal, if you dare.
Beautifully done.
Steph C (Diary) Friday, October 2nd at 7:13AM EST (link)Don’t know how I missed it on the day it was put up.
All those things you listed before you got to the thing that we’re fighting to keep are the means by which they will take the thing we’re fighting for away.
He who controls the money, the power, the justice, defines equality and success, defines liberty for everyone else subject to those things.
“[I]f the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.” –Candidus in the Boston Gazette, 1772
Hillbilly Politics
Nice one, Soc!
Tom Anderson (Diary) Friday, October 2nd at 10:36AM EST (link)It’s always good to have a reminder what it’s all about…
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
- Edmund Burke
Absolutely correct.
melissatx (Diary) Friday, October 2nd at 11:13AM EST (link)I couldn’t say it any better. Spot on!!
But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. John Adams
I think of it this way.
bking (Diary) Friday, October 2nd at 11:03PM EST (link)I don’t need to call anyone on that side a Marxist or an enemy of freedom for me to think or say they’re doing a terrible job with terrible bills and a terrible agenda. I’m smart enough and well read enough to know the clear difference between Marx and Obama and I still reject the way everything is being handled right now.
I root for this country to get back on track, period. I don’t think that’s being done. Especially not with health care. I don’t think they’re anti-freedom for their efforts. I just think they’re inept and misguided, but really have had the same song and dance for what? 50 years?
I admire your gusto, friend. I just think calling them bunglers, boondoglers, and buffoons is sufficient and accurate.
ht tp://boredwhiteguy.blogspot.com/
It's not untrue, but insufficiently precise.
Loren Heal (Diary) Saturday, October 3rd at 12:00AM EST (link)Obama is naive and ineffective, it’s true. But that only describes his accuracy, not his target.
The word “marxist” describes his target. He believes that profit is in itself wrong, because it is manifest evidence of an unjust transaction.
Rather than understanding that people don’t trade unless both believe they will benefit, Obama believes that only one can win in a trade.
He also believes that America has never lived up to its ideals, at least not since FDR.
–
Join the Concord Project, and follow @lheal, if you dare.
I've never seen anything
bking (Diary) Saturday, October 3rd at 10:57AM EST (link)that makes me believe he thinks profits are wrong. I have seen plenty to make me believe he wants strict regulation. And the problem with that regulation is that it only effects the honest companies and government enforcement is generally toothless and impotent.
I generally don’t get into saying what politicians think or what their target is beyond what their words are and what the evidence clearly suggests. The evidence suggests he wants to pass some key legislative items that liberals have wanted for decades. Evidence suggests even more that he lacks the skill to pass anything but a pork laden piece of crap bills that please nobody, not even himself.
I think his target is European style government. I think that’s a laughable goal and would make our country implode under the weight of its own inefficiency.
ht tp://boredwhiteguy.blogspot.com/
Then we have nothing to talk about
Jack_Savage (Diary) Saturday, October 3rd at 2:43PM EST (link)If you truly believe this:
“I’ve never seen anything that makes me believe he thinks profits are wrong.”
OK, maybe you can fill me in, and I am not being a smarta**
Jack_Savage (Diary) Friday, October 2nd at 11:17PM EST (link)“I’m smart enough and well read enough to know the clear difference between Marx and Obama…”
Can you fill me in? Compare and contrast? Seriously?
reply to bking
Jack_Savage (Diary) Friday, October 2nd at 11:37PM EST (link)my bad…
That's actually a rather broad question.
bking (Diary) Friday, October 2nd at 11:59PM EST (link)To which I suggest you read the works, as a means of knowing your enemy as it were.
Some of the obvious differences are that I haven’t seen advocated and I’ll follow with how he DOES represent the remarks:
- Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and malcontents.
- Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State. A national bank with an exclusive monopoly. (as banks can buy their way out of hock, I don’t count the bailouts as this.)
- Centralisation of the means of communication.
- Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State. (let’s face if there’s one thing that isn’t happening, it’s stuff being made here)
- Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
- Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries. (well in a non-capitalist sort of way.)
- Gradual abolishing of differentiation between town and country, or to put it simply relocating people to fill up the rural areas and empty out densely populated areas.
Does that mean he exhibits none? No. State control of transport, and a multitude of freebies like state education along with the increased taxes on higher incomes are all Marxist ideas. But I think it would be far fairer to call Obama a European style socialist than a straight up Marxist.
And I have to say, the only reason why Europe doesn’t implode in on itself is because their voting system is different. Percentage of votes = percentage of seats, in a nutshell. Within our own system of voting small government with common sense (but not over)regulation works best.
ht tp://boredwhiteguy.blogspot.com/
I disagree
Jack_Savage (Diary) Saturday, October 3rd at 2:41PM EST (link)The differences you point out will merely take time. Let be briefly rebut (and say, for the record, I HAVE read the works):
– Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and malcontents.
Is being done with tax laws, abuse of eminent domain and “climate change” legislation.
- Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State. A national bank with an exclusive monopoly. (as banks can buy their way out of hock, I don’t count the bailouts as this.)
You are kidding – right? What can you say about the law recently passed to make the government the only issuer of student loans? What do you say regarding many banks being forced to accept bailout money, wishing to return said bailout money, and not being able to?
- Centralisation of the means of communication.
You mean, say, like having all the print and television media carry your water? Or perhaps companies like GE owning media like NBC and getting significant loans from the government?
- Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State. (let’s face if there’s one thing that isn’t happening, it’s stuff being made here)
Again – are you kidding? GM and Chrysler ring a bell? And as far as stuff being made here, Obama’s Marxisim has simply adapted to what IS being made here – how deep is the government planning to go into the financial sector? Health care? Etc?
- Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
The point of this would be to control the means of producing agriculture and the distribution of the product, as I understand it. The industrial armies are corporations that have been co=opted by the government to sing to their tune, or risk going out of business. Think of the health care “debate” model, and all the stakeholders who have been extorted into agreeing with the plan.
- Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries. (well in a non-capitalist sort of way.)
See above. Capitalism is dead under this administration – the only thing we have right now is crony capitalism.
- Gradual abolishing of differentiation between town and country, or to put it simply relocating people to fill up the rural areas and empty out densely populated areas.
Fine, but completely irrelevant to the world of today. The densely populated areas HAVE been emptied out.
Sorry, but no sale.
Bourgeois Political Ideas
whoframedrudy (Diary) Sunday, October 4th at 11:45PM EST (link)The week after 9/11, I knew there’d be pressure on the Bill of Rights, so I went to buy a copy of The Federalist Papers. I walked into a lefty bookstore and looked first in the History section, then Political Science, then Law. No luck. So I asked at the front desk. The book clerk sneered with contempt: “It’s in ‘Bourgeois Political Ideas.’”
Contempt for the philosophical basis for the Bill of Rights from a leftist — it was a revelation for me. I despise them, maybe more than anyone here at Red State. They just want power. They don’t really care about health care, peace or justice. They exploit social ills as a strategy to get power.
I’m not interested in whether Obama is technically a marxist, a communist or whatever. For me, the thing is gov’t power. It has to be limited. If the state takes too much power, it will become horrible and murderous. The FP says ‘If men were angels, they wouldn’t need a govt. If men were governed by angels, they wouldn’t need a Constitution.’
It’s the limitation on state power that the leftist bookclerk hates about the Constitution. Leftists teach schoolkids to sing Hosannah to ‘The Leader.’ They pretend Obama is an angel who can be trusted with absolute power. A Leftist is a totalitarian.
You’re gonna need more than one lesson. And you’re gonna get more than one lesson.