Stay in School, Kids. Don't Do Drugs.
I agree with Jesse Walker and Nick Gillespie that the worst thing about President's Obama's speech to the students today (aside from the fact that he had no business giving it to begin with, since it's well beyond his constitutional job description) is the creepy collectivism implied by sentences like these:
If you quit on school, you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country….
Don't ever give up on yourself, because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.
The story of America [is] about people…who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best….
What will a President who comes here in 20 or 50 or 100 years say about what all of you did for this country?…
I expect great things from each of you. So don't let us down. Don't let your family down or your country down.
As the positive quotes in this Los Angeles Times story show, Republicans and self-identified conservatives do not necessarily have a problem with this sort of rhetoric, or with the notion of the president as national dad. But individualists should.
One hopeful thing about Obama's speech is something that was not there: There was not a single explicit reference to drugs. The closest Obama came was when he said:
I wasn't always as focused as I should have been [in high school]. I did some things I'm not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse.
But I was fortunate. I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go to college, and law school, and follow my dreams.
In his memoir Dreams From My Father, Obama famously acknowledges that he smoked pot and snorted coke as a teenager, choices he implausibly magnifies into a brush with ruin, the better to reinforce the message that users are losers (except when they become presidents or Olympic champions). But perhaps because his own biography (like those of most people who use drugs, including his two immediate predecessors in the White House) is such a clear refutation of that notion, Obama only alluded to it in today's speech. As Tim Cavanaugh notes, Obama also mentioned "friends who are pressuring you to do things you know aren't right," which could be interpreted as a reference to drug use (but might also be about cheating, cutting class, stealing, vandalism, or some other adolescent misdemeanor).
By comparison with the anti-drug obsessions of Reagan and Bush the Elder or the obligatory anti-drug messages from the two subsequent administrations, Obama's silence on the subject in this speech represents progress. As nice as it would be if the president could discuss drugs honestly, refraining from lying about them is a good first step.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm disappointed he didn't mention that we should stop ritually mutilating our male infants.
Stop Circumcision Now!
I believe strongly in individual liberties and limited government.
The government gave up on me a long time ago.
I wasn't always as focused as I should have been [in high school]. I did some things I'm not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse.
But I was fortunate. I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go to college, and law school, and follow my dreams.
So, what he's saying is that we have our first mulligan president?
Obama telling kids to say no to drugs after acknowledging that he said yes to them, and yet still managed to get elected as president, would prove that maybe drugs aren't a guaranteed way to ruin your life.
No one is going to let the prez tell kids that.
Drugs are bad, mm'kay?
Ask not blah blah blah might play with the crayola crowd, but I'd like to see him try that shtick at a high school. Teenagers of every generation are notorious "What have you done for me today?" narcissists.
Eh. I have no problem with "don't do drugs".
It's not bad advice.
Sure, "If you do drugs, you'll fry eggs and then end up like in Trainspotting" is a lie... but "don't do drugs" is just good advice. I'd put it up there with "stick to 2nd base".
Well, it doesn't exactly inspire one to do a happy dance, but I s'pose it is an improvement.
All I ask of my country is that it stop messing with me. And with my stuff. Just stop.
As a result of my simple needs, I expect my country to ask exceedingly little from me.
Jaybird, if only the government would repeal the law mandating it, then people could choose not to do so on their own.
What? It isn't? Hooray!
ProL--You forgot to add, "...or I'll kill ya."
Woo, three cheers for the National Dad.
I have no desire to kill my country. Unless it keeps messing with my stuff.
Unless it keeps messing with my stuff.
Pro L, you've got kids, so you probably experienced the "not-touching-can't-get-mad" game/torture. Kids have it right- when there is touching, we will get mad. That goes for the gov't, and it goes for the creepy dude who tried to grab me this morning.
That goes for the gov't, and it goes for the creepy dude who tried to grab me this morning.
That was just Epi. His signature dickey and assless chaps should have been a dead giveaway.
Thanks for reminding us that libertarianism always comes down to two things: lack of patriotism and SubstanceAbuse.
Meanwhile, remember HowTheSimpsons had a show called the "MattelAndMarsBarQuickEnergyChocobot Hour"? Well, if you actually look at the lesson plans and consider that most teachers are probably BHO supporters, what's probably going to happen in many cases is put that FictionalShow to shame.
Perhaps Reason should concentrate on that angle rather than the one that would only be welcomed about about 0.1% of Americans.
JW, you are so right. Note to self: get better safe word. And also gun.
The safe word is "banana".
That goes for the gov't, and it goes for the creepy dude who tried to grab me this morning.
Wasn't there a thread last week asking about frotteurism?
The story of America [is] about people...who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best....
WTF?
The story of America is one of people who hated (and were hated by) their country so much that risking their lives by crossing the ocean in a boat and then living in a log cabin was considered a better life than living in Europe. For Africans it was being sold from a black slave owner to a white slave owner.
The safe word is "Francis." You're unusually slow on the uptake today, Episiarch.
Lighten up, ProL.
Better. You must've snorted a powdered Vicodin/LSD mixture off of a whore's ass since your last posting to have achieved such instant lucidity. Er, make that a Lab Whore's ass in keeping with the season.
Dagny T.,
Frankly, the kids make me more a fan of tyranny, if anything, provided that I am the tyrant.
I thought a basic tenet of libertarianism, and individualism in general, was that the country or the community or whatever is improved when the individuals who make it up act in their own rational self-interest. So when a person fails to fulfill their abilities or make wise choices, it does hurt the larger society as well as themselves. Now, society doesn't have any rights, so I'm not saying we should coerce people to be the best they can be, but I don't see a problem with exhorting them to do so.
In that light, it's hard to find fault with the literal meaning of what Obama's saying here. We're letting our (justified) mistrust of this guy distort the plain meaning of his words in our minds.
I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go to college, and law school, and follow my dreams.
"Despite this fact, I have no problem presiding over a system of law enforcement that destroys the lives of others for the same offenses that I got away with. Fuck your dreams, assholes."
His words were not that big of a deal; forcing my kids to listen to them bugs me more.
the creepy collectivism
Yep. Priming the youngsters for National Service. Isn't it wonderfully ironic that Our First Black President? is an advocate of semi-involuntary servitude?
Our Second Black President?, dude. How can people forget Bill Clinton so quickly?
I can't think of a better way to demotivate schoolchildren than to exhort them to think of how the President will view their accomplishments in 20 or 50 or 100 years.
Mein Gott, it's not like he told them to do as the authority or the collective tell them. He told them to not give up on themselves and do what's best for themselves. How an individualist could find fault with that statement (aside from it being cliche) is beyond me.
"I'm disappointed he didn't mention that we should stop ritually mutilating our male infants. Stop Circumcision Now!"
Well, now he's lost Andrew Sullivan too.
Mike Brady quit his job as an architect and is now a White House speechwriter.
Never would I have believed that the 60's boomers would be declaring a paternalistic state of biopower to be hip.
Guess we know who "the man" is now.
Tulpa | September 8, 2009, 6:47pm | #
He told them to not give up on themselves...
...because if they did, they'd let down their country (the collective).
You did notice how he qualified those statements, Tulpa?
I hope you guys are not advocating taking the say away from the employer on drug effects during work hours. Just government mandates against use?
This Chemist would rather not switch careers from detection to production, tyvm!
Isn't a signal difference -- ie, between community vs. whatever -- the extent to which individuals may select the intended beneficiary of his sacrifice? Don't one's family, friends, club, church differ in kind from the State? Can't any of the former subsist without initiating force against non-conformists to their purposes? Isn't that what grates - that one's rational self-interest in sacrificing one's rights and goods to support the political class is prudent compliance in order to avoid being forcibly impoverished, incarcerated, or killed rather than because one subscribes to its goals of redistributing others' earned wealth?
should have been either:
the extent to which an individual may select the intended beneficiary of his sacrifice[s]?
or
the extent to which individuals may select the intended beneficiary of their sacrifices?
I'm all for some sort of decriminalization of weed, ending the grossly unconstitutional asset forfeiture laws created in the name of the War on Drugs, related no-knock warrants getting innocents shot by mistake, and quitting clogging up prisons with ordinary druggies under the 3 strikes laws while violent thugs get out early to make room, and buy that some legalization could in theory result in reduced crime by introducing recognized enforceable property rights into the recreational drug economy...
...but you damned whiny Stonertarians make libertarianism look like a fucking joke.
First?!?
Wow: only two Google hits for "Stonertarians". That will change. That must change.
The worst thing about the President's speech was the Obama T-shirt wearing high school students confronting the students who didn't attend the speech. My neighbor's daughter had told him that the "alternative activity" students were released after the speech watching students. They then had to run a gauntlet of jeers, calls of "racists", etc. Nice! He wanted to keep her home, she wanted to go. Now she doesn't want to go to school tomorrow. Nice job, Obama!
Ther wasn't anything here that was too different from the claptrap presidents usually say to kids, really.
I am disappointed that he didn't discuss drug abuse though - there is real entertainment value in bad information, even more so when the bad information is leavened with monomania.
I grew up in the '70s and '80s; I know whereof I speak.
Wow: only two Google hits for "Stonertarians". That will change. That must change.
If you're trying to couple substance abuse with political philosophy, try "drunk tank conservatives". You'll have more luck.
Happy hunting -
T
ed, if that's the worst "creeping collectivism" we have to worry about, we're practically in Libertopia. You'll hear the same type of pablum out of those in charge of voluntary organizations without accusations of collectivism. Please, go to your local high school and protest the anti-individualism inherent in the football coach urging the players not to let the team down.
...but you damned whiny Stonertarians make libertarianism look like a fucking joke.
Ordinarily I can manage "This one goes to eleven" level rage against the way the state infringes on our property rights.
I can also manage "This one goes to eleven" level rage against the way the state interferes with our right to engage in economic exchanges without interference.
I can also manage "This one goes to eleven" level rage against the way the state routinely abuses our civil liberties and denies basic due process whenever it feels it needs to in order to serve some "compelling" state interest.
I can also manage "This one goes to eleven" level rage against the way the state usurps powers that it is not granted in the Constitution.
But the in Drug War, the state does all four of these at once. So sorry, I guess you're just going to have to hear about it, whether you think it's a "joke" or not.
What a brain-dead sense of priorities when the near obligatory "don't do drugs, kids" (admittedly frequently some grandstanding BS) would have been seen as oppressive.
Or that a prez *not* saying "hey you 6th graders, making getting high the highlight of your week (or day) is very likely not the way to get ahead" is some great principled blow for liberty.... WTF??
As a libertarian, I thought this to be actually a pretty good speech, not that he had any reason to give it. I felt that its whole thesis was that only you and no one else decides your destiny. Nothing comes for free and only with hard work can you achieve what you want to achieve. I took it as a pretty individualistic speech.
"Obama's silence on the subject in this speech represents progress."
No question. The choice to use drugs or not is no different than the choice to play baseball or soccer.
Thank God he doesn't impose such useless judgements on our children.
re Drug War being the state "doing all four at once"...
Sure, but the underlying motivation for many Stonertarians -- which is manifests itself quite obviously and counter-productively when appealing to otherwise libertarian-leaning independents -- is nothing more than the petulance of former college students whining about how its unfair that they had to finish growing up and can't get fucked up whenever they wish like the good old days back in school.
Me? I'm more concerned about the survival of the Republic in some recognizable form after the next 7, years however much it may have decayed.
May they pry your cold, dead fingers from your still warm bong.
Stop. When it becomes apparent you are just going to set up some outrageous stereotypical strawman to knock over, you rapidly present yourself as the "unserious" one.
No, really.
Waving the flag, and blowing smoke up people's asses. What else is new for any American Politician.
Personally, I prefer Michael Vick's speech to kids.
There a quite a few people on this thread who were gnashing teeth and rending garments in lamentations and anger when Obama bowed to the Saudi king because "he made us all bow!", who are now going to find those comments to be nuttily collectivist...
Ohhhhhkay!
I'm sure Bill Ayers thinks Obama blew a real chance to push the Ayers way of education the same way Obama and Ayers did back in Chicago.
Reasonable speech, nothing parents don't say to their kids everyday of the week. Maybe Obama should have given it to his 2 children instead of taking them to Rev. (G*d Da*n America) Wrights Trinity church for years.
He has no business talking to children without their parents permission, even if he was trustworthy, which he most certainly not.
The guy is a con man who doesn't understand the limits of his silver tongue.
Yummy, I can have my patriotic/traditionalist cake and eat it too!
"He has no business talking to children without their parents permission, even if he was trustworthy, which he most certainly not."
What a stupid statement. No speakers in any schools without full parental permission!
50-50 odds I was reading Rothbard, Hayek, and Rand, plus L. Neil Smith and Lysander Spooner, susbcribed to Reason and Liberty, and was a dues-paying Libertarian Party member for most of the posters here were born.
"I hope you guys are not advocating taking the say away from the employer on drug effects during work hours."
I'd put restrictions on what's ok for employers to "ask" employees to do in that area. But I like people having a great deal of freedom to live their lives, I've never pretended to be a libertarian 😉
and was a dues-paying Libertarian Party member for most of the posters here were born
Should we get off your lawn now?
"50-50 odds I was reading Rothbard, Hayek, and Rand, plus L. Neil Smith and Lysander Spooner, susbcribed to Reason and Liberty, and was a dues-paying Libertarian Party member for most of the posters here were born."
Not impressed.
I thought it was a good speech from someone who has proven to be a master of oratory.
Regarding the idea that his speech is a subversive message for collectivism, I cannot help but wonder what sort of thinking leads one to mistake love of country for totalitarianism. Is it the sort of thinking that looks at the country and sees free men, or rather sees sheep? I love my country because of its core values, enshrined in the founding documents and the spirit they were written in. When I hear appeals to not let down the country, I hear an appeal to defend those values and breathe life into that spirit.
My read of the speech was more that Obama was unintentionally persuading our youth to never, ever vote for or follow someone like him.
"I was reading...Rand...for most of the posters here were born."
Any long-time continuous reader of Rand has already punished himself enough, I shall not add to such...
50-50 odds I was reading Rothbard, Hayek, and Rand, plus L. Neil Smith and Lysander Spooner, susbcribed to Reason and Liberty, and was a dues-paying Libertarian Party member for most of the posters here were born.
Spare me.
You know why it would never even enter my mind to coin a term like "stonertarian"? Because despite the fact that I personally do not use drugs, the fact that the state presumes to declare that it has the right to imprison me if I grow a plant, or if I purchase chemicals and combine them in certain ways, is so limitlessly galling to me and offensive to liberty that I would gladly make common cause with people who oppose the Drug War "just 'cause they want to get stoned".
It would no more occur to me to make up abusive names for those people than it would occur to me to call murdered civil rights workers "uppity niggers" or something.
If pot was made legal tomorrow, I'd give it fewer than 10years before the fellow travellers within the left turn marijuana into a worse clusterfuck than what they've done with tobacco:
taxes, lawsuits out the ass for lung cancer, ED, loss of IQ points etc form chronic use, and addictions (that were previously dismissed as merely 'psychological') with businesses getting screwed by having to pay for the joke that is drug rehab, and being unable to fire habitual potheads because they have a medical condition.
Just you wait.
I'd put restrictions on what's ok for employers to "ask" employees to do in that area. But I like people having a great deal of freedom to live their lives
Other than employers, that is.
I think one that is funny is that opposition to the Drug War is, strategically speaking, the main issue which libertarians can seize upon to grow their movement. Since the GOP already has all the "small government, taxation=socialism" talking points one could want, you're not going to win any new recruits there. But about a third of this nation thinks the WOD is f*cked up, and there is no party representing this view. Appeal to these folks. It's the new Vietnam War Draft issue...
fluffy
Fuck employers for two reasons: 1. not that many of them in comparison to the people it frees up and 2. the "freedom" they want is the freedom to impose on others.
"but "don't do drugs" is just good advice. I'd put it up there with "stick to 2nd base"."
But I wanna play shortstop.
'It would no more occur to me to make up abusive names for those people than it would occur to me to call murdered civil rights workers "uppity niggers" or something.'
🙂
Thanks for helping make my point about skewed priorities with that delightful stab at moral equivalence.
If pot was made legal tomorrow, I'd give it fewer than 10years before the fellow travellers within the left turn marijuana into a worse clusterfuck than what they've done with tobacco:
taxes, lawsuits out the ass for lung cancer, ED, loss of IQ points etc form chronic use, and addictions (that were previously dismissed as merely 'psychological') with businesses getting screwed by having to pay for the joke that is drug rehab, and being unable to fire habitual potheads because they have a medical condition.
Just you wait.
So what?
Are you saying that it's your position that the fact that some asshole can use a shitty law to sue his employer to force him to accomodate his alcoholism "disability" means that Prohibition should never have ended?
That's funny, I missed that part of Spooner.
And I think you must have skimmed over some important parts of Rand if you're asking us to respect your disdain for the victims of state oppression because you believe that if those victims were freed their activity would lead the statists to engage in further abuses.
Fuck employers for two reasons: 1. not that many of them in comparison to the people it frees up and 2. the "freedom" they want is the freedom to impose on others.
You are without a doubt the most worthless cunt I have ever known.
MNG said
"Since the GOP already has all the "small government, taxation=socialism" talking points one could want, you're not going to win any new recruits there."
Gotta disagree, MNG. There are a lot people waking up to the fact the GOP totally forgot what that meant. And a lot of them would probably be receptive to scrapping the WoD in anything like its current form due its heavy-handedness and manifest failures.
But they would *not* take seriously people who have in their first 5 talking points "But I oughta be able to grow my own supply without risking a distribution rap, WAAH!"
"You are without a doubt the most worthless cunt I have ever known."
You know, first TAO, then fluffy, you gotta love how "intellectual" libertarians go "WAAAHHH, My pussy hurts" when you refuse to restrict yourself to their stupid axioms at the outset.
Let me give you guys a newsflash: your axioms are a vast minority position. In a democracy, that means, you better get to work defending and justifying them and convicing others, or else the rest of us will keep taking a shit on them with a smile 🙂
Get used to it or get real.
Thanks for helping make my point about skewed priorities with that delightful stab at moral equivalence.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I just listed above how the War on Drugs violates absolutely fundamental property rights and the right to freely enter contracts. And you AGREED.
That means that anyone who has died at the hands of the state during the prosecution of the Drug War is every bit a victim of oppression as a civil rights worker murdered as they were trying to help people exercise the right to vote.
If you think that property rights and the right to freely enter into contracts are somehow unimportant, or minor, or not equivalent to the right to vote, I have to wonder again about the reading list you named above. And if the rights are equivalent, then my "stab at moral equivalence" was appropriate and correct.
It's fairly obvious here that either you don't really hold basic economic rights in very high esteem, or you don't care if those rights are violated if you don't like the people or activity involved.
You know, first TAO, then fluffy, you gotta love how "intellectual" libertarians go "WAAAHHH, My pussy hurts" when you refuse to restrict yourself to their stupid axioms at the outset.
Well, at first I debated with myself whether to question your definition of "freedom" as "Fluffy has to make his economic purchases on terms that are convenient to me, or I'm not free".
Then I debated with myself whether to point out that your "Fuck 'em, there aren't that many employers" statement could be used to justify any outrage against any minority anywhere in history.
But then I remembered that it was you, and that we'd been over a lot of this ground before, and that you've already admitted that you think you should be able to collect slaves, and I said to myself: Fuck it, just call him a cunt. It's less tedious.
newscaper
Those people are already pseudo-libertarians in that they will dress up their conservative bullshit in liberty language. When the chips are down, they will vote conservative, not libertarian.
But there are many anti-WOD folks who dream of having someone they could support who would speak truth to power on that.
Think about it, libertarians have been giving reluctant hand jobs to conservatives for decades: what has it gotten them? You're not going to get much from liberals unless you split us with a wedge issue, a la the WOD, which would allow you to keep your integrity because, this is an area where you guys are actually correct.
"
Sure, but the underlying motivation for many Stonertarians -- which is manifests itself quite obviously and counter-productively when appealing to otherwise libertarian-leaning independents -- is nothing more than the petulance of former college students whining about how its unfair that they had to finish growing up and can't get fucked up whenever they wish like the good old days back in school."
I am a self-made man. I am wealthy. I am a pillar of the community. I smoke weed. Good weed. Responsibly. It is great! You are full of bile-heavy excrement. I weep for your progeny. Brush your teeth.
"that you've already admitted that you think you should be able to collect slaves"
Haha, "TEH SLAVERY!"
Why not just Godwin it and be done with it fluffy?
"at first I debated with myself whether to question your definition of "freedom" as "Fluffy has to make his economic purchases on terms that are convenient to me, or I'm not free"."
Nope, I just, like Mill, recognize that social and economic pressure can restrict freedom too.
"I debated with myself whether to point out that your "Fuck 'em, there aren't that many employers" statement could be used to justify any outrage against any minority anywhere in history."
Nope, as a good utilitarian (it amazes me how much it enrages people around here for someone to actually be consistent in their utilitarianism; like its not the dominant ethical position in the field of philosophy but some Satanic cult) I just recognize that the "rights" of the many outweight the "rights" of the few. If you prefer to have the rights of the few screw the rights of the many, be my guest oligarch.
But they would *not* take seriously people who have in their first 5 talking points "But I oughta be able to grow my own supply without risking a distribution rap, WAAH!"
O Rly? Why ever not? Isn't the whole point not getting jailed for growing/smoking a fucking plant?
Or else you just really, really hate stoners and don't give a shit about their rights.
Have to agree with Epi.
WTF could be the objection about someone who wants to grow this plant on is own land?
Also, with their conservative-courtship strategy libertarians have won about 1% of the vote for years. Time to try something different! You don't have to embrace liberalism, hell I can't do that (liberalism has a tendency to constantly push into the absurd). Just push the WOD.
Nope, as a good utilitarian (it amazes me how much it enrages people around here for someone to actually be consistent in their utilitarianism; like its not the dominant ethical position in the field of philosophy but some Satanic cult) I just recognize that the "rights" of the many outweight the "rights" of the few. If you prefer to have the rights of the few screw the rights of the many, be my guest oligarch.
No, the reason you provoke rage is because most people who proclaim their utilitarianism don't embrace the more absurd outcomes utilitarian reasoning forces you to. But you are a reasonably intelligent guy and have probably been down that road before, and rather than lose arguments you've simply embraced all of utilitarianism's moral absurdities and made them your own.
fluffy
I've said it before, and recently, utilitarianism is the worst form of ethics except for all others. I have no idea why a proper ethics would be pleasing to people, given our "fallen" nature.
You're stuck in the same position, having to insist that dying people and children be deprived of life-saving care or meds because of the "rights" of the witnessing doctor or med owner. Come on on man, you can see that.
If I acknowledged the weak points of utilitarianism you'd say "A-Ha!", but if I strive to stick with my principles you say "teh Evil!"
Also, I think that the more you think of these examples, the less absurd they become...
Haha, "TEH SLAVERY!"
Why not just Godwin it and be done with it fluffy?
Nope, I just, like Mill, recognize that social and economic pressure can restrict freedom too.
I just recognize that the "rights" of the many outweight the "rights" of the few.
If you actually believe the latter two statements, you should consider my statement a "Godwin".
Basically the implication of your statements is that slavery wasn't wrong because of the rightless position into which the slave was put, but because the proceeds arising from the institution of slavery were used for the masters' enjoyment and not for some wider social good.
I just don't really see why the slave should give a shit about where the proceeds of his bondage go.
Well, I do consider it a type of Godwin, I thought that was implied.
Forcing someone to do something for your own selfish interests is different thatn forcing someone to do something to, well, do what is right (don't snicker, you can't say much more about why people should be forced to do something they don't want to do [return an apple they have stolen from a store]).
Just like you think it is ok to force a person to behave in a certain way via threat of force(hey, apple stealer, return that apple or else!) I do too (hey, doctor, help that dying man or else!)
You might say "well, my criteria about when it is justified to use force to coerce someone to act in a way is more just than yours." OK, cool. We can have that discussion (not tonight, I have to be somewhere soon). But this "you want to compel people to act in a certain way and I don't therefore "TEH SLAVERY!" is stupid.
You're stuck in the same position, having to insist that dying people and children be deprived of life-saving care or meds because of the "rights" of the witnessing doctor or med owner. Come on on man, you can see that.
But I don't insist that.
I insist that you don't have the moral authority to use force to compel the doctor's servitude.
It's not hard for me to insist that at all.
The closest I come to being in a quandary I can't escape from is when dealing with issues of trespass. Issues of involuntary servitude don't come anywhere close.
You can back me into a corner with some crazy hypothetical example where a volcano is exploding and the lava is coming and the only way you can survive is to walk past some "No Trespassing" sign. But this involuntary servitude stuff doesn't ruffle my feathers in the slightest.
Hell, if you'll recall, I was the one who brought the doctor hypothetical up in the first place - because I was so sure that no one would assert a private right to compel the doctor using violence, and I intended to argue that the state can't possess any right that an individual didn't possess first to delegate to the state. I was so sure that it was self-evident that I was shocked when you took the opposite view.
Ultimately, that's a little disturbing, really. I don't see how we reason over that fundamental divergence in moral view. It's an article of faith of "enlightenment society" that in the end we can reason these issues out, but I don't see how we argue with each other over that sort of divide.
MNG & Epi,
"Why on earth not?"
Again I understand the underlying common principle (liberty starts at self-ownership), but to the great unwashed who are ready to sympathize, are *not* going to put their existential concerns about a) being able to provide for themselves and their families, b) be able to defend themselves and their families, and c) not have the wealth they've already accumulated destroyed by govt malice or incompetence, on the same priority as "I want get high." And they will(do) look askance at anyone who does.
If you really don't see that -- y'all need to get out more.
Fluffy,
On equivalence -- I was referring to your addition to the name-calling game.
"Are you saying that it's your position that the fact that some asshole can use a shitty law to sue his employer to force him to accomodate his alcoholism "disability" means that Prohibition should never have ended?"
Not at all. But its time to think very carefully about practical surrounding practical, tactical issues as well as principle, something libertarianism has typically been remarkably lousy at -- the 'how do you get from point A to point B in the real world' problem.
Incremental isolated or local increases in liberty are subject to unintended consequences too, in the larger context, some of which could very well lead to a net *loss* of liberty later. Think 80's S&L crisis -- or wide open immigration in the context of a welfare state republic slipping further toward mob- (dem)ocracy.
Before a president signs some law legalizing weed, the first thing I want is a reliable 'breathalyzer' test for THC (and some reasonable intoxication limit set) before anyone gets in a car 🙂
Libertarians often have the same problem as the communists with economics -- all the implementation problems would go away if they could just have their way everywhere all at once. But the real world doesn't work that way.
CATO Institute and some of the Objectivist thinktanks do a pretty good job of trying to produce realistic policies, but not your average soundbite 'net libertarian.
BTW, re your Prohibition comment -- just because repealing it was the right thing to do for both principled and practical reasons, it didn't mean that laws about drunk driving weren't warranted, and it didn't mean there shouldn't be serious social pressure against becoming a worthless drunk failing to meet your obligations as you slide toward alcoholism.
I've often said that one of the problems with the "social issues' is that many so-cons on the right tend to think that things which are 'bad' should be illegal. On the other side of the fence the lefists (and a few libertarians) think that once they get something legal, it becomes 'good' -- and any criticism is inapprpriate, if not outright thought/hate crime.
Both sides need to see that some 'bad' things need to be legal -- yet should still be discouraged at least at the margin. Sort of like the alcohol model.
But this "you want to compel people to act in a certain way and I don't therefore "TEH SLAVERY!" is stupid.
No, it's not.
Basically you're defining slavery out of existence.
To you, a slave is just a person living under a species of bad law. To your line of argument, everyone suffers compulsion, and the slave merely suffers from worse compulsion than others. But that would mean that anyone suffering under extraordinary compulsion would in effect be a slave and the word only really means "someone living under bad law".
To me, the salient thing about slavery - the thing that makes it different from merely living under bad law - is that the slave can not choose whether or not to labor, and can not choose for whom he wishes to labor, as a matter of law and not mere necessity or circumstance. If the slave wants to quit his job, he can be tortured or killed. That's slavery.
That means that if you say, "Doctor, you can not choose whether or not to labor right now. Either you labor, or I will beat you, or kill you," the doctor is at that moment and to that extent a slave, regardless of the rest of the conditions he lives under and whether or not they look like a re-enactment of plantation slavery or the slavery of antiquity.
Saying that the "compulsion" suffered by someone who is told "Don't kill strangers at random" and the "compulsion" suffered by someone who is told "Labor for me today, or I will kill you," are of the same order and the same character would make the word "slave" meaningless. It wouldn't only be a Godwin, it would be a non sequitur.
All the Prez's Czars,
"I am a self-made man. I am wealthy. I am a pillar of the community. I smoke weed. Good weed. Responsibly. It is great! You are full of bile-heavy excrement. I weep for your progeny. Brush your teeth."
Late in college I rented a house with a friend of a friend who was just out of law school. He had a job a law clerk for a Federal judge. Hi sadly after work ritual was a couple Rolling Rocks and a bowl in the bong.
In his case I never saw any particular harmful effect -- and, yes, I partook of it some too.
He just liked doing it (duh) but no particular capital-p 'Principle' was at work. In that light, the great career risks he was taking in pursuing a little relaxing entertainment make precisely my point about [lack of] judgment and [misplaced] sense of priority. Actually, the powerful high from heroin would make more sense in terms of the risk he was taking.
I know perfectly well there is a whole subculture of upper middle class people who still smoke, again apparently without significant harm for the most part. But again, the skewed risk-reward calculations going on call into question priorities.
I know a guy who worked for the state Dept of Reveneue, no less, and his wife was an elementary school teacher -- both careers were ruined when they sold some of the supply they were growing for themselves and their friends to one stranger too many, a narc. BTW they also had 2 young kids.
Yes, that was an injustice -- but normal people would again question their judgment and priorities as a practical matter.
Its certainly not as compelling a case of principled civil disobedience as an otherwise law abiding inner city dweller buying an illegal gun for personal protection in a dangerous part of a gun control city.
One may as well campaign against Obama & Congress on the dangers of socialism, and put the injustice of the victimless crime of jaywalking on equal footing and wonder why people look at you funny.
I've often said that one of the problems with the "social issues' is that many so-cons on the right tend to think that things which are 'bad' should be illegal. On the other side of the fence the lefists (and a few libertarians) think that once they get something legal, it becomes 'good' -- and any criticism is inapprpriate, if not outright thought/hate crime.
I've often said that the real usefulness of the drug debate is that it exposes people who don't really believe in liberty.
You're concerned that we won't be able to build a "winning coalition" because people who would be on our side think that drug legalization is just going too far.
OTOH, I'm convinced you're dramatically misreading the situation, and that people who look like they might be sorta libertarians but can't give up the drug war aren't really potential converts or allies at all, but merely authoritarian statists who just happen to want a tax cut. The first time anyone farts every last one of those assholes will clamoring for statism the same way they did under Bush.
The people who listen to the anti-drug war arguments and respond positively at least have potential. The only interest your average anti-drug-war Republican has in liberty is in cribbing the rhetoric of liberty to use [as a lie and in bad faith] as a club against Democrats.
Ethical solution to all problems: If the outcome of your system in one case is stupid, absurd, or monstrous, ignore that result. Substitute another.
Virtue ethics for the win.
All other ethical systems are for pikers.
Yes, that was an injustice -- but normal people would again question their judgment and priorities as a practical matter.
Its certainly not as compelling a case of principled civil disobedience as an otherwise law abiding inner city dweller buying an illegal gun for personal protection in a dangerous part of a gun control city.
Why not? The difference here really seems to boil down to, "Well, people who smoke pot enjoy it, therefore their actions in defying the state are less worthy of respect than the actions of the person who buys an illegal gun." And I have to tell you, once again the way you instinctively find the element of enjoyment to be somehow stigmatizing and delegitimizing really doesn't say much for your comprehension of Rand.
Fluffy,
I'm just concerned that purists will overlook the gains for liberty that could be made by working with those who may otherwise agree 70% against those who disagree 90%.
The remaining differences could be sorted out later, with shifting ad hoc alliances.
Good night.
I'm tired of fighting the little keyboard on my new netbook 🙂
Fluffy, as a matter of practical respect, a person defying the state to protect the lives of themselves or others is superior in act to the one defying the state in order to have fun. You'd be hard-pressed to find people (outside this rarefied forum) who'd find the other way, or even endorse an equivalence. Which is MNG's point.
If you'd like a more metaphysical defense, you must first be alive in order to enjoy a drug. Hence, the preservation of life has a priority over any subordinate or dependent state.
Last one, honest 🙂
re "And I have to tell you, once again the way you instinctively find the element of enjoyment to be somehow stigmatizing and delegitimizing really doesn't say much for your comprehension of Rand."
IIRC, even Rand's ethics had a hierarchy, a product of how she derived it.
She was *not* a'whatever floats your boat' subjectivist.
The rights of the many out weigh the few, but who decides what the rights of the many are? Why I do, and I speak through Barack Obama who is a conduit of my divine will.
As a Libertarian I am bugged by the Presidential overreach of the speach - this one was a reach-around.
I can see myself saying some of these things to my 3 kids but it irks me that the POTUS seems to believe that it is his duty to do something that really belongs at the family level.
Schempf,
That's exactly my problem with this. Bush, Obama, et al. have no business whatsoever addressing my children directly. That's me and my wife's job. Want to deal with my kids, you gotta come to me.
By the way, what are the odds this is the original speech? Given the study guide that got out last week, I think some stuff got edited out.
Would that me trespass of involuntary servitude?
be, not me
or, not of
For the first time ever, I am going to lay it out to those who are not at least a 3rd level apprentice (Hi MNG!). I created Utilitarianism as a means to deal with Natural Rights Libertarianism as a means to keep the human race in check. I took a little breather after the Reformation, and allowed you to expand your horizons, so to speak during the Enlightenment, but by the time J. S. Mills was a middle aged man, I decided it was time to reign things in.*
All Utilitarians worship me, but they are under a strict commandment Not to Speak My Divine Name, and to Deny My Existence, and to Advance A Progressive Agenda. That was necessary to cloak the True Intent of the creed that serves me, and I assure you it is an entirely Reactionary one.
It should be obvious that without me at the helm there is no determination of the rights of the many, after all. What could possibly be more anthropomorphically unsound without me guiding it? However, you are who you are homo saps, and you tend to buy into anything.
* Pun intentional. Who says the non existent can't be funny. 'Nothing more real than nothing' Bah, Sam, really, bah.
Oh, in case you are wondering why I have Apprentices and not Acolytes for my clerical order, you have to consider the time line. Acolytes would not have a clue how to run a steam powered Difference Engine.
newscaper, are you really trying to assert that the anti-drug-war element of libertarianism is what makes it unpopular?
If so, try the following test:
Wherever you go, ask people that you have never met whether they:
A: are for or against the drug war.
B: have any idea what Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard wrote, and if so, are they for or against it.
This should disabuse you of your delusions rather quickly.
The anti-drug-war element of libertarianism is the only thing that keeps it from being even more hopelessly marginal than it already is. The fact that you are telling this element to go away leaves little doubt that your contempt for drug users outstrips your love of your cause.
Enjoy life in your pure and politically irrelevant little corner.
By the way, what are the odds this is the original speech?
Pretty high.
That's exactly my problem with this. Bush, Obama, et al. have no business whatsoever addressing my children directly. That's me and my wife's job. Want to deal with my kids, you gotta come to me.
Subsidiarity FTW. OTOH, there are many American children who do not have such sterling examples of parenting as you and your Mr. Libertate. In fact, they might even have one or fewer parents. Please, will you allow the harmless non-indoctrinating speech FOR THE CHILDREN???
Wiki on "subsidiarity," borne out by the other top google hits for it:
Publius said,
"The fact that you are telling this element to go away leaves little doubt that your contempt for drug users outstrips your love of your cause.
Enjoy life in your pure and politically irrelevant little corner."
LOL! Actually I have a bigger problem with such awesome displays of reading incomprehension. Fluff and other disagreed but they at least understood what I said 🙂
Libertarianism's biggest reason for unpopularity is a reflexive yet unreflective statist mindset of a large part of the public. Duh.
The problem I was addressing specifically was about the *practical* matter of the 'tarian faction who think NORMLization is one of our biggest problems a)have their priorities wrong and b)needlessly put off much of the *rest* of the populace who haven't totally drunk the statist KoolAid and are actually somewhat receptive to libertarian ideas (admittedly short of Rothbardian anarchocapitalism).
And that makes me an "irrelevant purist"??
WTF? and LOL!
I don't think that Florida allows "Mr. and Mr." types to raise kids.
So that's what a slave is. A person compelled to do certain things (obey laws, pay taxes) isn't a slave, he is a member of a civilization.
So, 99% of subjugation...don't dare call it slavery!
Subject enjoys using a common non sequitur found on the internet
WAAAHHH, My pussy hurts as a rhetorical tact in his attempts to best opponents. This is indicative of a few things. On the most superficial level, he was subject to this attack at some point in his past, and for some reason related to his damaged psyche which we will explore shortly he found it to be highly effective.
This does not explain the high frequency of its occurrence nor the incongruous relevancy to the matters under discussion when the subject evokes this remark.
That leads me to conclude there is a reason embedded much deeper in his emotional state of being. To understand this we must examine the remark itself:
WAAAHHH, My pussy hurts
1) an infant cry
2) genitalia identity ambiguity
3) pain
A traumatic event in the subject's past lead him to his currently distorted gender identity. There are common patterns related to these cases. However, given the sensitivity of the matter those will not be discussed in the General Report.
More study will be necessary to heal this deeply wounded person.
I don't think that Florida allows "Mr. and Mr." types to raise kids.
Yeah, I noticed the error after I posted but then I thought, what the hey, RC'z Law, right? 🙂
"The problem I was addressing specifically was about the *practical* matter of the 'tarian faction who think NORMLization is one of our biggest problems a)have their priorities wrong and b)needlessly put off much of the *rest* of the populace who haven't totally drunk the statist KoolAid and are actually somewhat receptive to libertarian ideas (admittedly short of Rothbardian anarchocapitalism)."
'Practical'...yes.
Well, let's be reasonable, shall we?
There is this thing called the Libertarian party, right? Now, hardly anyone ever votes for this party's candidates, am I not correct? So the goal is to get more people to vote for these candidates, no?
Or am I missing something?
Now I believe (and feel free to prove me wrong if you have any relevant statistics) that there is a fairly sizable minority of people who favor marijuana legalization at least to some extent. Hell, even as mainstream a publication as Time magazine has commented on it's 'slowly evolving populist rehabilitation'.
Now here's the deal, if the Libertarian party could get HALF of those people to vote for it, they would win more seats in congress than they have ever won. As it is, the party is so pathetic that it has to brag about winning the occasional city council seat.
And I note this as a guy who has voted solidly Libertarian for over 20 years.
So yes, you are, quite definitely, an 'irrelevant purist'.
Actually, Publius, I think you're the irrelevant one.
I want (small-l) libertarians to better work with small(er) govt leaning conservatives and independents disillusioned with both parties.
A fair number of them also might be willing to look at some decriminalization ot least reining in the excesses of the WoD.
You on OTOH apparently labor under the fantasy that the actively pro-pot (notice my distinction) segment is larger, and assume that a large segment of that aren't economic redistributionists.
On irrelevant... I could give a rat's ass about the ineffectual big-L Libertarian Party, only voting for LP for pres once (Harry Browne?) , only once I was positive the Dem wouldn't win.
You OTOH, have a losing streak spanning two decades.
Who's the irrelevant purist now?
I'm just glad this asshole President isn't the Pope, imagine what self-righteous bastard he'd be then.
isn't the Pope yet
T,FTFY.
Was it creepy when George Bush spoke to the schoolkids, or when Ronald Reagan did, talking to them about taxes? There are some legitimate issues to debate...this one seems ludicrous and i am starting to think the wingnuts are taking over the far right.
Was it creepy when George Bush spoke to the schoolkids, or when Ronald Reagan did, talking to them about taxes?
Creepy? No. In appropriate? Yes.
Of course, I don't recall them being unaccomplished do-nothings worshipped like gods, with cardboard cutouts and agitation to name schools after them weeks after the inauguration and a candidate's seal, nor saying in the speech the opposite of JFK in order to drum up excitement over massive social programs (that's not socialism!).
"Actually, Publius, I think you're the irrelevant one.
I want (small-l) libertarians to better work with small(er) govt leaning conservatives and independents disillusioned with both parties.
A fair number of them also might be willing to look at some decriminalization ot least reining in the excesses of the WoD.
'Work with'. Yes, I see. Well, let me know how that goes for you.
"You on OTOH apparently labor under the fantasy that the actively pro-pot (notice my distinction) segment is larger, and assume that a large segment of that aren't economic redistributionists."
It doesn't matter if they are 'economic redistributionists'. Do you honestly think that all of the people who voted for Obama or Bush or Clinton did so because they believed in every last bit of their platform? No, it's about giving out a big message that large amounts of people can get behind. It's about tapping into already existing sources of popular enthusiasm to achieve elective office. And at the present moment, the legalization contingent of the American populace is rather more visible and energized than the free market contingent, which most people regard, wrongly in my opinion, as a lunatic fringe. Unless, of course, you do have some statistics that prove otherwise and you just aren't sharing.
"On irrelevant... I could give a rat's ass about the ineffectual big-L Libertarian Party, only voting for LP for pres once (Harry Browne?) , only once I was positive the Dem wouldn't win."
So in other words, you are a Republican.
"You OTOH, have a losing streak spanning two decades."
No, libertarianism, big l and small l, has a losing streak spanning even more decades than the party. This obviously bothers you less than it bothers me because you are a really just a Republican who wants to pay less in taxes.
Uh, since when has fighting redistributionism and the creeping [sometimes galloping] welfare state been one of the more minor planks??
I get it -- it's fine if they govt takes away more of your livelihood, and your ability to earn it in the first place, just as long as you can spend some of the leftover scraps on a dime bag unmolested.
One of the big reasons the libertarian take on freedom hasn't been a stronger sell is precisely *because* the "vote for us and you can get high" is so often tone deaf in their 'enthusiasm'.
Legalization/decriminalization would be a better sell (as part of the whole liberty package) to all of those unconvinced people out their with kids if if at least a passing nod were given to real world accompanying issues such as what to do about age restrictions, DUW (...under the Weed) testing, and workplace rights of employers regarding workers half-baked on the clock *not* getting special protection. Otherwise people will instantly think of pot & crack dealers in junior high.
Regarding incrementalism, funny how most legalization advocates *are* willing to go for the lowest hanging fruit -- just talking pot for the most part, at least up front and in public -- when there is no clear cut 'principled' distinction between it and other drugs, unless you resort to utilitarianism, or an 'impure' pragmatism.
BTW, the LP is so useless they can't even manage to be seen as a segment big enough to be courted by either party for votes, much less a contender.
A Cato Institute, OTOH, sometimes has actually influenced policy.
Hell, I can't swear to it, but I think Ron Paul did far better even as a fringe Republican than he ever did in the LP.
WTF? I consider myself an individualist and an introvert but I don't have any problem with these parts of Obama's speech. I may like doing things my own way, but I've got enough sense to realize that I'm still part of a larger community and that there are certain benefits to society. No man is an island.
If you're that stridently opposed to anything hinting that you may have responsibilities to someone other than yourself, maybe you should retreat to the Arctic wilderness and live off the land.
Elemenope,
Doubt it, since they pulled back on some of the materials that were supposed to go out with the speech. I don't mean to suggest that he was going to read The Communist Manifesto or urge them to vote Democrat, but I bet it was a little less neutral, originally.
Is the president (any president) the person who should be standing in loco parentis for anyone? If a president makes a radio or TV address directed at kids, I'd find it annoying enough, but there's something creepy about these addresses to kids in public schools. Regardless of the topic.
maybe you should retreat to the Arctic wilderness and live off the land.
You know, that's exactly what these United States of America were about, once upon a time.
Read Heinlein. It's harder to get away from the perils of tyranny when you can't find a place without it.
You know, that's exactly what these United States of America were about, once upon a time.
Yes, once upon a time. Today it would be a bit difficult for 300 million Americans to independently live off the land, even if they knew how.
If you think responsibility to others and/or society equals tyranny, then shit or get off the pot: unplug yourself from the grid, discard all your material possessions, and go forth into the wilderness - there's still some out there (thanks primarily to conservation groups).
I actually enjoy heading into the wilderness myself, but only for a week or two at a time. The benefits of society always pull me back - hot showers, electricity, ice cream, movies, the internet, pretty girls, etc.
Good post, but when BO says do it for you country, he really means do it for your govt, lib. fascists really don't draw a distinction. As a conservative, I can love my country (it's people, it's traditions, it's beauty) without worshiping the thieving state that has it pinned to the ground.
Today it would be a bit difficult for 300 million Americans to independently live off the land, even if they knew how.
That's not the point. The point is that government sees as its duty to be a leveling force by making such things impractical.
(thanks primarily to conservation groups)
Like hunters and philanthropists who bought it for that purpose, yes.
hot showers
water + bucket + sun
electricity
Overrated. Heat-fueled devices can do the complicated stuff, and what's left is so little that PV actually makes economic sense.
ice cream
sugar cane + cow + absorption freezer
movies
Way overrated.
the internet
A massive expense for what you're getting, but satellite internet is an option where wires don't go. (Check out the story of Mike and Lisa in Tennessee.) Cheaper options may exist, even in sparse, rural areas between large cities. And hey, if it weren't for news and message boards, one might not need it for weeks at a time, either.
pretty girls
The ones who want to go with you turn out to be the prettiest.
To find a way into the hearts of children, first you must allow a truth to be shared and then let this share build within their hearts and you will see children open their minds to things not known.
Permission is given to copy this and put it in every school in the United States, to build on so that it will all ways be known that we do care.....we have been down that road and the glory for that dollar is lost by things done....
Welcome to FASC Concepts
The Day The World Stood Still
We are at War with a Drug Empire
We have been joined by so many people , from the blog site of Eminem to Chuck Norris to Jay Z and thousands of other people who wish to bring a new life to all.
When I wrote my first " Boycott" I just wanted to see the trickle effect it would have, with out stepping into a forth dimension and having my in site lost.
The Arabic Drug Empire is the only one in the world that seeks to kill every last man woman and child in the world in order for their chosen few can repopulate the world....
Our goal is for our words to go around the world, to be heard in the streets to the country until it reaches the White House and shakes the very foundation of this Government Institution. It is not what we say that counts in as much as, it is what we do not say that builds words of truth.
Some say that a Boycott is a waist of time, but it would depend on what is said , to understand we wish to live and we fight with words of truth to in force our right, because we face inhalation through the miss use of a faith.
It is not our goal to change a way a people think, but it is a goal to show only a truth, my goal is simple, to bring the destruction and down fall of this empire...
The following is also linked to drugs and Drug Empires that date back around 1000 years BC and a World and things not spoken of because of a intent for it to disappear from the knowledge of Mankind. A world so old that time its self had all most for got.
A true story, also documented in history.
That because of malevolent acts that is also ancient and is also documented history before Christ, the sacrilege committed against God in order to gain great wealth and to enslave nations through drugs, to build children into that they wish.... All of this is true and a fact of documentation of history.
This sacrilege spoken of is in fact the sacrifice of life to spiritual evil. Even now documentation in Mexico and the United States , 1979 to 2000 reports filed and some cover ups now proved to be true.
I read these things and I see where the Arabic Drug Empire is involved with the Mexican Drug Lords. What lost of understanding is that according to the faith of Ben Laden it is forbidden by God to walk among the infidels. That all infidels are to be vanquished from this world in order that the chosen ones will repopulate the world.
It is a well known fact that the Arabic Drug Empire seek biological war tactics and it has been heard that a chemical balance is sought of how to implement Biological with Drugs, in order for it to be undetectable.
The betraying of the Mexican Drug Lords by The Arabic Drug Empire will bring death to Mexico and the United States.
Why should the Mexican Drug Empire take faith in my words, first If you and I stood before God I say to you that this is true it is the words of the streets that hold credit, and nothing is offered to them, The Mexican Drug Lords, dealing drugs is illegal. It is time to step away sit back and see what this drug dealing is doing and see those who have begun to lose their soul to this money making drug and the true and ancient evil bound to it.
You do not have to take faith in my words for now, let your soul and mind speak to you.
Some people seek proof of God, will, let me show you the essence of evil first and ah, will enjoy the ride, because it is said by thousands of people who do drugs that some how a door was opened to them a what came through to them, is only felt / sensed, and it stays in a darkness unseen to eyes, as it twist their soul into the thing of which they are not.
Some say that the one of few will step forward and a balance will once again be in place, while others disrupt by the telling of of the end within the Book, Revelations . As for me I read and I see that the fate of men is within their hands.
Will I have shown you the links and a truth that you did not know, a world that should have been lost in knowledge of things so old and built within Empires, so help to pay this forward.
Thank you to the staff of the blog site for Eminem for allowing our blog to post
1.Eminem : News : Recovery Album Premiere on Myspace
Jun 18, 2010 ... To strategically Rebuild America www fascmovement mysite com on google look for page 1 american dream official site with over 11800 post ...
http://www.eminem.com/blog/default.as.....amp;cmnt=1 - Cached
So join Us in
International Boycott Of The Arabic Drug Empire / Phase 2
Henry Massingale
FASC Concepts in and for Pay It Forward covers the web with over 219,000 post on google
Drop by and see why we built a anti crime / war form in a Health Care Reform Concept. To strategically Rebuild America
www fascmovement mysite com on google look for page 1 american dream official site with over 11800 post