Are people capable of governing themselves?

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Are people capable of governing themselves?

The "great" American experiment was to see if people could govern themselves under the form of a Republic and with inalienable rights that are above the consent of government or the population.  The framers told us that the constitution was a vehicle to limit and restrain government, not the people.  Here we are, almost 250 years later...and while the jury is still out, it is beginning to look as though people are too immoral and irresponsible and lack the fortitude and courage to lift the state of civilization. Maybe the best we can hope for is a benevolent monarch or dictator who is fair and just.

Sure we can blame incompetent politicians, greedy business and corruption for our woes but everything they have done has been with our consent or neglect.  Instead of focusing on those who are enslaving us, I want to point out some of the failures of "We the People."

1)  We have fallen prey to the oldest scheme in history and are unable to do the junior math required to verify the mathematical obsurdity of our monetary system

The source tyranny has always been derived from the power of a controlling the monopoly to create and issue money.  'The intellectual faculties however are not of themselves sufficient to produce external action; they require the aid of physical force, the direction and combination of which are wholly at the disposal of money, that mighty spring by which the total force of human energies is set in motion.'  - Augustus Boeckh, 1828.  To see how far back this scheme goes I suggest you read the "The Babylonian Woe" by David Astle:

"History over these last three thousand years particularly, has largely been the interweaving of both a witting, and an unwitting distortion of the truth, with all the inevitable consequences which have been expected and now are but a little way ahead. Kings largely became the mouthpiece and sword arm of those semi-secret societies that controlled the material of money as its outward and visible symbols came to be restricted to gold, silver, and copper... The fiat of the god in heaven which had been the decisive force behind that which brought about an equitable exchange, was replaced by the will of those classes controlling the undertones of civilization, leaders of the world of slave drivers, caravaneers, outcasts, and criminals generally, such as was to be discerned on the edges of the ancient city civilizations, and followed the trade routes between them...

The law of the ruler previously exercised towards the well being of the people in that they might live a good and honourable life accordingly became corrupted. It became merely a symbol raised before their gaze, in order that they might not look down and see the evil gnawing away at the roots of the Tree of Life itself, destroying all peace and goodness. Nor could those semi-secret groups of persons be seen who so often were the sources of such evil. In their contemptuous indifference to the men of the state who found meaningfulness and tranquility through life lived in natural order under the law of the King, they constituted hidden force deeply inimical to the best interests of mankind."

People have been brainwashed to believe that government is not competent to issue and control our money.  Surely, private banks are needed to handle our finances despite the fact that our constitution explicitly states that this is a function of government through congress and the treasury.  Even "patriots" like Ron Paul and Austrian economists hold this obscene and unconstitutional belief.  

2)  We have consented to having our children and future generations enslaved in debt upon birth.

If you add up our (U.S.) public debt ($12.7 trillion) and unfunded future liabilities ($106 trillion), we can see that as the first act of citizenship, babies come into the world owing $395,000.  Collectively, we are pigs with a ravenous appetite who care little about anyone else, even our own children.

3)  We have accepted that our children are being dumbed down by our rulers through a defective school system.

This is intentional as our rulers do not want our children to figure out my bullet point number 1.  The secret of American schooling is that it doesn’t teach the way children learn and it isn’t supposed to...on April 11, 1933, Max Mason, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, announced to insiders that a comprehensive national program was underway to allow, in Mason’s words, “the control of human behavior.”  - John Taylor Gatto

4)  We have allowed massive crime against humanity to carried out in our name and with our money.

Over 1 million Iraqis are dead because of bogus charges of WMDs.  We don't even demand accountability or at a minimum, an apology.  The war on terror, like the war on drugs, is a lie intended to strip our rights and make us comfortable killing Muslims wholesale.

5)  We accept the censorship of "political correctness" and "hate speech" to muzzle honesty and reason.

Since when does being "nice" trump truth and critical thinking?   

"Americans are not free to say what they think.  If they say something deemed offensive, insensitive or worst of all "hate speech" they may be in serious trouble.  They may be punished for violating the unholy commandments commonly known as political correctness.  Is political correctness a new phenomenon?  We'll show you tonight that political correctness has been in the making for more than eight decades.  And it seems that a deteriorating society is exactly what political correctness strives for...political correctness is a Marxist ideology"  - History of Political Correctness (see below video)

6)  We accept a barrage of lies from our government, media and institutions with barely a shrug.

The lies and deceptions have become normal.  What is being hidden? 

Larry    

hucklejohn's picture
hucklejohn
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2008
Posts: 281
Re: Are people capable of governing themselves?

Excellent post, Larry.  There is nothing to add.  The post says it all.  Good to see Bill Lind (in the video) again.  I recall seeing him on the now defunct network I think called NET in the 1990s with his program called "The Next Revolution." 

ccpetersmd's picture
ccpetersmd
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 12 2008
Posts: 799
Re: Are people capable of governing themselves?

Great post, Larry!

I suspect that the reason our experiment in self-government has failed thus far is that we have failed to live up to two preconditions that were recognized by this country's founders: the populace should be informed and have a moral base. Most Americans are currently woefully ill-informed, whether the fault of the public school system, distractions in popular culture, etc. We have also lost (if we ever had it) a moral base, by which I do not mean a fundamentalist Christian outlook, but basic principles such as a strong work ethic, respect for others' liberty and property, lack of greed and covetousness, and respect for the natural world.

I think that the principles of self-government as outlined in our founding documents remain valid. We have failed those principles; they have not failed us.

littleone's picture
littleone
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 24 2009
Posts: 203
Re: Are people capable of governing themselves?

Larry,

 

Excellent topic and post!

 

Sure we can blame incompetent politicians, greedy business and corruption for our woes but everything they have done has been with our consent or neglect. ~Larry

 

I have been connecting a few things recently...and Yes, we have been participating. Lately, it's hard to know what works and what doesn't. I personally have been overwhelmed with all the crashes and collapses arriving and looming. Most of the burden has been from thinking that our political and legislative leaders can make it worse or better.

I totally agree with Strabes and others that we need to reconstitute local communities. I just want to clarify that it is my opinion, after contemplating the facts, that attempting change or restoration through the political scene will be a waste of time. I know this seems extreme...and there are fears that if we cannot rescue our governing system, the result will be anarchy or total dictatorship. Yet, I arrived at this conclusion after viewing Stefan Molyneux's video Freeing Yourself from PoliticsI finally feel able to pursue genuine community relationships free from the illusions of politics.

 

Facts are facts...Statism is dead. Statism = human livestock farm system. All limited currencies = unnatural scarcity. Livestock farms and limited currencies are, by design, unnaturally competitive or hyper-competitive(think war) and lead to oppression and extinction(collapse). Haven't we learned...NOT to travel on titanic empires, which always result in too many life boat ethics situations?

 

Consider this quote from Khalil Gibran's THE PROPHET(1923) :

...

You often say, "I would give, but only to the deserving."

The trees in your orchard say not so, nor the flocks in your pasture.

They give that they may live, for to withhold is to perish.

Surely he who is worthy to receive his days and his nights is worthy of all else from you. ...

Read the entire offering on Giving for further clarity http://leb.net/~mira/ edit* (click on Works, then The Prophet, then Giving) 

 

Nature does compete for resources, but none are hoarded or hidden through coercion.

Remember that the elite only care about the money(representing labor and resources)...not the laws. Money represents our labor and value in a livestock farm system...even though our true worth and labor are immeasurable.

 

I may be missing something here, but I do not see how political activism is going to change an inherently violent agenda. I would be acknowledging the need for governance(violence/coercion) instead of personal conscience. This is exactly what we've been conditioned to believe we need to do...obey authority...vote for the authority...or become the authority(in a politically correct way). In this way we are aligning with a belief that the political system is responsive to our needs...when in reality, this is not so.

 

It is not my intention to persuade others that this is the truth. I just want to share this view for your consideration.

Thoughtful responses are appreciated.

 

 

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: Are people capable of governing themselves?

Larry, great post.

Littleone, I'm becoming more and more convinced that you are correct.  In fact, perhaps it's an illusion that Americans ever had self-governance.  It was more a system of "self gets to choose an other to govern self."  That's not really self government.  As long as an other governs self, then 1) we are saying we can't govern self, and 2) others will collude to use that other for their benefit at my expense. 

So despite the obvious fact that humanity is broken and imperfect, true self government through participation in local community without a larger state above it seems to me to be the only option worth pursuing on a philosophical/spiritual dimension because it calls humanity to rise above base behavior.  Perhaps on a practical dimension, we need the state.  But as long as a population believes "people suck so we need government to enforce order" then people will live up to that low expectation and we'll be limiting our hopeful potential to reach higher on the philosophical/spiritual dimension.

I'm sure on another day I'll read my own post here and think "what a nutjob!"  But today's a good day...gotta love hockey.

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Are people capable of governing themselves?

ccpetersmd wrote:

"Most Americans are currently woefully ill-informed, whether the fault of the public school system, distractions in popular culture, etc. We have also lost (if we ever had it) a moral base, by which I do not mean a fundamentalist Christian outlook, but basic principles such as a strong work ethic, respect for others' liberty and property, lack of greed and covetousness, and respect for the natural world."

First, thank you for the kind words.  When you wrote "...by which I do not mean a fundamentalist Christian outlook," I thought that you were right, it is not a matter of religion, it is a matter of common decency.  If a religion; and I don't want to detract or add to any one of them, does not express common sense morality and tolerance what is it advancing?  BTW, good Doctor, if I didn't mention, my moniker isn't accurate, I am not a "doctor" of anything, at least not officially... :)

littleone wrote:

I totally agree with Strabes and others that we need to reconstitute local communities. I just want to clarify that it is my opinion, after contemplating the facts, that attempting change or restoration through the political scene will be a waste of time. I know this seems extreme...and there are fears that if we cannot rescue our governing system, the result will be anarchy or total dictatorship.

Hey wait a minute...strabes hasn't posted anything on this thread yet.  Just kidding!  He is right though, and I hope he continues reaching more people.  I agree with your take, the more local the solutions, the better!

Larry

littleone's picture
littleone
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 24 2009
Posts: 203
Re: Are people capable of governing themselves?

Hey wait a minute...strabes hasn't posted anything on this thread yet.

I knew I should have qualified that.Smile

I was inspired by Strabes' thread Wall Street Oligarchy, American Empire, and the Fake Left vs. Right.

I was posting all morning fleshing out my post. After reading your opening post here, it all came together...and I posted it here because your subject question begs the answer.

 

ccpetersmd's picture
ccpetersmd
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 12 2008
Posts: 799
Re: Are people capable of governing themselves?
DrKrbyLuv wrote:

First, thank you for the kind words.  When you wrote "...by which I do not mean a fundamentalist Christian outlook," I thought that you were right, it is not a matter of religion, it is a matter of common decency.  If a religion; and I don't want to detract or add to any one of them, does not express common sense morality and tolerance what is it advancing?  BTW, good Doctor, if I didn't mention, my moniker isn't accurate, I am not a "doctor" of anything, at least not officially... :)

As you know, we aren't supposed to get into discussions regarding religion on this site (been there, done that), but I would tend to agree that if any given religion didn't advocate common sense morality and tolerance, then it isn't much worth my time. I have studied, superficially, at least, all the major religions, and see more common values than differences. I also believe that one can be agnostic or atheistic and still share those same core moral values. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". For "Creator", substitute whatever term is most comfortable (God, Allah, whatever), or nothing at all. The point is that there exist certain rights, and moral obligations, that are inherent in the human condition, and that those should guide our behavior.

Wait, I thought you were a doctor of "luv"?

deggleton's picture
deggleton
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 250
Re: Are people capable of governing themselves?
DrKrbyLuv wrote:

...while the jury is still out, it is beginning to look as though people are too immoral and irresponsible and lack the fortitude and courage to lift the state of civilization. Maybe the best we can hope for is a benevolent monarch or dictator who is fair and just.

Sure we can blame incompetent politicians, greedy business and corruption for our woes but everything they have done has been with our consent or neglect.

Human performance, while it certainly provides hints and clues, does not define human nature!  Because of what is true about humans, we can hope and advocate for much more than your sense of the best possible.  Most people await and dream of a credible invitation to wholeness and opportunities for contribution, the exact opposite of the job descriptions, controversies and advertising we navigate among every day.  No one is born to be a pawn!  Each discovers there's a security in becoming one.

It is tragic that so many have approved of what brought and brings woe, but it was newcomer approval, far from the kind that accompanies the satisfaction of a job well done.  It's newcomer approval because the reduction of people to things that we must overcome began before our time, indeed hundreds of years ago.  The process has evolved, so it shows up for some here and for others, there.

An alternate telling of the oppression/control story that participants in this thread might enjoy is in the first part of Fuller's Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth.

gregroberts's picture
gregroberts
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 1024
Re: Are people capable of governing themselves?

G. Edward Griffin on Government vs a Protectorate

"A protectorate is not a government. An aircraft with no wings or tail that cannot fly but is limited solely to ground travel is not an aircraft any longer. It is an automobile. If a truck is deprived of its steering ability, and its rubber tires are replaced by steel flanges that run on rails, it is no longer a truck. It is a train. Likewise, a state that has been deprived of its authority to use coercion for any purpose except the protection the life, liberty, and property of its citizens, cannot be classified as a government. It is a protectorate."

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=g...

G-Money's picture
G-Money
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2010
Posts: 46
Re: Are people capable of governing themselves?
DrKrbyLuv wrote:

People have been brainwashed to believe that government is not competent to issue and control our money.  Surely, private banks are needed to handle our finances despite the fact that our constitution explicitly states that this is a function of government through congress and the treasury.  Even "patriots" like Ron Paul and Austrian economists hold this obscene and unconstitutional belief.  

Larry    

Larry -

Yikes!

For a very well written post detailing how we as a society have lost our ability to think critically, you seem to have given only cursory attention to what RP and the Austrian "patriots" are saying. No doubt, if you are only going as deep as to hear "government bad, private industry good" I see how you could come to your conclusion. But I'm afraid it is much more nuanced than that.

I rather cringe when I see things handled with such broad strokes in a place like this, where there are so many intelligent people (including yourself sir, I have read some of your posts) available to discuss the issues in a much more dispassionate manner than the nonsense we see in the MSM.

The problem I have with your statement is that (to my eyes) it appears that it does not take into consideration the mechanics of an actual free market. While it is true RP the Austrians advocate private coinage versus government fiat money, they do so only within the framework of an unhampered market. They certainly do not advocate this power being concentrated to the Fed or the existing banking oligarchy (both of which would not exist in their existing omnipotent form if not for collusion with the government).

One may also ask the question that if the government has been entirely ineffective at preventing fraud and theft within the banking system, why should we assume that it could prevent the abasement and counterfeit of money if it controlled the currency. 

I think the crux of the Austrian belief is that in a free society the market for "money" should be allowed to function just like the market for any other commodity. The problems arise when attempts are made to control and manipulate money - which can only be done by the government, and thus government is the problem, not the solution.

I don't have the time this morning to go into depth on Austrian monetary theory, nor am I an expert. I'll point you to some Rothbard for now (http://mises.org/money.asp) and maybe we can chat later.

DrKrbyLuv wrote:

Maybe the best we can hope for is a benevolent monarch or dictator who is fair and just.

I can only hope that this comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. I can't believe anyone on this site would actually advocate for a more totalitarian government, no matter how benevolent it professed to be, or how bad our current situation seems.

As Pierre Proudhon said "Order is not the mother, but the daughter, of Liberty".

Gabriel

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Are people capable of governing themselves?

Hello Gabriel,

You're right I shouldn't have stepped on Paul and the Austrians, it was unnecessary and beside the point.  Ron Paul has earned his stripes and  I agree with most of his positions with money being the big exception. 

I know that they are both popular here at CM and with most libertarians but I think the Austrian theory misses the boat in economics by not recognizing the fundamental mathematical flaw of our system (exponential growth of debt).  The Austrian theory is more social than sovereign, they do not even bother to discuss the creative power and freedom that may be derived from a nation issuing and controlling it's own money.

Economics has always been more theory than a science which makes absolutely no sense.  I think that money should be a public utility and the system should be engineered like other utilities. 

"The most fundamental and important truths in relation to the nature of money, have always been so covered up by the technicalities of law as completely to deceive the people respecting its true character...Notwithstanding this mystification about money, its true character and power are very simple, and need only to be clearly and fairly stated to meet the approval of the common mind"  - Edward Kellogg

Thanks for the comments,

Larry

G-Money's picture
G-Money
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2010
Posts: 46
Re: Are people capable of governing themselves?
DrKrbyLuv wrote:

I think the Austrian theory misses the boat in economics by not recognizing the fundamental mathematical flaw of our system (exponential growth of debt).

Larry -

Thanks for the reply. Let me ask this. Would not 100% reserve banking eliminate the problem with exponential growth of debt?

Gabriel

gregroberts's picture
gregroberts
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 1024
Re: Are people capable of governing themselves?

V's picture
V
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 14 2009
Posts: 849
Re: Are people capable of governing themselves?

Those damn Mainiacs are at it again.

V

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: Are people capable of governing themselves?
gregroberts wrote:

That seems straight from a twilight zone episode.  I would go back to supporting the Republican party if that was their platform.  It seems highly unlikely that the country club set that currently controls the GOP would ever allow anything like that to happen.

deggleton's picture
deggleton
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 250
Re: Are people capable of governing themselves?
strabes wrote:

...as long as a population believes "people suck so we need government to enforce order" then people will live up to that low expectation and we'll be limiting our hopeful potential to reach higher on the philosophical/spiritual dimension.

+1

For the industrial age (much of US history is in it), people were reduced to things, but in reality they are much more and they want to live there.  I have to believe that.

See The 8th Habit by Stephen Covey.  First chapters are 1) The Pain, 2) The Problem, 3) The Solution.  If they don't pull you in, take it back to the library.

David

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments