Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..

Monday, May 14, 2012

The Enemy of my Enemy is my Enemy's Enemy.

If you buy into the fallacy of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" you will be rudely proven to be silly and naive at some point in the future.

Even within this "Liberty Movement" there are so many different factions that I know I am at times in the midst of true enemies.

You see, the word Liberty means something different to each of us.

I use Jefferson's definition, as manifest in the proper application of the Constitution, DoI and BoR.

Many within this "Liberty Movement" want nothing to do with my version of Liberty. They see the Constitution as a tool for enslaving them. Yet, some of these same people who claim they want Liberty, either with or without the Constitution, will eventually kill one another over issues such as abortion, marital fidelity, sexual permissiveness, and religion. One man's Liberty means any sex between consensual adults is Liberty. But a lot of other "Liberty" folks would call those people nasty names and infringe on their ability to do as they wish.

Both sides claim the high ground on Liberty.

When you hear folks imploring others to "...stop fighting each other, we all want the same thing..." I hope you understand that, obviously, they are not working for the same thing. There is a reason for the strife. It may be Ego. It may be monetary. It may be ideological.

My point: You do not have as many allies as you think you have...

I want Jefferson's definition of Rightful Liberty. That means I get to do any-f'n-thing I want with another consenting adult so long as we do not injure the equal Rights of others.

It also means that one day, if "Liberty" stands victorious over Collectivism, many folks in the "Liberty" trenches are going to begin stabbing one another in the neck.

Because they do not, truly, want the same thing.

Because the Enemy of my Enemy is nothing more than my Enemy's Enemy.

We have had considerable increases in cohesion and morale over the last year and a half.

People who do not truly want the same things will be mucking it up soon enough.

Count on it.



  1. Yep. I've seen it happen too many times to deny it. Your definition is the same as mine, even if I state it differently.

  2. "My point: You do not have as many allies as you think you have..."

    LOL. How'd you like to be in my position?

    Important post. This is what happens when people mistakenly think liberty or freedom are outside of themselves, the "higher cause" so to speak.

    Liberty and freedom are the social manifestations of the FACT that each person's life is his to live. There's nothing to argue about there. It's just an ontological fact and it's the fact for every person alive, whether or not it's acknowledged.

    There being nothing to argue about, there's also nothing to fight about...except for those who wish to physically try to make it not so.

  3. Your post describes perfectly my reasoning why I will never be allied with OWS or nazis or klansmen or anybody else unless their ONLY goal is a return to a Constitutional government.

  4. I agree, up to an extent. Remember, when Jefferson uttered those words... he didn't even dream of this:


  5. But Curtis, how does that injure your Rights in any way? I agree that if they are advocating using government to get special benefits- they shouldn't. And neither should I, as a heterosexual, have any special benefits due to my orientation. But their parade doesn't hurt you in any way, and I am pretty sure Jefferson would have agreed.

  6. No one has a right to not be offended.

  7. I am personally offended by the behavior. That gives me no Right to make them stop.

    However, I take the position that my niece or nephew should not be exposed to it, that it is an experience that can wound proper development.

    I have never heard the perfect remedy for this type situation. If they want a parade in public, I think it should be in a specific part of town and all residents made aware so they can avoid it. This way, both groups get to live together.

    The real problem is the folks who insist on being offensive for the sake of being offensive, and calling it a Right - for instance men walking around in public during the afternoon school release wearing G Strings and heels and leashes should not happen. In a perfect world, it would not happen by mutual agreement.

    In this circumstance I would take the position that protecting my niece or nephew trumps their right to strut.

    But how does one enforce that, because the slippery-slope argument is real and it is a legitimate argument. If we let some of the wrong people impose a dress code, all women would be wearing skirts to their ankles and sleeves to their wrists.

    I think the solution for deliberate offense must be a social remedy. If folks insist on being offensive in a place where I may be with my niece or nephew, a beating should be a socially-approved remedy.

    What I have not addressed is any religious solution. What is the Catholic Church's position on the matter, for instance? I know they consider the behaviors to be abominations, but do they authorize stoning them to death as do Mo's Morons?


    1. I think Miss Barnhardt would know for certain, but I think the penalty for chronic non-repentance of all kinds is the same in the Catholic Church (or used to be) as it is (or used to be) in the Protestant churches: "Get the Hell out". Then, let the sinner find grace again, if that's how it turns out.

      I think the punishments in Leviticus are understood to be part of a theocracy-turned-monarchy that no longer applies, because Jesus completed the system in Himself as the final, perfect Lamb of God.

    2. Many answers to the valid questions posed can have answers formulated by a reading of, "The Theme is Freedom," by M. Stanton Evans. About $20 on Amazon.

      And, if you'd like, I'll send you the PDF cliff notes free. Under 30 pages.

      Enlightening to say the least.

  8. I'm not even going to try. Look, you folks think that anything goes as long as it does not touch/lay a hand on anyone is just a bunch of hogwash. And frankly, Jefferson would be appalled to how far you all take the personal liberty gig. Jefferson was not made up of just one quote taken out of context. Jefferson's idea of liberty is a bit more complex than that taken as a whole that to many people miss.

    Frankly, some people take liberty to mean license and licentiousness.

    The constitution was written, not my perfect men, but by men who knew that liberty was sustained by a moral foundation. That without morals, there is no liberty. Their writings will bear that fact. And 200 years of loosening morality shows this to be true.

    Now, if one can not see the immorality of it... I am not even going to try to help you. Because if one will accept this... and as it cascades even further into barbarism, well... you'll get the liberty that you deserve. The thing about loosening morality, is it never knows its boundaries, and there is no limit to how far it will go... until a people stop it in its march foward.

    I am not a Catholic.

    Anyhow, by personal experience, I know how these things go in discussion. So I bid adieu. May each get the liberty that you deserve.

    1. Curtis: I know we agree when we say that the Constitution was intended for a moral people.

      So the question is: What does society do about people who insist on offending? There is no Constitutional answer. Either people work together and work out a system to coexist, or one day there will be a new Crusade and folks who are morally outraged will just slaughter them all.

      I don't see any middleground on our current path.


  9. What I do in the privacy of my own home is not open for public debate and the laws of Liberty apply. Once I bring it into the public square I am open for criticism, the right to oppose is an equal part of the laws of Liberty.

    In the New Testament 1 Corinthians 5 Paul address's gross immorality or abominations, he commands the elders in the church to "hand the person over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord". Paul wrote this in the Greek language which doesn't always translate neatly to English. The short answer to what Paul is saying here to cast the person 'into his sin', in other words cut him loose and let him go and sin to his hearts desire. The sin has a destructive power unto its self, example alcoholism leads to the destruction of the physical body, drug addiction destroys the body, sexual immorality has its destructive diseases (STD's) and so on. Even though Christians have stoned people for these things they really don't have permission to do so from God.

    So if you wish to spend all of your money on drugs and alcohol and have sex with other consenting ADULTS, that is your business. The problem is these things are seldom contained to ones own house. Drunks get in cars and drive, drug addicts run out of money and rob, sex addicts have an inclination (not all individuals but a few) to rap and pedophilia.

    So if you can confine your appetites to the privacy of your own home the laws of Liberty allow it. The moment your appetites spill out into the street you and I have a problem.

    I know a lot of Christians that disagree with this, but they are wrong. God created man with free will, the right to choose. This is what the unalienable rights are based upon. According to God I have the right to choose Him and I have the right to reject Him, it is purely my choice. God will never force you to believe in Him, you must choose Him. Force is the act of enslaving and God does not enslave. Men can choose to be enslaved (alcoholism, drug addiction and so on) but it is not God's doing.

    God desires all men believe, I may desire all men believe, but neither God nor I have the right to force men to believe.

    Said a lot more than I intended but I hope it is a little more clear.

    Locked and Loaded,


  10. CDP: Thank you, that is a very reasoned position.

    So in a scenario when I come across an unexpected offensive display while with my nephew, the Church would suggest I should turn the other cheek?


    1. Depends on the church, on one end some would say turn the other cheek, at the opposite end they would demand you burn it down.

      Jesus hung out with publican's and sinners. Publicans were tax collectors in the Roman empire, out side of Rome tax collectors generally were rough characters that were willing to collect by any means necessary. Sinners were any one who rejected God. I have no doubts Jesus saw some fairly risque stuff. If it is just me seeing the offensive display it is my responsibility to keep my self under control.

      But the child takes this up several notches. We have a responsibility to protect the children. I would immediately find an exit.

      I will let the person responsible for the display answer for it on his own.

      However there have been a few occasions when I really wondered if I should burn the display down. But I slap my self hard a few times and remember that the world is going to be the world.

      I have erupted twice publicly, and scared some people which I am not particularly proud of, once was at church and the other was at a school (private school that I was paying for). I am thankful that both cleaned up their act, which was humbling.

      So if it is a worldly place then turn the cheek and leave peacefully if possible. Shield the child at all costs.

      BUT if it is a place that is supposed to be safe for our children then absolutely not, its time to hit a cheek. Some things need to be attacked and sometimes attacked violently.

      It's not a perfect answer, only God has that and I'm most certainly not Him. I want to be reasonable as much as I can for as long as I can. I dread the day when I can no longer afford to be reasonable and violence is the only reason I can use.

      Locked and Loaded,


  11. Sam, I would suggest that the men would not allow it such a parade. If they went ahead and had it anyways... then the men of the town would put a stop to it, violently if necessary.

    Anyhow, this is my take on it, however degenerate our country has become... I am certainly not going to change everyone's mind... and anyone debating me on this is not going to change my mind:


    Does liberty condone this?

    What about mass anything goes orgies in the streets?

    Does liberty condone it?

    Does liberty really demand that anything goes as long as one is only offended?

    When Thomas Jefferson said: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others,” did Thomas Jefferson the man even envision this? Would have Thomas Jefferson condoned and even salute homosexual parades in the town square? Would he have condoned and saluted mass orgies in the town square?

    Is morality dependent on and decided by… evolving generations? Does evil and wickedness stop being evil and wickedness when… a minority say so? A majority say so? Our government institutions say so? Is morality the… du jour of the day? What about virtue? Is it the du jour of the day? Righteousness?

    Is liberty an evolving thing, like today’s interpretation of our constitution, dependent on the the du jour of the day and the whim of society? When society says that murder is okay… then we are at… liberty?

    While one may be at liberty to be wrong, is being wrong the epitome of liberty?

    In light of Thomas Jefferson’s quote above, when he also said, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever,” he meant that if Americans didn’t let homosexuals have parades and anything goes orgies in our streets, he trembled because God would exact justice on us?

    Time and time and time again, the men in whom so many in the patriot movement venerate, tell us that without virtue and morals, there is no liberty. Please tell us which of the Founding Patriots condoned, or would have condoned, homosexual parades. Tell us which of the Founding Patriots condoned, or would have condoned, anything goes orgies in our streets? Which of the Founding Patriots condoned, or would have condoned… a drunken brawl in the streets as long as the participants consented with each other?

    What about homosexual and heterosexual sex in the streets? After all, if one is offended, all they have to do is not look and walk away. What about masturbating in public? After all, who are you to tell me what morals are? How have I hurt you other than offend your… morals?

    Does liberty excuse barbarism so long as you are only… offended?

    It is time for the liberty movement to grow up… like men.

  12. This is why I am saying there is no answer to be found for this one either Constitutionally or with the Founders. Such activity was simply not within the realm of possible for them, even with their knowledge of Greece & Rome.

    I generally think that people who are morally offended by an act on religous grounds are more adamant about the topic, whatever it may be.

    So, the question is the same to the men of the church as to the men who want Liberty: Why hasn't anyone done anything about either issue? Constitutionalists haven't risen up. Religious folks haven't risen up. Anti-abortionists could end abortion in 2 weeks if they chose to do it, but they do not rise up.

    Examining this suggests we are trouble on all fronts.


    1. Because Sam, Franklin knew the condition of men when he said, "If you can keep it."

      The fact is, we are all Pavlov's Dog to one degree or another. We all become enured to one extent or another by the repeated hammering of the wickedness, evilness, and injustice. It keeps hammering and advancing and hammering and advancing. Some people think anything goes as long as it only "offends" you. The problem with that line of thinking, as long as one accepts that, they will push it until it touches you. Well guess what... it is touching us...

      From Pete's place:

      You are absolutely right! What goes on behind those closed doors doesn’t concern me. But the fact is, what was once behind those closed doors are now in the open, every filth paraded before our children on television, in our schools, and being codified as just by law through our courts and legislatures. But that is the problem when some people have no moral foundation… or the moral foundation of swiss cheese. Once immorality gains a foothold as acceptable. Then another. And another. Until eventually, it is everything goes and in your face. Boundaries break down. One has to be an absolute idiot not to see the moral decay and bankruptcy and how it had affected our nation because it is being beaten daily in each generations head that it is okay. One can only imagine where we will be a hundred years from now.


      Remember where we were? Here we are. Imagine where we will be.

  13. The way I see it, if something offends you but does not "break your leg or pick your pocket" (not my words, look it up), speak out. Ridicule it. Say loudly why it offends you. March alongside quoting the Bible (or book of your choice) calling them whatever name you can think of. Shun them, totally and completely and try to get others to do so, also. But the second you use force- in person or by proxy- against someone who hasn't used force against you or stolen from you, you have become a bad guy too.

  14. This whole list of replies reminds me of one line in a Sandburg poem:
    "Sometime they’ll give a war and nobody will come.”

    No one is saying you HAVE to go to a parade, event or happening. No one is forcing you to go. These people thrive on the attention, the shinier the object, the flashier the slogan, the more bright lights and free bread and circuses the more people will be drawn in.
    Buck that trend, shun the people and events. Ask your friends, family and tribemates why exactly they need to go to them. What is the draw.

    To paraphrase Sandburg and Charlotte Keyes...."What if they held it and no one showed"...how long would continue?

    Quit going. Quit giving the business's, people and council members that support this type of activity your hard earned money, support and morals. Quit setting back and letting it happening without your input at the approval meetings.

    And if it continues, and you feel froggy, floats have tires to run on, vehicles pull/push these floats, power to run speaker/pa systems, or a malfunctioning manure spreader through the center of the parade route before the event. Reported natural gas 'leaks', suspicious 'white' powders, suspected explosive devices along the route have a marvelous tendency to screwing up one car funerals, let alone multi hour parades. And anyone who hasn't figured how to call these in annonymously by now probably needs to be out of the game....or they will be shortly.

    Bottom line, this shit only happens because we let it. There will be some stepping up shortly, I presume to tell you.

  15. For the record, I completely concur with what Kent wrote...word for word, idea for idea. In fact, it's so good that it easily does as well as any words of wisdom that were written 240 years ago.

    What's liberty in the American tradition? What defines a rational society? There it is.

  16. The parasites are already in our system, and they are already working on us.

    I am ready to start grabbing belt buckles at this point instead of the semantic sparring that goes on.

  17. I agree with Cutis and CDP on this one - there should be some things that are not acceptable in the public arena, Liberty is no excuse for filth. I will agree that what happens behind closed doors is not my business; but if it crosses the threshold it is fair game for criticism and censure, by law if necessary. IMO the notion that Liberty allows us to do whatever we wish, when we wish, in the manner we wish is dangerous. No, I cannot expect the world to abide by the Word of God - though I wish they would - for the Bible tells me they are held to a different standard. Shoot I wish I would do a better job of this more than I do. A general society of humans living together as a community or nation may wish to turn the cheek on gross immorality and codify the acceptance of such and they may espouse that Liberty demands a "live and let live" mindset to make a society more "free"; that's fair. But what about my freedom to not put up with certain things (in public), to wish for certain laws to reflect a more moral base for living in society? What if I feel strongly that such behaviors allowed and flaunted in public can and will, in my opinion, only bring God's judgement to the nation I live in and love? Do I not get a say in the laws being made because I feel this way, is my opinion to be discounted as ridiculous?

    There is no easy answer in the affairs of men, but I would rather strive to have a society based on Judeo-Christian mores. I will not cram my Christian worldview down your throat if we disagree, that is not a Biblical response. I would simply ask that my thoughts on society and laws carry equal weight in the discussions on what laws are good and necessary for our society. There is no such thing as an amoral worldview, there are always sides and all I would want is to be allowed to present my case for my side as an option that has merit. In return I guess I would have to learn to abide by the decisions arrived at in this fair discussion even if my side lost the argument. I could do that....... I could live in a society that would at least give me a modicum of respect to voice my opinion without harrassment or degradation for my views; what I can't do is sit idle and act as if it doesn't matter to me, I won't pretend that I don't have an opinion and that said opinion is Christian. To do otherwise would be to go against my individual Liberty to think and speak as a freeman.

  18. Anonymous 3:57-

    "But what about my freedom to not put up with certain things (in public)"

    Exactly the excuse used against open carry of guns, Christmas displays, etc. If that's how you feel, OK. But then don't be surprised when the other side uses the same tactic against you.

  19. Kent McManigal - By your logic it is perfect acceptable for you to masturbate in public.

    In fact, I'll even go further. By your logic, if you own a dog, it is perfectly okay for you to bang your dog in public. As long as your not banging someone else's dog.

    I don't think I need to say any more to show the absurdity of your logic.

  20. Not acceptable to me. But is it acceptable to shoot someone for masturbating in public? Or "dog banging" in public? No.

    The whole "acceptable" thing is a very, very slippery slope and has been used- is being used- by "both sides" of authoritarians to justify eradicating liberty.

    I still wonder just exactly how it harms you if someone is masturbating in public. It would disgust me, and I'd turn away and not look, and distract my kids' attention to something else, but seeing that doesn't hurt me. Or them. Not even psychologically, unless I am already sick.

    I've seen people urinating in "public". Same body parts visible. So why the distinction? Is it because of the supposed pleasure the person is feeling in the one instance?

    I have read some of those psychological studies where a volunteer is asked to push a button to either cause pain or pleasure to an unseen "test subject" in another room. Most volunteers are much more comfortable administering pain than pleasure, and will push the limits much higher to cause pain. Why is that? I have a suspicion.


Please post anonymously. III Society members, please use your Call Sign.