Liberal Vs Conservative, the play on words to enslave a nation, Part 3c

Liberal Vs Conservative, the play on words to enslave a nation, Part 3c

By Ihr Hase

The Individual Versus The State

The real opposition with government is not a left/right issue it is an “up/down” one, about more or less individual liberty, it is the difference between Liberalism and Statism, the power of the individual against the power of the state. As demonstrated previously, the left/right issues only serve the purpose of taking liberty from individuals in exchange for empowering the state, the end result being the annihilation of the individual. Where do you place value, is the question, do you value the liberty to live your life without depriving the life or liberty from others or would you rather the state oppress your life through legislation?

Liberalism is the label of individual liberty expressed in government, a society of individuals that can agree that liberty is the rule of the land, and the government is assigned few and nominal tasks. This is not a lawless society, but a society that has laws the entire population can draw back to the basic human rights. This is to say; not violating another’s rights is not violating the law and violating the law means separation from society. The republic (1) is the embodiment of this society, as described in the United States Constitution, very reminiscent of the primary republic of ancient Rome, after the monarchy was overthrown, known as Res Publica Romana.

Merriam-Webster: Republic
Main Entry: re·pub·lic
Function: noun
Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public
Date: 1604
1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c: a usually specified republican government of a political unit
2: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity
3: a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia

As we can see the definition b (1) is the only objective entry, a government that rules according to the law and the power resides in the hands of the citizens who have the right to vote. The laws of this ancient republic were written in stone, the civil rights could not be tampered with and were respected by the governing Senate and Plebeian Council, this is the “republican form of government” guaranteed by the Constitution (2). The Bill of Rights (3) is the enumeration of the rights the government should never trespass against, these first ten Amendments to the Constitution truly list the boundaries of a government for the United States and advocate the power of the individual to hold this government accountable if it were ever to overstep it’s boundaries. This is why the founders are referred to as liberals, because they created a government that was held to respect the rights of the individual, individual liberty, therefore they created a Republic.

As we look to the opposite of Liberalism we will find the gradual decline into a tyrannical government system known as Statism, the left and right versions of this are negligible because the individual looses liberty either way. Statism is represented in total by the Oligarchy, defined below as a government by the few, despite the concurrence with the corruption that is mentioned, oligarchic government is a small group that exercises control over the population.

Merriam-Webster: oligarchy
Main Entry: ol·i·gar·chy
Function: noun
Date: 1542
1: government by the few
2: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also: a group exercising such control
3: an organization under oligarchic control

The laws of an oligarchy do not hold the governing powers accountable, this is a very Machiavellian form of government, where the ends justify the means, where the rule of law is the rule of the time. Representative Democracies are often oligarchies, where the representatives are elected, empowered by the majority and require a majority of representatives to change the law of the land. Remember that no law, not even a basic human right, is safe in this form of government, if the right to speak against the government is not popular then speaking against the government is illegal. In order for the oligarchy to enforce it’s power on the people, it must control all aspects of the average person’s life, where what you see, what you read, verily what you know is subject to litigation. This form of government is reminiscent of the monarchies of old, where the few decided the very fate of the individual, where the whim of nobility was applicable as the law.

Democracy, the God of the Oligarchy

Currently, an oligarchy is a government of complacent consent; the “herd” mentality is praised over the individual to propagate a tyranny of the majority, where the 51st percentile decides the level of freedom for all. It is the idea that the best for most is the best for all; this is the representation of the annihilation of the individual, truly considered a high crime in a republic where individual liberty trumps the state.

Merriam-Webster: Democracy (5)
Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized: the principles and policies of the Democratic Party in the United States
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Objectively the democracy is the rule of the majority, so by design people would have to organize in voting blocks to gain a majority in society in order to have true representation of their beliefs. What normally happens in this case is a compromise of morality, a choosing of the “lesser of two evils”, one who agrees with the most important issues, but mainly not with many others. On the national level these voting blocks will take a singular issue and bind together in a Nationalist or Collectivist voting block, completely compromising their ideals for one issue that they value, usually in a herd this size we are talking about the emotional response to the opposition party. The best current example is the enormous amount of people who voted Democrat because they were not Republican, and really not considering anything else.

The representative democracy is what the oligarchy truly stems from, where democratically elected representatives are granted the supreme power of the people but volition of election. The idea is that the people can vote the person out in the next election, but while they are in office their power is that of the people, surrendered at the voting booth. Representative Democracies often polarize the voting blocks to generate infighting, allowing the government to act unnoticed, by choosing a left or right issue to be the cornerstone of the party platform. The people who voted for the “winner” feel empowered and often disregard the rights of the people that did not vote for their candidate, attributing complaints as “sore loser syndrome”. The reality is the representatives are not bound by their campaign promises (examples: Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama) and only have to placate the majority of their constituency to secure re-election. The majority can be fooled by supporting campaign promises in word and by supporting legislative measures, but working with other representatives to have the majority vote against these pieces of legislation.

With a democracy, you are always doomed to the path of oligarchy; even with the best intentions in mind, giving any power to the government is taking away from your individual liberty and therefore your personal role in the society as a whole. One should always question the placement of public trust, it is a powerful tool and the abuse of it has a catastrophic result on the population, genocide, one that in almost all cases, comes to fruition.

Politics Illustrated

Now, with all the information provided we can correct the political diagram found earlier to demonstrate the reality a little better than what we are used to seeing.


This diagram (6) is supported by all my logical claims, the references and real world examples, as the correct view of politics, the left (Collectivist) and right (Nationalist) issues, the Liberalism (Autonomy) and Statism (Democracy) battle for power and the forms of government that these political stances generate (Republic, Oligarchy - Social Democracies, Fascist and Communist Regimes).


1 republic. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic
2 US Constitution Article IV Section 4
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transc...

3 US Constitution Bill Of Rights
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_tran...

4 oligarchy. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved April 12, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligarchy
5 democracy. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved April 12, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

Liberal Vs. Conservative, the play on words to enslave a nation, Part 2

Liberal Vs. Conservative, the play on words to enslave a nation, Part 2
By Harry Felker
Conservatism, what is it really?
Conservative is a liquid word, it spans time only by its own malleability, what is traditional in 1776 is not so today, and as such this needs to be addressed and stricken from political position.  Politicians who use the word to describe themselves or opponents are akin to those who use "ducktalk" in Orwell's 1984, it means praise to an ally and condemnation to an opponent, the meaning is ambivalent at best, the usage is all that is important.  The best current example is when people use this word in regard to charity, the liberal notion of giving voluntarily to charity is considered by right wing politicians as conservative, and it is praise, but to the left wing it is condemnation to prefer voluntary charity over state mandated welfare, which they also call conservative.  The point of all of this is really to confuse the people into not thinking at all, and using words based on intent over meaning, basically stripping education down to indoctrination.
What I postulated in my earlier article, as Conservatism, is actually Statism, as defined in Merriam-Webster (1): concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry.  Variations on this theme are what left and right political stances are all about, both have the feature of highly centralized government, the left would have government dictate industry, the right would have the opposite, industry dictating government.  I must apologize for this correction, my initial work was in haste, the basic premise still stands, but now the terminology must be made to correctly represent the truths, or I would be nothing more than the equal to the language revisionists.
The looming hand of Statism
Now with a clear idea of what Liberalism and Statism are, let us review how the political climate can come into view with a diagram; imagine if you will an equilateral triangle:

Now, the "y" axis represents Liberalism vs. Statism, and the "x" axis represents right wing and left wing politics, as we can see, the more Liberal you get the less influence the right and left have on your government.  As you approach the apex of this triangle, there is less government involvement, at said apex is a concept known as anarchism, and I know, you are all thinking of kids with safety pins, but the reality is, the objective definition of anarchism is defined in Merriam-Webster (2);
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles
So at the peak you are left with a society without a government, all based on voluntary involvement, and as you scroll down into the triangle, you lose Liberalism to Statism, the founders did not disagree with some government, just as little as possible to remain a nation free from other nation's rule and simultaneously a people free from its nation's rule.
The problem with the left and right influences on the society is that they themselves want more influence, they want more power, and in a liberal government, there is a maximum amount of influence they can have.  The remedy to this end is to build arguments with each other that will increase Statism to solve the contention without compromising their own current level of influence.  These arguments are long in list and meaningless to individual freedom, save for the fact that they all look to distract you from the loss of liberty, spending money is a perfect example, both left and right wish to spend your money in different sinkholes, neither really discusses you keeping your wealth.  So out of self interest the left and right will quibble with each other in order to derive an emotional response from the people, this emotional state is the goal, because emotional people are irrational and will graciously hand over liberty in order to have their way temporarily, and cannot be convinced that a loss of liberty in their personal interest will someday return on them as the whim of society changes.
Where are all the Liberals?
As I previously explained, Liberalism (first part) is not currently existent in major partisan politics, so with that said where are all the people represented by views that match liberalism, do they have a party, or are they deceived into thinking that major partisan politics cover the ideals defining Liberalism?  I think these questions are best answered in viewing third parties and those that choose the lesser of two evils; these people are disenfranchised by partisan left and right issues and are trying to halt or reverse the Statism occurring due to these issues.
Third parties, not all but a few, are centered around constitutional government, the idea that government is best which governs least, as stated by Thomas Paine, in the premier of these third parties are the Constitutionalist and Libertarians.  Constitutionalists are, as far as I can tell the religious wing of the Liberal movement (3), while the Libertarians are more concerned with secular liberty, leaving religion as a private issue (4).  Good comes from both these groups as they are dedicated to the Constitution, and a Liberal (small) government, based on the principles of the republic, the only real definitive issue is the secular issue. The Constitution Party's platform page alienates many of it's would be supporters as it states; "The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States."  I firmly believe it does not take a brain surgeon to understand how one can feel alienated, as I support Constitutional Principles, but am not a Christian, nor do I "acknowledge Jesus as Creator".  I feel that the Constitution party may have the interests of the constitution in mind, but to attach their dogma to their politics is a mistake the founders themselves warned against.  Libertarians, on the other hand are more open, leaving religion out of the equation of their politics, as their principles state, "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." Now yes the Constitution Party states that it is ok to not worship Christ, but it leaves the thought in my mind, and probably anyone that is not a Christian, that ascension is capped for any of us based on religious persuasion.  This leads me to the conclusion that the Constitution Party, though their hearts are in good intent, cling avidly to the left right issue of religion, which dooms it, once in power, to generate Statism.  This would leave the Libertarian Party as the truly Liberal party, looking for the least intrusion into the people's lives, with no left right issue to fuel any Statism what so ever.
The lesser of two evils voters I believe are more interested in halting the growth of government in a way that is not aligned with their personal left right issue, unfortunately, they are so polarized between differing ideologies as to which Statism is better, they forget that Statism is not the Constitutional way.  By selfish interest that will not unite at limiting the government, as they do not mind if it grows their way, becoming emotional about what government should govern over, and as postulated before doom themselves when the social pendulum swings out of their favor.  The other people in this group are the ones that finally understand that partisan politics is an issue, though I will not go out on a limb and claim they understand true Liberalism yet, they are at least showing signs that growth is still possible, and liberty is never out of reach, the outrage has to just reach a breaking point for each individual.  These republicans and democrats that have walked freely away from their party, in realization that they are not represented, need to find out why, classify the issues, and come to the attention that it is a left and right issue meant to increase the power of the federal government, they must decide is it better to be free, or run the hazard of the opposing wing of politics to have the power they grant to their wing.

1 "Statism." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009.
Merriam-Webster Online. 15 March 2009
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism
2 "anarchism." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009.
Merriam-Webster Online. 15 March 2009
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism
3 Constitution Party Homepage
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
4 Libertarian Party Homepage
http://www.lp.org/