Are you Pro TEA Party or Pro Tyranny, Slavery/Indentured Servitude, Lawlessness and Licentiousness? Yes, I understand that it is fallacious to argue “You’re either for me or against me” — except when there are only two sides to an issue. You can either be for liberty or control; for the law or lawlessness; for slavery or servitude; for morality of licentiousness. You cannot be ‘neutral’ on these issues. There is no “I support the law and lawlessness at the same time.” By definition, such a position is lawlessness — especially when we are discussing Natural Law (as we are now). So, when it comes to the TEA Party agenda, which are you: for them, or for Tyranny, Slavery, Lawlessness and Licentiousness? Think I am wrong? Then read this post and then tell me if you still think I’m wrong.
If you are like most Americans, and you only listen to the State Propaganda Ministry (i.e. the ‘main stream’ or ‘legacy’ media), then you probably think the TEA Party are extremists. If obeying the law and living a moral life is ‘extreme,’ then I suppose the TEA Party and I are ‘extremists.’ But then, if living a lawful, moral life is ‘extreme,’ then what does that say about the people who are trying to imply they are ‘normal’ or ‘moderate?’ By definition, the opposite of lawful is lawless, and the opposite of moral is licentious. So which are you: lawful and moral, or lawless and immoral? What? You don’t believe the TEA Party stands for lawful, moral principles? Then let me explain, because this one is simple.
First, the TEA Party wants the Constitution to be upheld — as it was written and intended to be employed! After all, if a law can be changed by just ‘interpreting’ it differently, then it is not a law. If you doubt me, then try to ‘interpret’ gravity so that it repels rather than attracts and let me know how that works out for you. To be a law, a principle must be known, clearly understood and consistently enforced. If we want to change the law, we can do that. The Constitution even provides for a lawful process by which it can be changed. This is the primary thing the TEA Party is fighting for: the consistent application of the U.S. Constitution. And since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the TEA Party is just asking for the rule of law to be upheld.
The next thing the TEA Party wants is morality in the laws we pass. Morality is derived from Natural Law, so — once again — the TEA Party is really just asking for the rule of law to be upheld. But to provide a specific illustration, let’s look at government spending. The TEA Party wants a balanced budget. This is a matter of morality because, when we spend more money on ourselves than we take in, we are enslaving the future generations. Yes! It is slavery. What’s that? You say I am wrong because no one ‘owns’ the next generation? Oh, really? Let’s take a closer look at this issue, shall we?
First, when we spend more than we take in, we are accepting a debt that will be passed off to the next generation. That generation has no say in this action, so they are being ‘taxed without representation.” No, they are not represented as they are not alive to vote, so they had no choice in the matter. We are deciding for them. This is a clear violation of Natural Law. One cannot agree to a contract that one is not party to making. So, when we incur debt that will be placed on people yet to be born, we are violating Natural Law and that is immoral. So the TEA Party is correct about this issue: as a nation, we are acting immorally (because we are acting lawlessly).
Now, if I incur a debt and I then force you to pay for it, what does that make you? I mean, if I write the laws so that I can just take what I say you owe, and I then force you to work to create the wealth for me to take, what does that make you? No, I didn’t ‘buy’ you, but then, the Nobles did not ‘buy’ the serfs, yet they owned the serfs. The serfs were just thought of as part of the land. Now stop and think about that for a moment: the serfs were thought of as part of the land, and since the Nobles owned the land, they owned the serfs. Is that slavery? According to the definition of ‘slavery,’ yes, it means the serfs were slaves. They had no say in their own lives. So how is it any different if the government thinks you are part of the nation, and that it owns the nation?
But you say the government isn’t a person? Maybe now you are starting to understand my problem with ‘artificial entities,’ but that is a different issue. Our government is treated as a person, and that person is assumed to ‘own’ the nation, and since the government considers you to be part of the nation, it owns you, too. By definition, this makes you a slave. The only question left is who is going to get to control the government — and by extension — you? Once again, you should not doubt me because this is exactly how these people think:
“Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?”
–Adolf Hitler
Since ‘nationalize’ means to take government ownership of, Hitler was saying “Why take over industry when I can just take ownership of the whole people?” This is what is happening to you and I: the government is taking control of us through taxation and health care. When they have an oppressive national debt, and they control your health care, they have effectively made you into their slave. All they need now is to take your weapons and your freedom to communicate, but don’t worry: they are after your guns and ‘Net Neutrality’ will handle your ability to communicate.
The TEA Party is trying to stop all this. They want to uphold the law, nothing more. This means that the people calling the TEA Party ‘extremists’ must be the ones the TEA Party is trying to stop. These people want lawlessness, and slavery. They do not care about right and wrong, or Natural Law. They want to be masters of the world. In short, they are tyrants, and they are in both Parties as well as the majority of our social institutions. The question you need to ask yourself now is:
“Will you choose to stand with the TEA Party, or will you choose to be a tyrant?”
.
THE ROAD TO CONCORD 
Either liberty or control? No middle ground?
I hope you know that it really isn’t that black and white. Even some of the more extreme libertarians do believe there needs to be some kind of regulation. You premise is all wrong, which therefore makes your whole conclusion wrong.
cr0nto,
My premise is wrong? Then please explain — and make sure you address the full body of my work as I have attacked those who think they can have liberty without some form of control.
May I suggest that you might have equivocated my use of control in this instance? I am not trying to say liberty (as in NO standards) or control (as in any level of standard). I would hope the context of this post would have made this clear, and if not, certainly the body of my work has. Unfortunately, I have to assume my readers are aware of my past posts or I would need to set up every new post with a book. So — please — you must understand that I am not writing in a vacuum. I am assuming the reader has followed me for a little while.
So this may be my failing (a lack of adequate background before every post), but I certainly am not saying that liberty is the absence of control. Now, with all this said, I do not see how my premise is incorrect: I only see how the TEA Party opposition is trying to frame themselves in a way that excuses their lawlessness and licentiousness.
Cronto seems to be espousing the “Compromise” and “Bipartisan Legislation” so helpful in the continued Destruction of the Republic.
As is evident once again, the Founders encapsulated the essence of legitimate control…..that of the Constitution / Bill of Rights controlling the power of government.