 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder
|
|
|
Subject: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Amos Date: 21 Mar 02 - 09:20 PM Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775 Second Virginia Convention - St. John's Church (Richmond, VA) Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it....... There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight!--I repeat it, sir, we must fight! They tell us, sir, that we are weak--unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of Hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat, but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged, their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable-- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come! It is in vain, sir to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! Every once in a while, we need to revisit the fundamentals. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: wysiwyg Date: 21 Mar 02 - 10:06 PM Well, my dear friend, since you brought it up-- I see it like THIS. *G* ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Mar 02 - 10:53 PM Amos - That is a fine and rousing piece of rhetoric. There were some great orators in those days...before the onset of television. There were probably some great speeches made on the British side as well, but they didn't win that war (and revolutionaries always get the greatest speeches). It was Britain's Vietnam, you might say. I can't help but sympathize with the American revolutionaries, although it is the loyalist tradition which founded Canada, and which I remember well from my own childhood. Its heroes are not George Washington and Patrick Henry, but Isaac Brock and Laura Secord. King George the Third was a wretchedly incompetent monarch. Had a wiser, healthier, and saner king been running the British Isles, there might have been no American revolution at all...and who knows what would have happened then? We might now have a single independent English-speaking nation ranging from the Mexican border to the North polar icecap. The 13 colonies fought a brave and tenacious fight, and with vital naval assistance from France managed to defeat the greatest superpower of their time...quite an accomplishment indeed. I believe it's the only really crucial war the British ever lost. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: GUEST Date: 22 Mar 02 - 01:23 AM Course if you read history the British didnt like killing their own people very much. George had to hire German soldiers to bulk up his forces. Rather like Englishmen killing Englishmen for the sake of tax dispute. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Amos Date: 22 Mar 02 - 01:34 AM Well, if you read history you'll find plenty of them did kill each other for causes a lot less persuasive than individual liberties. At least the rationale was a bit more gilt! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Lonesome EJ Date: 22 Mar 02 - 01:41 AM It's difficult to believe that the concept of a popularly elected democratic government should have been such a radical idea, and caused such fear and indignation. That the success of a form of government that is now universally recognized as the right of all men, should have been at one time in great danger of failure and obliteration. I sometimes wonder if these men, Henry, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington and the rest, were simply giants who would stand above the crowd in any era, or if there was a special chemistry in the time and in their comradeship that bred such nobility and correct vision. We owe it to ourselves to make the very best of the vision that they created and handed down to us, and if ever we find ourselves "ashamed to be Americans", we need look no farther than our beginnings, for our foundations are in bedrock. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Mark Cohen Date: 22 Mar 02 - 01:49 AM The thing that bothers me, Amos, is that everybody who fights a war, on whichever side he happens to be fighting with, believes that God is on his side, that the enemy is out to destroy everything he holds dear, and that he's saving the world for right-thinking people like himself. Everybody, that is, except for the people at the top, who start wars for reasons of greed or power or megalomania and then stand back and let the boys go out and die. It's a sad business, and while it still seems to be a necessary one at times, I just can't stomach glorifying it. Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: DMcG Date: 22 Mar 02 - 02:39 PM As Fairport Convention put it:
Here's to Tom Paine, the hidden story (Question: Why 'the hidden story'? Answer: he is virtually unknown in England - certainly he doesn't appear in many school textbooks. I gather he's better known in the US!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 22 Mar 02 - 02:54 PM DMcG, Thomas Paine is often mentioned is US history, but seldom quoted. A little bit too socialistic to suit current right-wing tastes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: SharonA Date: 22 Mar 02 - 05:24 PM Thanks for posting that, Amos. I sometimes wonder what history would've been like if Patrick Henry had been President at some point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: pattyClink Date: 22 Mar 02 - 05:25 PM And a little too free-thinking to suit current left-wing tastes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Mar 02 - 05:37 PM "We" are Mudcat, and from all over the world. "Who we Americans are" maybe?
It's useful to remember Patrick Henry at a time when people keep on asserting that there's something strange and inconceivable and alien about suicide bombers and such. "Give me liberty or give me death."
(And please note, that's not praising what they do in any way - it's pointing out that there's something familiar about that way of thinking in most cultures.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Gareth Date: 22 Mar 02 - 06:32 PM Kevin Mc G - Target I think ! Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Amos Date: 22 Mar 02 - 06:57 PM I believe, McGrath, that the spirit of the Mudcat, and the spirit of Patrick henry, are very resonant and not far apart. But we can all serve with a reminder that here is a motivating principle called liberty and remember to keep it in view when we thinl about things our "representatives" do in craftyting law during a time of turmoil and change. George the Third didn't get away with opportunistic tax-leveraging, and I see no reason that George Junior should either. They both had all the rationalization in the world to explain why it was "necessary" too!! When people get into that "managerial" mindset it is impossible for them to imagine doing things which are not "necessary" just because they're right action. A
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Hrothgar Date: 22 Mar 02 - 07:10 PM All those individual definitions of "liberty" cause endless trouble, don't they? Especially when somebody wants to inflict his/her definition on somebody else.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Mar 02 - 08:02 PM I'm puzzled...what's not "free-thinking" about being left wing? I'm left wing (sort of), and I don't know anyone more free-thinking than myself. It's my impression that freedom can function equally well with or without socialism, if that's the issue...but can social responsibility do so? What good is freedom on an island of cutthroats and gangsters? What I mean by that is...a socialist structure undertakes an action in order to seek a specific result rather than to seek a profit. If the intention is to educate people on an equal basis, for example, socialism sets up structures that will achieve that, regardless of whether the people are rich or poor. We have that kind of socialism in both the USA and Canada (universal education)...and Cuba has it as well. Mexico doesn't to nearly as great an extent, as far as I know. Of those countries literacy (and equality) is the highest in Cuba and the lowest (by far) in Mexico. Poverty is worst in Mexico. Is it good for people to be free to starve and live in utter degradation under the heel of a few rich families and foreign businesses? Do you call it "freedom"? If you have a society with no socialized education system, then only the children of the rich get an education at all. This is a handy way of keeping the poor uneducated and powerless forever, as in pre-revolutionary France. It's not freedom. It's autocracy. In a society with no socialized police force or court system you get only what protection you can afford to hire. The rule of the gun, in other words, not the rule of law. We have a socialized police force and court system in Canada and the USA. If money is the final arbiter of all decisions then where does that lead? In my opinion it leads not to freedom but to oppression, corruption, absolute rule and catastrophe. This can be seen happening in many places throughout the world right now. Socialism attempts to equalize people's basic opportunities and ensure their basic civil rights. Unrestrained large scale capitalism attempts to live off them like a bloodsucking, ravening parasite. I have no objection to small scale local capitalism whatsoever, as long as it obeys normal civil law (which is another collective socialist structure which we cannot do without...unless we wish to return to barbarism). Socialism has gone seriously wrong whenever it identified itself with a single political party and attempted to socialize everything and subordinate everything to that one party, but that is not what I am suggesting should be done. One party rule is a disaster under either capitalism or socialism...it leads to a self-perpetuating dictatorship. Democracy can function best when it combines both systems, and has either more than one party or, better yet, no political parties at all (in which case you vote not for a party representative but for non-partisan candidates from your community). Tom Paine had a number of socialist beliefs precisely because he was a democrat (small "d"), and those beliefs integrated very well with his desire for liberty and justice for all. You cannot have liberty in the absence of collective responsibility. You could if people were all saints, but they are not. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: CarolC Date: 22 Mar 02 - 11:01 PM People who value freedom might want to check out this site. Although the organization is called, "Co-op America", it might have some information that would be useful for people in other places as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Amos Date: 22 Mar 02 - 11:47 PM Le Petit 'Awk: You're up against two wildy incompatible selections of important truths. One is that all good springs from the indiviual exercising his or her productive imagination in free enterprise. The other is that the economics of interchange must be free but must never steamroller the freedoms reserved to the individual soul; and that mankind cannot propser on the backs of ethical compromise, refusal to take some sort of responsibility for the overall society and its interactions at all levels, and envision a common good as well as an individual one . Both these perspectives are perfectly true. The short view, though, is that they are not mutually compatible. Hence, the two-party system. The real truth is that balance inall things and an attentive examination of "ground truth" will reveal that there really are no paradoxes. But this is not a notion that sits well in an us-versus-them mindset, is it?
A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: JustWondering Date: 23 Mar 02 - 12:07 AM Eeeek. Having a problem. Who is "We"? (as in "who WE are"). Isn't "we" divisionary? Especially, if one is on the "outside" of "WE", as so many of us are. And anyway, doesn't "WE" change over time?.... Just wondering.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Lonesome EJ Date: 23 Mar 02 - 01:26 AM The founding fathers of America were certainly not inclined to speak with one voice regarding the ability of men to govern themselves. Jefferson and others were certainly grass-roots democrats with a steadfast belief that the government they were establishing should be of the Greek model, with major issues settled by plebiscite. They had a belief in the innate nobility of the common man, and both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, primarily penned by Jefferson, reflect this principle. These beliefs were opposed by Hamilton, Adams, and others of the Federalist bent, who at the very least mistrusted their population to make rational decisions involving their own governance. The make-up of our present government reflects both the struggle of these two opposing points of view, and their fascinating skill at rational compromise. The Executive Branch and the continued existence of the electoral college (the source of much consternation in our recent presidential election), are holdovers of the Hamiltonian concept of Republic, while the Congress and Senate and the popular election process are continuance of the Jeffersonian model. Fact is, the government stands apart from either capitalism or socialism, and the US has experienced pendulum swings in both directions, those swings being primarily propelled by the popular will. The problem, as I see it, with a Cuba, China, or any other non-representational government, is that the mold of its society reflects the attitude of its leaders...."we shall do this because I know that it is best for all of you." Say what you will about American Government, but free will, freedom of speech, and the freedom of its people to determine its future course are its main strengths, AND these fundamentals of self-determination have become a model for democracy across the Earth. Patrick Henry and the rest had the intelligence, courage, and the will to establish this form of government at a time when rule by the people was considered heresy. I'm pretty proud of that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: GUEST Date: 23 Mar 02 - 08:15 AM There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations and web sites. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Amos Date: 23 Mar 02 - 10:13 AM Bravo, LEJ. A nice round up. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: michaelr Date: 23 Mar 02 - 01:40 PM LEJ - "fact is, the government stands apart from either capitalism or socialism" --- that's a howler the size of which I seldom see on this forum. Ever heard of Enron? Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Amos Date: 23 Mar 02 - 01:51 PM Michal, Enron will soon be gone, and the government will stand; it has weathered much worse fads and scandals because it has a well-thought out set of interacting checks. That is not to say we shouldn't scream about those who abuse it, like Busrhon and his hawkish clan. But I think LEJ was speaking in broader terms. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: michaelr Date: 23 Mar 02 - 02:19 PM Sorry Amos - I guess I'm a bit more cynical than that concerning the state of the union. It's all very well to quote the Constitution and the Founding Fathers with their noble intentions, but IMO the system has been corrupted to the point of parody by DC insiders and the money interests who can influence them. Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: CarolC Date: 23 Mar 02 - 02:30 PM Maybe the distinction needs to be made between the structure of our government, and how it's put together, and the "government" that consists of individuals such as Mssrs Bush and Cheny, et al.
In the first case, it's essentially a good government system... when it's actually practiced in the way it was intended.
On the other hand, the individuals who make up the government do not always conduct themselves in a manner that is in keeping with the way the system of government was designed to be carried out. And when they do that, they, as the government, do not always stand apart from such considerations as capitalism or socialism. Sounds like semantics, but sometimes semantics are unavoidable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Art Thieme Date: 23 Mar 02 - 02:48 PM As is said in "Master Of The Sheepfold", right or wrong, "...let them all come a-gatherin' in. Still, as I see the truth of it, "the weapon of prayer" is about as ectually effective as wishful thinking. I mean that with no disrespect at all. I simply mean do what you will. We all will do that anyway. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Amos Date: 23 Mar 02 - 03:41 PM Well, I would submit two thoughts on the disitnction. One is that this is not the first time the government has been branded as irreversibly corrupted and treacherous, and the next decade saw oscillations in the other direction. That said I do think it is time to do some serious house cleaning, starting witht he Internal Revenue Code and the governance of political contirbutions. The other thought is while people like Bushwhack are the figureheads of current crisis,w e should bear in mind that the confluence of elements we are dealing with goes much deeper -- there is a river of ideas that crystallize in what we rthink of as "current government" including the present and future capabilities and purposes of technology, the river of public philosophy as it evoplves below the surface, and the ebb and flow of the human ecology. In the past when governments in thsi country seemed absolutely corrupt and power-abusive, these factors were driving people into their strange corners and bizarre solutions -- an example is the rise of the steam age and the robber barons of the rail industry, and another is the later era when petroleum rose to dominance. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose Regards, A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Amos Date: 28 Mar 02 - 10:02 AM NECESSITY Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. William Pitt speech to House of Commons (18 Nov 1793) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Amos Date: 28 Mar 02 - 09:35 PM I'd be curious to know if anyone has any way of estimating what the net impact on annual government revenue would be if we instituted the following three simple changes to our legal codes: 1. Establish a consitutional limit on total taxation of individual income to a maximum of ten per cent per annum, combined from all sources of burden, and a similar limit on all other entities . 2. Removed all exemptions from the tax code for any individual or entitiy earning more than, say, $25,000/year. This means all corporation,s trusts, foundation, religous organizations, charities, libraries, and other strange fictions of being would be required to pay 1/10th of their revenue for the benefits of group coordination provided by local, state and federal governments, but no more than that. 3. Limit all tax codes and offenses to civil, not criminal, classes of offense. Since (1) and (2) above would suddenly free the Internal Revenue Service of thousands of man hours of tasking, the surplus of talented accountants thus liberated could be put to work identifying specific instances of waste in Federal Government programs and analyzing improved methods of making the government more productive, efficient, and mission-competent. Anyone got any numbers? A
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: BK Date: 28 Mar 02 - 10:55 PM Amos; I'm one concerned that the current level of corruption & influence of money - much of it foriegn - is of truly terrifying proportions (Look what it's done to intellectual property rights-patents are now truly a joke, initiated largely at the behest of the Japanese), but I do like the tax idea. Unfortunatly, I really think it'll never fly - the REALLY influential & super rich pay no real personal taxes, and are not about to start. I know some claim they pay hidden taxes through their businesses.. But.. Cheers, BK |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Genie Date: 30 Mar 02 - 01:08 AM "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! " Amos, The William Pitt quote also resonates here: Also, I'm with you in being concerned about our "elected representatives" using a crisis to push through their own partisan agenda. --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------------- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: DMcG Date: 30 Mar 02 - 06:32 AM Don't know about the US, but as I pay up to 40% in the UK on my income, plus 17.5% tax on (almost) everything I spend of the 60% I have left, I guess Amos' proposal (Establish a consitutional limit on total taxation of individual income to a maximum of ten per cent per annum, combined from all sources of burden, and a similar limit on all other entities) is not likely to appear here anytime soon! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Amos Date: 30 Mar 02 - 07:05 PM Well, I'm waiting to hear if anyone has any way of approaching the estimates involved??? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Mar 02 - 08:19 PM Excellent comments all around, Amos. I believe that if everyone above a certain very low income level were to pay exactly 10% of their true income...including all those corporations and other big players as you have indicated...then there would definitely be enough tax money provided for a healthy and prosperous social system. It would be simple, and it would be fair. I am now paying around 22% of my personal annual income, as well as about 20% of my small company's annual income (I am the sole owner), and that doesn't include sales tax, GST, and numerous hidden taxes that I pay here there and everywhere. I would not be surprised if in truth as much as 40% of my money goes out in taxes every year. It's got to be at the very least 30%. And in return for it, I get social services that are being whittled away and privatized (made more expensive and less responsive to the public)every year while the banks and corporations get richer and the rest of society crumbles. Time for another Boston Tea Party, I think...the idiot king is enthroned in Ottawa and Washington with his corporate cronies and the house is falling down around us. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: CarolC Date: 30 Mar 02 - 08:38 PM I know that 10% across the board figure sounds fair on the surface. But think about it this way: 10% of 20,000 is 2,000. 10% of 20,000,000 is 2,000,000. For someone living on $20,000, $2,000 is a hell of a lot of money. For someone living on $20,000,000, $2,000,000 is pocket change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Amos Date: 30 Mar 02 - 09:34 PM Well, Carol, that kinda depends on what they're doing wiht the money, doesn't it. And it seems to me, at first blush, that if someone is energetically productively living on $20,000,000 they are probably supporting indirectly a LOT of people. And if someone is living on a marginal income, 10% will not actually make or break them above a certain minimal level. I don't see any benefit in taxing poor people at all. But I don' think it is wise to make the state of the poor a governance on the penalties imposed on people who are not poor. It has a corrosive influence on intiative and enterprise. And, it breeds tax evasion mechanisms of magnificent complexity and cleverness which would be better spent finding more productive ways to spread employment and improve the community of survivors on which civilization depends. A Notice I didn't suggest a 10% tax rate. I suggested a consitutional protection against being more burdened by the state in all ways than a ten per cent cap. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: CarolC Date: 30 Mar 02 - 09:41 PM I think I understand what you're saying, Amos. But from what you said in your last paragraph, I'm wondering how what you're suggesting might prevent the sort of tax evasion mechanisms you mentioned in your third paragraph. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Who We Are--A Gentle Reminder From: Genie Date: 05 Apr 02 - 01:02 AM The problem, of course, Amos, is "ten percent of what?" Being self-employed myself, I understand a bit of the difficulty of defining that. There are business expenses that are undeniable costs to write off against the bottom line--e.g., if I sell a product for $10 and I paid $5 for it, or if I had to drive 100 miles to a gig and it cost me $35 in gas alone. But some costs --e.g., entertaining clients, costumes, phone bills-- are a little more nebulous. Big business seems to find ways of burying a lot of stuff as "business expense" that the rest of us can't. [E.g., industry writing off the cost of toxic-waste clean-up after they pollute the air and water.] If we were all on salary, it would be much simpler. A flat income tax wouldn't simplify my tax return, though. I still think that a sales tax would be preferable and it could be relatively progressive if the right things were exempted--[non-restaurant] food, rent and mortgages, [non-luxury] clothing, basic services [maybe medical services and up to the first $5000 of legal expenses], etc. I do think that sales tax should apply to sales of stocks as much as to sales of any other commodities, though. People who buy and hold stocks would, thus, pay less than speculators would. This might be beneficial to the economy as a whole. Genie |