Freedom and the 4th, being buried under the law.

I meant to make this post quite some time ago, but never really had the motive to sit down and type until now.

I've realized of late that my ability to inject emotionally compelling prose into writing has become diminished, largely because I frown on it anymore. "Just the facts, ma'am" has become a thing of the past, and every statement, news story, conversation or tweet must now be written with the intent of getting the viewer to feel SOMETHING. Be it hatred, pity, compassion, guilt. Some things are written with this in mind - Fiction, political debates; And those things I understand. At this point however, we now inject it into EVERYTHING. Your dealings with co-workers, friends, even family. We create our facebook pages, not with the true statements of our lives, but with the beautiful facade of what we want everyone to think, as though the perception of our own lives by others should be our ultimate value.

And that's supposed to be normal. I make concerted efforts to avoid it.

I suppose it is normal though. The one thing I've taken from Christianity is the notion that most people are sinners. - When I was younger I don't think I really understood that. I thought most people were good folks, but now as I look at the world with a few more years, I realize most really aren't. As far as the numbers go, yes the amoral out number the moral. (By whatever measure of morality you want to use, religious or otherwise.)

I wouldn't call them sinners, however. Even with the disdain for falsifying ones life as often happens, I still can't wish an eternity of torture on anyone. I guess that's what people call compassion. Nonetheless, I avoid people like them as much as I can.

Where am I going with this? How many understand what freedom really was about, other than some buzz word that gets plugged into our facebook pages on the 4th every year, or spouted as some brainless platitude when feeling patriotic?

We plug a bullet in some terrorists head and say "YAY WE WON! GO AMERICA." - Not realizing that being "Proud to be an American" is a terrible misnomer. Then again, maybe the Chileans were as happy about it as we were. I guess "Go United States!" doesn't have quite the ring to it. It's all about putting on the facade... or maybe just an excuse to drink in excess and shoot fire... wait, fireworks are illegal now (in CO anyway.) Isn't that kind of a drag? We shout about how great our freedoms are, all the while we're told "sorry, you can't do that."

So, land of the free, home of the brave, but here's about 100,000 pages (on bible paper in 6pt font) worth of regulations and shit you can't do. "Joe, freedom in that context is absurd dude..." well right, and I'm not advocating for a completely lawless society, but I really do think we missed the point somewhere along the way.

Let's look at the history and subtext behind the 4th as a holiday. Simply, this was the day we seceded from England and told an oppressive government to "bugger off." I'll restate that: On the 4th of July, 1776, we told our government we weren't following their rules anymore. We overthrew the government, and now we celebrate having shrugged off the weight of the government (used with purpose!)

I hope my point is clear here - What we now celebrate is some text on a calendar that means we can get an extra day off. It has nothing to do with any elements of the document signed on the 4th of July, 1776.

...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Read: YOUR GOVERNMENT SUCKS. SETTING UP NEW RULES. PS: THE KING SUCKS TOO.

So, the whole point being, we celebrated not just succession, but the fact of having overthrown the government, and the fact that we as people are independent.

Guess things changed. Now it's just another day to drink a little too much.

Some say freedom is different now than what it was then. That "Freedom" means an inconsequential outcome... that your choices should be mitigated to ensure you have the same out come the rest of us do. That's the socialist answer.

Some say that the government and law expanded out of necessity. Changes in the human condition necessitated revision upon revision of law. That's the worst answer.

The freedom and independence of this country was defined (not just on a documentary basis) by the context of the time. Freedom, meant the ability to make choices and be the only bearer of the consequences. Not that there would be no consequences. The ability to make choices without fear of oppression or legal repercussion from the government, so long as your choices affected only your life, and not another.

I had someone tell me recently, that the law expanded due to necessity, and that the notion of personal sovereignty was "welcome to nuzzle his coin purse." It took me the better part of a day to stop reeling from that statement.

To set the backdrop - Law in the US is a beast that spawned a set of professions, from tax accountants, to attorneys and government employees. Title 26 (the tax code) is so immense it spans over 9,500 pages... IN ONE TITLE.

My thought of late, given that I may lose my job soon, on account of this same type of situation...

Look at the implications of expanding law. This country was founded on a principle of personal representation. Our entire court system was devised with that in mind. Now, due to massively expanded state and federal law (and the ability to set precedent with court cases) a lawyer is practically necessary in order to properly represent a case or defend yourself, much less win.

Can't afford a lawyer? TOO BAD, you lose. You may have legal rights, but unless you can afford to pay someone to untangle the code sections that apply, you can't exercise them. Simply put - Our legal system has become Jim Crow on an economic basis as opposed to race, and a professional monopoly.

Why don't we have a flat tax? Because removal of the current tax code would destroy the entire tax preparation industry and create a huge amount of unemployment. - The entire Green initiative is in the same boat. Right or wrong, these laws create jobs. Destroying them would be political suicide.


Anywho, that's my tirade for the night. Independence day my ass. Now it's better represented by Will Smith punching aliens than it is by any virtue, moral or philosophy.

I blame the Sophists, Michael Moore, and the Smurfs.

A beautiful quote. Any eisegesis will get scoffed at.

To preface - This was written by a woman, not me.

"For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship - the desire to look up to man. "To look up" does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value judgments. A "clinging vine" type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men. Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, NOT any human virtue she might lack.

This does not mean that a feminine woman feels or projects hero-worship for any and every individual man; as human beings, many of them may, in fact, be her inferiors. Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such - which she experiences fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude toward all men. This does not mean that there is a romantic or sexual intention in her attitude toward all men; quite the contrary: the higher her view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother or leader."

- Alisa Rosenbaum, A.k.a. Ayn Rand, 1971