[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: The Big Plantation
Source: Eric Peters Autos
URL Source: https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2019/11/12/the-big-plantation/
Published: Nov 12, 2019
Author: Eric
Post Date: 2019-11-13 19:46:39 by Deckard
Ping List: *Cars and Automotive*     Subscribe to *Cars and Automotive*
Keywords: None
Views: 1001
Comments: 7

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Are you more likely to be injured in a car crash because you weren’t wearing a seat belt – or because you were?

Both are possibilities – and sometimes, actualities.

An unbuckled driver might be hurled out of the vehicle and crushed by it (this happened to someone I know). But he could also be trapped inside the vehicle and burnt to death (or drowned) because rescuers couldn’t reach him in time to cut him free.

But the proper question isn’t which is more likely to happen but rather, who has the right to decide which of these two risks alarms them more.

Is it ourselves? Or is it someone else?

The government asserts – via laws and men with guns – its power to make that decision (and many others) on our behalf and contrary to our own preferences. This is a pretty outrageous thing, when you think about it a little bit.

More than outrageous.

Evil.

But it’s an evil principle that’s been accepted via a kind of mesmeritic philosophical-moral osmosis, over several generations. It is the idea that the government is (effectively) our parent and endowed with the rightful authority that parents have over children to protect them – for their own good (as decided by the parent).

Of course, it is never stated in such explicitly honest terms. It is implied – and that is enough to obtain, if not the consent of those parented, at least their compliance (based on the threat of violence, always hovering, for non-compliance).

The problem, of course, is that we are not children and the people who operate the levers (and wield the guns) of government are not our parents. We don’t even know these people, except by name and title. And they only know us in a figurative sense – as “the public.”

Or something worse.

What gives these people the right to claim parental authority over grown-up men and women unrelated to them?

Italicized to emphasize the philosophical-moral issue at hand. The people who constitute this fictitious entity styled “the government” certainly have the power to enforce their decrees – but that is a very different thing than rightful authority of the sort exercised by parents on behalf of their minor children.

And what the government does isn’t parenting. That is an inaccurate – a much-too-benign –  term. The government is – and does – something much less savory.

A parent’s job is both natural and kind; it is to prepare the child to be a free and independent adult – a person no longer in need of parenting. It is a temporary and short-term occupation in the scheme of things, with the end result being (hopefully) another free adult.

What government asserts is ownership – in perpetuity – of infantilized adults.

The object is not the eventual independence of the pupil – so to speak- but rather his permanent submission to the power of the government. By which is really meant the power of the relative handful of people who comprise it.

There is a better name for this arrangement. It is slavery.

Everyone is opposed to this, of course – but for cognitively dissonant and conditioned reasons, only when it’s obvious.

Massa in his great house; an overseer keeping the field hands compliant. But do we not live on a very large plantation ourselves? Is not the arrangement the same in its essentials?

The “massas” are several, federal state and local – but they assert ownership over us just the same as the one – and they use overseers (armed government workers) just the same to enforce their asserted ownership. How else to view this business of grown men and women being told they will wear a seat belt (and hand over a portion of their earnings and accept being told what they may do with their property, with whom they may associate – and so on) else be punished?

The massas’ doctrine is premised on our being their property – which they claim a (specious) right to protect.

Put another way: The only way such a right would not be specious would be if we are in fact their property; if they do own us.

Owners have every right to do as they please with their property. It defines the relationship.

Just the same as we assert ownership over our dog or cat, say. No one disputes our right to have Fido or Felix  “fixed” and groomed, to decide what they will eat and where they will be allowed to roam (or not)   . . .  and to punish them when they act contrary to our wishes.

Because it is understood that these critters are our property.

 

Just the same as massa (singular) in the great house asserted his ownership over his slaves by ordering them about, managing their lives and having his overseer threaten to or actually whip them if they disregarded his authority.

Is this sounding familiar to you yet?

Seatbelt laws are no different; they are merely a manifestation of ownership.

It may seem a trivial thing to object to “buckling up,” but it is not the buckling-up that’s being called out. It is the asserted authority to compel the buckling up.

A very big principle is at stake.

By accepting that the government – just other people, remember – has the rightful authority to take away from us the free choice to assume any risk affecting ourselves only because it (they) considers those risks unacceptable, we have accepted the evil principle that the government has a property interest in us.

That we are owned by the government.

By the people who are the government.

Does it rankle? It ought to. But it doesn’t – for most people – who’ve been narcoticized by their conditioning to accept such effronteries as both normal and desirable. With the vicious consequence of the field hands begging to be controlled – and owned – to ever greater decrees by demanding controls be imposed on others, who then demand controls imposed upon them in turn.

Cui bono?

Only the massas – rendered in the plural.

. . .

Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

(6 images)

Subscribe to *Cars and Automotive*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

What gives these people the right to claim parental authority over grown-up men and women unrelated to them?

Power.

Might makes right.

Vicomte13  posted on  2019-11-15   8:28:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Deckard (#0)

narcoticized

That is what you push.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-11-15   8:37:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Deckard (#0) (Edited)

Does it rankle? It ought to. But it doesn’t

Oh, it does rankle, just as waking up in slavery rankled every slave every single day of his existence for generations, and segregation rankled every person subject to it every single day.

But can you do?

Vicomte13  posted on  2019-11-15   8:39:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Vicomte13 (#3)

“When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the land and the missionaries had the Bible. They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible.” — Jomo Kenyatta, First President of Kenya, Africa

The Catholic Church played a vital role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, according to historians and several published theses on the topic.

lasentinel.net/the-cathol...ajor-role-in-slavery.html

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-11-15   8:53:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: A K A Stone (#4)

The Catholic Church played a vital role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, according to historians and several published theses on the topic.

Of course it did. And that was evil.

Protestant England was the number two slave trading nation, dominating the trade after 1600, and the Calvinist Protestant were, likewise, heavy participants in it, bringing slaves into the Protestant Dutch and Protestant British countries in America.

Christianity disgraced itself by the slave trade. The Protestants were as guilty of it as the Catholics. Neither is exonerated. Both were evil.

America is, after all, a Protestant country, historically.

Vicomte13  posted on  2019-11-15   14:23:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: A K A Stone (#2)

narcoticized

That is what you push.

yada, yada, yada.

Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

Deckard  posted on  2019-11-15   14:59:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Vicomte13 (#5)

fair enough. :)

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-11-15   15:55:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com