Ask Dont Tell

That phrase has been hijacked for the wrong cause.

In a nation of peers, living in freedom:

If we believe that the able should carry the unable, then we should Ask Don't Tell.

If we believe that the successful should be charitable and subsidize those who have failed, then we should Ask Don't Tell.

If we believe that those able to manage risk and run up the universe's hills should do so on all our behalf, then we should Ask Don't Tell.

In a nation of finessed slaves, there is all kinds of telling being attempted. Human nature being what it is, and judging by the violent expression of those actually taking it up the a$$ for this century long war on liberty, are we long before the inevitable conclusion-- the same failure witnessed endlessly elsewhere when states have been unfettered?

Slaves aren't asked, they are told. Sure our economies look exactly like a giant middle finger raised at each other; what should any sane person expect under rules of forced association>

What are the justifications for state forced association in our political context? When frustrated religionists, impatient at the Progress of Jesus' Mission here on earth, propose their Progressive solutions based on forced association, why aren't they asked to justify their forced association? Why does their Progressive religious level of frustration entitle them to Tell and Not Ask, to become our Emperors of Enough?

In this nation of peers, who died and left them Emperors of Enough a hundred years ago?

I'll tell you who died; Lady Liberty.

Read Scott Nearing's "Social Religion."

Free here.

Is this religious frustration sufficient cause to implement Totalitarianism in the nation? To effectively outlaw all voluntary free association charity, and replace it with state confiscation and compunction at the point of a gun?

We've allowed the Emperor's of Enough to over-run the machinery of state; we now live in a Theocracy.

regards,
Fred

Post 1

Thursday, December 13, 2012 - 3:24pm

Fred,

Just as those who currently use "revenue" and "investment" when speaking of taxation and spending, those who tell under the pretense of ask wish to retain the respectability of a voluntary society, by using words only appropriate in a voluntary society.

However, as you noted, we no longer live a voluntary society. So all pretense should be dropped. Be proud Socialists all you Socialists out there. Do not dirty the word "liberty" by pretending to ask when you only tell.

Post 2

Friday, December 14, 2012 - 7:39am

Kyle:

"Revenue/investment"... great examples of black is white, up is down, left is right political speech.

Add 'austerity' to the list: any tapping of the brakes on this out of all control federal bus screaming downhill full speed, running on the blood of the nation.

Even the optics are under control; forever, the whole 'red state/blue state' thing was the other way(GOP=blue, Dems=red). American commies groused at the moniker 'red' after the demise of the USSR and the 1994 ass kicking and actively turned the colors around by way of a dedicated media. Since the 2000 elections, the color scheme has been reversed. Today...red is blue.

This is exactly the kind of message management and manipulation of the language that used to go on in the former Soviet Union. I used to wonder, how did they put up with it?

And now we're living it.

regards,
Fred

Post 3

Friday, December 14, 2012 - 7:53am

And for those inclined, a really insightful look into the goals of the Progressives, laid bare, also read Scott Nearing's "The Next Step: A Plan For World Federation"

published in 1922.

Free here as well.

This is truly the belly of the beast, the fountainhead of Progressivism, before the religion went deep under cover to pierce the First Amendment and create an American Theocracy based on 'Social Religion.'

We children of those who thought they were fighting for freedom, and slept through the takeover of America, are a hundred years late to this battle, started long before we were born.

Their thinking, based on a combination of religious zealotry and existential terror, is laid out in those two books, and their spawn just got elected to a second term in the White House.

regards,
Fred

Post 4

Friday, December 14, 2012 - 8:12am

Excerpt from dedication pages of "The Next Step:

"Men cannot exist in their present numbers on the earth without world co-operation." "Our Social Heritage." Graham Wallas.

..and of course, by 'world co-operation' is not meant 'world cooperation:' Men don't 'cooperate' at the point of the state's guns. Men who are Told are 'cooperating' as slaves. When they are not being Asked, they are not really 'cooperating,' they are conceding to force.

Although, they are being 'co-operated.' By who is not important in a free nation if that who is not themselves.

From the little mind warriors at wikipedia:

Cooperation is the process by which the components of a system work together to achieve the global properties. In other words, individual components that appear to be �selfish� and independent work together to create a highly complex, greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts system. Examples can be found all around us. The components in a cell work together to keep it living. Neurons create thought and consciousness, other cells work together and communicate to produce multicellular organisms. Organisms form food chains and ecosystems. People form families, tribes, cities and nations. Atoms cooperate in a simple way, by combining to make up molecules. Understanding the mechanisms that create cooperating agents in a system is one of the most important and least well understood phenomena in nature, though there has not been a lack of effort.

Individual action on behalf of a larger system may be coerced (forced), voluntary (freely chosen), or even unintentional, and consequently individuals and groups might act in concert even though they have almost nothing in common as regards interests or goals. Examples of that can be found in market trade, military wars, families, workplaces, schools and prisons, and more generally any institution or organization of which individuals are part (out of own choice, by law, or forced).

Is their intention to create an equivalency betweeen "choice, by law, or forced?"

Yes, men cooperate ... via free association. Mobil/Exxon is an example of widespread cooperation among free men and women.

Slaves also cooperate... or else.

It is crucial to elect leaders who distinguish between those two forms of 'cooperation.'

In a free nation of peers, we ask, we don't tell.

When we love our neighbors as ourselves, we ask, or else the act is more akin the act of rape than love, for exactly the same reason that distinguishes rape from love: free vs. forced association.

Forced association is a loser political agenda; it behooves those who love freedom to illuminate it whenever it shows up in the Left's politics, as in, whenever the Left shows up with its politics. (But...same with the modern GOP, which is rife with forced association as well; keep your definitions of marriage in your churches, plural, where they belong in a free nation. If we want to join your churches, we will...via free association.)

Forced association is a loser agenda; how -do- they sell it? Exactly as pointed out by Kyle; by manipulating the language. By never illuminating or addressing or facing the issue 'free vs. forced association.' By avoiding it like the plague.

Because as soon as they utter "Our pet Soc. grad school theories are worthy of forced association to implement them" or "for the Common Good" or "for the benefit of Society" or "for God's Will" or whatnot, they are exposed for who they are; carny hucksters, fellow naked sweaty apes, our peers, not our masters/emperors, no matter how badly that itch burns in their very soul.

regards,
Fred

Post 5

Friday, December 14, 2012 - 8:38am

So, what are the justifications for state force in a state fettered by the principles of free vs. forced association?

My assertion is, to enforce against forced association.

Murder, rape, theft. Those are easy.

Fouling of the air or water in commerce: = enforcement against forced association. (When we poison the air and water that others breath and drink, we are forcing their association with our commerce and industry; that would be an example of sprinting across the commons without regard to the freedom of others.)

Quarantine as a consequence of infectious disease: = enforcement against forced association. When we unwillingly expose others to disease, that is an example of forced association, and state action is justified to prevent it. And being reasonable, we distinguish deadly disease from colds, etc.

We'd barely need a USSC, if our fundamental underlying axiom was based on free vs. forced association.

We complicate the issue when we -create- additional problems of the commons. For example, forced vaccinations as a requirement to attend public schools. We do -- so far -- have the right to send our children to private schools, or to home school them, and avoid the requirement for vaccinations, but implementing public schools introduces a conflict between free and forced association(when vaccinations are evaluated in the light as prophylactics against disease requiring quarantine.)

Plus...I'm not sure how strict those laws requiring vaccinations really are. I think it is still possible to opt out. They are strongly urged, which is, lets face it, still 'asking.' But that, too, creates a conflict, in that those who -believe- in having their children vaccinated are having their children forcefully associated with those who don't..yet not, still, because they freely send their children to public schools. It is the same issue as freely walking on the public commons. Education is compelled, and public education is provided, but public education is not compelled... Private schools are free to have any policy they want, from encouragement to prohibition to agnosticism, leaving free people free to choose...

I've often asked some left leaning friends of mine, what causes justify forced association, and seldom if ever get -many- responses, though the issues above are often raised. More often, they appeal to vagueness such as 'the Common Good' and so on, with no specificity, basically to grant 'whatever we want' with Carte Blanche.

What pressing issues of our times justify the application of forced association? If we go back 100 yrs and ask foaming at the mouth zealots like Scott Nearing, we will get a long list, and his acolytes are running loose in the machinery of state as we speak...

regards,
Fred

Post 6

Friday, December 14, 2012 - 8:59am

Kyle:

I almost forget. (Well, put it out of my mind is more accurate.)

Do you remember a few months ago, Obama on the campaign trail, using the line "What is wrong with -asking- the wealthy to pay a little more?"

He used the word 'asking' to describe what he was advocating, which has nothing at all to do with the act of 'asking.'

You got to picture him, community organizer sleeves all rolled up, out there on the campaign trail, a shuckin' and a jivin'(I don't know how else to characterize his affected speech and Leno-ready saunter), talkin' to the folks, who all bobbed their head in agreement, "Yes, what's wrong with asking them?" ... when nobody in the entire foaming at the mouth Reich was considering 'asking' the wealthy to do anything...

More Big Lie political speech.

regards,
Fred

Post 7

Friday, December 14, 2012 - 12:34pm

Fred,

I wasn't aware that the political party colors were switched recently, but I find that very interesting. I read an article a while back about how the colors red and blue can have an influence on our brains subconsciously. For example, businesses like Walmart and Bestbuy use the color blue because it generally makes people more willing to buy. I'm not sure how much of this is legit science and how much is bs, particularly since the article came from Cracked.com which is a fairly comedy-centered site (Although, I have found that they do some pretty good research for their articles, often times better than the crap we see from a lot of "legitimate" news agencies).

From the article:
"Even though it's been shown that people are definitely more attracted to bright, warm colors, it's the cooler, inviting shades of blue and green that are rated more positive and pleasant. They make people feel less cautious and safer.

Not that blue works 100 percent of the time -- it depends on the product. If red makes people more watchful and defensive, companies that are promoting a product based on how it deals with negative issues can use red to encourage sales. If you're "fighting" something, your best bet is red. In other words, do you want to scare people? Use red packaging. Do you want to make them think they're a better person, maybe even saving the world? Use blue."

They go onto show Obama's campaign logo (blue-colored) and say, "I see what you did there, Obama"

Original article:
http://www.cracked.com/article_20039_5-crazy-ways-colors-red-blue-control-your-life.html

Post 8

Friday, December 14, 2012 - 2:43pm

Dan:

"Red" has long been associated with communism, which is the real reason for the grousing by the Dems to be associated with 'red.' It was kind of a hairshirt. The USSR collapsed in 1989. There was the 1994 spanking in Congress. The Reds were clinging to the table top of history, bobbing adrift in Hegel's wreckage, and focused up. They clawed their way back from the abyss, finding fertile ground where they might, like the environmental movement. And, just like what happens to an infected body when not the fuill dose of antibiotics are taken, the infection came back stronger than ever. Long after the supposed end of the Cold War, America is still coughing up left wing phlegm.

The GOP, meanwhile, bereft of actual ideas, was totally asleep at the wheel, unable to muster the intellectual ammunition even two years after the fall of the Berlin Wall to provide a counter argument to Carville's pithy bumper sticker argument, "It's the Economy, Stoopit!"

The remarketing and rebranding was part of their focused comeback campaign from the abyss. "The Erah ... of Big Guvmint ... is Ovah." Which ... totally put the GOP to sleep. And the nation. I mean, who grew the government more than Nixon, Reagan and Bush?

"The Erah of Totally Out Of COntrol Gigantic Government Is Heah." Brought to us in equal parts by both wings of the Tag Team National Party.

Otherwise...it should have made no difference at all. The fact that a point was made to switch those colors is proof of the hairshirt nature of the moniker "Red". Today, looking at the map, might as well mean 'Red Neck.' Hell, I'm ready to move to Texas.

Red? Blue? At the present rate, they might as well both be Brown.

regards,
Fred

Post 9

Friday, December 14, 2012 - 2:59pm

Consider the revealing hypocrisy of actively disavowing the color 'red' that the Left evidenced by that remarketing campign.

On the one hand, they want to sprint like mad away from any association with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

On the other hand, they want to push the exact same highly centralized, command and control socialist totalitarianism here.

If it is such a hot idea, then why not proudly wave the red flag?

You see this in that modern day Scott Nearing, Laurence O'Donnel on MSNBC. He -wants- to proudly stand up and proclaim, "Yes, dammit, we are Proud Progressive Socialists!" and yet... is biting his lip in America, not quite comfortable in fully climbing out from under the rocks into the light of day. For about 15 minutes, right after the 2008 elections, they thought it was time, but then thought better of it.

I wonder...will Obamacare cover surgery for chronic lip biting?

Half the time, they are disavowing that Obama is a socialist. The other half, they are whining, "What is wrong with socialism?"

I don't know; so, why the pressing need to change red to blue?

If I was an advocate of a movement that yet endlessly made me want to hide that fact, I'd rethink my advocacy.

But that's just me.

regards,
Fred

Post 10

Friday, December 14, 2012 - 5:58pm

As you hinted at, apparently America is basically the only country in the world where blue represents the "left" and red the "right". In other countries it is the opposite. So why the change?

It's possible it's just a coincidence but, in my opinion, it's because it makes it a slightly easier sell. As you said, red is associated with Communism. As I said, blue is associated with an easier sell.

Something I have been thinking about a lot lately is how word meanings evolve and become perverted and turned on their heads over time. Take the word "liberal". It's supposed to mean a progression towards more liberty, and yet most of the time it's associated with anything but that. Then you have the words "communism" or "socialism", take your pick. They haven't lost their meaning. Thankfully, those words have sustained a negative connotation in America. Unfortunately, it's only the word and not the idea that has a negative view in many people's minds. People will gladly tell you their socialist ideas and then when you call them socialist, they will bite your head off. Contrast that to France, where the President is a proud Socialist.

But here they can't quite get away with that. So what do you do? You substitute a new word. Progressivism...Liberalism...Change..Forward..anything. Also, you substitute a color. Because it makes the sell easier.

Post 11

Saturday, December 15, 2012 - 7:29am

Dan:

For sure, the GOP used to be 'blue' on all those electoral maps. It took them a few years of constant campaigning, but between 1994 and 2000, the switchover had taken place.

Imagine the ... collusion on a national scale that needed to transpire to bring this about. I mean, it's not like we have a Czar of Electoral Map Colors who flips a switch.

And, why did conservative leaning networks like FoxNews go along with the changeover?

Who are these people that govern the optics on a national scale?

We can't believe, at the same time, "It's a trivial thing" and also "It was so trifling that it justified a concerted national campaign to turn around!" If it was so insignificant...then why was this long standing convention reversed via what must have been a concerted national effort?

But this is just one skirmish on a many fronted attack, and freedom/liberty is losing on almost all of them because its supposed defenders have been enjoying their freedom too much and defending it not enough in the last 50 years. Meanwhile, a consistent all front attack has been occurring for over a 100 years, even as the Greatest Generation once threw over 400,000 of themselves into a meatgrinder to fight global Totalitarianism. If they'd have know instead that they were simply fighting for the American version of National Socialism/Communism, I wonder if they would have bothered?

regards,
Fred
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 12/15, 7:30am)

Post 12

Saturday, December 15, 2012 - 6:53pm

Yes Fred, I do remember. In fact, I think it was your observation of the President's "ask" rhetoric that lead me to think he was using it to make his policies seem civil and legitimate.

A good portion of Americans are uncomfortable with orders, commands, and "tells", yet they are comfortable with the physical manifestation of those words, force.

If the average American honestly spoke his mind, having clearly identified the basis of his ideas, he would say: "Yes, continue the force; I am enjoying these 'free' goods and services. Just remember to dress that force in the guise of legitimacy by using the words 'ask' and 'suggest'."

It's almost as if some people think forgoing the use of the words "order" and "command", and instead using "ask" and "suggest", removes the boot from the throat. In this sense, it is pure evasion.

It is the intention to give legitimacy to illegitimate association that prompts people to use words associated with legitimacy.

Post 13

Monday, December 17, 2012 - 1:25pm