I got an invitation to join one such online group a couple of days ago that I was initially going to join, but their website had a couple things I can't agree to. For example: "We support bringing all U.S. Troops home, from overseas bases, and placing them in our homeland, to secure OUR borders."
Bring the "troops" home, by all means. But then let them find real jobs, paid for economically, not politically. And don't use them for political purposes. I secure MY borders just fine (without using people paid with stolen money) and I will help others do the same, but I don't recognize any collective "borders" like the ones the US government insists are real (and is willing to kill over). That one little problem prevented me from clicking "agree".
Well, there's another one. "We don't support Darwinism..." What is "Darwinism"? If they mean the science of evolution by natural selection over geological periods of time, well, it doesn't matter whether you "support" it or not. Just like gravity, it will keep on doing what it does with or without your support or approval. Now, if they mean "Social Darwinism" of the type advocated by genocidal collectivists, I would agree to refusing to support that, but that isn't what it says.
Another issue I have is the repetition of the terms "American"/"Americans". Rights are not dependent upon "citizenship" or where you were born. An Afghan shepherd has the exact same fundamental human rights that an American neurosurgeon has- no more and no less. Whether the local mafia/state recognizes those rights or not is a different issue, as is the issue of whether an occupying force of invaders respects your rights.
So, while I wish the organization all the best and I support most of its goals, and may even promote them in some ways, those sticking points mean I can't honestly join them "officially".
I'm still waiting for a group based upon the Covenant of Unanimous Consent.
.
Issue with #5: Needs to add "...that does not contradict #1-4...".
ReplyDeleteAs written, it's rule of violence, rather than constrained by adherence to #1-4.
Well put, Kent.
ReplyDeleteAs I said before, I respect your integrity in standing firmly by your principles.
I also share your concerns, but I am personally willing to engage in incremental improvements.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Or at least a (possibly)acceptable ally.
+1
ReplyDeletesofa- #5 of what?
ReplyDeletePvt.Joker- I am willing to accept incremental improvements. But I've also experienced too many enemies of my enemy who turned out to also be determined to harm me.
the Covenant
ReplyDeleteYou would have it say:
ReplyDelete"FIFTH, that we shall maintain these Principles without Respect to any person's Race, Nationality, Gender, sexual Preference, Age, or System of Beliefs that does not contradict any of the above points, FIRST through FOURTH, and hold that any Entity or Association, however constituted, acting to contravene them by Initiation of Force -- or Threat of same -- shall have forfeited Its Right to exist;"
Or were you thinking of adding that phrase elsewhere?
I don't think it is necessary, since you are already agreeing to the four previous points. Violence is not necessarily bad, as long as it is used in defense. It is the initiation of force ("aggression") that is wrong. Yet, even the fifth point doesn't demand the use of violence. If someone/something forfeits its right to exist, you can simply laugh at it and ignore it- if they allow you to stop there. Whether the situation escalates is strictly up to the force initiator.
At least that's how I see it.
there. that fixes it.
ReplyDelete