 |
| From Pixabay |
How did the word "serve" become shorthand for "being an armed tool of oppressive political thugs"? I prefer people who serve those they serve, voluntarily and with unanimous consent using the economic means, rather than being a "tax" junkie who endangers me and those I love and care about. Cashiers, waiters, repairmen/women, and people like that serve. Military members, not so much. The word "serve" has become one of the most popular lies statists love to tell.
You can't "fight for freedom" by fighting people who are not threatening your freedom.
You can't "fight for freedom" by fighting for those who enslaved you to fight on their behalf.
Your freedom doesn't depend on defeating some tribal thug on the other side of the planet who doesn't pose a credible threat to anyone in America; it depends on defeating the people who are actually a credible threat to your freedom, here and now.
You are not "fighting for freedom" when you join with the greatest actual threat to your freedom and go around the world provoking others on their behalf. You're endangering my freedom, and everyone else's, too.
Yes, freedom means doing whatever you want to do. So, if your "want to" includes doing those things, you are free to do them. But you are hurting everyone else. You are an enemy of something much greater than freedom: liberty. You are free to do that, but you have no right to do so. You are part of the problem. A big part.
If you want to see a weird look on a military "heroes" face, tell him, "thank you for your servility". Use discretion when administering the salutation.
ReplyDeleteLOL! I really try to not poke people in their sensitive spots, but that would be tempting.
Delete