"Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are US government institutions. They are not... they are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the US for the benefit of themselves and their foreign and domestic swindlers, and rich and predatory money lenders. The sack of the United States by the Fed is the greatest crime in history. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers, but the truth is the Fed has usurped the government. It controls everything here and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will." ~ Louis McFadden
What About Uncivil Liberties
One of the things that has caught my eye over the last few years is the notion of "civil" liberties. In the beginning, it was just liberties, or libertarianism, or a one-word phrase to describe liberty that was seen. Do you remember "freedom"? I have fond memories of it.
As the Libertarian Party started growing, and gaining a wider audience, the mass media started shifting from using "liberties" to "civil liberties" or from "libertarian" to "civil libertarians." Sadly, the LP doesn't seem to care about this change. This, among other reasons, is why I stopped caring about the LP (quite some time ago).
I have objections to these, at best, misleading terms and, at worst, invalid concepts. I view the concept of "civil" liberties as appalling. "Civil" liberties is a concept that implies that there are some liberties we are allowed to have, and not others. Ask yourself, "civil" liberties, as opposed to what other forms of liberty?
There are no forms of liberty. There is only liberty, or not. For to imply that one has "civil" liberties implies that one has some liberties, but not others. Do you have "military" liberties? Do you have "political" liberties? They are equally null and void as the concept of "civil" liberties.
Indeed, the very dictionary meaning of the word civil includes: <sum> Of ordinary citizens or ordinary community life as distinguished from the military or the ecclesiastical. The important issue here is "as distinguished." The state wants you to believe that your liberty is somehow distinguishable: those which you are allowed to have--"civil"--and those you aren't.
That's complete, utter nonsense; my liberty is neither distinguishable nor alienable: Either I have liberty, or not. I don't have a certain liberty, and not others.
This gestalt concept of liberty is the primary reason I reject the concept of "civil liberties." As always, the statists have attempted to destroy a valid concept of freedom by injecting it with a false concept. So, what's new?
Liberty is liberty qua liberty, and is not "civil," "military," "political," or otherwise. To accept that you have "civil" liberties means to accept that you don't have other forms of liberty, which is the intention of the invalid phrase. Don't be sold on the false notion of "civil" liberties.
Do not cater to the statists. When you say freedom, say FREEDOM. When you say liberty, say LIBERTY. It is high time those who choose freedom reject the invalid concepts proffered by the statists.
When the government dictates what forms of liberty you have, then you have none. That day is soon coming, if not already here, as the media pampers the masses into accepting these false concepts.
The shackles of tyranny are only destroyed by those unwilling to sanction evil, in whatever form it may materialize. Don't give the statists a fleeting chance by letting them shackle your mind with false concepts.
"Civil" liberties are as true as the oceans are dry.