Can’t say it any better!
Can’t say it any better!
What is a Government and what does it need?
A Government, any Government, is a group of power-hungry, self-serving Politicians. It makes very little difference to which party the Politicians affiliate themselves, they are all motivated by the same self-serving interests.
There is a constant war – Politicians, AKA Government, against Individualism.
Politicians, AKA Government, need a controlled herd of voters, not free spirit individuals.
Democracy / Social Democracy is the road to Oligarchy / Communism
Democracy means Bigger Government = More Politicians.
The optimum is Government control all.
The Democrat Ideology is a mob rule, where 51% can take all from the remaining 49%
Where the majority can vote how to distribute the possessions of the individuals by way of taxation, confiscation or whatever the democratic majority chooses.
The Politicians, AKA Government, are brainwashing and raising, a generation of dependents that will march and fight to abolish their own rights and freedom.
The constitutional Republic and the 2ND Amendment
The constitutional Republic and the 2ND Amendment hold un-infringeable and unconditional Individual rights, created to safeguard the Individual and protect him from the Democratic Ideology and the Politicians, AKA Government.
The USA is not a Democracy. The USA is a Constitutional Republic; a fact Politicians, AKA Government, try very hard to obscure.
The Politicians, AKA Government, hates the 2ND Amendment, it is the biggest obstacle in their journey to absolute control.
Governments have a natural thirst to take control of more and more.
The USA Government was created to handle the minimum, only what is an utmost necessity, all the rest was left for the free spirit Individuals to control.
Over the years, with their unlimited thirst for power and control, the Politicians, AKA Government, took over much more than what they are entitled to and allowed by the constitution.
The rule is a simple one; The Bigger the Government the Smaller is the Individual.
A Government is a collection of professional politicians, using their position to enrich and empower themselves.
A Government is the mortal enemy of Individualism
There are various Governments:
City, County, State, and Federal.
There is no such thing as a Good Government.
They are an evil necessity.
Any Government is a form of Tyranny, enslaving the Individual.
Some Governments are mildly tolerable, some are less tolerable, and some are intolerable.
The goal of a Government is to control the Individual.
This control is limited if the Individual is armed.
Governments desire to disarm the Individual; they will manipulate the ignorant masses to demand Gun Control.
A human tragedy like Mass Murder serves Governments.
Government uses Mass Murder to push its agenda.
It does not serve a Government’s interest to take real action to reduce the occurrence of Mass Murder
Instead of arming and training the Individual and eliminating the so-called “Safe Zones”, the Government uses Mass Murder to further disarm the Individual and destroy the Second Amendment.
Any Government that enforces any form of gun control and violates the Second Amendment is an Intolerable Government and must be fought and overthrown.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This is the Second Amendment.
This is the complete second Amendment.
Can someone explain to me what right the Federal Government, State, Business or anyone else have to infringe on the Second Amendment by:
Imposing restrictions on the way one is allowed to carry Arms – demanding concealing handguns.
Any restrictions on what type of Arms one can bear.
Any restrictions on magazine capacity.
Any restrictions where one can’t bear Arms.
The second Amendment is here to Protect the governed (the Individuals) FROM the governs (the government politicians)
As written in the Federalist
“… you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself,”
As said by Daniel Webster:
“…I am committed against every thing which, in my judgment, may weaken, endanger, or destroy [the Constitution]…, and especially against all extension of Executive power; and I am committed against any attempt to rule the free people of this country by the power and the patronage of the Government itself”
“It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions… There are men, in all ages… who mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters… They think there need to be but little restraint upon themselves… The love of power may sink too deep in their own hearts…”
The governs (the government politicians) fears, as they should, the Second Amendment and will try to destroy it piece by piece
It is up to the governed (the Individuals) to fight the governs (the government politicians) and protect the Second Amendment
Unless the governed (the Individuals) are willing and ready to do battle, if necessary, with the governs (the government politicians) they are doomed to tyranny and the loss of ALL of their rights
There is a war going on between the Federal Government Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and some Farmers, Miners and other individuals all over the USA
One of the most publicize conflicts is between the BLM and the Bundy family.
This war is about Land and Control and you should judge for yourself:
Militia, Along With Family of , Take Over Federal Land at National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon
Jan 3, 2016, 7:53 PM ET
A group of militia members, along with some members of the family of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, are occupying a building on federal land at an Oregon national wildlife refuge.
The militia members who occupied the wildlife refuge buildings set up a roadblock, and two armed members had manned a guard tower that is usually used to spot wildfires, but there was no sign of law enforcement in the area, and local police said they had no intention of going to the scene, not even to keep watch on the militia.
The protest began Saturday as a rally in support of Harney County ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday for arson. The Hammond brothers left eastern Oregon early Sunday to report to Terminal Island in San Pedro, California, to serve their prison sentences.
The two men were convicted of setting fires on lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), “on which the Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them for their cattle operation,” according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams. “Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze.”
After the rally for the Hammonds on Saturday, militia, along with sons of Cliven Bundy — who was involved in a standoff with the government over grazing rights in Nevada in 2014 — initiated the occupation of the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
Cliven Bundy’s son Ammon claims the federally owned wildlife refuge in rural, eastern Oregon belongs to the people, and that they are “making a hard stand against … overreach.”
He said the government’s “taking of people’s land and resources” is leaving people in poverty, adding that the wildlife refuge “has been a tool in doing that.”
Ryan Bundy and another of Ammon Bundy’s brothers are also among the occupiers, according to The Associated Press.
Ammon Bundy called the earlier rally successful, but said of the Wildlife Refuge standoff, “If we do not make a hard stand, we will be in a position where we won’t be able to as a people.”
He also asked for militia members to come help him.
Ammon Bundy said today that the group’s actions are not aggressive and there is no damage or criminal activity.
He said the group’s goal is to help local workers, including ranchers, miners and hunters, benefit from the land. The group wants to assert that the federal government does not have right to own or control land inside the state, Ammon Bundy said.
“We’re prepared to be out here for as long as we need to be,” he said in an 8-minute long Facebook video posted early this morning.
The caption for the video says: “The people are finally getting some good use out of a federal facility.”
The group does not have plans to occupy any other federal buildings, Ammon Bundy said today.
The refuge is federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and was closed for the holiday weekend.
A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesperson told ABC News: “The Fish and Wildlife Service and The Bureau of Land Management have received reports that an unknown number of individuals have broken into the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge facility near Burns, Oregon. While the situation is ongoing, the main concern is employee safety and we can confirm that no federal staff were in the building at the time of the initial incident. We will continue to monitor the situation for additional developments.”
The refuge headquarters was empty at the time of the seizure, Harney County, Oregon, Sheriff Dave Ward said in a statement.
“These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt to over throw the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States,” Ward said.
“We are currently working jointly with several organizations to make sure the citizens of Harney County are safe and this issue is resolved as quickly and peaceful as possible,” he said, adding that no other areas in Harney County are in “immediate danger.”
“We ask that people stay away from the refuge for their safety,” Ward said. “We also ask that if anyone sees any of these individuals in the area to please contact law enforcement and do not confront the individuals themselves.”
Harney County School District No. 3 schools will be closed this week, Superintendent Dr. Marilyn L. McBride told ABC News.
“Ensuring staff and student safety is our greatest concern,” McBride said.
Beth Anne Steele, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Portland, told ABC News the FBI is aware of the situation but is not making any further comments.
Cliven Bundy, the patriarch of a large Mormon family with more than 50 grandchildren, came into the spotlight in April 2014, when the federal government started impounding his 900 head of cattle, following a 20-year battle over cattle-grazing on federal land.
The government said Bundy owed $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fees and penalties for continuing to let his cattle roam free on land near Bunkerville, Nevada, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, even after the government established the area as a protected habitat for the endangered desert tortoise in 1993 and slashed Bundy’s cattle allotment.
The situation escalated the week of April 5, 2014, as hundreds of supporters from around the country rallied on Bundy’s property to protest the federal cattle round-up. The dispute reignited debate over the Bureau of Land Management practices, especially in Nevada, where federal agencies control 85 percent of the land.
The confrontation turned ominous as armed militia gathered on his cattle and melon farm, aiming semi-automatic weapons at armed BLM officials from a bridge overpass. Some protesters were tasered by authorities and others arrested and later released, including one of Bundy’s 14 adult children.
On April 12, 2014, the BLM ended the stand-off, returned Bundy’s confiscated cattle and left the land citing safety concerns.
Today’s occupation is essentially “the spill over from the Bundy stand-off” in Nevada, according to Heidi Beirich, Director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
“What we’re really seeing is a continuation of what started in April 2014, of militia folks and anti-government folks deciding that they’re not going to accept federal authorities over federal lands,” Beirich told ABC News today.
“At the Bundy ranch, the federal government stood down. They had absolute cause to take Bundy’s cattle. The Bundys were able — at the point of a gun — to drive the federal government and its representatives … off the land,” she said.
“Bundy is still a free man. He hasn’t paid his money, and it’s emboldened the entire movement to basically think, ‘We don’t have to follow the rules,'” Beirich said, explaining that that is what’s happening now in Oregon.
The Bundy incident in 2014, as well as another incident in Oregon last year, “enlivened” the militias, she said, because they made them feel successful.
“They made the federal government back down from enforcing the law,” she said. “And that has emboldened all these people, giving life to the movement.”
Nevada Cattle Rancher Wins ‘Range War’ With Feds
By LIZ FIELDS
April 12, 2014
A Nevada cattle rancher appears to have won his week-long battle with the federal government over a controversial cattle roundup that had led to the arrest of several protesters.
Cliven Bundy went head to head with the Bureau of Land Management over the removal of hundreds of his cattle from federal land, where the government said they were grazing illegally.
Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870 and threatened a “range war” against the BLM on the Bundy Ranch website after one of his sons was arrested while protesting the removal of the cattle.
“I have no contract with the United States government,” Bundy said. “I was paying grazing fees for management and that’s what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay.”
The federal government had countered that Bundy “owes the American people in excess of $1 million ” in unpaid grazing fees and “refuses to abide by the law of land, despite many opportunities over the last 20 years to do so.”
However, today the BLM said it would not enforce a court order to remove the cattle and was pulling out of the area.
“Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public,” BLM Director Neil Kornze said.
“We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner,” he said.
The roundup began April 5, following lengthy court proceedings dating back to 1993, federal officials said. Federal officers began impounding the first lot of cows last weekend, and Bundy responded by inviting supporters onto his land to protest the action.
“It’s not about cows, it’s about freedom,” Utah resident Yonna Winget told ABC News affiliate KTNV in Las Vegas, Nevada.
“People are getting tired of the federal government having unlimited power,” Bundy’s wife, Carol Bundy told ABC News.
By Sunday, April 6, one of Bundy’s sons, Dave Bundy, was taken into custody for refusing to disperse and resisting arrest, while hundreds of other protesters, some venturing from interstate, gathered along the road few miles from Bundy’s property in solidarity. Dave Bundy was later released.
A spokesman for the Bundy encampment told ABC News roughly 300 protesters had assembled for the protest, while a BLM representative estimated there were around 100 people.
“We want a peaceful protest, but we also want our voices heard,” said Cliven Bundy’s sister, Chrisie Marshall Bundy.
But clashes between demonstrators and authorities took a violent turn on Wednesday, with cell phone video showing some being tasered at the site, including Bundy’s son, Ammon Bundy. Two other protesters were detained, cited and later released on Thursday, according to the BLM.
As the movement grew by the day, and demonstrators rallied together, bonding by campfires at night, local protest leaders warned people not to wear camouflage and keep their weapons inside their vehicles.
Both sides said the issue is one of fairness, with the federal government maintaining that thousands of other cattle ranchers are abiding by the law by paying their annual grazing fees, while Bundy’s family and supporters say the government’s actions are threatening ranchers’ freedoms.
“It’s about the freedom of America,” said another of Bundy’s sisters, Margaret Houston. “We have to stand up and fight.”
ABC News’ Alan Farnham contributed to this report.
Nevada Rancher Threatens ‘Range War’ Against Feds
By ALAN FARNHAM
April 7, 2014
A Nevada rancher’s threat to wage a “range war” with the federal Bureau of Land Management precipitated a standoff today between supporters of the embattled rancher, Cliven Bundy, and law enforcement officials.
Bundy posted a statement on the Bundy Ranch website on Sunday night saying: “They have my cattle and now they have one of my boys. Range War begins tomorrow.”
He invited supporters to show up this morning on his property, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, near Bunkerville, just west of the Utah state line.
Bundy’s beef with federal land management officials dates back to 1993, according to federal officials, when Bundy’s allotment for grazing his cattle on public land was modified to include protections for the desert tortoise. Bundy, who told the Associated Press his family has been ranching this part of Nevada since the 1870s, did not accept the modified terms, and continued to let his cattle graze anyway.
After legal maneuverings on both sides, a Nevada district court judge in 2013 permanently enjoined Bundy’s cattle (some 900, by the government’s count) from grazing on public property. The judge reiterated that decision in 2013 and authorized the U.S. government to impound the cattle.
The first phase of that impoundment started Saturday, with 58 head of cattle being removed from BLM land, federal officials said in an online statement. As of Monday afternoon, that number had risen to 134, BLM spokeswoman Kirsten Cannon told ABC News. Removing the rest of the trespassing cattle should take another 21 to 30 days, she said.
Bundy disputes the federal government’s authority to take such action. The Nevada Sheriff’s Office, he contends, is the only entity empowered to impound his cattle. The Bundy Ranch website calls the federal agents “cattle thieves.”
Cattle thieves, says the website, “Should be hung!” It urges supporters to “hang them with words of disapproval.”
According to station KSNY MyNews in Las Vegas, Bundy compared his situation to citizens’ confrontations with the federal government at Ruby Ridge and at Waco, Texas.
The station quoted him as saying, “They are the same agents who killed that kid over at Red Rocks,” referring to the fatal shooting of a 20-year-old man by two BLM rangers on Feb. 14, near Red Rock Canyon, outside Las Vegas.
Asked by ABC News about that shooting, Cannon said the incident was still under investigation, and that BLM could not comment until the investigation was completed.
Bundy’s wife, Carol Bundy, reached by ABC News, said the family and their supporters intended to hold a rally today “to show that we are not standing alone. People are getting tired of the federal government having unlimited power.”
By noon today Nevada time, about 300 supporters had assembled, a Bundy spokesman, Dwayne Magoon, told ABC News. So, too, he said, had local and federal law enforcement officers. He described the federal agents as being heavily armed. He said that on his way driving to the Bundy ranch, he counted 12 law enforcement vehicles in the course of six miles.
The BLM has described Bundy’s use of the phrase “range war” inflammatory. “We support everyone’s right to exercise their freedom of expression,” Cannon said. But when threats are made, she said, federal authorities have an obligation to ensure safety. She estimated the number of Bundy supporters as being closer to 100.
In a teleconference with reporters today, Cannon and a spokesperson for the National Park Service were told that Bundy supporters had reported seeing snipers present near the Ranch. Asked whether snipers indeed were on the scene, they said that law enforcement was in place, as needed, and that they could not comment more specifically.
Magoon described the situation at the Ranch as “very peaceful” — for now. The protesters, he said, were busy erecting a big sign saying “We, The People” and displaying the flags of Mesquite County, Nev., and the U.S.
On the ranch website, Bundy says his son had been arrested. That was confirmed today by BLM, which said in a published statement that, “On April 6, Dave Bundy, 37, was taken into custody in Bunkerville, Nevada, following failure to comply with multiple requests by BLM law enforcement to leave the temporary closure area on public lands.” He now has been released, Cannon said.
So far, the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association (NCA), which represents some 700 ranchers in the state, is taking a hands-off stance on Bundy’s protest.
In a statement, the association noted that Bundy’s case had been reviewed by a federal judge, and that a legal decision had been rendered to remove the cattle. The statement said that NCA “does not feel it is in our best interest to interfere in the process of adjudication in this matter, and in addition NCA believes the matter is between Mr. Bundy and the federal courts.”
Asked about the Bundy situation, NCA president Ron Torell told ABC News, “This has gotten way out of hand.”
Asked if other Nevada cattlemen were as angry with the federal government as Bundy, Torell said, “absolutely not.”
It’s true, he said, that many NCA members are disgruntled at having to deal with BLM’s bureaucracy. But, he noted, 87 percent of Nevada land is public land, so cattlemen cannot survive on private land alone. “It’s important for our permitees to work with the land management agencies. We want to be good stewards of the land — to protect natural resources.”
Of the Bundy affair, he said, “These types of situations have a way of painting the entire industry with controversy.”
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia · Edit on Wikipedia
Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual. Individualists promote the exercise of one’s goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance and advocate that interests of the individual should achieve precedence over the state or a social group, while opposing external interference upon one’s own interests by society or institutions such as the government. Individualism is often contrasted with totalitarianism or collectivism.
Individualism makes the individual its focus and so starts “with the fundamental premise that the human individual is of primary importance in the struggle for liberation. “Liberalism, existentialism, and anarchism are examples of movements that take the human individual as a central unit of analysis. Individualism thus involves “the right of the individual to freedom and self-realization”.
It has also been used as a term denoting “The quality of being an individual; individuality” related to possessing “An individual characteristic; a quirk.” Individualism is thus also associated with artistic and bohemian interests and lifestyles where there is a tendency towards self-creation and experimentation as opposed to tradition or popular mass opinions and behaviors as so also with humanist philosophical positions and ethics.
In the English language, the word “individualism” was first introduced, as a pejorative, by the Owenites in the late 1830s, although it is unclear if they were influenced by Saint-Simonianism or came up with it independently. A more positive use of the term in Britain came to be used with the writings of James Elishama Smith, who was a millenarian and a Christian Israelite. Although an early Owenite socialist, he eventually rejected its collective idea of property, and found in individualism a “universalism” that allowed for the development of the “original genius.” Without individualism, Smith argued, individuals cannot amass property to increase one’s happiness. William Maccall, another Unitarian preacher, and probably an acquaintance of Smith, came somewhat later, although influenced by John Stuart Mill, Thomas Carlyle, and German Romanticism, to the same positive conclusions, in his 1847 work “Elements of Individualism”.
The individual 
Main article: Individual
An individual is a person or any specific object in a collection. In the 15th century and earlier, and also today within the fields of statistics and metaphysics, individual means “indivisible”, typically describing any numerically singular thing, but sometimes meaning “a person.” (q.v. “The problem of proper names”). From the 17th century on, individual indicates separateness, as in individualism. Individuality is the state or quality of being an individual; a person separate from other persons and possessing his or her own needs, goals, and desires.
Individualism and society 
Individualism holds that a person taking part in society attempts to further his or her own interests, or at least demands the right to serve his or her own interests, without taking the interests of society into consideration (an individualist need not be an egoist). The individualist does not favor any philosophy that requires the sacrifice of the self-interest of the individual for higher social causes. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, however, claims that his concept of “general will” in the “social contract” is not the simple collection of individual wills and that it furthers the interests of the individual (the constraint of law itself would be beneficial for the individual, as the lack of respect for the law necessarily entails, in Rousseau’s eyes, a form of ignorance and submission to one’s passions instead of the preferred autonomy of reason).
Societies and groups can differ in the extent to which they are based upon predominantly “self-regarding” (individualistic, and arguably self-interested) rather than “other-regarding” (group-oriented, and group, or society-minded) behavior. Ruth Benedict made a distinction, relevant in this context, between “guilt” societies (e.g., medieval Europe) with an “internal reference standard”, and “shame” societies (e.g., Japan, “bringing shame upon one’s ancestors”) with an “external reference standard”, where people look to their peers for feedback on whether an action is “acceptable” or not (also known as “group-think”).
Individualism is often contrasted either with totalitarianism or with collectivism, but in fact there is a spectrum of behaviors at the societal level ranging from highly individualistic societies through mixed societies to collectivist.
Main article: Individuation
The principle of individuation, or principium individuationis, describes the manner in which a thing is identified as distinguished from other things. For Carl Jung, individuation is a process of transformation, whereby the personal and collective unconscious is brought into consciousness (by means of dreams, active imagination or free association to take some examples) to be assimilated into the whole personality. It is a completely natural process necessary for the integration of the psyche to take place. Jung considered individuation to be the central process of human development. In L’individuation psychique et collective, Gilbert Simondon developed a theory of individual and collective individuation in which the individual subject is considered as an effect of individuation rather than a cause. Thus, the individual atom is replaced by a never-ending ontological process of individuation. Individuation is an always incomplete process, always leaving a “pre-individual” left-over, itself making possible future individuations. The philosophy of Bernard Stiegler draws upon and modifies the work of Gilbert Simondon on individuation and also upon similar ideas in Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud. For Stiegler “the I, as a psychic individual, can only be thought in relationship to we, which is a collective individual. The I is constituted in adopting a collective tradition, which it inherits and in which a plurality of I ‘s acknowledge each other’s existence.”
Emotional self-interest is defined by Nayef Al-Rodhan as “self-interest driven by neurochemically-mediated emotions”. As he suggests in his general theory of human nature, “emotional amoral egoism”, human behavior is primarily governed by self-interest. Humans first seek to ensure survival, and then they seek to dominate. These facets of human nature are a product of genetically coded survival instincts modified by the totality of our environment and expressed as neurochemically-mediated emotions and actions. Accordingly, once humans’ basic needs have been filled, they may employ measured self-interest. In some instances this may result in positive consequences like greatercooperation between individuals and societies. However, Al-Rodhan cautions that excessive general self-interest risks leading to deception, criminality, and conflict.
Based on his understanding of human nature, Al-Rodhan suggests introducing mechanisms that will check unregulated general self-interest. Good governance should include adequate checks on government powers and effective law enforcement, as well as the defense of human rights and their extension to include basic physiological and emotional needs.
Methodological individualism is the view that social phenomena can only be understood by examining how they result from the motivations and actions of individual agents. In economics, people’s behavior is explained in terms of rational choices, as constrained by prices and incomes. The economist accepts individuals’ preferences as givens. Becker and Stigler provide a forceful statement of this view:
On the traditional view, an explanation of economic phenomena that reaches a difference in tastes between people or times is the terminus of the argument: the problem is abandoned at this point to whoever studies and explains tastes (psychologists? anthropologists? phrenologists? sociobiologists?). On our preferred interpretation, one never reaches this impasse: the economist continues to search for differences in prices or incomes to explain any differences or changes in behavior.
With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.
Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism, 1891
Individualists are chiefly concerned with protecting individual autonomy against obligations imposed by social institutions (such as the state or religious morality). For L. Susan Brown “Liberalism and anarchism are two political philosophies that are fundamentally concerned with individual freedom yet differ from one another in very distinct ways. Anarchism shares with liberalism a radical commitment to individual freedom while rejecting liberalism’s competitive property relations.”
Civil libertarianism is a strain of political thought that supports civil liberties, or which emphasizes the supremacy of individual rights and personal freedoms over and against any kind of authority (such as a state state, a corporation, social norms imposed through peer pressure, etc.). Civil libertarianism is not a complete ideology; rather, it is a collection of views on the specific issues of civil liberties and civil rights. Because of this, a civil libertarian outlook is compatible with many other political philosophies, and civil libertarianism is found on both the right and left in modern politics. For scholar Ellen Meiksins Wood “there are doctrines of individualism that are opposed to Lockean individualism(…)and non-lockean individualism may encompass socialism”.
Main article: Liberalism
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, “of freedom; worthy of a free man, gentlemanlike, courteous, generous”) is the belief in the importance of individual freedom. This belief is widely accepted in the United States, Europe, Australia and other Western nations, and was recognized as an important value by many Western philosophers throughout history, in particular since the Enlightenment. It is often rejected by collectivist, Islamic, or confucian societies in Asia or the Middle East (though Taoists were and are known to be individualists). The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote praising “the idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed”.
Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. John Locke is often credited with the philosophical foundations of classical liberalism. He wrote “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”
In the 17th century, liberal ideas began to influence governments in Europe, in nations such as The Netherlands, Switzerland, England and Poland, but they were strongly opposed, often by armed might, by those who favored absolute monarchy and established religion. In the 18th century, in America, the first modern liberal state was founded, without a monarch or a hereditary aristocracy. The American Declaration of Independence includes the words (which echo Locke) “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Liberalism comes in many forms. According to John N. Gray, the essence of liberalism is toleration of different beliefs and of different ideas as to what constitutes a good life.
Main article: Anarchism
Anarchism is a set of political philosophies that hold the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful, and often advocate stateless societies. While anti-statism is central, some argue that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.
For influential Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta “All anarchists, whatever tendency they belong to, are individualists in some way or other. But the opposite is not true; not by any means. The individualists are thus divided into two distinct categories: one which claims the right to full development for all human individuality, their own and that of others; the other which only thinks about its own individuality and has absolutely no hesitation in sacrificing the individuality of others. The Tsar of all the Russias belongs to the latter category of individualists. We belong to the former.”
Main article: Individualist anarchism
Individualist anarchism refers to several traditions of thought within the anarchist movement that emphasize the individual and their will over any kinds of external determinants such as groups, society, traditions, and ideological systems. Individualist anarchism is not a single philosophy but refers to a group of individualistic philosophies that sometimes are in conflict.
In 1793, William Godwin, who has often been cited as the first anarchist, wrote Political Justice, which some consider to be the first expression of anarchism. Godwin, a philosophical anarchist, from arationalist and utilitarian basis opposed revolutionary action and saw a minimal state as a present “necessary evil” that would become increasingly irrelevant and powerless by the gradual spread of knowledge. Godwin advocated individualism, proposing that all cooperation in labour be eliminated on the premise that this would be most conducive with the general good.
An influential form of individualist anarchism, called “egoism,” or egoist anarchism, was expounded by one of the earliest and best-known proponents of individualist anarchism, the German Max Stirner. Stirner’s The Ego and Its Own, published in 1844, is a founding text of the philosophy. According to Stirner, the only limitation on the rights of the individual is their power to obtain what they desire, without regard for God, state, or morality. To Stirner, rights were spooks in the mind, and he held that society does not exist but “the individuals are its reality”. Stirner advocated self-assertion and foresaw unions of egoists, non-systematic associations continually renewed by all parties’ support through an act of will, which Stirner proposed as a form of organization in place of the state. Egoist anarchists claim that egoism will foster genuine and spontaneous union between individuals. “Egoism” has inspired many interpretations of Stirner’s philosophy. It was re-discovered and promoted by German philosophical anarchist and LGBT activist John Henry Mackay.
Josiah Warren is widely regarded as the first American anarchist, and the four-page weekly paper he edited during 1833, The Peaceful Revolutionist, was the first anarchist periodical published. For American anarchist historian Eunice Minette Schuster “It is apparent… that Proudhonian Anarchism was to be found in the United States at least as early as 1848 and that it was not conscious of its affinity to the Individualist Anarchism of Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews…William B. Greene presented this Proudhonian Mutualism in its purest and most systematic form.”. Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862) was an important early influence in individualist anarchist thought in the United States and Europe. Thoreau was an American author, poet, naturalist, tax resister, development critic, surveyor, historian, philosopher, and leading transcendentalist. He is best known for his books Walden, a reflection upon simple living in natural surroundings, and his essay, Civil Disobedience, an argument for individual resistance to civil government in moral opposition to an unjust state. Later Benjamin Tucker fused Stirner’s egoism with the economics of Warren and Proudhon in his eclectic influential publication Liberty.
From these early influences individualist anarchism in different countries attracted a small but diverse following of bohemian artists and intellectuals, free love and birth control advocates (see Anarchism and issues related to love and sex), individualist naturists nudists (see anarcho-naturism), freethoughtand anti-clerical activists as well as young anarchist outlaws in what came to be known as illegalism and individual reclamation (see European individualist anarchism and individualist anarchism in France). These authors and activists included Oscar Wilde, Emile Armand, Han Ryner, Henri Zisly, Renzo Novatore, Miguel Gimenez Igualada, Adolf Brand and Lev Chernyi among others. In his important essay The Soul of Man under Socialism from 1891 Oscar Wilde defended socialism as the way to guarantee individualism and so he saw that “With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.” For anarchist historian George Woodcock “Wilde’s aim in The Soul of Man under Socialism is to seek the society most favorable to the artist … for Wilde art is the supreme end, containing within itself enlightenment and regeneration, to which all else in society must be subordinated … Wilde represents the anarchist as aesthete.” Woodcock finds that “The most ambitious contribution to literary anarchism during the 1890s was undoubtedly Oscar Wilde The Soul of Man under Socialism” and finds that it is influenced mainly by the thought of William Godwin.
Main article: Ethical egoism
Ethical egoism (also called simply egoism) is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people do only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds merely that it is rational to act in one’s self-interest. However, these doctrines may occasionally be combined with ethical egoism.
Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help and serve others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism, which holds that a moral agent should treat one’s self (also known as the subject) with no higher regard than one has for others (as egoism does, by elevating self-interests and “the self” to a status not granted to others), but that one also should not (as altruism does) sacrifice one’s own interests to help others’ interests, so long as one’s own interests (i.e. one’s own desires or well-being) are substantially-equivalent to the others’ interests and well-being. Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both agent-focused forms of consequentialism (i.e. subject-focused or subjective), but utilitarianism is called agent-neutral (i.e. objective and impartial) as it does not treat the subject’s (i.e. the self’s, i.e. the moral “agent’s”) own interests as being more or less important than if the same interests, desires, or well-being were anyone else’s.
Ethical egoism does not, however, require moral agents to harm the interests and well-being of others when making moral deliberation; e.g. what is in an agent’s self-interest may be incidentally detrimental, beneficial, or neutral in its effect on others. Individualism allows for others’ interest and well-being to be disregarded or not, as long as what is chosen is efficacious in satisfying the self-interest of the agent. Nor does ethical egoism necessarily entail that, in pursuing self-interest, one ought always to do what one wants to do; e.g. in the long term, the fulfilment of short-term desires may prove detrimental to the self. Fleeting pleasance, then, takes a back seat to protracted eudaemonia. In the words of James Rachels, “Ethical egoism […] endorses selfishness, but it doesn’t endorse foolishness.”
Ethical egoism is sometimes the philosophical basis for support of libertarianism or individualist anarchism as in Max Stirner, although these can also be based on altruistic motivations. These are political positions based partly on a belief that individuals should not coercively prevent others from exercising freedom of action.
Main article: Egoist anarchism
Egoist anarchism is a school of anarchist thought that originated in the philosophy of Max Stirner, a nineteenth-century Hegelian philosopher whose “name appears with familiar regularity in historically orientated surveys of anarchist thought as one of the earliest and best-known exponents of individualist anarchism.” According to Stirner, the only limitation on the rights of the individual is their power to obtain what they desire, without regard for God, state, or morality. Stirner advocated self-assertion and foresaw unions of egoists, non-systematic associations continually renewed by all parties’ support through an act of will, which Stirner proposed as a form of organisation in place of the state. Egoist anarchists argue that egoism will foster genuine and spontaneous union between individuals. “Egoism” has inspired many interpretations of Stirner’s philosophy but within anarchism it has also gone beyond Stirner. It was re-discovered and promoted by German philosophical anarchist andLGBT activist John Henry Mackay. John Beverley Robinson wrote an essay called “Egoism” in which he states that “Modern egoism, as propounded by Stirner and Nietzsche, and expounded byIbsen, Shaw and others, is all these; but it is more. It is the realization by the individual that they are an individual; that, as far as they are concerned, they are the only individual. “Nietzsche (see Anarchism and Friedrich Nietzsche) and Stirner were frequently compared by French “literary anarchists” and anarchist interpretations of Nietzschean ideas appear to have also been influential in the United States. Anarchists who adhered to egoism include Benjamin Tucker, Émile Armand, John Beverley Robinson, Adolf Brand, Steven T. Byington, Renzo Novatore,James L. Walker, Enrico Arrigoni, Biofilo Panclasta, Jun Tsuji, André Arru and contemporary ones such as Hakim Bey, Bob Black and Wolfi Landstreicher.
Main article: Existentialism
Existentialism is a term applied to the work of a number of 19th- and 20th-century philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences, generally held that the focus of philosophical thought should be to deal with the conditions of existence of the individual person and his or her emotions, actions, responsibilities, and thoughts. The early 19th century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, posthumously regarded as the father of existentialism, maintained that the individual solely has the responsibilities of giving one’s own life meaning and living that life passionately and sincerely, in spite of many existential obstacles and distractions including despair, angst, absurdity, alienation, and boredom.
Subsequent existential philosophers retain the emphasis on the individual, but differ, in varying degrees, on how one achieves and what constitutes a fulfilling life, what obstacles must be overcome, and what external and internal factors are involved, including the potential consequences of the existence or non-existence of God. Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience. Existentialism became fashionable in the post-World War years as a way to reassert the importance of human individuality and freedom.
Main article: Freethought
Freethought holds that individuals should not accept ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their opinions on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any logical fallacies or intellectually limiting effects of authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmas. Regarding religion, freethinkers hold that there is insufficient evidence to scientifically validate the existence of supernatural phenomena.
Main article: Humanism
Humanism is a perspective common to a wide range of ethical stances that attaches importance to human dignity, concerns, and capabilities, particularly rationality. Although the word has many senses, its meaning comes into focus when contrasted to the supernatural or to appeals to authority. Since the 19th century, humanism has been associated with an anti-clericalism inherited from the 18th-century Enlightenment philosophes. 21st century Humanism tends to strongly endorse human rights, including reproductive rights, gender equality, social justice, and the separation of church and state. The term covers organized non-theistic religions, secular humanism, and a humanistic life stance.
Main article: Hedonism
Philosophical hedonism is a meta-ethical theory of value which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and pain is the only intrinsic bad. The basic idea behind hedonistic thought is that pleasure (an umbrella term for all inherently likable emotions) is the only thing that is good in and of itself or by its very nature. The normative implications of this are evaluating character or behavior as morally good to the extent that one is concerned with pleasure/pain qua pleasure/pain or an action leads to a greater balance of pleasure over pain than any other would.
Main article: Libertine
A libertine is one devoid of most moral restraints, which are seen as unnecessary or undesirable, especially one who ignores or even spurns accepted morals and forms of behaviour sanctified by the larger society. Libertines place value on physical pleasures, meaning those experienced through the senses. As a philosophy, libertinism gained new-found adherents in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, particularly in France and Great Britain. Notable among these were John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, and the Marquis de Sade. During the Baroque era in France, there existed a freethinking circle of philosophers and intellectuals who were collectively known as libertinage érudit and which included Gabriel Naudé, Élie Diodati and François de La Mothe Le Vayer. The critic Vivian de Sola Pintolinked John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester’s libertinism to Hobbesian materialism.
Main article: Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
Objectivism is a system of philosophy created by philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905–1982) that holds: reality exists independent of consciousness; human beings gain knowledge rationally from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic; the moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness or rational self-interest. Rand thinks the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez faire capitalism; and the role of art in human life is to transform man’s widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally. Objectivism celebrates man as his own hero, “with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”
In 1962, in answer to the question “Will you tell us briefly, what is Objectivism?” Ayn Rand recorded an 8-minute introduction to her philosophy. In this video, Ayn Rand explains her position on the nature of reality, the efficacy of human reason, the nature of man and the ideal political system for man.
Barack Hussein Obama ignores the most important common denominator in all of these gun attacks.
They all happened in “Gun Free” zones where permitted Individuals were restricted from carrying guns and could not protect themselves.
We should go the opposite directions, Open Carry Anywhere.
The Second Amendment is the only protection Individuals have against abusive lawless government.