American Ramblings

The same rules that apply to private property. The question is only what exceptions are made, this not being one of them. Not likely.

The Myth of Applied Toleration Is tolerance understanding, is it judgment or is it something else entirely? If it is understanding, if it is judgment then it cannot come from the side of a cartoon, an advertisement or a gun – instead it must come from free deliberation by the minds of free men (and women). Consequentially toleration can only be formed by the dual exchange of separate ideals, equally. Taking that in mind why would the statement “Understanding cannot be compelled” (which is John Locke, I hasten to say) be such an important contradiction in the policy of our current government’s policy? If only for that fact we must take to heart that tolerance is, by definition, the anathema to force and where intolerance is aggression tolerance is pacifism. For underneath the issues at hand, that is what makes it great and that is what makes it moral – to show that you are more than a collection of senses and that you can put away your base aggressions for a idea greater than immediate gratification. Locke describes (in Letter Concerning Tolerance) two forces that attempt to create toleration, the first is “the civil magistrate... consists only of outward forces” and the other “true and saving religion... inward persuasion of the mind.” He goes on to explain why the first will never work and that true toleration comes from the religious pluralism and subsequent questioning, thinking, such pluralism entails. While many do differ on where the “persuasion of the mind” comes from (him, religious pluralism; myself, spontaneous social mutations) all monarchists agree that only the second will ensure change in the republic's toleration. Never, ever, can compulsion “with the sword” create true tolerance be it with the bona fide civil authority – for such actions are inefficient, righteously indifferent and as the “magistrate;” the state, are unapologetically aims at eroding fundamental freedoms. Defenders of government applied toleration live in a fantasy land because to believe beating a human being over the head, repeatedly, will somehow change the view of said person is nothing more than delusional bordering on criminal. No, it is worse for a criminal because a criminal would not presumptuously inform you that his morality is so supremely better his gun to your head is but a gift, not a threat. As Locke presents in 'Letter Concerning Tolerance' in “a free and voluntary society” there are bounds and limits to toleration, bounds set by the goodwill of the people where toleration can take root, grow and prosper. Such an area does not exist for the State, because it could no more take an accurate reading with its gun, due to its own basic structure of force and one-sided discussion, of society's acceptable bounds and progressive institutions then one could attain the velocity and location of an electron. Succinctly, the state neither cares nor dreams of caring for the opinions of the people when it comes to the application of toleration – when indeed the people's opinions are the exact genie it wants. Threatening this bond between people, by replacing the need for each other's goodwill, the catalyst for any sincere exchange of ideas, with judicial and legislative fiat; screams for the destruction of our interpersonal connections. Which keep our culture alive and the feelings of good nature hearty, which enable us to achieve the greatness we are so accustomed too. Adam Smith laments in his book 'Justice and Beneficence,' the “moment that injury begins, the moment that mutual resentment and animosity take place, all the bands of it are asunder.” That considered, where then do we fit the largess of so many well-meaning but ultimately embarrassing, offensive and divisive rulings by our current Administration as well as past, liberal, Supreme Courts? Do we honestly expect that this created animosity will not bear with it responsibilities only the strongest of us can even consider? I believe Statists have forgotten what, exactly, their institutions were based off of – that their impartial deliverance is only respected insofar as it is respectfully impartial; that it does not bow to concerns of tolerance, empathy, belief short of blind Lady Justice. With so-called 'justice' today do you honestly look in the mirror and feel “either approve or disapprove of [y]our own conduct” as Smith mentions, or do you feel nothing but a simple happiness knowing that toleration is being imposed regardless of consequences? Do you feel personal responsibility to tolerate or do you feel free from that responsibility- have you left it to the “club of the magistrate” instead of your soul's inherent beauty? Those questions are not lightly answered and all too frequently we see the world shrugging its shoulders at the question of what should be tolerated, for what reasons and for how long. Instead they leave it up to imperfect minds, when then should be allowed to look inward. “We either approve of the conduct of another man... or disapprove.” No other statement could be closer to the truth, that sense of social responsibility to act honorably, to do ones duty to society – has never been a more righteous cause. However it is being pushed aside, along with Adam Smith, because to approve or disapprove is to judge, to judge is to discriminate between good as well as bad, to discriminate the two is now – to be intolerant. With the Applied Tolerance of today our ability to discriminate between right and wrong – just or corrupt is falling asleep. Our sense of moral absolutism has taken the day off but it has not innocently done this on its own accord. Our sense of right and wrong has not been taken away but with the full knowledge what it was worth – that a populace without the ability to see inequity will be a populace more easily lead by, in the most basic laymen term, propaganda. By taking out toleration through the spontaneous social order of life, to be replaced by the mechanical juggernaut of hastily applied laws, cheered on by shallowly deceptive minorities, for principles distorted by careful application of cloudy phrasings and deceitful intentions carry consequences. If we are now entering a phase in society where the power of society is always second to unilateral, political, Washington ultimatums what should we expect? More home equity loans in which people’s collateral is a house they do not even own, should we expect a nation of victims instead a nation of achievement and should we expect corruption instead of upstanding lives? What happens to that responsibility, do we hand if off to some two-bit, pompous ass of a bureaucrat and then hope he applies laws in the name of toleration – then valiantly hope that because there is legislation, it will magically cure yet another overinflated, hyped, social ill our grandfathers hardly dreamed of? No, of course we cannot let toleration (alongside its cousins of judgment, critical thinking and self-determination) be dictated instead of decided. To live in such a society is to live alone; to be judged and to enjoy the company of intolerance is the only way to bring about true toleration. For the only way to eliminate true inaccuracies requires exposure to academic discussion – without fear of law or fear of an armed police. If they never leave the mind of their creators, how can the United States defeat poison when all it does is fester in the mind? What poison needs is not the superficiality of government orders but true, free, communication. Without such communication I, you and the country would be stranded in a moral-less desert of faces without decision, actions without thought. If we have the ability, in the eyes of the law, to judge for ourselves – then what differentiates such an existence then the desert which Hank Rearden found himself in, Guy Montag or Winston? Without discrimination, without true intolerance of my actions I could no more think of my character, then I could see my face. If anything, is not character what keeps the wheels of this contraption going? To undermine it with the belief that social ills can be cured through the liberal application of force, of victimizing for the crime without a perpetrator is the height of arrogance, stupidity and the generalizations those on top tyrannize the working with. John Stuart Mill sums up another side of the issue quite succinctly, “if all mankind minus one, were of one opinion... mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” What that means to you, to America and to even our Statist countrymen is that no matter how outrageous, obscene or racist one remark or action is – it should be allowed for the sole reason to prove our closely held belief that man is more than a brute. That he can decided, think, form prudent judgments based on the facts at hand and that no matter how much objection we have, as similar intelligent beings we do not forcibly assault thoughts but instead defeat them in open exchange. Not by orders from a higher, Earthly and thus inherently corrupt power but by orders from each of our own personal knowledge that right is right. In my opinion and so many that I call upon for spiritual guidance – the answer to whether tolerance comes any other place but our own, independent, mind. It certainly can’t come from a bureaucrat’s spreadsheet. To attempt to stifle thought in the name of tolerance is outrageously at odds with the true meaning of the ideal, it boggles the mind to comprehend it. To illegalize thought, ban natural rights because they can be used in politically unacceptable ways is a cure far worse compared to the disease. Racism is inherently bad – yet law did not create such notions: laws were not passed to inform the Republican Party that a man was worth a man, that 3/5ths without representation did not follow the spirit of America. People did not marry other races because laws had been changed but because feelings had been changed; marriage and love is no more affected by the insipid announcements of the Federal government then say – the sun itself. To say that, in of itself, there is a 'right' to judgment, a 'right' to the ability to deliberate on your own terms without fear of retribution is a admirable but disappointingly incorrect statement. To say that fallsl down the same hole in which unimaginative, maybe even decidedly opportunistic, facsimile-liberalism (to distinguish from true 'classical' liberalism of Locke and Jefferson) create a Constitutiomal right to everything from an Ipod on down is covered. So instead of that path, which explicitly allows intolerance (Freedom of Speech aside), we must look at it from a civil service perspective; a Imperial Federal Government perspective that while undoubtedly scary and cooperatively reminiscent of hypocrisy – is no doubt beneficial to the argument that enforced tolerance is singularly destructive to the goals it purportedly aims to achieve. We must consider what happens when the worst happens, when we put ourselves under the jackboots of countless humanitarians running through our streets and eating the sustenance right out of our pockets? Once again we turn to Lock. In 'Of Property and Government' (with a special emphasis on 'Of the Extent of the Legislative Power') in which he declares that the state cannot “possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people.” For the sole reason that it “has been proved, that man cannot subject himself to arbitrary power over himself.” These ideas were explicitly mentioned by the Founding Fathers and they put in a very interesting reference when a government did not live up to the ideals expressed by Locke and penned into the sweeping brilliance that is our Constitution. Which is to say, quite succinctly, revolution. Hopefully peaceful, of course. However what one must take from it is that to enforce toleration is to enforce an absolute, absolutely. The government is not protecting anything when its enterprises enter the world of social cures because, to be frank, justice can only condone the compulsion to protect property, liberty and happiness. Not provide. If there is intolerance that translates into racist actions – then undoubtedly it falls underneath 'protection' statutes. However, to actively go out and preemptively chase the shadow of intolerance, through government decrees is to trample underfoot – with or without malice, the inherent rights that everyone relies on. ((Tell me anything that springs to mind. Do you agree with the general, bolded, thesis? Do you have any additional sources to share? Does this remind you of any one, theory or otherwise? What are some current events in today's world this would apply too? I'm not picky, I just want to hear opinions. Educated one's, obviously, but a lot of them.))

How is this thing going, dead or alive?

SoCal! Near/around Palm Springs/Palm Desert/Indio. Whichever you've heard of - basically the same area.

AIM: RepublicanMax

It's a sad reflection that laws like these are enforced, and I mean that from a very pragmatic position. While the existence of public property is a point of contention, since it does exist (and will exist for the long term future) I'm going to just accept it's rules for the time being in deliberation. That said, this law likely does need to be required to prevent abuse of public facilities. I hate to sound so elitist, but there needs to be some levels of decency that must be met. Having some squatters abuse the purchases of honest public servants, does invoke the need of one's tax money's purchases to not be treated with disrespect. Yet instead with the full knowledge that property of any sort - should be respected.