Help! Do I Need A PhD In Liberty Studies?
By Tim Regan
When one steps into the Sacred Realm of the Liberty Movement or the Patriot Movement, all of a sudden he is faced with the question;“ Okay, I know something is wrong but exactly what is the problem and what do I need to know in order to help get things back on a proper footing( and what is the“ proper footing” anyway)”? There seems to be so many subjects to know about, is it best to research Economics? Finance? The Constitution? How about How Capitalism works? How Communism works? Ethics? Political philosophy? Also, there is often the feeling that we need to become an“ expert” on these topics in order to rationally and sanely argue what we just instinctively and intuitively know to be true. Given that most of us were indoctrinated in government concentration camps from K through 12 and possibly went on to party re-education at a local University( emphasis on“ Uni”, as in NOT diversity), how can we expect to think for ourselves and negotiate what is important and what is true and what is not true? Basically, what makes sense and what doesn ' t? What caused the financial collapse of 2008? Was it deregulation? Was it too much regulation? Was it capitalism? Was it crony capitalism? What is capitalism? What is capital? Do they mean money? What ' s all the talk about gold? I ' ve never even seen a gold coin, how could gold be important? Why do the quarters and other coins keep changing their look? Is the government up to something? Oops-- sorry, I got a little lost. But, do you see what I mean when I say it ' s easy to get lost in the confusion that faces us when we are beginning to awaken to the possibility of a better way? In the past I have tried to be a well informed grownup by watching the news intently and trying to digest just exactly what was going on in the world. Well, guess what? I have since learned that to be an informed adult does not include swallowing everything a distinguished looking gentleman in a tie is telling me I should know, and how I should think about it. I don ' t care if it ' s ABC, NBC, FOX, CNN, or MSNBC, these people are not fostering an atmosphere of honest intellectual inquiry. Why should they? That ' s not their job. They have a bill of goods to sell and they are going to do whatever it takes to make the sale. Sex may sell but repeating talking points over and over
Pono Press, June 2013, Page 10
again sells even more. Just as troublesome as saying A is true because FOX said so, is to say A must be true because MSNBC said B was true. I must admit, avoiding this knee-jerk reaction is not easy when discussing my freedoms or the future of my country. Okay, so we can ' t trust our education, we can ' t trust our media celebrities, and chances are we can ' t even trust our friends and family because they ' ve probably been corrupted by both. How do we know where to stand on so many complex issues? The answer is actually very easy. The answer is principles. I don ' t mean have principles so you can be morally upstanding and you will be rewarded with accolades, reverence, and position and later be granted a place in heaven. Although this may or may not be a result of your maintaining principles. What I mean is: know what your principles are, and understand those principles thoroughly. Then when faced with an issue, whether an economic issue i. e., Should the Fed be engaged in quantitative easing?, or a fiscal issue, i. e., Should the government be paying out unemployment insurance for 99 weeks?, or a constitutional issue, i, e., Is Obamacare constitutional?, never argue the issue. Instead, identify the principle being challenged, and explore how this incidental topic matches up to your principle. When your principle is taken as a premise, or starting point of reasoning, you can build on this premise to reach a logical conclusion. Then all you have to do is compare this conclusion with the issue at hand. If the issue is out of accord with this endpoint, well, then obviously it is not aligned with your principle. Logic would then dictate you reject that stance taken on that particular issue. I know that was a mouthful but maybe this example will help illustrate... For example: Issue-The creepy mayor of Buttinskiburg declares that no more cupcakes shall be made within the city limits. If the cupcake makers want to stay in business they will have to change the name of their product to deathcakes and apply to the city for a deathcake license. They will also have to pay a fee and of course the deathcake tax for each unit sold. Argument- There are so many ways to debate this new“ cupcake” law. How can I possibly knock down
( Continued on page 11)