Ambassadors of Liberty

Hello Grognards,

I spoke with Liberalis about my newest project some time ago-

"Ambassadors of Liberty."

It's an international group for the furtherance of liberty, libertarian or other political ideas, ideals, and so on, so forth.

The idea of Ambassadors of Liberty is to draw people from all over the world, and to have them discuss how personal responsibility, less government, and so on, are all better than living under the yoke of heavy government, or to discuss the opposite.

One day, I hope that there will be meeting groups (in person, which the grogs have no problem with ), publications, etc, that we can use to educate the common man to the positive sides of personal responsibility and non-government dependency.

Now, as of today, we have launched our forums. Once I get them fine tuned to a degree I'll post the URL.

For those interested, the small home page is located at http://www.ambassadorsofliberty.org

:drunk: :menerv:

Also, lol, since it's international there will be other languages present at the forums, so if someone wants to moderate a French-speaking part of the forum, let me know :bob:

Less central government? people aren't mature enough for that to work, you just end up with even more corrupt and ambitious governors, congressmen, mayors etc....

Also most of them are much more incompetent than your average prime minister's or president's cabinet. (I think that has to do with the fact that they are so close to the people. It's a fact, average joe is just too stupid (whether he is from France, the U.S. or China).

They are also more easily manipulated by big money, corporations.

Though the idea of disbanding all countries and creating a league of people (instead of nations) to take care of this planet's issues is certainly worth working towards.

That would require a focus on educating people, promoting human rights (especially where they conflict with religious beliefs) and finding a way to use the benefits of capitalism/free market while reducing the many negative side-effects.

But i think i hijacked your thread. Won't do that anymore

no, no, that's the point- discussion! learning, etc...

I guess what your promoting then is a sort of social anarchy, which has benefits, as long as it doesn't swing into communism.

What I'm basically saying, is that it would be good if there was a move towards uniting all people throughout the planet. It doesn't necessarily mean throwing down all borders, but giving a lot of authority to the most central government possible, one that would be in charge of all humanity. Of course, it would be based on democracy, not communism. The struggles that were made in the name of communism had some positive effects, though the governments that were based on it were just fascism without the free market.

There is an elite group of very wealthy people that are trying to install that "one world government".
This one world government would be run through the UN.
It would once and for all separate the elites from the mob.
For this to happen, "they" need a global crisis to install it.

First of all, the UN has absolutely no respect from anyone. It barely ever reaches any agreement, and when it does its resolutions are ignored. It's troops constantly get shot at.

And any argument that contains the word " "they" " in it hasn't much weight.

Primitive communism can be a good thing, only separated slightly from Anarchism. However, in an Anarchism you work and you eat in perfect ratio; your merit, work ethic, etc, is yours, and how you expend your income/earnings, and trade for others' work, is up to you. A Communism, however, is total equality in all sectors, meaning that even if you go to school and are able to provide services for 1,000 people, and your neighbor is a farmer providing only for his own family, you still both make the same income, or rather, retrieve back the same amount from the 'commune.'

The essence of living free motivates many people; I for one am not an anarchist in realistic approach, but rather a Constitutional Republican Libertarian of sorts- A small government, bound by unavoidable and unbreechable law, that only serves to protect the Citizenry and coordinate those citizens in their efforts for improvement.

A national promise via the Constitution/Charter of the society, of Life, Liberty, Happiness, and Property, bolstered by minimal law to avoid more laws (as opposed to laws that open doors for more laws, agencies, etc) should be the only Law of the Land, more to protect people than government; a total reversal of what we have here.

I would hate to rain on anyone's parade, even though horton's idea sounds appealing but it is not feasible. Not now, not tomorrow, not never. The current system you have now in the USA and in some western democracies is far from perfect but unfortunately this is the best system we have so far. You can improve on it some, but you cannot change it much.
As BDC said the less centralised your goverment is the easiest it is to corrupt people, the more incompetent people you have...
The reason you have such non minimalistic laws it is because of all the laws that had to be placed to prevent people from taking advantage of the minimalistic laws and finding loopholes in them.
The problem with having a one centralised planet goverment is that you would have to create equal living conditions for all human beings on the planet which is also non feasible. You also would have to have them believe the same myths or have them respect the mythological beliefs of others. Good luck with that........

I honestly don't think that's what Horton wants, VC.  He's one of those guys who simply believe in small government. :P  

Sure I guess personal responsibility bla bla bla sounds great, but so does...communism?  I must agree with BDC, there are too many idiots that must have their hands held by (someone) to have a 'less government' approach.  

I don't think the quesiton is LESS government all together, but more less governemnt in WHAT area.  If you look at the Nordic System (Finland, Norway, Sweden, etc) their government regulates the economy, military, social services etc very heavily yet Sweden and Finland have ranked on the top of the list of least corrupted governments in the world and Finland has the happiest citizens on earth. (no lie, look it up)  However in comparison to the United states (which has FAR less government, no joke, the beauracracy in the United States is a cake walk compared to Sweden's) is alot more corrupted.  It's the free capitalist system (come on, lessez faire is not needed anymore, well to the extent that the United States have let it become) and the fact that lobbyests can bribe politicians to simply vote another way and lie to the public.  

The simple fact is that less government does not mean less problems, only simply more problems of a different kind.

First, I am against any sort of World Unity, if you can even stretch those two words into a paragraph, or article, together without snickering inside.

In all actuality, we need smaller societies, so people can live as they want. If someone want a corruption free, yet servitude form of government, they should live under that. If someone wants to be personally responsible, and attempt to live their life a free man, they should be able to.

However, here in the US, we have a good system that needs reform. We have a document, the US Constitution, which I see as being the most amazing federal government document in the history of the World, preceded by the Magna Carta.

One could say that in essence lobbyists are legal bribers... and that is not ethical, or moral, in my opinion. A lobbyist should be someone that lobbies, but no financial or property transactions should take place.

We do have the best system in the world. But we've abused it. Even the uneducated civilians in 1790, or the liberal Federalists in 1800, would grimmace and be thrown into the fits of depression and then revolution if they could see what is happening here today. Our very inalienable rights granted us are being treated as a "Goddammed piece of paper" by King George IV, and we almost lost our right to keep and bear arms, for the protection of property, as well as to keep our government in constant fear of us, by one vote, that swung the other way.

First, we must try to reform the system- but then, we must look to our fathers for help, and realize that no man sat his life out in an office and really lived free. I want to live free, and I want my children to live free.

Forums are working now.

http://forums.ambassadorsofliberty.org

No way ! I m not going to a communist forum thing ! (Find the joke)

oh no, the right to bear arms thing rears its ugly head once again.......................................

I personally think its completely stupid, and any country that allows its citizens to bear arms also admits its inability to maintain order within its own borders, as well as its inability to defend itself.

Some people think that if a country's citizens are armed that will prevent the goverment of said country from taking advantage of them. They think they can revolt. Well my friends, the day of pitchfork revolutions ended a long time ago. The Shii'a uprising in southern Iraq after the first gulf war was a clear evidence of that. The people were armed and the Iraqi army with 1billioneth of the United states army capacity quelled them in a ruthless butchery. A democracy has better odds achievieng a revolution by peacful protests than with anything else.

VC

Well the pacifists and government apologist types can go on trusting government and the fact that the police will respond in 30 seconds flat. I will not enter that debate.

However, believe me when I say that there are those armed here with more than pitchforks; and also that the last Civil War/Revolution also included the defection of half the Regular Army's officers and equipment, as well.

But it won't come to that, I trust. The knowledge that we have that willpower should deter anyone, even King George the IV, from making any decisions too rash.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will
preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you
are inevitably ruined"

For those living in the United States, you should be very familiar with the author of this quote. For it was our own Patrick Henry.

But that's just like one man's opinion man!!!!

Anyway the goverment already fears you without you having weapons. Their ascencion to power is based on the fact that you voted for them. Instead of encouraging people to own mortars and RPG's or whatever you want (which are still pitchforks compared to your army's armament) go and caste your vote.
Get involved in politics and cast your vote for your favorite candidate, the one that pushes your agenda.
Having a weak goverment is a recipe for civil war, as local small powermongers look to aquire more influence. Ask me, i come from such a country.

VC

Indeed, this is what his dudeness said when he heard Patrick Henry's statement:

LOL, exactly BDC, i was quoting the Dude. lol

VC

lol, love that movie.

But I could quote almost all the founders.

Thomas Jefferson, for instance:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the
right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves
against tyranny in government."

who also said,

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

as well as one of my favorites,

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

The First President of our United States of America under the current Constitution, George Washington, said;

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."

BDC, I think he knew you would bring up your point on the last page;

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.
"

Samuel Adams, one of my favorite characters in early US History, said notably:

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these:
First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property;
together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."

"The Constitution shall never be construed... to
prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from
keeping their own arms."

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our
civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is
our duty to defend them against all attacks."

Richard "Light Horse" Harry Lee, of the then great state of Virginia (where my family came originally) said,

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always
possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."

Tench Coxe in 1789 declared,

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may
attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally
raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their
fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep
and bear their private arms."

Alexander Hamilton wrote,

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly
armed."

Elbridge Gerry, a Congressman from Massachusetts in 1789, said,

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a
standing army, the bane of liberty."

So you see gentlemen, the founders were of one accord, it was not just one man's opinion... it was regarded as a paramount means of resisting tyranny.

:flic: