The Tea Parties

Diskusjon om politiske temaer fra det internasjonale nyhetsbildet.

The Tea Parties

Innlegg Panther 21 Apr 2009, 15:17

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5505

The Charlotte Tea Party Speech
by John Lewis (April 20, 2009)

The Charlotte Tea Party Speech by Dr. John David Lewis, Dept. of Political Science, Duke University was first first delivered on April 15, 2009, Charlotte, North Carolina. This is a slightly revised version by Dr. Lewis for printed publication. Permission is given to read this in full, wherever defenders of liberty may gather.

It is high time for a tea party in America!

But to do this right, we need to understand what it means. So I want to think back for a moment to what happened over 200 years ago, at the time of the original Boston Tea Party.

The Founders of this nation brought forth a radical idea. It was truly radical, practiced nowhere before this time.

This idea was the Rights of Man. The Founders saw each of us as endowed with certain inalienable rights, rights that may not be separated from our nature as autonomous beings.

These inalienable rights are:
· The Right to Life--the right to live your own life, to choose your own goals, and to preserve your own independent existence.
· The Right to Liberty, which is the right to act to achieve your goals, without coercion by other men.
· The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness, to act to achieve your own success, your own prosperity, and your own happiness, for your own sake.
· And the Right to Property—the right to gain, keep, and enjoy, the material products of your efforts.

Unless I’m mistaken I don’t see anything here about a right to happiness. I see a right to the pursuit of happiness: the right to take the actions needed to attain one’s own happiness. Nor do I see any rights to things at all—no rights to food, clothing, healthcare or diapers. There is only a right to act to achieve those things. This is called freedom.

These rights to act—the rights to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness—are founded on a certain view of man. Each of us is an individual, autonomous, moral being, with the right to choose his own values and capable of directing his own life.

Look at the person next to you, and look in the mirror—do you see the individual sovereign human being, existing for his own sake, with the right to live, to love, and to act?

This idea—the Founders’ idea of the individual Rights of Man—led to a radical view of government. Government was not to be inherited by the force of an entrenched aristocracy as in Europe, imposed by the divine right of kings through generations of oppression, or enforced by the force of a club.

Government in America was to be designed and instituted by thinking men, for a single purpose: to protect and defend the Rights of Man.

This is what the American Declaration of Independence says: “To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” Thinking men, armed with the idea of rights, created a government limited to the protection of individual rights.

For centuries in Europe, the relationship between the people and the government had been that of serf to master: everyone was a servant of the ruling elite. In America, this was turned upside down: government became the servant of the individual. The very reason for a government--and its purpose--is to secure our inalienable, individual rights.

The results in America speak for themselves: the greatest most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. I here quote the writer Ayn Rand (and if you want to understand what is happening today, read her novel Atlas Shrugged). Ayn Rand, speaking to the graduating class at West Point, said that the United States was the first and only moral nation in the history of man, the first nation founded on a moral principle, the Rights of Man, and with a moral purpose, to secure these rights for all men.

This principle of rights is so strong that over years the Americans were able to correct the original shortcomings that the Founders’ could not overcome. Slavery and the denial of women’s suffrage both fell when the principle of rights was properly applied to all men. To correct the original errors did not require the Americans to overthrow the principle, but rather to strengthen and to deepen it, to apply it to everyone, and to renew their commitment to it.

And that is what we must do today.

Because something very bad has happened in America over the last century. A cancer has implanted itself in the land of the free. A cancer has grown in our government and in our society. The cancer is the idea that government is no longer to be the defender of our rights, but rather the grantor of wishes.

Over the past century the idea took hold that government’s purpose was not to secure our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but rather to satisfy our needs, whims and wants. That idea has been implanted in our schools, our media, and our government.

Do you wish for a better house? There’s a government housing agency to give it to you, with taxes extorted from those who buy their own house. Do you wish for health care? There is a government agency who will extort it from others and give it to you. Do you need food? There is a welfare agency to grab the wealth needed to give you food stamps.

And who will provide these handouts? The government, many people say, the all-powerful being that looms over us and grants our wishes. But who is to provide the goods that government hands out? Every person who works and produces, and whose property, gained by the sweat of his efforts, is taken from him by force.

The government has, once again, become a ruling aristocracy, set up as our masters, disposing of our lives.

This cancer has now grown to the point where this ruling elite controls a budget of over four thousand billion dollars a year—more money than can be conceived by the human mind. The government had to grow this big—and it will continue to grow until it destroys this nation—because it is acting according to the idea that it is morally right to take the wealth from those who produce it, and to give it to those who want it.

At the root of this idea is a view of man that is totally at odds with the vision of the Founders: the modern vision of man as a whining dependent, who begs for the needs of life from an all-powerful governing aristocracy. This ruling elite claims the moral right to distribute the wealth of those who earn it to those who wish for it.

If we are going to challenge this monstrosity, if we are going to expunge this cancer, then this is what we must reject. We need to regain the vision of ourselves held by the American Founders. We need to stand up, and assert ourselves as autonomous moral beings, with the right to our own life, liberty and the pursuit of our own happiness. We need to reject the claim that we are weak and dependent beggars, and to assert our own competence to run our own lives.

It is going to take as great a commitment to destroy this cancer as it took to build it. We’re going to have to be strong, we’re going to have to be independent in our thinking, and we are going to have to reject handouts when they are offered to us. And we’re going to have to speak out.

At its heart, the economic and political crisis is a deeper problem—a moral problem. The cause of the crisis today is the worship of need, and the view of man as too stupid to act for his own sake, and worthy of being milked of all his values, to provide for others. This is what we must reject.

Do you think that this is a conspiracy to seize your wealth? It is far worse than that. As Ayn Rand wrote, “It is not your wealth that they're after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man.”

This is an attempt to seize your life, to destroy your sense of self as an independent human being, and to replace it with a being with no self-esteem and no capacity for individual action—a being doomed to beg for sustenance from an all-powerful ruling elite.

This ruling elite, looking down on us right now, cannot understand gatherings such as these, in which free people gather to defend liberty. They think that this must be orchestrated by a vast conspiracy, because they cannot understand how autonomous human beings might gather by their own choice, to affirm their commitment to liberty.

Our so-called leaders think this because they don’t see autonomous moral beings at all. They see only serfs, sniveling and whining, begging their masters for the scraps needed to survive, acting as a collective mob rather than as thinking individuals.

Look at yourselves again. Do you see in your face, and in the face of the person next to you, the slave of a group, with no moral status, no rights and no liberties, who is bound from birth to serve? Or do you see an autonomous being with the right to live for his own sake?

Will you knuckle under and become a helpless dependent? Or will you stand tall, and defend your right to your own life, your own liberty, your pursuit of your own individual happiness, and your own property?

It is time to stand up, to say no to the creed of dependence, to assert ourselves, to assert our own moral status, to defend our right to our own lives and property, and to make our voices heard.

Thank you very much.


John David Lewis

Dr. Lewis would liketo give his thanks to Char Cushman for the transcription, Andy Clarkson for the original video, and to Matthew Ridenhour for arranging the Charlotte Tea Party.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Dr. John Lewis Interview: Charlotte Tea Party

Innlegg Panther 03 Mai 2009, 17:57

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5515

by Andy Clarkson (May 3, 2009)


Andy: Not only was it passionate, it had fundamental ideas and that’s the key. What is the meaning of today’s tea party? It’s all across the country. There are over 500 of them. What does this mean in your opinion?

John: The tea parties themselves, I think, are a spontaneous expression by people that they are outraged, they’re upset, and they don’t want to take it anymore. The problem is that I don’t know whether people understand the issue. Such gatherings won’t be effective unless the issues are understood. If people are just outraged at high taxes but not willing to challenge the programs, there will not be fundamental change.


Andy: What would get us to change the people we elect? Is there something fundamental about the ideas?

John: You’re going to have to take the idea, with real understanding, that we are morally autonomous beings and do not have a right to the lives of others. And then make the connection that when we see a government program coming our way, it is being taken from somebody else, either now or in the future, or from interest on what’s borrowed overseas. People have to be willing to say, “No, I don’t want the benefit either” as well as, “I don’t want the tax.” People need a fundamentally new understanding of what’s happened in the last two generations in order to reject the programs as well as the taxes.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Tea Parties amd Going John Galt: America's New Direction?

Innlegg Panther 26 Jun 2009, 15:48

Mer om "Tea Parties" og retningen USA og folket der beveger seg i.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5554

by Sylvia Bokor (June 26, 2009)


On April 15, 2009 Tea Parties protesting the government's fiscal irresponsibility took place throughout the nation. A second Tea Party is being planned for July 4.

Rejecting socialism, Tea Party participants are acting fundamentally on the principle of individual rights. It is right to earn a living. It is wrong to give our earnings to those who don’t. It is right to benefit from one’s own efforts and actions. It is wrong to "bail out" companies which the government caused to fail in the first place, then make us pay for the government's mistakes.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

The New Tea Parties: An Overture to Reclaiming Our Lost Free

Innlegg Panther 14 Jul 2009, 13:26

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5592

by Edward Cline (July 14, 2009)


Because the consignees were American, and because none of the colonies was represented in Parliament, it was a matter of taxation without representation. However, it was more than a matter of political principle. It was the application of a moral principle. If the colonists sanctioned the tea tax by paying it, it would be an acknowledgement that the Crown had a right to tax them on any commodity or service. The tea was merely a symbol. It could just as well have been any other commodity formerly covered by the repealed Townshend duties: glass, nails, or paint. The colonists did not grant that sanction over their lives. If they recognized the Crown’s authority to tax them, the wisest among the colonists pointed out, that authority could just as well in time be extended over every particular of their lives.

The original Tea Party was a revolt against the power of government to regulate one’s life and dictate how it would be conducted and at what price. It was an affirmation by the colonists that they owned their own lives, and retained the right to delegate necessary political power to their elected representatives. It was an affirmation of the moral principle that no government had a right to dispose of or expropriate one’s property, and, by implication, one’s life. All political principles -- good or bad, pro-freedom, or socialist, or fascist -- are grounded on specific moral principles.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

The Original Tea Party and Ours: Where the Parallels Stop

Innlegg Panther 22 Jul 2009, 09:32

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5596

by Edward Cline (July 20, 2009)


The original Tea Party was a revolt against the power of government to regulate one’s life and dictate how it would be conducted and at what price. It was an affirmation by the colonists that they owned their own lives, and retained the right to delegate necessary political power to their elected representatives. It was an affirmation of the moral principle that no government had a right to dispose of or expropriate one’s property, and, by implication, one’s life. All political principles -- good or bad, pro-freedom, or socialist, or fascist -- are grounded on specific moral principles.

Too many Americans today have forgotten that, or never learned it. They want a government that regulates their lives and ensures their well-being by enslaving others. They believe you have a duty to allow yourself to be enslaved for their sakes. They believe the government has a right or a duty to enslave you and everyone else for their sakes.


We, however, know what those errors and doubts were, and the solution to them. As every statist or totalitarian regime that ever existed was based on Plato’s view that men were just atoms in a collectivist state and who owed their existence to others, a fully consistent philosophy of reason exists that sanctions individual rights and man‘s existence for his own sake. That philosophy is Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. The Founders did not have the benefit of her advice. We have.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Re: The Tea Parties

Innlegg Erik 23 Jul 2009, 11:37

Here´s to You, Mr. Jefferson.............


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLAg8a0v ... r_embedded
Erik
 
Innlegg: 301
Registrert: 02 Mai 2004, 15:38
Bosted: Bergen

In Defense of Liberty

Innlegg Panther 23 Jul 2009, 14:09

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5597

We now once again face the question: Do we stand for the idea that the government has no business taxing us because it is morally proper for an individual to act in his own self-interest—or are we merely protesting out of a financial frustration we know not how to morally justify? Are these tea parties, like the glorious Tea Party of December 16, 1773, a symbol of a coming moral revolution, or are they the rhetoric of a to-be-dismissed minority?

Before our Founders pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor against an oppressive power, they won their fellow Americans’ hearts and minds. Let us today do the latter actively, so that we never again have to take the step of doing the former.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Report from the 9/11 and 9/12/2009 Washington Protests

Innlegg Panther 16 Sep 2009, 18:51

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5645

by John Lewis (September 15, 2009)

On Friday, September 11, 2009 the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights and the Competitive Enterprise Institute held a briefing at the National Press Club for Tea Party Organizers. Perhaps 300 people listened to four talks on the historical, economic, and moral bases of the tea party protests.

My own talk–15 minutes plus Q&A–focused on the need for a moral principle to integrate tea party activities: the principle of Individual Rights. This is America’s Founding Principle–the idea that guided the American Founders, more than any other, to establish this nation, and to create its limited government. About two dozen crowded around me afterwards, wanting more information and asking questions about the meaning of rights.

This confirms one of my key selling points: when speaking about rights, don’t water down the principle. Speak in clear, unambiguous terms about each person’s right to his own life and liberty, and his right to pursue his own happiness. People today are surrounded with mealy-mouthed slogans, with arguments based on costs, and with claims that success can come only through compromise. People are hungry for a clear statement of a moral principle–because they need guidance on how to understand the many issues with which they are confronted every day.

Don’t argue about incremental steps toward statism–about a 7.5% versus 8% sales tax, about health care co-ops versus a government option, about a carbon tax imposed by legislation versus EPA diktat–for each of these is the same thing in principle. Don’t allow a tea party to be reduced to a series of disconnected issues, approached willy-nilly and without a guiding thought. A tea party without individual rights is not for anything, and cannot have any lasting influence.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Re: The Tea Parties

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 17 Sep 2009, 07:27

Bilder fra 12/9 her:

http://912dc.dhwritings.com/
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7866
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: The Tea Parties

Innlegg QIQrrr 25 Sep 2009, 22:39

Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: The Tea Parties

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 17 Okt 2009, 10:08

Artig bilde


Bilde
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7866
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: The Tea Parties

Innlegg QIQrrr 09 Des 2009, 18:23

Pat Caddell (to Washington), December 8, 2009: 'The American people are coming for you...'

Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: The Tea Parties

Innlegg QIQrrr 05 Apr 2010, 21:48

The Tea Party har større oppslutning enn Obama:

    Rasmussen Reports, April 5, 2010: On major issues, 48% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than President Barack Obama. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own. Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly feel closer to the Tea Party and most Democrats say that their views are more like Obama’s. Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 50% say they’re closer to the Tea Party while 38% side with the President - Tea Party 48% Obama 44%
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: The Tea Parties

Innlegg QIQrrr 14 Apr 2010, 12:41

Rasmussen Reports, April 13, 2010: The number of people who say they’re part of the Tea Party Movement nationally has grown to 24%. That’s up from 16% a month ago. Some on the political left see nothing but hate, while some on the right see a threat to Republican prospects. Others see a grass roots movement that is challenging a corrupt Political Class and trying to save the nation from politicians - Tea Party Profile: Many Ways To Describe A Movement
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: The Tea Parties

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 15 Apr 2010, 07:38

Sabotører vil dukke opp og lage kvalm:

Vi blir ikke overrasket dersom pressen fremstiller disse sabotørene som representative for Tea-Party-bevegelsen

http://www.crashtheteaparty.org/


Bilde
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7866
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Neste

Gå til Utenrikspolitikk

Hvem er i forumet

Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 1 gjest

cron