The Peace Freedom & Prosperity Movement

http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?page_id=1140

By David P Shirk

Many people like to quote the founders and other influential people of our nation’s beginnings, yet many seem to miss the point. For example, Thomas Paine wrote several pieces, but started with a work we are all familiar with called Common Sense. Though he had no formal education, and was not a gentleman of the time, he managed to accomplish something that none of the founders were able to do – ignite the common colonists into action. At the beginning, Jefferson and Madison were thankful for this ability, and despite their misgivings about its potential, welcomed it. Indeed, Jefferson found it amazing how Paine was able to get the common man to stand up and learn something that no other man of the time was able to teach. He felt that because of the new ‘awakening’ of the people by Paine’s fiery words, that they would continue on the path of learning, and apply it to a productive end.
Yet once ignited, the people began to forget the deep words if the philosophies of those like Jefferson and Madison, and seemed unable to rise any further then Paine’s teaching of individual rights. What had started as a welcome ‘awakening’ soon turned into a political and social free-for-all that completely left behind the reason for being independent to begin with. Jefferson reasoned that the people should be self-interested in their personal lives, and disinterested in their politics (i.e.- not seeking personal benefit through government action). Those like Paine reasoned that because government in all forms is nothing more than control, that everyone should have a say in it. In spite of this however, Jefferson stood firm in his belief that the newly freed people would naturally strive to become less interested government as it would be small, and hardly worth the time.
These two separate ideas had a fatal collision when actions taken by Hamilton (and worse yet by Aaron Burr) proved to Jefferson and the people alike, that government was not only getting bigger, but more like the very same one they had fought against during the war. And even though Paine then went overseas to aid in the French rebellion and its establishment of a republic, his words had ignited people to continue taking action – maintaining that it was imperative to their new freedoms. Yet Paine had not taken into account (or really did not care) what would happen when a people who were largely uneducated and unmannered started getting ‘involved’ in politics.
So when ‘learned or privileged’ figures began to use the new system to gain personal powers and favors at the expense of others, the people followed the ‘get mad’ doctrine we are so familiar with today. Yet because of their lack of learning and the circles they walked in, they could not differentiate the good politicians or their policies from the bad. So instead of adopting the more ‘enlightened’ course (learning what caused the problem, who exactly was responsible etc), they sought to get the new ‘oppressors’ out of office by electing local hero’s, or anyone the rapidly expanding press deemed as worthy material. To them, the ‘learned gentleman’ was the new enemy, and part of those seeking to gain power over the ‘common man’. As such, you had people getting into office who had no idea how to legislate.
If this was not bad enough, many people began to learn that taking advantage of the situation was easy – all they had to do was pretend that they were a friend of the people. This was commonly done by people claiming to be the ‘common man’ or a friend thereof. Of these people, many were endorsed by local newspapers that had no mercy when it came to slander. It wasn’t long before this slander degraded to all out lies. No one, not even Jefferson or Washington, the very people who gave them their freedom, were immune to the abuse. The papers and other periodicals at the time grew, and with them, the opinion that anyone even remotely considered to be a federalist, old school republican or democrat was guilty of trying to re-establish an imperialistic state.

On the creation of the Sedition Act in the 1790’s, many accused the federalists etc of encroaching on their freedom of speech. Meanwhile the old school federalist like Jefferson and Madison wondered how the freedom to lie could be covered by law. They had understood that such nonsense came with the territory, but could not have possibly imagined when they first started creating a new government, that such entities would do such things. They had not meant the freedom of speech to be used for outright lies. Today, Ron Paul speaks of neo-cons – self proclaimed conservatives whose actions actually oppose the actions of a real conservative. These are looked upon by so many people to be a new thing – especially when they are hailed by the media as being great political leaders. The truth is that all the way back to the 1790’s, the same thing had already done its damage to the Republican Party. So it comes as no surprise that even back then, the ‘freedom of speech’ protected people in the media who were making money hand over fist just stir up trouble. In such a fragile stage of our nation’s development, the combination proved fatal to the dreams of founders like Jefferson.
So as I write this, I wonder how it can possibly be, that with public libraries and an internet that delivers entire books worth of information in minutes, we are following the same trend. How can a people that claim to belong to the ‘greatest nation on earth’ be so blind and so willfully uncaring, that they gladly shrug off every remnant of the REAL American dream, and shoulder a nightmare in its place. I wonder how it comes to pass that we have so many ‘freedom’ movements that hardly a single one of them get the damn point. From ridiculously misled tea parties all the way up to the mouth of the idiots in congress, not a single ounce of the real American dream is present. Just as it did over 220 years ago, the freedom of speech is abused to allow the most inane lies and misconceptions to be uttered to the masses by both the government AND the people. 220 years after we had started to grow, and we still fall prey to the idea that the common man knows what is best for the whole country (and of course themselves). Well, I am sorry, if they knew what was best for them then they wouldn’t always whine for a government safety net. If they knew what was best for themselves, then they would not allow entire buildings full of legislative bull to tell them what’s good for them and what isn’t. The one and only reason I hold this against such people is that they are so trusting of all the nonsense, that they close their ears and tune you out when you try to tell them that it’s okay to think for themselves, and that the idea of a collective interest can never truly benefit the individual.
The smaller the government, the more beneficial to all parties involved. The federal government we know today had nothing in common at all with the one the federalists of the 1780’s tried to conceive. In their minds, the federal government had one purpose and one purpose only – to mediate between two differing judgments from the states or political groups. It was separate from the states not in an effort to be the high and mighty governing body, but so that it held no bias in its decisions. The reason it was headed by the better off of society was not so that they could look down upon the people, but to use their hard earned knowledge and experience to keep the ‘self-interest’ out of government, and ensure freedom, and fairness. They were supposed to be people who had made it in life to put them above accepting bribes and special favors, and their pay was so low that initially, nobody wanted to be a senator (who at the time were paid so little that affording even a book was hard)or representative.
Yet once again – their good intentions were dashed on the rocks of public opinion. Initially, it was quite understandable given the policies of Hamilton and the crooks like Burr. Yet in such messes, a rift was created. As the misinformed public started to vote in more and more self-serving officials, the more and more self-serving the states became. The public’s opinion had allowed people into office that took full advantage in every way, and created another arc in the destructive circle.
So I ask again – what is our excuse today? We no longer have to rely on mass media. We have cheap books and the internet to have discussion and debate – why do we care about what some idiot anchor on TV says? We are all blessed with brains, and I think it’s time we started using them to reason like people instead go mooing from herd to freakin herd. If we do not start learning from the mistakes of the past, and letting fear and frustration get the best of us, we will accomplish nothing. As of now, not even a velvet revolution would help – all these morons out there who know what’s best would have a mooing contest – and the office would go to the highest moo’er, and if you think I am joking or trying to be funny, then you are dead wrong. Second, as the old order passes and people start learning that voting can indeed work, we will have a repeat of the late 1790’s- early 1800’s. Think about it. If our nation went so wrong back then with no nuclear power, no real ‘global enemies’, and no real foreign economic and supply dependence, what do you think would happen with an arsenal of nukes capable of destroying earth 100 times over, Rush or Cheney or some other monkey in office trying to solve global foreign issues, and take your pick of the New Secretary of Treasury dealing with a multi-trillion dollar debt.
If that’s what you people want, then I’m out – that’s too crazy, even for a nut like me. I think we would be far better off realizing the dream of the original radicalism of the US as it was built for, not this mockery of it we have today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SIsHRanQCY&fmt=18

by Michael Shanklin

George Orwell defined doublethink as “the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
When it comes to war, spending, and more, President Barack Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address showed that doublethink is alive and well in Washington, D.C.

To visit Michael Shanklin’s Youtube Channel please click here

FREEDOMBOOK, Liberty facebook alternative:

http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.org

PFP Website:

http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com

Don’t forget to check out our Radio show:

PFP Movement Radio Fridays 8-10pm http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pfpmovementradio

By David P Shirk

I hate politics, I really do. I hate the sheer stupidity involved when trying to determine who is right and who is wrong when we live in a world where morality and sensibility is relative anyway. Yet like a parasite, it has seeped its endless appetite into my world – the world of technology. In an effort to prevent it from spreading, I offer the following.
To most people out there, the internet is nothing short of a Godsend. In a quarter of a second, a guy in Virginia sends a message to a guy in California. A student crammed for time finds a virtually unlimited source of information needed to complete a report for school. A hospital can get records for a patient in emergency care from a hospital in another state in record time. Like never before people can see exactly what is peddled through the legislative halls of congress, and have access to the entire library of congress that was never before so open. In short – it has been labeled as a powerful tool needed for real change.
Outside of my usual ranting on poor interpretation of data, the world of information technology is under a new attack – one that could not have come at a worse time. Politics. I am not talking only about some moron in congress trying to control or regulate the sector, but the behind the scenes actions that are quickly becoming destructive to the world of IT as well.
Despite the fact that the vast majority of people in the US use the internet for various reasons, very little of them has any idea on how it really works. The same goes for their home computer etc. Yet in spite of this widespread ignorance on the inner workings of such technologies, everybody feels the need to comment on it. One of the most common complaints I hear is that the internet isn’t fast enough, and that it’s not fair that big companies get better service. What people fail to understand is that the technology that continues to get faster and more reliable is initially very expensive, as such most people cannot afford it. So the larger companies seek out this bleeding edge technology, and pay for it. By the time they acquire and implement it, the previous equipment is cheaper to make, and the technology that drives it becomes more understood. This technology that used to be too expensive for individuals and small companies to buy and sustain suddenly becomes cheaper and easier to maintain, so nothing gets wasted, and everyone is better off for it.
However people think that it is their right to have something faster and better, and do not even care about the real cost involved (or any other reality for that matter). From the price of the equipment to its use and maintenance, your average Joe has no clue on these things. But the TV commercials told them that they should not have to settle, and that the cheaper option is better. If people continue to buy into this nonsense and the technology ends up getting stale, then it is the people who allowed and pushed it, not the IT companies. If I am wrong, then companies like Verizon with cheap hi-speed internet will flourish over the coming years. Yet because they are not generating enough income off of the low-priced service, their internet must be subsidized by their cell phone service (or other services), which cannot last forever. I am not saying they will go bankrupt or anything, but rather that eventually, their expansion will stop, their prices will have to go up in short order, they will lose market share, and have to lay off a whole lot of people.
Once again, something most people never think about. So they continue to lobby their representative to pass such nonsense as ‘fair internet usage’ acts etc. They do this based on the perception that by making everyone have ‘fair internet usage’, that their service will improve. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In such proposed legislation, the lawyers that promote this use the clause ‘to promote the progress of science and the useful arts’. This is proof that the people who demand such things understand the internet technologies as much as they do the constitution – not at all. Either that or they follow the modern idea that the constitution is worthless- either way it is an absolute atrocity.
On top of all that, I wish people could see how simple it really is to keep their current technologies operating at optimum speeds without the high cost of a computer repair shops and other such nonsense. I wish this because I am not ready to admit that people who place so much need in such technologies refuse to learn how to work and maintain it merely for convenience sake. If technology levels are any indicator of our standard of living, then it is not the lack of what we need that plagues us, but rather, our neglecting that which we already have. Of course I am not saying that computer repair shops should not be used, but rather be used less as most problems on personal machines can be easily solved by the end user.
Finally, the idea of a government regulated internet really bothers me. For one, there are already enough regulatory laws that force companies to make expensive political favors to ensure approval of expanding their services. Things like this have caused me to question whether or not it is right to continue my employment with such a company. While the favors sometimes pay off, and the company successfully expands and hires more employees, it takes a heavy hit on the company’s staff during the whole process. I grumble when I think that a co-worker I had a lot of respect for got laid off because some congressman wanted their political butt kissed. Yet if the company had not done the one knee approach, then they would have been denied, and lost market share by not being able to offer easily provided services that they invested so much time and capitol into – not because of having an unsustainable plan, but simply because congress didn’t feel like saying yes.
Such things have me wondering if technology can survive this political onslaught. Dreamed up by ignorance and endorsed by public impatience, I am hoping that people will shed the myth that technology needs more regulation. I can only wish that one day people will let the record speak for itself as far as technology goes, and leave it alone. We have seen what regulation does for healthcare, markets, agriculture, and gun rights. I cannot help but thinking of the horror such regulation would place on technology. And for those who have seen these political favors as a company seeking to endorse a political policy, you are wrong.
When given a choice between stagnation and reasonable expansion, I cannot think of any company that would choose the prior. If you wish to blame the private company for doing what it can to ensure its existence (thus also maintaining REAL jobs), by following government set policy – you need to wake up. No company spends money like that to endorse unrelated politics if it can avoid it. What really makes the matter worse, is that to make up for the loss, the company is forced to take advantage of some political policy or another (like tax credits etc). This enables the politician to place even more expensive regulations on the company, by pointing this ‘I scratch your back you scratch mine’ action out to the public, and then promising the public that the new law will protect them from a further occurrence. Oh, and higher performance is always promised, but never delivered.
So before you go saying that technology will save your freedom of thought and speech, you need to follow up on it by telling your congressman or senator to stay the heck away from the technology sector. They already do enough damage with current policy – please don’t let them make it worse by regulating internet technologies.

By David P Shirk

Relativity is a fun thing. No I am not talking about one of Einstein’s theories, but rather the word in its basic definition.
I say it is a fun thing because it is often left out of most arguments. The ommitance of relative data is often used a tool for any individual or group to help prove their point. Ironically enough, people have a tendency to label anything that they do not like or would be harmful to their case as irrelative. Well, or they accuse you of over-thinking or speculating which is something entirely different. When you hear someone attempting to dismiss something as irrelative (or speculative), you are probably talking to someone very close-minded, or just plain ignorant.
Relevance plays such a minor role in today’s society because it would place a brake on anybody looking to make a hasty decision. Not to mention that if the problem or question was actually posed with the relative facts involved, then someone would have to admit that they are wrong. Being that speed and being right are the drivers of today’s society, relevance is placed in the same ‘hush’ category that self-ownership and free thought are. The punch line hits when one considers that we live in a society where democracy rules personal and government entities. The only reason I laugh at this is because the thought of the result is nothing short of terrifying – and yes, it is terrifying. The simple principle of ‘do not speak on things you do not know’ has long since been kicked to the curb, and as a result, millions of voices now demand a say on such matters. To me, nothing can be worse than one yammerhead correcting another, and demanding that everyone else obey the resulting status quo (or legislative) rule.
Einstein was considered a genius because he had a mind that could understand the complexities of things like quantum physics. Today all one has to do to be considered a genius is to have a big mouth and charismatic persona. Everyone loves quoting someone of perceived (and in some cases realized) as a genius – for doing so affirms that they are an equal level with said genius. In some cases this truly means that they have used their time wisely, and actually reached the same conclusion through diligent study. Yet more often, people use the quote to prove something. Out of the thousands of pages Jefferson wrote, I can find less than a total of 4 pages worth of real quotes – so I find it amusing to see how often he is quoted out of context due to lack of relevancy. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a genius, but there is something wrong with claiming to be when you are not.
A major factor in finding out if something is indeed relative usually starts with an assumption. This happens when an exhaustive plan is being drafted, or a largely unexpected outcome is generated from an event, planned or otherwise. Because all the answers are not immediately perceived on the whole, an assumption is made to help determine the ‘why’ in an effort to correlate the event or plan with the new problem. For the most part, this is best done by those more familiar with the topic at hand. As long they do not allow personal bias or false pretenses to govern their assumptions, their chances of making a successful correlation between the assumption and its relevance increase quite a bit.

As simple as all this may sound (as do all my articles), I see precious little of it exhibited in both society and government. When I was growing up, my parents used to read me Aesop’s fables and other assorted traditional knowledge that I look back at as being highly profound. I cannot help but think of such writings as the wisdom of ages that has been so subverted by what is today known as ‘conventional wisdom’. The authors never claimed that their stories were the be all end all of anything, but the common sense found in them holds a relevancy toward self-governance that I see very little of taught in modern day society.
Lastly, it cannot be said enough that in order to correctly establish relevancy, knowledge and experience are crucial. The idea behind group thought that made it so useful, used to be the ability of each team member to share their knowledge with their teammates in an effort to create something that they cannot do by themselves. The more a group worked together, the more they would learn about each other’s skill sets. The problem today is that people ignore this original purpose as a means to accomplish their own goals faster with little regard to what the other team members know. In doing so, they are no longer able to relate their team members input with their own work, and everyone loses productivity. So when group thought replaced individual thought in modern day society in an effort to make itself more productive, it eroded the need for individuals to learn the crucial process of relating one event or idea with another.
Note that in the last example I did not say that group thought or individual thought was better, but merely stated what we as people have done with it. If you hadn’t figured it out already, relative thinking has a major impact on perception, and in many cases, the two are inseparable. The whole point is that without learning to correctly relate one thing to another, individuals, society, teachings, and government alike all take a turn for the worse, and start a downward spiral that can only be solved by shutting up, and learning.

By David P Shirk

Simply put, there is not enough time in a person’s life to learn everything. It is therefore only natural for some people to cling to one idea over another. For most people, it is easier to believe an idea or philosophy that is within their realm of experience over one that they have never experienced. As such, everyone has their own idea of what will work and what won’t.
Yet in an effort to shortcut this catch 22, many only seek the short answer, which leaves out too much to really have an informed decision on any matter. This is not always because a person wants to lay the claim that they know a lot more then they actually do, but because it would require trust. Being that most people do not trust in much, they typically go with an explanation that coincides with their personal beliefs and experiences. While this is usually not a bad thing to make a cohesive society, it can greatly increase the damage made when a bad idea becomes popular.
This is the crux of any society – one that made the founding of our country such a huge risk. Pro-federalists knew we needed some kind of cohesion between the states to respond to a threat of any kind. Their counter balance was those who pushed for free states that would minimize damage of a failed policy or ideal. Amongst these two clashing ideals were various spin-off’s of each, from the more liberal to the more extreme. In those days, knowledge was hard to come by as books were rare (compared to today), and manual labor was more needed which left little time for studies.
In contrast, we have today a mind-boggling array of knowledge readily available. There is literally no limit as to what a person could learn should they choose to do so, yet I have been noticing a pattern that has plagued my mind for years now. In spite of all these mountains of knowledge and discussion groups, people still have a tendency to gravitate toward one line of thought. The simple answer for this would be that people still prefer the easy answer, one that fits their thoughts and experiences. Yet given their proven ability to grasp advanced concepts from political to technological instruments and ideals, this hardly seems the case.
Then it hit me that our nation is over 200 years old. Entire libraries are dedicated to a mere decade or two of it alone. Recorded history goes back much farther then that, and contains more knowledge then any one man could ever hope to possess. It is not therefore unexpected for a person to cling to a particular line of thought – especially if their own life allows a guideline to be established to aid in understanding the topic at hand.
If this is indeed the reason (some would say it obviously is), then there are a few things that need to be learned to help prevent wasting hours learning something that was merely a misstatement (or lie) from somebody else.
The first is principle. This is typically learned after a pattern is noticed by the observer that allows them to learn an underlining truth. For instance, a very small child will learn not to try to touch the stove, because they will get burned. Yet being that this is the first time they have experienced it, they have no frame of reference on its interpretation. Now let’s say the same child almost burns his hand on a candle or fireplace. Their brains then begin to associate a sudden warm sensation with the pain of getting burned. The next time the child starts to feel a sudden warming sensation after that, they will either be very cautious, or grab at it one last time. After that, they have learned that high heat causes pain, and learned the principle.

As adults, we are not so different. The more we experience or study something, the more we learn the principle that drives it. As adults, we have learned that sometimes it is better to listen to someone who has ‘been there done that’, rather then make a potentially harmful mistake ourselves. Of course the balance to this is the people who want to experience things for themselves, relishing in the mental and physical sensations of something new. However the truth remains that it takes both. Without personal experience, the interpretation is not worth as much. Likewise without knowledge to correctly learn a lesson from an experience, a correct interpretation of an experience will be lost.
The latter refers to a balance that is somewhat lacking in today’s world. The very principle behind it is not to be overly swayed by one side or the other, and to have a working knowledge of both. When one learns that simple fact, one can then dig deeper, and plug the correct solution into the problem.
Sadly, we do not live in such a world. We live in a world where everyone is right, and that is the end of it. Many scholars have their favorite professor or mentor who has guided and molded their minds to the attainment of one field of knowledge. Such scholars populate our nation in abundance, and create a highly depleted pool of true ‘outside the box’ thinkers. In an age of such scholarly people, autodidacts (self-learned individuals) are often taken less seriously then the one time appearance of an American Idol contestant.
This is for the simple reason that society has fallen into the trap of generalizations, extremes, and hard lines. Often seeking definition where it either does not exist or is hard to find, they tend to start making definitions for what they do not know, or worse yet – mislabeling it. This failure is compounded when the truth does exist, and is much older and sounder (and often just plain simpler), then the modern day will give it credit for. Outside of technology, nothing in this world has changed, yet old words of wisdom are discarded as being outdated and no longer pertinent to any ‘modern day’ problem simply because it is easier to downplay them instead of learning and practicing them.
So what’s the point? This problem is nothing new. It has caused the collapse of small households and entire nations alike. The only true argument I have heard on the matter, is that you have to go with the flow because you cannot change it. This argument is mostly taken up by those who do not know enough to argue a current theory, idea, or way of life. You could give such people the most simple answer in the world and they will do nothing but call you crazy. I wonder how the simplest minds always seek out a complicated solution for a simple problem.
Despite the books I have read and the lectures I have heard on many sides of the fence, the prime lesson I stick to on economics is not to promise the payment on something you do not have the money for. My concept on foreign policy is equally as simple – I leave you alone, you leave me alone. As for the problem of taking care of those in society who are poorer by their own choices in life, my answer is just as easy – your bed – you sleep in it. As for those who have suffered upon hard times through no real fault of their own – you get a freebie – after that you are on your own. Anything else is waste.
And yes, the answers are really that simple. The fallout to each choice is to be met with equal ease as long as it is kept to the parties involved (in some cases these can be indirectly involved persons). Things only get complicated when one person seeks to control another, force their will upon another, or get involved in something that would otherwise have had no effect on them. Society has gotten bored, scared, self righteous, greedy, and ignorant so they have sought to make all of the above listed mistakes.
So once again I pose the question – In a world of virtually unlimited knowledge and immediate needs having been met, what the heck is our excuse to continue pursuing this ridiculous pattern that is so old that the ancients of any nation would be mocking us? Truly our replacement of common sense with modern nonsense would meet a great many of them with sheer disappointment. And I would be lying to say I was an exception – I am human to after all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvBV8Lwn0G0&fmt=18

by Michael Shanklin

1/25/2010 Florida Libertarian Alex Snitker appears on PFP Movement Radio to discuss the upcoming 2010 election, the economy, foreign policy, education and much more….

For full audio clip: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pfpmovementradio/2010/01/26/lets-talk-live

To visit Michael Shanklin’s Youtube Channel please click here

FREEDOMBOOK, Liberty facebook alternative:

http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.org

PFP Website:

http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com

Don’t forget to check out our Radio show:

PFP Movement Radio Fridays 8-10pm http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pfpmovementradio