Fighting For Freedom & Fighting For Country Are Mutually Exclusive
By Jimmy Wood
It is a performative contradiction to claim to be fighting for freedom while simultaneously accepting a paycheck provided via the plunder of your people. You also cannot swear to defend your peoples freedom while simultaneously swearing to uphold and defend a constitution. For constitutions claim to delegate the "right" or the power to steal, extort, and rob from the whole body of the people, to a small group of people.
"The power to lay and collect taxes" is a euphemism for the right of those calling themselves government to steal, extort, and rob from the people. Taxation itself is involuntary & backed by the threat of violence, imprisonment, & in the end murder. As we all know, taxation is also compulsion, meaning that you have no capacity to opt out without punishment. Rendering the act of taxation as illegitimate as any mugging, petty thievery, defrauding, and even rape. For consent has been violated and force will be initiated against those who disobey the criminals demands, or in the case of taxation- the mafias demands.
Therefore it is self evident that law enforcers, military personnel, and federal agents have an ultimatum: Fight to defend the right of a small group to plunder your people, or actually fight to defend your people's freedom from those who wish to plunder them. You cannot do both. Believing that you can, in reality, is delusional.
The next time you feel like you might be fighting for freedom, ask yourself: "Am I getting paid?", because if the answer is yes. It is more than likely that you are in fact not fighting for freedom. For most people in history who have truly fought for freedom did not receive a paycheck, and they certainly did not accept the stolen money of those whose freedom they claimed to be fighting for.
Thank you for reading. Have a wonderful day.
I am Jimmy Wood, host of The Animating Podcast and creator of www.theanimatedcontest.com. I am a voluntaryist, anarchist, and freedom lover. I appreciate the upvotes and welcome you to the animated contest for freedom.
Hey there jwood27! I was looking for good writers today who are new to Steemit or just starting out and at the small stage of things. I found you, and I featured you here in my first Episode of Eyes On The Minnows!
https://steemit.com/steemit/@dragonanarchist/steemit-eyes-on-the-minnows-episode-1
Thank you you beautiful angel you lol
if fire fighters fight fire and crime fighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight? i will paraphrase smedley butler, one of america's most decorated marine generals. there are only two things worth fighting for , your home and your rights.
mic drop
Violation of consent is an impossibility. If there is consent, then there is no violation. If there is no consent, then it's a violation of the person or their property or rights, but not of their non-existent consent.
No dissagreement there. It was surely implied, or intended to be implied, that the consent being violent is that of the individual, and their bodily integrity.
The Harriet Tubman quote/meme was never actually stated by Harriet Tubman and can be a troubling 'Red Herring' for victims of slavery and other forms of opression.
Please review: http://www.snopes.com/harriet-tubman-quote
If snopes claims its a not true, its more than likely to be absolute fact.
I dont trust that cat lady and neither should you.
In the end regardless of validity the quote is on point about the stockholm syndrome experiencrd by the masses.
Assumptions and fallacious dismissal (hasty generlization), hardly qualify as due diligence and critical thinking.