"Give me liberty or give me Death," Patrick Henry's famous 1775 'sound bite', exemplifies the indominatable spirit of our Anglo / Western heritage. The concept was not new. Several hundred years earlier, in 1305, William Wallace refused subjugation to the English crown and, for his pursuit of freedom, gave his life in a particularly gruesome execution. In 1775 Benjamin Franklin said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." John Witherspoon (Princeton's president starting 1768) rallied the religious to the revolutionary cause with his 1774 Thoughts on American Liberty and in his pastoral letter (that year, I believe) to all the Presbyterian churches in the colonies, saying with regard to Britian's racheting up regulations and taxes that he preferred: "war with all its horrors, and even extermination, to slavery, rivited on us and our posterity."

 

These pioneers of liberty chose life of spirit, an existance not chained by man, over life under another man's chains. Said in other words, I chose a life of liberty over a life of slavery. [fn1]

 

Now in 2009, in crystal contrast, political power in the USA is centered on individuals' acceptance of servitude, and even the pursuit of servitude - giving it and taking it, which is truly a perversion of the self-evident liberties. I don't have discrete examples from history of people giving up liberty in exchange for servitude, but no doubt they exist. And inclusion of examples is necessary to personalize servitude's insidious dearth, so please forgive the absence, for now. That exchange appears to result from an unwillingness to fight or accept responsibility for liberty.

 

Nevertheless, those who would rather exist as slaves, accept subjugation, or otherwise eschew liberty, must follow a different philosophy. A philosophy that the current Democrats exploit. A philosophy that the current Democrats nurture with so-called 'entitlements' and words of empathy. That is the philosophy that justifies eroding the liberties of those who would fight, even to extinction, rather than exist as slaves, accept subjugation, or exchew liberty. An examination of the many aspects of each philosophy and their interplay must wait til another time. Suffice it to say that liberty is to be glorified and pursued, for its virtues have been proven. Equally clear, slavery is not admirable - as to masters and as to slaves (being or having been a slave is neither meritorious nor virtuous as a philosophical matter) - and must be exterminated, especially from the perspective of the slave.[fn2] Accomplishment of that objective rests in exposing the slavery philosophy for the morbid state it occupies in human concept, from both perspectives: that of master and that of slave.

 

fn1 - Christian religion is an integral component, if for no other reason than as a vaccine to narcicism and self worship. But religion also a topic that deserves separate treatment. Generally, it appears man has compulsions to servitude and compulsions to dominate. One can serve God, thus satisfying the subjugation compulsion through a spiritual outlet and avoiding acting it out in subjugation to man. One can control his existance by living with individual liberty, thus satisfying the domination compulsion in both a spiritual sense and with worldly acts, without having to dominate or enslave others.

 

fn2 - politicians exploit people and create slaves in part by extending sympathies and empathies to those whose craving for human affection and love (scarce commodities in a narcicistic world of arrogant self worshipers) make them vulnerable to such false offerings