By Simon Black, Daily Reckoning, December 23. 2010
In 43 BC, over 2,000 years ago, warring consuls
In 43 BC, over 2,000 years ago, warring consuls
Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian were duking it out
with each other over control of Rome
following Julius Caesar's assassination the prior March.
Each had legions at his disposal, and Rome's terrified
following Julius Caesar's assassination the prior March.
Each had legions at his disposal, and Rome's terrified
Senate sat on its hands waiting for the outcome.
Ultimately, the three men chose to unite their powers
and rule Rome together in what became known as the
Second Triumvirate. This body was established by a law named Lex Titia
in 43 BC.
The foundation of the Second Triumvirate is of tremendous historical
importance: As the group wielded dictatorial powers, it represented the
final nail in the coffin in Rome's transition from republic to
malignant autocracy.
The Second Triumvirate expired after 10 years, upon which Octavian
waged war on his partners once again, resulting in Mark Antony's famed
suicide with Cleopatra in 31 BC. Octavian was eventually rewarded with
nearly supreme power, and he is generally regarded as Rome's first
emperor.
Things only got worse from there. Tiberius, Octavian's successor, was a
paranoid deviant with a lust for executions. He spent the last decade
of his reign completely detached from Rome, living in Capri.
Following Tiberius was Caligula, infamous for his moral depravity and
insanity. According to Roman historians Suetonius and Cassius Dio,
Caligula would send his legions on pointless marches and turned his
palace into a bordello of such repute that it inspired the 1979 porno
film named for him.
Caligula was followed by Claudius, a stammering, slobbering, confused
man as described by his contemporaries. Then there was Nero, who not
only managed to burn down his city, but was also the first emperor to
debase the value of Rome's currency.
You know the rest of the story - Romans watched their leadership and
country get worse and worse.
All along the way, there were two types
Second Triumvirate. This body was established by a law named Lex Titia
in 43 BC.
The foundation of the Second Triumvirate is of tremendous historical
importance: As the group wielded dictatorial powers, it represented the
final nail in the coffin in Rome's transition from republic to
malignant autocracy.
The Second Triumvirate expired after 10 years, upon which Octavian
waged war on his partners once again, resulting in Mark Antony's famed
suicide with Cleopatra in 31 BC. Octavian was eventually rewarded with
nearly supreme power, and he is generally regarded as Rome's first
emperor.
Things only got worse from there. Tiberius, Octavian's successor, was a
paranoid deviant with a lust for executions. He spent the last decade
of his reign completely detached from Rome, living in Capri.
Following Tiberius was Caligula, infamous for his moral depravity and
insanity. According to Roman historians Suetonius and Cassius Dio,
Caligula would send his legions on pointless marches and turned his
palace into a bordello of such repute that it inspired the 1979 porno
film named for him.
Caligula was followed by Claudius, a stammering, slobbering, confused
man as described by his contemporaries. Then there was Nero, who not
only managed to burn down his city, but was also the first emperor to
debase the value of Rome's currency.
You know the rest of the story - Romans watched their leadership and
country get worse and worse.
 |
| JFK getting shot (for non-US readers) |
of people: The first group was folks that
figured, "This has GOT to be the bottom;
it can only get better from here." Their
patriotism was rewarded with reduced
civil liberties, higher taxes, insane despots,
and a debased currency.
The other group consisted of people
The other group consisted of people
who looked at the warning signs and thought, "I have to get out of here."
They followed their instincts and moved on to other places where they
could build their lives, survive, and prosper.
I'm raising this point because I'd like to open a debate. Some consider
the latter idea of expatriating to be akin to 'running away.' I recall
a rather impassioned comment from a reader who suggested, "leaving,
i.e. running away, is certainly not the proper response."
I find this logic to be flawed.
While the notion of staying and 'fighting' is a noble idea, bear in
mind that there is no real enemy or force to fight. The government is a
faceless bureaucracy that's impossible to attack. People who try to do so
usually discredit their argument because they become marginalized as
fringe lunatics. Violence is rarely the answer, and it often has the
opposite effect as intended, frequently serving to bolster support for
the government instead of raising awareness of its shortcomings.
Unless/until government paramilitaries start duking it out with citizen
militia groups in the streets, this is an ideological battle...and it's
an uphill battle at best.
Government-controlled educational systems institutionalize us from
childhood that governments are just, and that we should all subordinate
ourselves to authority and to the greater good that they dictate in
their sole discretion.
You're dealing with a mob mentality, plain and simple. Do you want to
waste limited resources (time, money, energy) trying to convince your
neighbor that s/he should not expect free money from the government?
You could spend a lifetime trying to change ideology and not make a
dent; people have to choose for themselves to wake up; it cannot be
forced upon them. And until that happens, they're going to keep asking
for more security and more control because it's the way their values
have been programmed.
When you think about it, what we call a 'country' is nothing more than
a large concentration of people who share common values. Over time,
those values adjust and evolve. Today, cultures in many countries value
things like fake security, subordination, and ignorance over freedom,
independence, and awareness.
When it appears more and more each day that those common values diverge
from your own, all that's left of a country are irrelevant, invisible
lines on a map. I don't find these worth fighting for.
Nobody is born with a mandatory obligation to invisible lines on a map.
Our fundamental obligation is to ourselves, our families, and the
people that we choose to let into our circles...not to a piece of dirt
that's controlled by mob-installed bureaucrats.
I'm raising this point because I'd like to open a debate. Some consider
the latter idea of expatriating to be akin to 'running away.' I recall
a rather impassioned comment from a reader who suggested, "leaving,
i.e. running away, is certainly not the proper response."
I find this logic to be flawed.
While the notion of staying and 'fighting' is a noble idea, bear in
mind that there is no real enemy or force to fight. The government is a
faceless bureaucracy that's impossible to attack. People who try to do so
usually discredit their argument because they become marginalized as
fringe lunatics. Violence is rarely the answer, and it often has the
opposite effect as intended, frequently serving to bolster support for
the government instead of raising awareness of its shortcomings.
Unless/until government paramilitaries start duking it out with citizen
militia groups in the streets, this is an ideological battle...and it's
an uphill battle at best.
Government-controlled educational systems institutionalize us from
childhood that governments are just, and that we should all subordinate
ourselves to authority and to the greater good that they dictate in
their sole discretion.
You're dealing with a mob mentality, plain and simple. Do you want to
waste limited resources (time, money, energy) trying to convince your
neighbor that s/he should not expect free money from the government?
You could spend a lifetime trying to change ideology and not make a
dent; people have to choose for themselves to wake up; it cannot be
forced upon them. And until that happens, they're going to keep asking
for more security and more control because it's the way their values
have been programmed.
When you think about it, what we call a 'country' is nothing more than
a large concentration of people who share common values. Over time,
those values adjust and evolve. Today, cultures in many countries value
things like fake security, subordination, and ignorance over freedom,
independence, and awareness.
When it appears more and more each day that those common values diverge
from your own, all that's left of a country are irrelevant, invisible
lines on a map. I don't find these worth fighting for.
Nobody is born with a mandatory obligation to invisible lines on a map.
Our fundamental obligation is to ourselves, our families, and the
people that we choose to let into our circles...not to a piece of dirt
that's controlled by mob-installed bureaucrats.
Moving away, i.e. making acalculated decision to seek
greener pastures elsewhere,
is not the same as 'running
away'...and I would argue that
if you really want to affect change
if you really want to affect change
in your home country, moving
away is the most effective
course of action.
The government beast in your home country feeds on debt and taxes, and
the best way to win is for bright, productive people to move away with
their ideas, labor, and assets. This effectively starves the beast and
accelerates its collapse. Then, when the smoke clears, you can move
back and help rebuild a free society.
[Ed. Note: Mr. Black describes himself as an international investor,
entrepreneur, permanent traveler and, perhaps most importantly, a free
man.]
The government beast in your home country feeds on debt and taxes, and
the best way to win is for bright, productive people to move away with
their ideas, labor, and assets. This effectively starves the beast and
accelerates its collapse. Then, when the smoke clears, you can move
back and help rebuild a free society.
[Ed. Note: Mr. Black describes himself as an international investor,
entrepreneur, permanent traveler and, perhaps most importantly, a free
man.]
No comments:
Post a Comment