“Refusing to Accept Society’s Chains” – Of Wolves and Ravens – Libertarianism

Happy Tyr’s Day

Discussion:

We are born free. For libertarians like myself, this is a simple and true statement. It is after the moment of birth that people begin to try to place shackles on us.  They do this with a lot of good intentions, but the best of intentions cause a great amount of harm the majority of the time and one of the casualties of these chains is our freedom.  To be ‘woke’ in the libertarian sense is to recognize the chains that are imposed on us by others and then break them.  Whether those chains come from religion, society or government.

The distinction is understanding that voluntary consent is the great difference maker in relationships.  It is what makes sex not rape; a job not slavery; and a transaction of value not robbery. If there is NOT consent in these things they become rape, slavery, and robbery. When you are forced to do something against your wishes, that is being chained. It’s coercion and it is wrong.

This is why most libertarians find most of what the government does to be illegitimate. Some of us see government in the way the Founding Fathers of the United States saw it – ‘a necessary evil’ and others see it as completely illegitimate. The one thing we all agree on is much of what the government does is force compliances to its wishes with force, the threat of force (coercion) or fraud.  Because none of this involves consent; they are no better than kidnappers, extortionists, and thieves for the most part, except what they do has been deemed legal by society.

As a classical liberal, I accept that some government is necessary, but not because I think society wouldn’t do well without it.  I rather accept the fact that most people will not accept the idea of anarchy.  No matter how much you educate people on this, they want some central authority to appeal to if things go to shit.

So I accept that the government might be a necessary evil but I want it to have very specific and limited uses. 1) Protect my rights – make sure I am accorded my life, liberty, property, and ability to pursue my own happiness. As long as I am not harming anyone else’s rights, I should be allowed to exercise my own and the government should protect that. 2) Provide a court system to settle disputes but also don’t forbid or regulate private arbitration. This court system should also provide just punishment for those who violate other people’s rights including when agents of the government do it. 3) Provide a means of education for the purpose of people learning their rights, but also have no say in private education that wishes to exist.  I see a government that should be involved in defense, public safety, justice, and education.  Everything else, they should butt out as it is not really their business.

To the Wolves and Ravens:

Needs (Geri):

The one thing that is hard for people to accept because they have gotten so used to their chains is a simple fact that society advances far better when people are free and voluntarily doing the things they love to do.  I have never found self-fulfillment in complying with the wishes of others and I would say that it creates a mental state that doesn’t help anyone around me either. WE NEED LIBERTY to be better people and thus have a better society of people who work together freely.

Wants (Freki):

I find myself these days attracted to those who are deemed criminals.  Mostly because I don’t see a crime unless there is a victim.  If you can’t show me a victim to the crime where they were forced, coerced or fraudulently treated then I say there is no crime.  So when the government passes laws where there is no victim but something is declared a criminal activity, I applaud the criminal element for taking that nonsense on.  They are real patriots at that point in my book. I want to live in a society free from these moralistic chains that criminalize people who have victimized no one.

Reason (Huginn):

That said I am no fool.  I kick in The Book of Rabyd 2:2 at this point.  I also engage in the 11th commandment – ‘Don’t Get Caught” and part of not getting caught is tolerating the law, even when it is stupid, to avoid incarceration.  To work to change the law and get rid of laws that create crimes out of the air that have no victims.  At the same time, the government has the real potential to go too far. Revolution and disobedience are options for me.  I refuse to accept any of society’s chains on me.  I tolerate the annoying, but I will gladly revolt against the tyrannical.

Wisdom (Muninn):

Mostly I simply work to live as freely as possible. To avoid the nonsense and yet at the same time pursue freedom and liberty, because it is those things that allow me to improve myself and my situation. Wisdom says I need the liberty to pursue a better life for myself, but society will also try to put its chains on me and I need to know what to do to avoid that as well.

Conclusion:

If my paganism keeps me free from the chains of religion in regards to spirituality, my libertarianism does the same when it comes to the forces of society and government. Shackles are impositions, we are not born with them and we should do everything in our power to maintain our birthright of being free.

You are born free; learn to stay free.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard, and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Of Wolves and Ravens – Austrian Economics

 

Happy Tyr’s Day

Discussion:

Having an Economics Minor is a real boon at times when you listen to politicians.  The reason is you know somewhat how a politicians plans will affect the economy.  It gives you an insight as to what that politicians is asking the government to take control of and what damage it will do.

I make no secret a I am a very free market person.  I think when you look at inflation there is no doubt that it is created by government interference to reduce their debt burden by shifting it to the population.  When you look at things through the lens of economic law, this is the best way to go as people though their own individual expression will meet their own needs if motivated by survival and prosperity. This has led me to the Austrian School of economics as the most realistic course for libertarian thought and economics.

Economics is not a theoretical science.  It has laws much like the laws of physics. The problem with most theories of economics is that they attempt to bypass these laws.  These laws are based on observation and human nature.  Economics is often called organized common sense and the Austrian Economist simply tries to understand and work with those laws.  They simply do not think in terms of the government being a solution but rather the cause of problems with the economy and they are right.

See the source image

One famous example is Ron Paul’s prediction of the housing bubble collapse in 2003.  While Keynesian economists were urging the Fed to create the housing bubble on purpose, Paul was warning that its collapse was inevitable and would be detrimental to the economy effecting everyone negatively. Paul ended up being very right.  People lost equity in their homes and the housing market became completely burned out for quite some time.  I would say only now can we say it has recovered full and this collapse was the product of direct government interference.

The real issue with all other schools of thought is that they think that they think government has some magic to prevent these things or cause growth.  In truth, much like they cannot legislate people to be moral, economically speaking they have no magic to make things better to make people more productive or safer economically.  I find it funny that one part says that morals are not the place for government but the economy is.  The others say morals are where government should be and the economy is not.  Neither one can really explain how the area they think the government which is bad for one thing wouldn’t be bad for the other.

To the Wolves and Ravens:

Needs (Geri):

What we need from government is a referee, not a player.  The more control the government gets in the economy the more they become players of they act as referee but they have accepted a bride.  The best way to handle this is to not give them economic power but only the legal power to settle disputes.  Nothing more.

Wants (Freki):

What I want is economic freedom.  The more the government gets involved the less economic freedom I have.  Austrians simply state that economics is not the place for government to be.  The only role they should have is to protect against fraud and coercion.  Unfortunately and inevitably, the greater government power grows over the economy, the more fraud and coercion they engage in themselves.

Reason (Huginn):

The most rational course is liberty in economic matters. Let people work out for themselves how resources should be allocated and they do far better than a central planning committee.  There will always be personal greedy motives of any monopoly, whether that monopoly is held by a corporation or government.

Image may contain: 1 person, text

Wisdom (Muninn):

Austrian economics for me has is central wisdom the fact that a central committee as proposed in socialism or communism has the same problem as a monopoly.  The individual will always suffer in such a situation and a central committee always benefits.  As George Orwell Observes in Animal Farm – the pigs become the farmer at the expense of the rest of the animals.    The wisdom we can draw from them is that the poison that kills economies is this idea of control at the expense of liberty.

Conclusion:

Now it should be noted that I would love to live in a world of pure capitalism where he government isn’t even present.  The one problem I have with that is the fact that there are people who are bastards and so people want some sort of referee and I don’t think people would accept such a notion without some sort of system of filing grievances. I agree that private ways of doing this would be produced and would probably be better. However, practicality in dealing with human nature is what has kept me Austrian and a Classical Liberal rather than an anarchist.  It I more a question of what people will accept rather than what would be best.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

The Pagan Pulpit – The Book of Rabyd 2:3 – “Whenever You Find Yourself on the Side of the Majority, it is Time to Pause and Reflect.”

 

Happy Sun’s Day

Announcements: 

We don’t pray here – we figure God, the gods and goddesses, or whatever powers that be either know already, don’t give a fuck, or are busy with more important matters than our petty stuff. We also kind of assume that they expect us to do stuff that we can do for ourselves, and that we will do them ourselves and not be lazy. We also believe in being good friends, so we don’t presume on our friendship with the powers that be by asking them all the time for stuff while giving them nothing in return.

We also don’t take an offering here.  We figure the powers that be probably don’t need it.  Let’s be honest, offerings are not giving to the divine powers, they are given to an organization to support it.  Just being honest. God, the gods or whatever never see a dime, farthing or peso of that money; it all goes to the church, mosque or shrine.

Opening Song: “No Rest for the Wicked” – Godsmack

No real official video for this song, but here is the lyric one so you can sing along.

Poem: “Salt in My Wounds” by Edward W, Raby, Sr. – Written April 13, 2019

See the source image

 

Once you were the spice of my life,

You kept me from spoiling

You were the flavor I needed

You made life less plain

 

Then you left me

laying in a pool of my own blood.

Leaving a wound

a void from your knife

 

Now memories of you are salty

Burning as they are applied to the scar

Salt in my wound

Preserving the pain.

 

-Ed Raby – April 13, 2019-

 

Without a doubt this was the easiest poem I have ever written.  At least as far as time and feeling are concerned. Took me literally just five minutes.  It’s still rough, but I suspect it will be Grey Wayfarer canonized very soon. 

Miss Salty, as I called her, helped me through a lot.  She is definitely wiser and smarter than her years would say.  But this whole thing in reflection was a doomed voyage like the Titanic. Right now memories of this whole thing are bitter-sweet. Salty like she was.  They hurt and yet I hope they bring about some cleansing like salt removing infection.

Meditation:

 

Image may contain: 1 person, text

Yep, which is why I don’t trust either party. The Wall for the right and Rich Wall Street on the left are not real threat in my opinion.  Mostly fear mongering using a supposed noble cause to seize power.

Song of Preparation:  “Cult of Personality” – Living Colour

I once heard these guys live via radio.  The guy who was announcing made the remark that they were the loudest band he ever heard in concert. Good intro.

Text:

“Whenever You Find Yourself on the Side of the Majority, it is Time to Pause and Reflect.” – The Book Of Rabyd 2:3

Sermon:

This time through The Book of Rabyd, I am trying to quote as many different people as I can.  Mark Twain was pretty much destined to be on this list and it was only a matter of time.  This is my favorite quote from him and is truly a principle of wisdom.

Tribalism is inherent in the human species.  Survival trait. We band together to take on common threats and deal with common problems. The issue is that it can also lead to a mob mentality. It can lead to just bowing down to the culture, group think or what everyone’s opinion is.

This quote is a regular reminder to all of us who prefer reason to mindless pandering.  The issue is to take action on what makes sense and is most reasonable and this quote reminds us there is nothing inherently reasonable about the majority.  The only quality they have is more numbers. The majority is not proof of truth or rightness.

For me there is a reminder here that I am both a free citizen and a responsible citizen. Free because on thing that can enslave is tribalism and cults of personality. Responsible, because from time to time you need to be the thinking one that calls into question the actions of the mob.

There are institutions that thrive on this tribalism but they can, in my humble opinion be boiled down to two things – government and religion.  Both of these tap into people’s passions rather than their reason and thus are manipulative by nature. They tap into people’s inherent tribalism and mob mentality to get actions people think are the right thing but are actually the desires of those who would seek power either through politics or faith.

The lesson then is never let your loyalty to the group outweigh your loyalty to yourself and your principles. Something I hope gets carried on by those who I call my family is the ability to question anything and everything, even if the majority thinks it is the best course.  I would rather have my descendents known for being rebels and original thinkers that people who just went along with the crowd and the mob.  That they would be people of Courage, Self-Reliance and Truth

Closing Song: “Of Wolf and Man” – Metallica

I am thinking of making this my personal theme song. A lesser known work of Metallica but still one of their best.

Parting Thought:

Image may contain: text

Stay strong pagans. Keep going.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Of Wolves and Ravens – Western Philosophy – Individual Rights

Happy Tyr’s Day

Discussion:

If one wants to point to the main difference between Eastern and Western Philosophy it is Collectivism vs. Individualism.  This is overly generalized on my part, and I would say there are elements of individualism in Eastern philosophy and Collectivism in Western.  It is just the results ultimately lead down these paths overall.

See the source image

Source: http://www.writeopinions.com/western-philosophy

We could argue all day which is superior, but there is one element that I personally take to heart because of where it leads. The focus on the individual over the centuries has led to an understanding of individual rights.  The people have certain rights like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and ownership of property that no collective group can take away is something very Western.  In Eastern Philosophy you get more of a rights of the group mentality. This can be detrimental to the individual.  I suppose this debate will continue until the bitter end. I am going to side with the individual and the below cartoon illustrates how collectivism or majority rule can lead to evil.

See the source image

That said there is something to be said for Eastern Philosophy in other areas. I just get real rights conscious for the individual from Western philosophy and in this regard I think it is superior to Eastern. I am not going to go into the philosophy where our rights come from at this time.  That will probably be the subject of a Of Wolves and Ravens down the line.

To the Wolves and Ravens:

Needs (Geri):

The need for an understanding of individual rights is paramount to treating each other like human beings.  If you don’t think humans have rights then it is very easy to see them as non-human.  I think it is a basic test of humanity to see what a person’s feelings about the rights of other humans are or may be. If you find they give rights to themselves and people they like but not to others, I think they fail that test.  This discussion of rights fills to needs – a) tests your own humanity and b) litmus test for others being human by how they treat other humans.

Wants (Freki):

For myself I would rather have this rights issues than the collectivist one. If the thought that you could be killed for the benefit of the ‘greater good’ bothers you, you understand why you want individual rights.  They give you the power to live your life ad protect you from those who would try to take that away from you.

Reason (Huginn):

Of course reason gets us to the point that we realize that rights only have value if they are defended and stood up for. This is another matter for the ‘where do rights come from?’ issue.  But for now, it is simply noted that the basic rights require other rights to defend them.  One thing leads to another when it comes to rights and the right to defend one’s rights stems from calling those basic rights rationally essential.

Wisdom (Muninn):

A wise world would promote individual rights.  It allows one to be both for the individual but also if everyone collectively is given the same individual rights – all benefit collectively  from having those rights.

Conclusion:

I would love to think balance between the collective whole and individual rights can be achieved, but I know people are inherently tribal and eventually they submit the rights of the individual to the fear or desires for power. There is always going to be that element in society that thinks they can come up with a better plan or system for you than you can and it seems inevitably they want you to hand over your rights to them or take them from you.  This needs to be resisted because if they can do it to you, they can do it to everyone. Individual Rights have to be defended against the mob.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

The Book of Rabyd 1:7 – ‘The Only Proper Use of Aggression is to Protect One’s Rights or the Rights of Others’

Happy Sun’s Day

Text:

“The Only Proper Use of Aggression is to Protect One’s Rights or the Rights of Others” – The Book of Rabyd 1:7

Thoughts and Exposition:

The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is stated many ways but the basic gist of it is a combination of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “love your neighbor as yourself”.  Every major religion in the world has something like this in it, but then all of them turn around and use fraud or even force to control others.

So leaving religion behind, it is simply that people have their rights and no one should use violence or lies to take them away.  If someone or group of someones does use violence to try to take rights away, the NAP simply states that the person whose rights are being threatened or people around them who see that their rights are being threatened have the right then to use violence in return in defense.

Aggression is further defined as the use of physical force, threatening the use of force or fraud.  This is not pacifism as the use of force or even the threat of force is allowable in actions that involve self-defense or the defense of others.  There are other types of force but the NAP is about physical force, threat of physical force or fraud.

This means a lot of other areas where things are about influence, politics and other types of force are not necessarily covered by the NAP.  However, if one thinks on this that means that much of what government does is a violation of this principle.  This really limits how much the government should do and puts it clear focus on the government as the force that protects the rights of its citizens and does not threaten them with force or trick people out of their rights through fraud.

On a personal level, this means that if I were to act in a violent manner, that means the one who I am acting on has made a decision to violate my rights or the rights of another person.  Other than that, it is never right for me to initiate violence and it is certainly never right for me to engage in fraud.  This part is actually more challenging in many ways than gripping about government.  One must always be first concerned that you are following the NAP before you judge others on their following it.  It is more a philosophy of personal responsibility than anything else.

Following the NAP leads to a practical morality.  There is nothing more frustrating on the one hand than people who, because of their politics, religion or other beliefs, think they have the right or force their viewpoint on others through law, violence or fraud. One the flip side, it is also frustrating to watch people stand aside while violence or fraud is perpetrated and they do nothing about it.  The NAP gives us a principle to guide us.  It is not perfect, but it is a lot better all others I have found so far and far more practically useful.

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

The Pagan Pulpit – The Book of Rabyd 1:7 – ‘The Only Proper Use of Aggression is to Protect One’s Rights or the Rights of Others’

Happy Sun’s Day

Announcements: 

We don’t pray here – we figure God, the gods and goddesses, or whatever powers that be either know already, don’t give a fuck, or are busy with more important matters than our petty stuff. We also kind of assume that they expect us to do stuff that we can do for ourselves, and that we will do them ourselves and not be lazy. We also believe in being good friends, so we don’t presume on our friendship with the powers that be by asking them all the time for stuff while giving them nothing in return.

We also don’t take an offering here.  We figure the powers that be probably don’t need it.  Let’s be honest, offerings are not giving to the divine powers, they are given to an organization to support it.  Just being honest. God, the gods or whatever never see a dime, farthing or peso of that money; it all goes to the church, mosque or shrine.

Opening Song: ‘Paranoid” – Black Sabbath

Considered widely to be the first metal band and this one of the first metal songs.  I start by giving Black Sabbath props for being trail blazers.

Poem: “Unknown” – The Ruined ManImage may contain: one or more people and text

The problem with being real is being hated.  The problem with being fake is you’re a lying coward.

Meditation:

Image may contain: 1 person, text

Song of Preparation: “Non-Aggression Principle” – Liberation Animation 

I love this song,  it is a fun.  It also introduces today’s topic very well.

Text:

‘The Only Proper Use of Aggression is to Protect One’s Rights or the Rights of Others’ – The Book of Rabyd 1:7

Sermon:

The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is stated many ways but the basic gist of it is a combination of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “love your neighbor as yourself”.  Every major religion in the world has something like this in it, but then all of them turn around and use fraud or even force to control others.

So leaving religion behind, it is simply that people have their rights and no one should use violence or lies to take them away.  If someone or group of someones does use violence to try to take rights away, the NAP simply states that the person whose rights are being threatened or people around them who see that their rights are being threatened have the right then to use violence in return in defense.

Aggression is further defined as the use of physical force, threatening the use of force or fraud.  This is not pacifism as the use of force or even the threat of force is allowable in actions that involve self-defense or the defense of others.  There are other types of force but the NAP is about physical force, threat of physical force or fraud.

This means a lot of other areas where things are about influence, politics and other types of force are not necessarily covered by the NAP.  However, if one thinks on this that means that much of what government does is a violation of this principle.  This really limits how much the government should do and puts it clear focus on the government as the force that protects the rights of its citizens and does not threaten them with force or trick people out of their rights through fraud.

On a personal level, this means that if I were to act in a violent manner, that means the one who I am acting on has made a decision to violate my rights or the rights of another person.  Other than that, it is never right for me to initiate violence and it is certainly never right for me to engage in fraud.  This part is actually more challenging in many ways than gripping about government.  One must always be first concerned that you are following the NAP before you judge others on their following it.  It is more a philosophy of personal responsibility than anything else.

Following the NAP leads to a practical morality.  There is nothing more frustrating on the one hand than people who, because of their politics, religion or other beliefs, think they have the right or force their viewpoint on others through law, violence or fraud. One the flip side, it is also frustrating to watch people stand aside while violence or fraud is perpetrated and they do nothing about it.  The NAP gives us a principle to guide us.  It is not perfect, but it is a lot better all others I have found so far and far more practically useful.

Closing Song: ‘Dizzy’ – Tommy Roe

I include this song this week because it was the popular song on the radio the day I was born.  My 50th birthday was this last week so this is more nostalgia than anything else. I like the video of a 1960s girl in a short skirt doing the 1960s dancing. Couldn’t fit that era more if you tried.

Parting Thought:

Image may contain: one or more people, text that says 'Do not tame the wolf inside you just because you've met someone who doesn't have the courage to handle you. Belle Estreller'

Be yourself.  If people can’t handle it, that is their problem, not yours.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

The Book of Rabyd 1:6 – “People Do Not Have The Right to Take Away The Rights of Others”

Happy Sun’s Day

Text:

“People Do Not Have The Right to Take Away The Rights of Others” – The Book of Rabyd 1:6

Thoughts and Exposition:

The real key here to understanding rights that inalienable is that it means that everyone has them.  Truly understand rights then requires that while we all may have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and property; it does not mean that we can exercises those rights at the expense of someone else’s rights.  You must respect the rights of others to truly understand what rights entail.  If you don’t, you have an improper understanding of rights.

It is morally wrong to force another to give up their rights so that you can have yours.  It morally bankrupt; in my opinion, to use any kind of force and power to exalt your rights over another.  This is something that has to be remembered because as much as we say – “I have my rights”,  we also need to say – “they have their rights” in the same breath.   It is this respect of rights as a concept that is just as important as respect of my own rights.  When we do this we are learning to see others as human beings.  It is this issue that if implemented would solve a ton of problems.  As much as I feel I have the right to stand on my rights, I must also allow others to stand on theirs.

This why I find the use of government today so repugnant.  Much of it is one side or the others trying to take power to use on others.  The Republicans try to seize power so they can use it against the Democrats and visa versa.  No one is trying to take government so they can genuinely defend the rights of all.  Libertarianism for me is simply a wonderful philosophy that seeks to actually see  the rights of all protected.  The goal of our politics then would be to stop the government from violating the rights of all individuals.

I have been using the issue of abortion to illustrate the problem when rights collide.  The right to life movement say the right of the child to live is not being respected, the pro-choice folks say the right of the woman to privacy which is connected to her rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is being violated if she does not have the choice of an abortion.  The problem is we simply cannot play a game of two against one to decided who is right.  A single violated right by force is wrong.  The argument really centers on whether or not the child/fetus is genuinely a human being and thus has rights.  Pro-life folks say yes / pro-choice folks say no.  This is not going to be resolved because the arguments on both sides have problems.  I am not going to get into that because the arguments for both sides are legion as well.  My point is if a single right is being violated on an individual then the action is wrong and should not be allowed.

The problem with abortion is asking a question of personhood and at that point you are getting far more into metaphysics and theology than philosophy.  My personal position is to say I am pro-choice on one hand because I do not feel it is my right to force my viewpoint of when life begins on another, and it is a debatable point.  But I am also pro-life on the other hand, because I would hope that we would recognize our ignorance on when life truly and genuinely begins, and thus choose to err on the side of life because of that ignorance.

My point in all this is the debate is not what our rights are for those that follow the Book of Rabyd. Those are clearly understood.  The debate for me and for my family is to understand and know when rights are being brought into conflict either intentionally or unintentionally and coming up with solutions that both allow one to exercise their rights but not interfere with the rights of others.  This is the challenge of those who follow the Book of Rabyd.

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

The Pagan Pulpit – The Book of Rabyd 1:6 – “People Do Not Have The Right to Take Away The Rights of Others”

Happy Sun’s Day

Announcements: 

We don’t pray here – we figure God, the gods and goddesses, or whatever powers that be either know already, don’t give a fuck, or are busy with more important matters than our petty stuff. We also kind of assume that they expect us to do stuff that we can do for ourselves, and that we will do them ourselves and not be lazy. We also believe in being good friends, so we don’t presume on our friendship with the powers that be by asking them all the time for stuff while giving them nothing in return.

We also don’t take an offering here.  We figure the powers that be probably don’t need it.  Let’s be honest, offerings are not giving to the divine powers, they are given to an organization to support it.  Just being honest. God, the gods or whatever never see a dime, farthing or peso of that money; it all goes to the church, mosque or shrine.

Opening Song: “Stricken” – Disturbed

Poem: “The Scar” by Edward W. Raby, Sr. (Rough Draft) 

See the source image

Time heals all wounds

“Bullshit” I say

I have been down this road before

I have scars that still bleed inside

Internal bleeding of the soul

Seepage of pain within

Toxic soul-blood poisoning

Hidden behind my scars

The scar you left on me

Is like all the others

A covered scab

Hiding a slow bleeding wound

Another scar

A badge of survival

The poison blood inside fuel

The pain inside motivation 

I know this is the second poem I have written for the Pulpit in rough draft form without polishing them later in a Skald’s Tales and Poems but that is coming this week probably.

Meditation:

Image may contain: 1 person, eyeglasses, text that says '"I don't believe the majority always knows what's best for everyone.... Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It's just ganging up against the weird kid, and I'm always the weird kid. - -Penn Jillette'

Me too Penn, Me too.

Song of Preparation: “Anthem’ – Rush:

Text: 

“People Do Not Have The Right to Take Away The Rights of Others” – The Book of Rabyd 1:6

Sermon:

The real key here to understanding rights that inalienable is that it means that everyone has them.  Truly understand rights then requires that while we all may have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and property; it does not mean that we can exercises those rights at the expense of someone else’s rights.  You must respect the rights of others to truly understand what rights entail.  If you don’t, you have an improper understanding of rights.

It is morally wrong to force another to give up their rights so that you can have yours.  It morally bankrupt; in my opinion, to use any kind of force and power to exalt your rights over another.  This is something that has to be remembered because as much as we say – “I have my rights”,  we also need to say – “they have their rights” in the same breath.   It is this respect of rights as a concept that is just as important as respect of my own rights.  When we do this we are learning to see others as human beings.  It is this issue that if implemented would solve a ton of problems.  As much as I feel I have the right to stand on my rights, I must also allow others to stand on theirs.

This why I find the use of government today so repugnant.  Much of it is one side or the others trying to take power to use on others.  The Republicans try to seize power so they can use it against the Democrats and visa versa.  No one is trying to take government so they can genuinely defend the rights of all.  Libertarianism for me is simply a wonderful philosophy that seeks to actually see  the rights of all protected.  The goal of our politics then would be to stop the government from violating the rights of all individuals.

I have been using the issue of abortion to illustrate the problem when rights collide.  The right to life movement say the right of the child to live is not being respected, the pro-choice folks say the right of the woman to privacy which is connected to her rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is being violated if she does not have the choice of an abortion.  The problem is we simply cannot play a game of two against one to decided who is right.  A single violated right by force is wrong.  The argument really centers on whether or not the child/fetus is genuinely a human being and thus has rights.  Pro-life folks say yes / pro-choice folks say no.  This is not going to be resolved because the arguments on both sides have problems.  I am not going to get into that because the arguments for both sides are legion as well.  My point is if a single right is being violated on an individual then the action is wrong and should not be allowed.

The problem with abortion is asking a question of personhood and at that point you are getting far more into metaphysics and theology than philosophy.  My personal position is to say I am pro-choice on one hand because I do not feel it is my right to force my viewpoint of when life begins on another, and it is a debatable point.  But I am also pro-life on the other hand, because I would hope that we would recognize our ignorance on when life truly and genuinely begins, and thus choose to err on the side of life because of that ignorance.

My point in all this is the debate is not what our rights are for those that follow the Book of Rabyd. Those are clearly understood.  The debate for me and for my family is to understand and know when rights are being brought into conflict either intentionally or unintentionally and coming up with solutions that both allow one to exercise their rights but not interfere with the rights of others.  This is the challenge of those who follow the Book of Rabyd.

Closing Song: ‘Hurt’ – Johnny Cash:

I include this song at the end because I talked about it with some friends this week.  I suppose it is a simple reminded that all things, including our lives, end.  What legacy we leave is important. Johnny Cash speaks for a lot of people in this song when they near the end.  The regrets you have probably have more to do with hurts received and hurts given.

Parting Thought:

Image may contain: text

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

The Book of Rabyd 1:5 – ‘Everyone Has the Right to Property’

Happy Sun’s Day

Text:

“Everyone Has the Right to Property” – The Book of Rabyd 1:5

Thoughts and Exposition:

This is a new verse for the Book of Rabyd.  Most people don’t realize that the original Declaration of Independence had originally ‘life. liberty and property’.  Later editing changed it to the pursuit of happiness.  But the idea of the inherent right to property to anyone who owns it is something that has not always been recognized in history.  That changed with the Founding fathers as the notion of people having a right to translate their right to pursue their happiness.  As Ayn Rand wisely pointed out this means the right to property.

I would argue that this right is what defends the others as well.  Your Life. liberty and Pursuit of Happiness are yours and now one should be allowed to take them away from you.  This means you also have the right to defend what is yours.  But ownership of property being a right extends to all things that are yours.  The most important of which is ownership of self.  Self-ownership means to take responsibility for yourself and your own destiny instead of leaving in the hands of others.  You need to exercise your right to own private property to do this.

I often wonder if those who try to attack this right realize that what they are doing allows people to basically take away all the others. If my life is not mine, if my liberty is only granted and can be taken away, if my pursuit of happiness requires that someone else give it to me, then they are not rights but privileges.  The right to property is what brings in this concept of ownership of not only my stuff but my rights.

To think otherwise is to have the mentality of the thief and the societal leach. I make no apologies for saying this.  I people have the notion that other people don’t have a right to property, then they are perfectly OK with the notion that such property can be taken away. They also have no problem when people have their property taken from hem through taxation so they can be supported.  In short they envision people can think and work but the results in part belong to them even though they have done nothing to earn them. This justifies their stealing it or letting others do it for them.

See the source image

So we turn again to abortion.  The seeming conflict is that the woman has her right to liberty and pursuit what will make her happy.  The notion being that the fetus is her body and she owns it so she can dispose of it as she sees fit. The opposite side of the coin is that the child has he right to live and pursuit its happiness by living. The real issue is it possible for one person to really own another and I would say that there is some inherent ownership of ones’ self in such a right to property.

For me the question of abortion has long been a sticky one.  As a Christian I had pretty clear guidelines, but it was still troubling at times.  Mostly because reality is that natural abortion happens all the time and with far more frequency than people think.  Most are never known to even exist.

Post-Christian, the issues now falls to whether the fetus is a person.  If not, the nit has no right to ownership of self and all the other rights that go with that.  If yes, then he/she does and they have those rights. I am not sure I can answer the question definitively at this point but I still maintain that liberty and life are important in equal measure.  I hope the choice is life, because I consider abortion a waste of human potential, if nothing else.

The real question for me is should the state be allowed to interfere?  Once again we are still left to determining when a person becomes a person and the answer seems clear. Given all our rights and the notion of self-ownership, if the fetus can be proven to be a person then the answer is yes, but if not we still find ourselves in a controversy.  It seems with all the advances in science, we should be able to determine this. Then the right to property with its concept of self-ownership kicks in.  This still doesn’t give us a clear answer but we have two more principles left so we shall see.

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

The Pagan Pulpit – The Book of Rabyd 1:5 -“Everyone Has the Right to Property”

Happy Sun’s Day:

Announcements: 

We don’t pray here – we figure God, the gods and goddesses, or whatever powers that be either know already, don’t give a fuck, or are busy with more important matters than our petty stuff. We also kind of assume that they expect us to do stuff that we can do for ourselves, and that we will do them ourselves and not be lazy. We also believe in being good friends, so we don’t presume on our friendship with the powers that be by asking them all the time for stuff while giving them nothing in return.

We also don’t take an offering here.  We figure the powers that be probably don’t need it.  Let’s be honest, offerings are not giving to the divine powers, they are given to an organization to support it.  Just being honest. God, the gods or whatever never see a dime, farthing or peso of that money; it all goes to the church, mosque or shrine.

Opening Song: “Mr. Roboto” – Styx

I was joking this week with my daughter about using this song as a song about my grandson Otto.  All I would have to do is change the words a little to make this song about him.  That said, this actually is a pretty cool song made for a rock opera that dealt with dystopian future where rock and roll as well as other forms of free expression are outlawed.  Styx always was very good and their vocalist has a ton of range in this one.

Poem: “The Storm” by Edward W. Raby, Sr.:

Image result for odin wanderer storm

Wind, grey skies and pouring rain.

The Storm rages in my soul.

Fed by my inner pain.

Will I ever be whole?

Lightning flashes

Thunder rolls

I tighten my grip on the staff of my reality

Knowing only the treading of my feet

Boots grinding through grey mud

Soaked in sorrow, but my heart closed

Numb to the cold of The Grey

I struggle onward, not daring to feel

Lest my tears join the flood

And drown me in the rising tide.

I walk with the hope of seeing sunlight

I walk with the hope of feeling love

But right now, I feel nothing

So I will survive.

Soon, the wolf within will rise

The ravens will caw again

when the light breaks through.

Then I will laugh,

Once again I have become the storm

And I have become stronger

Note: This is still in rough draft form, but it is good enough I think to at least post it.  It needs refining but I like how it captures my struggles with depression at times. I will probably present this poem in it own post when it is more refined.

Meditation:

Image may contain: 1 person, text that says 'WHEN THINKING ABOUT LIFE, REMEMBER: NO AMOUNT OF GUILT CAN SOLVE THE PAST, AND NO AMOUNT OF ANXIETY CAN CHANGE THE FUTURE THEMINDUNLEASHED UNLEASHED'

Song of Preparation: “It’s My Life” – Bon Jovi

Text: 

Everyone has the Right to Property – The Book of Rabyd 1:5

Sermon:

This is a new verse for the Book of Rabyd.  Most people don’t realize that the original Declaration of Independence had originally ‘life. liberty and property’.  Later editing changed it to the pursuit of happiness.  But the idea of the inherent right to property to anyone who owns it is something that has not always been recognized in history.  That changed with the Founding fathers as the notion of people having a right to translate their right to pursue their happiness.  As Ayn Rand wisely pointed out this means the right to property.

I would argue that this right is what defends the others as well.  Your Life. liberty and Pursuit of Happiness are yours and now one should be allowed to take them away from you.  This means you also have the right to defend what is yours.  But ownership of property being a right extends to all things that are yours.  The most important of which is ownership of self.  Self-ownership means to take responsibility for yourself and your own destiny instead of leaving in the hands of others.  You need to exercise your right to own private property to do this.

I often wonder if those who try to attack this right realize that what they are doing allows people to basically take away all the others. If my life is not mine, if my liberty is only granted and can be taken away, if my pursuit of happiness requires that someone else give it to me, then they are not rights but privileges.  The right to property is what brings in this concept of ownership of not only my stuff but my rights.

To think otherwise is to have the mentality of the thief and the societal leach. I make no apologies for saying this.  I people have the notion that other people don’t have a right to property, then they are perfectly OK with the notion that such property can be taken away. They also have no problem when people have their property taken from hem through taxation so they can be supported.  In short they envision people can think and work but the results in part belong to them even though they have done nothing to earn them. This justifies their stealing it or letting others do it for them.

See the source image

So we turn again to abortion.  The seeming conflict is that the woman has her right to liberty and pursuit what will make her happy.  The notion being that the fetus is her body and she owns it so she can dispose of it as she sees fit. The opposite side of the coin is that the child has he right to live and pursuit its happiness by living. The real issue is it possible for one person to really own another and I would say that there is some inherent ownership of ones’ self in such a right to property.

For me the question of abortion has long been a sticky one.  As a Christian I had pretty clear guidelines, but it was still troubling at times.  Mostly because reality is that natural abortion happens all the time and with far more frequency than people think.  Most are never known to even exist.

Post-Christian, the issues now falls to whether the fetus is a person.  If not, the nit has no right to ownership of self and all the other rights that go with that.  If yes, then he/she does and they have those rights. I am not sure I can answer the question definitively at this point but I still maintain that liberty and life are important in equal measure.  I hope the choice is life, because I consider abortion a waste of human potential, if nothing else.

The real question for me is should the state be allowed to interfere?  Once again we are still left to determining when a person becomes a person and the answer seems clear. Given all our rights and the notion of self-ownership, if the fetus can be proven to be a person then the answer is yes, but if not we still find ourselves in a controversy.  It seems with all the advances in science, we should be able to determine this. Then the right to property with its concept of self-ownership kicks in.  This still doesn’t give us a clear answer but we have two more principles left so we shall see.

Closing Song: Amen – Halestorm:

Parting Thought:

Image may contain: text that says 'THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO GET UPSET ABOUT YOU SETTING BOUNDARIES ARE THE ONES WHO WERE BENEFITING FROM YOU HAVING NONE. POBYMAC#SPEAKLFE'

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!