MSOnline Editor-at-Large Jesse James…….

All – 

I would like to introduce Jesse James, Editor-at-Large for ModernSurvivalOnline. He has already published a couple of articles here and has some very interesting and exciting stuff planned. I am really looking forward to seeing more from him.

Also – please keep in mind the definition of a “classical liberal” – A political philosophy that places high value on individual freedom based on a belief in natural rights that exist independent of government.

Below is a bit of background info on Jesse.

 – Rourke

———————————————————————————————————-

 

I began prepping in 2010 at the encouragement of my father, an ex-fighter pilot. I am currently in my third year of law school, an academic course which I recommend only to the masochistic. I have formal education in biology, chemistry, economics and government. I read copiously and enjoy the political works of the colonial US as well as military history and well-written political fiction. I am a classical liberal and adhere to Lockean political thought, and the Austrian school of economics. I disavow coercion by the government at the economic and moral level except to provide physical and economic security of its citizens. Economic security should be centered on the detection of fraud and deceitful business practices, and does not include the government reimbursing a private citizen with public funds for poor economic choices. Having said that, I am a Christian and adhere to a Judeo-Christian worldview. I believe there is a higher standard and that man should strive to meet that standard, which necessarily demands a level of conduct above what can be legislated by a man-made government. Simply because something is improper for the government to administer, such as charity, does not imply that an individual has an obligation to his fellow man.

 

how to bug in

I enjoy hunting (in reality scaring animals in the woods with ridiculous camo on), weightlifting, plinking and backpacking. The primary reason for my prepping is the level of security it affords me. I know whatever happens in my life, I have food, water and protection for an extended period of time. With the skyrocketing national debt, and the inability, nay, the outright refusal of our government to take the necessary steps to make the United States’ monetary system solvent again, an economic crisis will happen in my lifetime. What form that will take is anybody’s guess. I believe one cannot continue to print money backed by nothing but empty promises and expect no repercussions. I appreciate Rourke for giving me an opportunity to be involved with ModernSurvivalOnline and contribute to this awesome resource for prepping information. I hope that I can help you, the readers, on you journey toward preparedness for whatever life throws our way.

 

Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of ModernSurvivalOnline or John Rourke. While some readers may disagree with my beliefs, I believe in a free society it is crucial that we are able to have civil discourse with those of other beliefs, whether the differences be political, religious, or moral. It is my sincere promise to you the readers that while we may disagree about some things that there will always be a note of civility and understanding that will reflect well on all parties involved.

 

-“Jesse” James


20 survival items ebook cover

Like what you read?

Then you're gonna love my free PDF, 20 common survival items, 20 uncommon survival uses for each. That's 400 total uses for these innocent little items!

Just enter your primary e-mail below to get your link. This will also subscribe you to my newsletter so you stay up-to-date with everything: new articles, ebooks, products and more!

→    

Print Friendly

6 Comments

  1. Welcome, I’m looking forward to reading your contributions. Although the adage “prepare for one and your prepared for all” is certainly somewhat true, “economic collapse” is in my mind the most compelling current reason we have for prepping and developing a more self-reliant life style. Over the last three-quarters of a century we have adopted a form of government all but impervious to economic reality. You would think common sense would dictate that once you realize you’ve dug yourself into a hole…. you stop digging…. how silly…. why that’s when you bring in the back-hoes…………… again.

  2. Perhaps if certain Middle Eastern religious ideologies would peruse Locke’s writings we would have fewer worldly conflicts.

    Quoting from Letters Concerning Toleration (1692)
    Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints;
    Even if they could, enforcing a single “true religion” would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence;
    Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity.

    However, Locke’s contention that human nature is guided by reason and tolerance is (in my opinion) grossly naive. Also, I have always found it difficult to understand the contradiction in Locke’s demand and supply side theories he penned in “Some Considerations on the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and the Raising of the Value of Money” (which seems to be what Reagan used for his economic plans) with his “labour theory of value” in the “Two Treatises of Government” (which is pure Marxism).

    Good luck with law school – the jokes don’t get any better after you pass the bar.

  3. I have to tell you, the definition of “classical liberal” on the link what not the first thing that came to my mind when I read your introduction, Jesse James. I guess that is a good thing, that I was so wrong. Please forgive me, but the word “liberal” makes me cringe whenever I see or hear it. I admit, these are highly biased views that I cling to. But, after reading hundreds of opinions written by fellow preppers, I feel more at home with this crowd than a gathering of San Francisco art critics. Anyway, my thoughts are irrelevant. I am sure if Rourke picked you that we’re all on the same page with respect to planning for potential crisis / disaster situations. Welcome aboard. I look forward to your input.

  4. Irish,

    I hate to use the word libertarian, as modern parlance has in many ways rendered a rather inaccurate definition of it. I also cringe to use the word conservative, because the current “conservative” candidate and I disagree on more issues than we agree on. It pains me that the progressives/statists have taken the word liberal and so twisted its meaning. The majority of the Founders would have been considered classical liberals, the majority of whom agreed and were well versed in the political theory of John Locke and Frederick Bastiat. I HIGHLY encourage you read Bastiat’s The Law. Without a doubt, the clearest and most concise, yet complete, summary of how destructive and morally reprehensible statism is. He also accurately describes the fundamentals of classical liberalism: small govt., personal property, economic freedom…i.e. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Few people know that that Jefferson plagiarized from two of Locke’s works wherein he stated that “property” included life, liberty and estate. Read some on John Locke, Adam Smith, Frederick Hayek, Milton Friedman and Bastiat. You might be surprised at what you find. Here’s a better link about classical liberalism…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

  5. Harry,

    I hate lawyer jokes. Not because they are offensive, but because people know the same dozen and NONE of them are funny. I have to laugh and pretend it was clever, while resisting the urge to not do my best imitation of Bobby Knight. I consider Locke very much like the Wright brothers. Some of his ideas were crude, but many were groundbreaking. One of the first guys to really get that the religious and political jurisdictions were SEPARATE but overlapping in some areas. I do think Marx somewhat twisted the LTV that Locke had in mind and Locke could definitely been a little more clear. I kind of see where he is going, the more labor the production requires, the more expensive the good (Les Baer 1911 v. Hi Point). However, he is mentally lazy and fails to realize that in addition to production costs, marginal utility, subjective value and supply and demand clearly come into the equation. Then again he seems to go with supply and demand theory in The Lowering of Interest, which is almost contradictory. Whatever. You make an excellent point about his naiveté. I have no idea if he really thought that, or it was socially unacceptable to admit that people are generally emotionally-driven and tolerance is a two-edged sword. As a political philosopher, he excelled. Economics, not so much. I respect Hayek and Friedman MUCH more on economic theory. Bastiat as well. Maybe the first, last and only Frenchman to have a clue about government and economics. I find his subjective theory of value MUCH more complete and satisfactory than Locke’s half-baked LTV. Obviously the free market implications are there as well, that all (or most) transactions are mutually beneficial. Oh, and certain Middle Eastern ideologies refuse to accept Western political or economic ideology and that is PRECISELY the reason a large segment of the population lives in abject poverty and they continue to remain politically and technologically in the Dark Ages. It’s not PC but there are better and worse systems of government, economics and cultural norms. Without the trillions flowing in to buy their oil, many of these countries would be a footnote in history of the 20th century. It’s a tragedy really, because it need not be that way. Billions of lives worth of potential not being used…

  6. JJ – Well said.

    Locke was well ahead of his time, perhaps that explains the contradictions. He certainly should be an inspiration to those who don’t reread their posts before pressing the SEND button. His influence on both Hume and Rousseau is evident in their later writings. I often wonder to what extent Locke’s political philosophy (along with a dash of empiricism) lead to Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” and subsequently the French Revolution. Rousseau’s comment, “Each of us places his person and authority under the supreme direction of the general will, and the group receives each individual as an indivisible part of the whole” seems directly derived from Locke’s “…him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property…”. Grand thoughts, perhaps one day our politicians will come to understand how to place the theory into practice.

    If you ever get to south Texas, let me know. We’ll spend an evening or 2 with a bottle of Tullamore Dew and discourse further.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*