Civil Noncompliance

Comments

AtlasAikido's picture

Re: "Poachers will hunt elephants whether the price of ivory is $1 a pound or $2,000. AND sometimes we [you] need to live with the unintended consequences of the laws we [you] make".

And so if the taxes you pay ARE raised from $1 to $2,000 per pound of elephant to support your pet project then YOU would live with the unintended consequences of the laws we [you] make.

Who in their right mind at the individual level would overspend, always seek a higher credit line, reduced payments and insist that the risks be socialized to their neighbors but all profits be granted to them? **No normal human** could achieve this yet that is what the state does with their fiscal house.

Ref: Government is the Engine for Perverse Incentives by Bill Buppert http://zerogov.com/?p=2758#comments

Re: 'Without anti-poaching efforts, the African elephant would be extinct, or nearly so, today. This noble beast deserves protection".

Not so. Privatize the elephant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QouamYWL6vc

Reference: http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Zimbabwe

The actual elephant in the room is the gun in the room (The State) that makes perverse incentives possible.

It has been so with whales rhino horns, drugs, alcohol...

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/10/drug-war-blowback.html

Re: "We often make the mistake of wanting to throw out the baby with the bath water: because laws don't work perfectly, we want to just get rid of them".

Natural laws are objective and compulsory (they cannot be passed). The tacit assumption that they do not apply to human relationships led men to believe men must have a central system of Statutory Laws to fill the gap and maintain social order. (The principle behind a Statutory Law written a priori cannot be made to fit all circumstances. Its application is unobjective and misses value structure objectivity of profit and loss calculations). This market price breakthru came from Mises's 1920 paper refuting Socialism.

The Market for Liberty
Morris and Linda Tannehill
http://mises.org/resources/6058

Book review--Freedom Naturally
http://alpha.mises.org/daily/5305/Freedom-Naturally

AtlasAikido's picture

Continuation of prior post interrupted by a spam filter--The fundamental question is this: under which system—market competition or government monopoly—is abuse of power more likely?

But the problem is not one of evil motivations alone. Even a state run by saints would face an informational problem. Just as the most well-intentioned central planner would be unable to make objective decisions about economic production, consumption, and distribution, because the information generated by the spontaneous market order would be inaccessible to him, so without the competitive, evolutionary process through which law originated and developed **before the state, a centralized legislature would be unable** to make objective decisions about which legal rules and procedures work best.

www.panarchy.org/rodericklong/objectivelaw.html

Same reference better format
Why Objective Law Requires Anarchy
by Roderick T. Long

Outline
Introduction
What is Objective Law?
Objective Law Requires Competition
Law Without the State
Is Limited Government a Genuine Alternative?
Resistance is Feudal
Anarchy and Gang Warfare
Biographical Note

http://tinyurl.com/4hm9r2v

AtlasAikido's picture

I will use the above as a work it out staging ground (first draft and reference) before I post this response to the poster in the link...Off to get some sleep and will post tomorrow (perhaps). Good night Strikers. See how it reads in the morning.

**PS Editing Reminder To Add Question Mark to statement 1st para**. And review comments http://archive.mises.org/12247/property-rights-and-whale-wars/

"Michael A. Clem March 18, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Isn’t the conservation of whales similar to the elephant question? Sure the oceans are a commons, as opposed to being in a particular country, but the basic economics doesn’t change.

Sheridan May 8, 2010 at 10:06 pm

Great point about the elephant only I think the people who want to deal in ivory should own the elephants and the plus side is, there is no need to kill the animal to collect the tusks. Once the tusks are removed, however, they don’t grow back so the best thing to do is donate it to a zoo and write it off as a charitible donation.

The answer seems clear, remove the ban on ivory, ivory traders will captivly breed elephants to harvest their tusks to sell, ivory prices will fall, the poachers will no longer see the gain as greater than the risk of prison. Who knows maybe even the poachers will go honest and bring in money to build their nations. And given the tusks don’t grow back it would be cruel to relaese them into the wild without them and a a charties could start to work on prosthetics that do the same job with donations from conservationists.

Michael A. Clem March 18, 2010 at 2:46 pm

Sorry – forgot to add this: Or similar to forestry. If there’s money to made, the last thing companies would want to do is eliminate their supply. Property rights gives them the incentive to conserve the supply while at the same time profiting from it".

PPS I do not post for the comfortably numb but for those who are disarmed by such.

Suverans2's picture

Individual secessionists, like myself, can never be rightly accused of "civil noncompliance". Civil law is "established peculiarly" for the voluntary members of the political corporations that make them, and true individual secessionists are NOT members.

__________________________________________________________

    LAW, n. [L. lex; from the root of lay. See lay. A law is that which is laid, set or fixed, like statute, constitution, from L. statuo.] 1. A rule, particularly an established or permanent rule, prescribed by the supreme power of a state to its subjects, for regulating their actions, particularly their social actions.
    ...
    Municipal law, is a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power of a state, commanding what its subjects are to do, and prohibiting what they are to forbear; a statute. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added]

__________________________________________________________

    PECU'LIAR, a. [L. peculiaris, from peculium, one's own property, from pecus, cattle.] ...4. Belonging to a nation, system or other thing, and not to others. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added]

__________________________________________________________

    PECU'LIARLY, adv. Particularly; singly. 1. In a manner not common to others. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added]

From how many sources, and how many ways, does it have to be said?!?!

"Your fricken laws do not apply to me because, I DO NOT CONSENT TO BE A MEMBER OF YOUR POLITICAL CORPORATION AND I WAIVE ALL MEMBER-ONLY BENEFITS. My law is called the law of nature, to distinguish it from your peculiar, and arbitrary, "civil law...[which is] more properly called 'municipal' law."

Suverans2's picture

Individual secessionists, like myself, can never be rightly accused of "civil noncompliance". Civil law is "established peculiarly" for the voluntary members of the political corporations that make them, and true individual secessionists are NOT members.

    Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

If we weren't functionally illiterate from all the gubbermint skooling, we could read that. It DOES NOT SAY, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, ARE subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; it says "AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Non-members, i.e. unincorporated men and women, are NOT "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", because they DO NOT CONSENT to be "citizens of the UNITED STATES and of the STATE wherein they reside", and they rebut anything to the contrary; they "reside" in the State of Nature and are, therefor, subject only the Natural Law jurisdiction.

If an unincorporated individual wants to gather some food, (fish or wild game), smoke some herb, use the common ways, or do any act that does not reasonably harm another or his property, it is no one's goddamned business but his own.

Samarami's picture

As you well know, Suverans2, I'm in complete agreement. For a long time, up 'till around five years ago, I thought I was just a "crazy extremist" who couldn't (or wouldn't) "fit in" anywhere. Then I read this, which gave me some freedom from the indwelling fear that I was just an odd-ball who couldn't join anybody's ballgame.

Anarchists, I think, by their very natures, are also loners. Hard to fit in with a crowd of normal blokes.

But I think we're also realists. I recognize they will use every gambit in their repertoire to make certain we don't stray too far outside the fold. I will make every effort to avoid a confrontation regarding jurisdiction with a psychopathic judge in any of the white man's "courts".

I was robbed a few weeks ago at a truck stop near Chicago. That was the terminus ad quem of my trucking career. Let the younger guys fight the bastards. I decided I would not only not replace my CDL ("Commercial Driving License" -- mine was due for renewal in December), but I wouldn't apply for a "valid photo ID" from the parasites who are the only recognized authorities most sheep will acknowledge when they don't want to trust who I say I am. Yesterday the VA dental office lackey wouldn't let me have a tooth extracted without said ID, so I biked down to a free (ha ha) dentist who, for 150 frn's reconnected the old US Army solid gold crown and saved the tooth.

Goodbye freestuff from bureaucrats.

Sam

AtlasAikido's picture

And then they wonder why 100's of million workers are unemployed? Such is the mindlessness of statists.

Suverans2's picture

When I read Loner vs Loneliness, Sam, I was reminded of the first time I was taken to the hoosegow. My natural law wife called someone, who was familiar with the "legal status" of individuals who had opted out of the whole government system, for moral support. He chuckled and said something to the effect of, "I hope he likes his own company, because they won't be able to 'process' him, so he will be in solitary confinement for three days, and then he will be released." He was right, I had to endure my own company for three days, and like the author of that article, Lenore Skenazy, wrote, that was fine with me, I "didn't want to chat anyway". And, when I finally give up the ghost, my epitaph will read, "...we're having difficulty finding information about him."

Suverans2's picture

Yeah, thanks Sam, and just look at all the "Likes" my two comments got from all the "libertarians", "voluntaryists" and "anarchists" here. Wow!!!

    "The natural law and the positive law are not alternative systems of rules that apply to the same thing. The natural law is the law of natural persons and positive law is a law of artificial persons. Thus, natural law and positive law relate to different things. Therefore, a conflict between natural law and positive law is conceivable only because the artificial persons of the positive law are no more than social positions, roles and functions that -- at least for the time being -- happen to be occupied, or performed, by natural persons. Even so, there is a real conflict only for those intellectual and moral weaklings who derive their self-esteem from their identification with their social position. A mature adult is supposed to know the difference between the real world and the games people play, between the natural and the artificial. He or she is supposed to be able to keep such things in perspective." ~ Frank Van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law

Upton Sinclair was right, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." In fact, it is nigh unto impossible, it would seem.

AtlasAikido's picture

I have read your Striker comments and let my notes stew and cogitate, and here is what I will post:

How appropriate: "Anyone taken as an individual is tolerably sensible and reasonable - as a member of a crowd [hiding behind "We"-isms], he at once becomes a blockhead." ~ Friedrich von Schiller (For some reason I hear Beethoven's Vth and picture "V" loping off the head of an empty suit of armor with an epee)

First: I am not interested in the comfortably numb, but I will post to those who are disarmed by such.

Second, since when has Prohibition worked other than for the health of the State?

Third, someone who STILL thinks [others] need to live with the "Unintended Consequences" of Laws that the [Statist] "We" make [and adore] is about as credible as CNN and Faux New's talking heads. Paul Craig Roberts calls such: "Pressitudes"!

Regarding: "Poachers will hunt elephants whether the price of ivory is $1 a pound or $2,000. AND sometimes we [You] need to live with the unintended consequences of the laws we [You] make [support]".

In 1978 Kenya banned the hunting of elephants which artificially drove up prices. And this resulted in almost total destruction of elephant herds. (Is this so hard to comprehend?)

Around the SAME TIME, Rhodesia upheld the "Property Rights" of land owners when elephants roamed onto their land. And this resulted in an explosion of elephant numbers.

This flies in the face of such assertions "Without anti-poaching efforts, the African elephant would be **extinct**, or nearly so, today...".

Dear Reader, this should be of no surprise. IS this not what is to be expected by paid off court historians and/or adoring Stockholm patients?

The Gun in the room (The State) is what makes "Perverse Incentives" (and the "Poaching" of one's neighbors) Convenient. It has been so with whales, forestry, rhino horns, drugs, alcohol, grocery shopping, driving, human progress.

The LAST THING individuals/companies [NOT creations of State (Corporations); nor thugs incentivized by State intervention] would want is to kill off their supplies. Property Rights gives one the incentive to Protect and Conserve ones supply, while at the same time profiting from it (unless one has a State monopoly gravy train). http://archive.mises.org/12247/property-rights-and-whale-wars/

Ref: Government is the Engine for Perverse Incentives by Bill Buppert
http://zerogov.com/?p=2758#comments
Ref: Imperial Conditioning
http://zerogov.com/?p=2780

~Re: "We [YOU] often make the mistake of wanting to throw out the baby with the bath water: because laws don't work perfectly, we [YOU don't] want to just get rid of them".

Someone says that the State solution to such and such problem isn’t working, we are in real trouble, what are we going to do about it. The essay “Freedom Has No ‘System” very nicely answers with the equivalent of “What do you mean ‘WE’, Statist?”

Such an approach puts the burden of freeing oneself (or some "noble" cause) onto the Statist. It UNDERSCORES the fact that the Statist has NOT bothered to think of solutions that do NOT involve **enslaving other people**.

*As pointed out in the article: “…[watch] my fellow humans squirm when asked to think like a free people…”.*

Freedom Has No "System"--Challenge the premise. THERE IS NO "WE"!
http://zerogov.com/?p=2334

There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.
PT Penn Teller "http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/119929.html

References:
Property Rights Vs Prohibition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QouamYWL6vc

What Prohibition costs us [Blowback]
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/10/drug-war-blowback.html

AtlasAikido's picture

This is what I got back from the site above that I posted to: "Your comment has been queued for moderation by site administrators and will be published after approval".

AtlasAikido's picture

I got bored reminiscing to Borne Free (John Barry) and remembered this: Mad Men (Madison Avenue (advertising) come together with a dash of the Jackal (Bond) after the Economic Hit men and before the soldiers).

Mad Men HD - Don Draper - S05E13 - Final Scene - You only live twice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YocBfe1N598&feature=fvwrel

Which reminded me of Julian Assange (clearly a hero, clearly "alone", but probably not lonely). He has brilliantly staved off his execution one more time by apparently threatening to expose the equivalent of a who's who of Western mucky mucks involved in crippling South America, much like exposing A Quantum of Suffering and its Economic Hitmen and Jackals and their bosses www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w152.html

It is not odd for me to be "alone" in three different time zones. One, remembering Nancy Sinatra and watching Bond as a boy for the first time. And two, concurrently watching Don Drapper from a long gone forgotten past. And three, now gleaning/groking that it was ALL part of the Matrix AND deadly as I recollect the recent movie Quantum Of Solace and a World Now On Fire...

As a Bond doppelganger, the surreal irony still makes me smirk. As does the clip where Drapper an advertising exec, Hollywood and his lover all intersect. "I love you" she whispers". And yet he is very much alone. Walking away and settling in for an Old Fashion at a bar, a girl (one of two) inquires: "Excuse me do you have a light"? "My friend was wondering are you "alone"? I cannot help laughing as the tumbrils fall open with ALL the possibilities...

Much like the line I hear so often: "Excuse me, why do you look so familiar?" A friend recently unfolded the riddle. "It is Hollywood imprinting, Atlas". "To those men and women who have fallen for the advertising they cannot help but stare and/or stop and ask". "For those who have not, you do not exist".

"Ah, life is funny, very funny is it not"?

AtlasAikido's picture

Here we go again. Should anyone be surprised? It's been 14 hrs AND counting "Your [my] comment has been queued for moderation by site administrators and will be published after approval".

Here is an incrementally improved post STILL waiting approval at http://www.libertyunbound.com/node/888

I just re-submitted the following and received confirmation of receipt: "Your comment has been queued for moderation by site administrators and will be published after approval". I'll see what happens...

Some context on Jon Harrison's last para comment regarding Unintended Consequences: "To aver that a concious [sic] conspiracy exists to keep individuals "tightly snared" in an "incomprehensible mass of 'crimes'" is, at least in an American context, a last refuge of the paranoiac".

Dear Reader, the Consequences Of Govt ARE Intended (and Foreseeable) AND Not An "Unintended Consequence"!

Gen. McChrystal has discovered what so many others before him learned — from Socrates to Thomas More to Gen. Smedley Butler to Sophie Scholl to Daniel Ellsberg to Seymour Hersh to untold governmental "whistleblowers" — even, more recently to Helen Thomas — that it is dangerous to speak truth not to power, but to ordinary people.

The owners of the political establishment know the truth; they are fully aware of the lies they have fabricated; the deceptions they — along with their obliging media and academic supporters — have carefully manipulated into a perception of "truth."

The owners don't want you to know what they know. Those who would dare to so inform you get labeled as "paranoid conspiracy theorists," "disgruntled former employees," "racists," or "anti-Semitic." When I am asked if I believe in "conspiracy theories" of history, I respond — in the words of the late Chris Tame — "I am not interested in conspiracy theories, but in the facts of conspiracies."

Excerpt from Butler Shaffer
"Making It McChrystal Clear"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer218.html

Regarding JH's comment: "Since the rise of civilization societies have been ruled by one of the following three: priests, soldiers, or lawyers. I don't particularly like lawyers, but I prefer lawyer-rule to the rough hand of the soldier or the fanatical parasitism of the priest. The only other alternative is anarchy. And the first to be destroyed in a reign of anarchy would be the intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals who pontificate about the virtues of anarchy from their campus offices and urban studio apartments".

“There is no alternative” (TINA) IS clearly yet another BIG LIE forced upon the majority of the world’s population by the oligarchic elites. But TINA t'aint so. It t'aint so.

To compound the chaos of the State, some people call themselves "anarchists" but openly destroy the property of, and call for controls over, the peaceful behavior of those they hate - so proving that they really favor government. So we have to recall the definition: a genuine anarchist doesn't want to rule anyone, except himself. We love freedom - and not just for ourselves. We're happy for everyone else to enjoy it too. Anarchy the actual word does not mean no rules. It does mean self rule and it is not synonymous with chaos.

Now back to the actual cause of chaos and the actual bomb throwers of history. Right now, the world is on fire (to cite just two examples) aggressive war and aggressive fiat currency inflation — the former being nothing other than Mass Murder, the latter being Massive Theft through official fraud. Need I point out that this is Govt at work?

People ignorant of such are what led to Hitler, the government loses control and they demand a strong leader, cowards build up some tyrant (NOT anarchists) who then go around Mass Murdering the: "intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals [jews, gypsies, anarchists etc] who pontificate about the virtues of anarchy [self-rule/not no rules] from their campus offices and urban studio apartments" [but certainly not 24x7 via a statist obliging media and academic support].

It is certainly not those who practice self-rule that are the cause.

Re JH's: "Most politicians are lawyers, and they write laws because it increases their power and feeling of self-importance. Additionally, however, they sometimes write laws simply to benefit society -- and occasionally they succeed. It's undeniable that some of the laws on the books are beneficial".

Nope again. There are 300 Federal laws that are passed every day! Can anyone imagine how any of these Federal Laws (made by Lawyers) could possibly have anything to do with the Non-Aggression Principle? They don't even have time to read them. I would like to thank Simon Black yesterday on LewRockwell.com for that information.

Let us now completely dispense with Jon Harrison's "lawyers [in govt] sometimes write laws simply to benefit society --and occasionally they succeed. It's [not] undeniable that some of the laws on the books are beneficial".

Any customary laws made into statute law cannot be good! Briefly the tacit assumption that natural laws do not apply to human relationships led men to believe they must have a central system of Statutory Laws to fill the gap and maintain social order. The principle behind a Statutory Law written a priori cannot be made to fit all circumstances. Its application is UNOBJECTIVE and misses value structure objectivity of profit and loss calculations. This market price *breakthru came from Mises's 1920 paper refuting Socialism.

Paraphrased from The Market for Liberty
Morris and Linda Tannehill

http://mises.org/resources/6058

On another front, Julian Assange continues to expose significant fraud and crimes committed by the State. Indeed it is the State That Fears Information (and so-far the site still moderating this post libertyunbound indeed) and clearly co-conspires and propagates propaganda AND fear. After all without followers the State cannot buy enough bullets nor recruit enough thugs to fire the bullets.

Let us proceed from where we are today: A Top-Down-Minority that dictates down to us. If you think about it, it necessarily requires the equivalent of Kings men (lawyers etc) using fraud, force and propaganda on a population to make it follow its Political Agendas. No one in their right mind would volunteer to get plundered otherwise.

By contrast the Customary Laws of family, municipality and merchant law do not rely on force and fraud. These laws have a natural following and have ALREADY been tested, improved and accepted/or discarded from the Bottom-Up by populations over long periods of time; and across continents; and with actual experts in the particular field in dispute. And are necessarily UNForced as people would walkaway otherwise.

Finally, the following link addresses how and why it IS customary law that actually keeps order and NOT Govt; It also shatters the myth that government must define and enforce "the rules of the game".

I recommend: "Enterprise of Customary Law" Mises Daily: Friday, June 29, 2007 by Bruce L. Benson
http://archive.mises.org/6795/the-enterprise-of-customary-law/

References.
Imperial Conditioning and the American State by Bill Buppert
http://zerogov.com/?p=2780

The Anarchist Alternative
http://theanarchistalternative.info/

Book review--Freedom Naturally
http://alpha.mises.org/daily/5305/Freedom-Natural

Samarami's picture

Atlas:

    "...some people call themselves "anarchists" but openly destroy the property of, and call for controls over, the peaceful behavior of those they hate - so proving that they really favor government. So we have to recall the definition: a genuine anarchist doesn't want to rule anyone, except himself. We love freedom - and not just for ourselves. We're happy for everyone else to enjoy it too. Anarchy the actual word does not mean no rules. It does mean self rule and it is not synonymous with chaos."

John Hasnas:

    "...Anarchy refers to a society without a central political authority. But it is also
    used to refer to disorder or chaos. This constitutes a textbook example of Orwellian
    newspeak in which assigning the same name to two different concepts effectively
    narrows the range of thought. For if lack of government is identified with the lack of
    order, no one will ask whether lack of government actually results in a lack of order.
    And this uninquisitive mental attitude is absolutely essential to the case for the state.
    For if people were ever to seriously question whether government is really productive
    of order, popular support for government would almost instantly collapse..."

We're dealing with an eerie "spirit" amongst us, mates. Those who are looked upon as "leaders" and/or "heroes" are indeed psychopaths -- capable of looking sincerely out to a "nation" of poor, deceived sheep on national TV and telling the most egregious lies conceivable -- and being believed by the unwashed, beer-drinking (not that there's anything wrong with enjoying a cold beer, mind you) masses, I'm sorry to say.

Mencken was right:

    "...The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth..."

    ~ H.L. Mencken

(Think Ron Paul -- and thanks for the link to Butler's article that I had read and forgotten).

The best I can tell you is to exchange your US "dollars" for some durable commodities of value, and Abstain From Beans.

Sam

AtlasAikido's picture

Yes to Sam's points. It IS Foreseeable and with Intent (AND NOT UNIntended Consequences) that WE ARE being culled by a Top-Down-Minority of sociopathic rulers who will not release their ever tightening grip on us. Just like the Elephant's being made extinct by govt promoting waste instead of harvesting, so it is with people. See prior posts.

Most recently Michael A. Clem wrote regarding one of my posts on "The Economic Irrationality of the State"
http://mises.org/preview/6177/The-Economic-Irrationality-of-the-State#ID...

"As George H. Smith points out, Ayn Rand's own moral code does NOT lead to mini-statism. It leads to anarchy. I agree, she essentially espoused the non-aggression principle. But good luck getting Objectivists to agree."

My response is: Yes. Mises, like Rand's works do lead to anarchy. I would also add there is NO such thing as minianarchy.. It is a misnomer. Anarchy means No Rulers not SOME Rulers.

And yes too many **hide behind AND obfuscate** what is properly ministatism (too many Objectivists / Constitutional Trolls etc).

First and foremost The Covenant of Unanimous Consent--gets one out of controlling others nor needing to care for that matter. I post here for those disarmed by control freaks (hiding most especially behind obfuscations such as minianarchy)

See: Minarchism or ministatism? - The Mises Community http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/1102.aspx

Will you join us in this entirely appropriate correction and help stamp out “minarchist” [the word] wherever you encounter it?

The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
tinyurl.com/Covenant-and-Galts-Oath

Collected articles about the Covenant are found here:
tinyurl.com/Index-to-Covenant-Articles

The Covenant is both a preamble and supported by Customary law (Merchant law) and shows how anarco-capitalism (a term coined much later) works.

"Enterprise of Customary Law" Mises Daily: Friday, June 29, 2007 by Bruce L. Benson
http://archive.mises.org/6795/the-enterprise-of-customary-law/

AtlasAikido's picture

Re-Submit: It's now been 19 hrs AND counting "Your [my] comment has been queued for moderation by site administrators and will be published after approval".

On another front, Julian Assange continues to expose significant fraud and crimes committed by the State. Indeed it is the State That Fears Information (and so-far the site still moderating this post libertyunbound.com indeed) and clearly co-conspires and propagates propaganda AND fear. After all without followers the State cannot buy enough bullets nor recruit enough thugs to fire the bullets.

Here is an incrementally improved post STILL waiting approval: http://www.strike-the-root.com/civil-noncompliance#comment-6783

AtlasAikido's picture

Finally, my post was moderated and accepted at LibertyUnbound.com

AtlasAikido's picture

Why customary laws are not trumped by statute laws:

Any customary laws made into statute law cannot be good! Briefly the tacit assumption that natural laws do not apply to human relationships led men to believe they must have a central system of Statutory Laws to fill the gap and maintain social order. The principle behind a Statutory Law written a priori cannot be made to fit all circumstances. Its application is UNOBJECTIVE and misses value structure objectivity of profit and loss calculations. This market price *breakthru came from Mises's 1920 paper refuting Socialism.

Paraphrased from The Market for Liberty
Morris and Linda Tannehill

http://mises.org/resources/6058

See the party going on at Mises. Feasting on Constitutional trolls in the Comment section. Hint: Hit the Latest Activity icon.
http://mises.org/preview/6177/The-Economic-Irrationality-of-the-State#ID...

Samarami's picture

Atlas:

    Paraphrased from The Market for Liberty
    Morris and Linda Tannehill

    http://mises.org/resources/6058

This is an aside, but I've often wondered about the Tannehills and can locate no information as to whether both are still alive, etc. In googling them I get lots of hits on their writings, etc., but zilch on them as individuals and/or what has become of them. I remember reading once that they were rather reclusive folks who sought no lime light -- yet through their writing many of the libertarian heavy-hitters we admire today came to the truth.

Google "Tannehill" without given names and you end up with loads of info on some spectator-sports guru. I eschew media sports due to all the state worship that accompanies all spectator-sports -- but that's yet another irrelevant aside. Sorry.

Any insight?

Sam

AtlasAikido's picture

Sam:

I would not doubt they were deep sixed (or one got away) or appear so by choice. It would be heartening to think they are like you and me, just out there.

I would like to think they are frolicking high up above Scandinavia about 75 degrees north latitude is an obscure archipelago that few people in the world know about, and even fewer have been to.

It’s called Svalbard, population ~3,000. And while the islands are technically part of Norway, they come with some incredibly unique benefits that I’ll explain in a moment.

http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/a-secret-paradise-for-gun-rights-and-r...

Or hanging out with Doug Casey in Argentina.
http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/doug-casey-atlas-shrugged

Or In Wenzhou, where the mountains are high, the emperor is far away, and people are busy creating their own economic miracle. ]
http://www.bradleymgardner.com/2011/11/16/wenzhou-chinas-black-market-city/

Or Living Anarchy in the Aachen [I am packing my bags in my mind and thinking how I could drive my bus with an old project 500SL in tow]...Wednesday, August 08, 2012 by Peter C. Earle
http://mises.org/daily/6145/Anarchy-in-the-Aachen

I tell those who ask, I like to watch woman diving AND I will now add "I eschew media sports due to all the state worship that accompanies spectator-sports" -- its short enough to remember and use with glee....Thanks Sam

PS As a related aside: Bullet Proof Privacy was a good primer as is Hologram of Liberty written by James Royce. (completely different caliber from the Tannehill's but it would appear "privacy" is something they probably could write a book on but have not YET)

Atlas

Suverans2's picture
    "Why customary laws are not trumped by statute laws: Any customary laws made into statute law cannot be good! Briefly the tacit assumption that natural laws do not apply to human relationships led men to believe they must have a central system of Statutory Laws to fill the gap and maintain social order." ~ Paraphrased from The Market for Liberty Morris and Linda Tannehill

If I am not mistaken that paraphrasing implies that "customary laws" are "natural laws". They are not the same thing.

Natural law trumps "customary laws", which are "slavish conformity to custom", as Murray N. Rothbard so aptly called the "common law". "Slavish conformity to custom" is "the way its always been done around here", and not much more, notwithstanding that some of it was based on the natural law.

    "The natural law is, in essence, a profoundly “radical” ethic, for it holds the existing status quo, which might grossly violate natural law, up to the unsparing and unyielding light of reason. In the realm of politics or State action, the natural law presents man with a set of norms which may well be radically critical of existing positive law imposed by the State. At this point, we need only stress that the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo and a standing reproach to the reign of blindly traditional custom [common law/judicial decisions] or the arbitrary will of the State apparatus [statute law/positive law].
    In fact, the legal principles of any society can be established in three alternate ways: ...by slavish conformity to custom [common law/judicial decisions], by arbitrary whim [statute law], or by use of man’s reason [natural law]". ~ Murray N. Rothbard

Allow me to take some of that out of context for clarity. "The natural law...holds the existing status quo...up to the unsparing and unyielding light of reason"; "the natural law presents man with a set of norms which may well be radically critical of existing positive law imposed by the State..."; "the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo and a standing reproach to the reign of blindly traditional custom [common law/customary law] or the arbitrary will of the State apparatus [statute law/positive law]".

AtlasAikido's picture

Ah Yes true enough Suverans2. Thanks for catching that. I dropped it! Huh

"The free market is a product of the working of natural laws in the area of human relationships, specifically economic relationships". Consequences are inescapable. (I am noticing how no system is referred to)
http://www.strike-the-root.com/there%E2%80%99s-law-and-then-there%E2%80%...

The Market for Liberty
Morris and Linda Tannehill
http://mises.org/resources/6058

Book review--Freedom Naturally
http://alpha.mises.org/daily/5305/Freedom-Naturally

I was looking to the contrast that Customary Laws of family, municipality and merchant law do not rely on force and fraud. The laws have a **natural following** and have ALREADY been tested, improved and accepted/or discarded from the Bottom-Up by populations over LONG periods of time; and ACROSS continents; and with ACTUAL experts in the particular field in dispute. And are necessarily UNforced as people would walkaway otherwise.

Vs

A Top-Down-Minority that dictates down to us. It necessarily requires the equivalent of Kings men using fraud and force on a population to make it follow its Political Agendas. No one in their right mind would volunteer to get plundered....

It is obviously false that economic calculation occurs, let alone is possible under such a top down system. They are completely and ultimately based on Force.

Most especially I was looking to this: Although Anglo-Saxon customary law was giving way to authoritarian law, the development of medieval commercial law, lex mercatoria, or the "Law Merchant," effectively shatters the myth that government must define and enforce "the rules of the game." Because the Law Merchant developed outside the constraints of political boundaries and escaped the influence of political rulers for longer than many other Western legal systems, it provides the best example of what a system of customary law can achieve.

The Enterprise of Customary Law
Mises Daily: Friday, June 29, 2007 by Bruce L. Benson http://mises.org/daily/2542

The Covenant is supported by [**Natural Laws and**] Customary law (Merchant law) and shows how anarco-capitalism works (if a system is referred to it would be anarco-capitalism).

The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
tinyurl.com/Covenant-and-Galts-Oath

Collected articles about the Covenant are found here:
tinyurl.com/Index-to-Covenant-Articles

Atlas

AtlasAikido's picture

Sam,

Or hanging out in Zomia or all of the above and more.

Anarchy: The Unknown Ideal
Bionic Mosquito
http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/anarchy-the-unknown-ideal.html

Samarami's picture

Svalbard, Argentina, Wenzhou, the Aachen and perhaps a few more remote spots inaccessible to "the state" (interjection: use of "the state" is reification -- to regard or treat an abstraction or idea as if it had concrete or material existence, resulting in godlike deification -- I'll correct to: "psychopaths organized into what they call 'state'") -- these are good ideas for those with means, but also inaccessible by many standards to most of us and those we influence.

Bionic Mosquito, in his excellent book review, uses a mental image that I'm convinced stands in the way of many of us who would like to achieve true freedom and "anarchy", but find that goal disturbingly elusive:

    "...One of many objections raised to anarchy as a means of organizing society is that of a lack of examples where anarchy has "worked" in the past..." (emphasis mine - Sam)

I believe the fatal flaw in Mosquito's thinking is wrapped up in the short phrase, "...means of organizing society..." Who is it that is looking for a "means of organizing society"? The "organizer"??? Won't s/he, after successfully "organizing society" want to claim a leadership roll -- or at least go down in history as One-Of-The-Founding-Fathers???

I'll submit Étienne de la Boétie found the solution to the quandary almost 500 years ago. Boétie implied (to my analysis, anyhow) that the place begin to "organize" anarchy is between my ears. Not your ears -- my ears. If you do likewise, I'll support you every way I can, believe me. But I'm not depending upon you (I'm not talking to you, Atlas -- I read and take in what you write with great satisfaction) for my liberty. Nor "organized society" (is there any other kind?).

I am a sovereign state. If freedom is to be, it's up to me. And I don't need to uproot, leave many I love (some statists to the core), and move to, say New Hampshire or Costa Rica or any other location where predators have not been quite so successful in "organizing" an abject police state. Yet.

I'm 76, and time's a wastin'. I gotta quit wringing my hands and whining and moaning over those up and down the street who'd like to invade my sovereignty and insist I join their "state". 'Nuff said for now.

Sam

AtlasAikido's picture

Taking Farron and Knapp STRAIGHT (regarding article "Defending Capitalism against Ayn Rand" at LibertyUNbound, RationalReview and LewRockwell). ..

<<"Rand’s means of showing the evil of government-business collusion is by representing EVERY government [1] intervention as economically disastrous; EVERY [2] government official as a corrupt hypocrite; and EVERY businessman who supports government intervention as not only a [3] corrupt hypocrite, but also, more seriously, a total [4] incompetent at running his business".

This is addressed Part I, II and III strike-the-root.com/restitution#comment-6955

Some commentary: Indeed US Fascism is a most insidious mixture of the key ingredients, while maintaining the necessary nuance to snooker the masses, the media, and the so-called respectable folks across the spectrum. America's Unique Fascism Mises Daily: Friday, October 21, 2011 by Anthony Gregory http://mises.org/daily/5634

As in literature and economics Bankruptcy is the solution at this point. Saying the people running the system are NOT ALL BAD and that WE [YOU] need to get Big Bird and Barney the Dinosaur or Rand's John Galt to run the system is futile and hopeless. The System (Fascism) must be abandoned. ALL of it. NOT SOME of it.

Rand clearly understood the ROLE of so-called good men in Statist positions--"It's Not Personal; It's Institutional"--which is WHY John Galt refused the post of Economic Czar [1, 3, 4]. The VERY OPPOSITE of what Stadler did [2]. This and her PEACEFUL solutions ARE supported by Ludwig Von Mises and their students at LewRockwell.com and Strike-The-Root.com.

Indeed it IS the Statist who has NOT bothered to think of solutions that do NOT involve enslaving other people. As pointed out in the following article: “…[watch] my fellow humans squirm when asked to think like a free people…” There is *No We*: Challenge the Premise. http://zerogov.com/?p=2334

I already dispensed with Farron's penny-ante-tampon-diaper-capitalism-premises-sense-of-life issues (in a prior post). It's no different here. EVERY THING to do with government is bad. UNLESS one subscribes to SLAVERY! It IS his MEANS" [and ENDS].

Radio Interview Plus Agorism Equals Neato
http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods200.html

Briefly any natural and customary laws--what anarco-capitalism is based on--superceded by Statute Law CANNOT be good! http://strike-the-root.com/restitution#comment-6955

Enjoy.

AtlasAikido

AtlasAikido's picture

Farron and Thomas L Knapp at LibertyUnbound, RationalReview and Lewrockwell apparently think there is an audience for transparent LIES:

<<"The heroes of Atlas Shrugged are heroic because, like Communist bureaucrats, they produce or maintain impressive products, not mean little ones. It would be unimaginable for a Rand hero to be a manufacturer of “penny ante” products, such as disposable baby diapers, menstrual tampons, or dependable contraceptives" [This is a Straw man and red herring.]

<<"She [Rand] thought that the heroes she created were exemplars of pure, uncorrupted capitalism" In fact, the heroes she created in Atlas Shrugged came from her sense of life, which was not only un-capitalist but anti-capitalist.”[How does Farron presume to read a dead person's mind?]

Hopeless! Steven Farron cannot even get this straight. Here is one source link Dear Reader. Search each one of Farron's points on "capitalism", "premises", indeed type in a search on the word "sense" and you will find a cornucopia of things that refute ALL of Steven Farron's inane positions, posturing and pretense about her [Rand's] "sense of life"...

"Unity and Integration in
Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged"
Edward W. Younkins*
libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-5.doc

<<"Dear AtlasAikido, If this reply does not satisfy you and you want to continue this debate [rout], please contact me at stevenfarron@gmail.com. It is not fair [an admission that he cannot defend his position] to the readers [a judging audience] of this [his] article for us [those pointing out his distortions] to take up more space [for fear of information and ultimately exposure]."

Hiding behind the concern of "space" invaders is hardly the way to satisfy libertyunbound readers. I posted my response on this site (prior to this one).

<< LibertyInKind's "However, I have always been unable to accept a few things. Howard Roark's intransigence, and Gail Wynand's editorial stance in the Fountainhead are qualities that in a true free market can be economical suicide". http://libertyunbound.com/node/858

If Roarke aligned himself with one "little" government job even once, he would loose ALL his standing with free market customers once word got out. And that would be suicide (morally and economically)! And therein lies "Howard Roark's intransigence". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Roark

And the same with "Gail Wynand's editorial stance [which changed from supporting the likes of a Toohey to supporting a Roarke] in the Fountainhead are qualities that in a *true free market [would be rewarded], [as opposed to] can be economical suicide*". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellsworth_Toohey#Ellsworth_Toohey

I seriously doubt LibertyInKind could even remotely be a [true] "long term libertarian and advocate of both the sense of life depicted in Ayn Rand's novels and the connection of a free market to being able to accept unique ideas and translating it into products that DIFFERENTIATE".

The late journalist Warren Brookes once commented, the media are not interested in the "status quo," but rather the "statist quo." Anyone who has worked in journalism can ready attest to the truth of what Brookes said. All of the prized "beats" are in covering government and supporting it, the politically connected and govt subsidized businessman i.e The Toohey's et al not Roarke nor Wynand after his redemption.

PS Indeed here is Doug Casey on American Socialism caseyresearch.com/cdd/doug-casey-american-socialism

AtlasAikido's picture

Ref: Stephan Molyneux's Handbook to A Statist.."In the interests of efficiency, I have decided to distill every argument I have ever had with your average statist, so that I can hand it out to *those who argue that government is voluntary*, if I don't like it I can leave, taxation is not violence, etc...http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/molyneux/molyneux4.html

"It's Not Personal; It's Institutional" [and the role of so-called good men in govt] Mises Daily: by Wendy McElroy
http://mises.org/daily/5439/Its-Not-Personal-Its-Institutional

"To Serve and Protect — *The State* [not the individual]" by Wendy McElroy
http://mises.org/daily/5651/To-Serve-and-Protect-the-State

"The Ascendence of Sociopaths in US Governance" [...gradually, non-sociopaths can no longer stand being there. They leave.] by Doug Casey
http://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/ascendence-sociopaths-us-governance.

Notes: Search words [1] thru [4] in the source link provided below. That someone has a problem with this says more than I ever could or am interested in.

[1] "intervention": Galt’s Gulch (also known as Mulligan’s Valley and Atlantis) sharply contrasts with Directive 10-289 and with the mode of operations of the Twentieth Century Motor Company. Atlantis is a microcosm or model of a free society enshrouded by the collapsing interventionist one. This paradigm of a free society consists of a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION of men held together by nothing except every man’s self-interest. Here productive men who have gone on strike are free to produce and trade as long as they observe the valley’s customs (Customary Law). In this secret free society each individual is unencumbered in the pursuit of his own flourishing and happiness. In Galt’s Gulch justice is based on the recognition of individual rights and individual achievement...

[2] "government", Stadler resorts to the EXTORTION OF CITIZENS to finance his theoretical noncommercial projects. Why would a man with such a great mind tragically turn to the use of brute force to get the funding he desires? The answer is that Stadler concludes that his work must be sustained through government force because he thinks that reason is impotent in the world. Because he wants UNEARNED material wealth for his laboratory, he aligns himself with the STATIST brutes and looters and their barbarous methods.

[3] "moral" "hero" (opposite of corrupt etc): Atlas Shrugged makes a great case that the businessman is the appropriate and best symbol of a free society. Rand shows that, because LIFE requires the PRODUCTION OF VALUES, people in business are heroic. The heroes of Atlas Shrugged find joy in taking risks and bringing men and materials together to produce what people value.

Atlas Shrugged chronicles the rise of corrupt businessmen who pursue profit by dealing with dishonest politicians. They avoid rationality and productivity by using their POLITICAL PULL and pressure groups TO LOOT the producers. Rand is scathing in her indictment of these VILLAINS who would rob the creative thinkers who are responsible for human progress and prosperity.

[4]. "competent": The non-looters–the thinkers and doers—are the competent and daring individualists who innovate and create new enterprises. These prime movers love their work, are dedicated to achievement through their thought and effort, and abhor the forces of collectivism and mediocrity. The BATTLE is thus between NON-EARNERS who deal by force and “profit” through political power EARNERS who deal by trade and profit through productive ability and enterprise.

Unity and Integration in
Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged
Edward W. Younkins*
www.libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-5.doc