Recent comments

  • Paul's picture
    Paul 25 weeks 2 days ago
    The Meat of the Matter
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    "Is this what the leftie (and other) government apologists want to defend?" That I doubt. They likely recognize there is a problem, but believe the agencies in question can be reformed. Just need to wait some more, heh. I yearn for the day when meat will have a sticker on it that says, "NOT USDA inspected!" and when this will increase its value to vendor and customer alike.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 25 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Hein
    'But it doesn’t matter: the term “representative,” even if meaningless, sounds much better than “ruler.” ' Well put. It's hard to believe so many people for so long have been hoodwinked by this patently obvious scam, but I guess most people don't ask embarrassing questions. The state could not exist without euphemism, or as in this case, outright lies. I love the Internet, because one *can* ask embarrassing questions, and get at least some people to think about them.
  • newjerusalemtimes's picture
    newjerusalemtimes 25 weeks 2 days ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Yes, of course, idiots who register with a State organization for a license to marry are Statist Idolators! And Statist Idolators who object to Homos getting a State license to marry are still Statist Idolators AND Fascist HYPOCRITES! Peace be with you all, C. Livingstone
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 25 weeks 2 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Take it out now, Reverend, while you can; no bank is to be trusted.   Or as much of it as you cannot afford to lose.
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 25 weeks 3 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Dear HSBC; I want to withdraw large amounts of cash because IT'S MINE! You wanted evidence - there is it. Fork it over.
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 25 weeks 4 days ago Web link Bradley Keyes
    I was thinking much the same thing. . . Nice to see that I'm not alone.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 25 weeks 5 days ago Web link Bradley Keyes
    Another piece anecdotal evidence to show that government cannot be changed from the inside out. Voting has also demonstrated that making change possible is impossible. I think this article illustrates police violence has a long history to it--using water cannons on kids! Would you be willing to subject your child to such trauma for an ideal?
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 25 weeks 5 days ago Web link Bradley Keyes
    Seems like a piece of propaganda to me, but who am I anyway?
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 25 weeks 5 days ago Web link Bradley Keyes
    This is a lovely study, one that has been in much need of. At least it clearly and 100% ly validates the fact that guns are not violent as so many anti-gun proponents . At least now there is a study to prove the opposite of what anti-gun owners have been claiming for so many years "guns are violent". At least now we know that it takes an animate object to operate the inanimate object "firearm". Great study.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 25 weeks 5 days ago Page Paul Hein
    Nicely summarized. My legislators know my name at least because I am constantly writing them complaining about some rule, regulation or law, well, maybe my legislator dosen't know my name because he has an army of minions whom answer his mail and respond to his philosophy. What do I expect to achieve by doing this. If, by chance, my writings gets through to one and causes him to depart from the government employment then I have achieved success, however, I will never know I have had success because they are not going to write to me and tell me they see my point and left the service.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 25 weeks 5 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Seemed like he was slow to get to the point . More like he was interested in his own narrative. Is there any value in providing assistance to the poor and homeless. Part of me asks "How much money does one man need?", then I think a man should be able to make whatever he is capable of making and he gets to decide how he will use his money." Then I wonder about the phrase "The poor will always be with us. What does that really mean and imply? We will always have the poor and shouldn't expect to do anything about it because it is a fact you cannot change. I have had the experience of being around people who have no interest in working, but rather manipulating a deriving a source of income from others (cheating others). They find places to sleep, manage to get food in some fashion, manage to achieve a destination. Another question which comes to mind which is more important and animal or a human being. I see commercials advertising for donations to help poor, abused animals, but I see nothing about poor, abused humans, or even human slave trade. Do Libertarians have solutions for this? I have no idea. Happy to see you are still around Sam.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 25 weeks 5 days ago Page Paul Hein
    A massive myth, magnificently busted!
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 25 weeks 5 days ago Web link Westernerd
    I must agree, Sam; Bumper is less than 100% anarchist. But when he is good, he is very good indeed.   This one is superb, for it ridicules the notion that a border has any moral signiicance. Logically that means that nations have no moral significance, and that very nearly (though not quite, on its own) means that government has no moral right to exist. It's a powerful piece.   In contrast stands Ron Paul, who is also a mixed bag and very good on some issues; his stand on borders and immigration is dreadful, as I showed here.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 25 weeks 6 days ago Web link Westernerd
    It is a good article. For Bumper. Hornberger is one of those "libertarians" who has remained ...well, statist. Not real statist, mind you. Ministatist. Bumper clings to the belief that that pack of psychopaths we call "government" could and might serve a socially useful purpose -- if "we" could just elect a tamer and "gooder" bunch of lunatics. But he does come out with good stuff. One does not need to be an anarchist to write good libertarian essays. Sam
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 25 weeks 6 days ago Web link Westernerd
    This is really an excellent article!
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 25 weeks 6 days ago Web link Westernerd
    "No political bad actor could deny a single man his freedom or liberty without the police to enforce his psychopathic designs on humanity." - and without willing victims. Those who submit should not be surprised at what happens to them.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 26 weeks 14 hours ago Web link Emmett Harris
    Everyday, day by day in every way our values we esteem to be appropriate are being taken away; I guess if I am barefoot and shirtless they still have to serve me despite what their sign says.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 26 weeks 14 hours ago
    Vandals
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    Second Update:  I today received from an area post office, of all places, 4 of the aforementioned May, 2009 Label 33s.  Let's see if any more come sailing in from the bungling bureaucracy.  Seems I'm starting a collection.  :-)
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 26 weeks 14 hours ago
    Which Side Are You On?
    Web link mhstahl
    I used the term "non-union competitor" in error. Even in 1950 compulsory unionization was in force on the railroad. You could not, by law, be a railroad worker without becoming a union member. Which ended the labor unions' training of workers such as telegraphers to make them more valuable to management, and thus worthy of a higher wage. Monopoly unionization, as with monopoly government -- monopoly anything for that matter -- produces inefficiency, ineptness, and unjustness. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 26 weeks 18 hours ago
    Which Side Are You On?
    Web link mhstahl
    Mike: As far as the "Labor struggle" goes, I'd encourage you to take a little time and investigate the early days of the labor movement-especially in Appalachia. Government certainly had no hand in the birth of unions-it fought it tooth and nail and far too often with bullets. Not only that, but some of that "struggle" actually had libertarian merit-it was in response to force and coercion. I'd very much agree to this. I'm without doubt the oldest previous union member on this site -- was the youngest member of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers at the age of just barely 16 (to the angst of many an old brass-pounder). The ORT operated telegraph schools along the Southern Pacific for the purpose of bringing new telegraphers up to speed -- to make them better qualified for the "fast telegraph" jobs. The telegraph still ruled railroad and Western Union communication in 1950 -- teletype rapidly catching up. This was a time when leaders of unions worked with their members to make them better assets to management than the non-union competitor -- to whet him or her into a truly better investment. But alas, the temptation to lobby psychopathic aggressors in the form of senators and legislators was too great to ignore. Labor unions quickly became influence peddlers instead of educators. Organized Labor was one gigantic bedfellow among congressmen and other mobsters. As Jimmy Hoffa apparently learned, you sleep with big dogs you get big fleas. Sam
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 26 weeks 18 hours ago
    The Meat of the Matter
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    What? That evil "bid-ness" man would have sold tainted meat without the sacrosanct approval of that USDA saint! My own experiences with that "agency" is that they actively go out of their way to make buying and selling of consumable commodities difficult. Would we pay for the USDA if given a choice? Loaded question. No, we don't want that damn "agency." More properly stated, would you voluntarily pay more to know that the foods you are eating are safe? Hell yes I would, and it's not like there isn't precedence for such a case: Kosher and Halal foods come to mind.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 26 weeks 19 hours ago
    The Meat of the Matter
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    It may well be a combination, though I think the former type are far more prevalent.  Most bureaucrats are either neutral -- just there for the paycheck and benefits -- or it's their identity, and they see themselves as on a self-righteous crusade that satisfies all their most base desires.   The government concept lends itself readily to that kind of person.  It must for that very reason alone be ended.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 26 weeks 20 hours ago
    Which Side Are You On?
    Web link mhstahl
    That's an interesting point you make, Mike, about limits on liability. Would the chemical company have been more careful about leakages, had its owners been personally liable? And more generally, will there be limited-liability companies in the coming free society?   I understand Freedom Industries has declared bankruptcy, presumably because the anticipated claims far exceed the company's assets. Would they have, if the owners' houses and cars and savings had been available to claimants? - I don't know. Maybe. Being "more careful" usually translates to extra expense, and there's only one place that can ever come from: profits. If profits are spent on extra safeguards (which may never be called on to function) they cannot be spent on wages, benefits, business expansion or any of the hundreds of other ways a business can usefully spend money. Conceivably, if it's on a very tight budget, such an extra expense might mean shutting up shop, lacking a viable business model; in that case, everyone  employed or served by the company would lose. Business decisions are seldom simple; unlike governments, companies cannot print money but have rather to earn it.   In the coming free society, I predict there will be some market participants who operate without limit on their liability, and some with such a limit. The status chosen will be clearly shown on every contract, for every customer will want to know. No doubt one simple way to clarify it will be to add letters to the name: Jim's Gym, LLC or Mike's Manufacturing, ULC.   Other things being equal, ULCs can be expected to charge higher prices - for the owner(s) will want to buy insurance against the remote possibility of some disaster occurring, and the premium will form a part of their costs. Pay your money, take your choice.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 26 weeks 21 hours ago
    The Meat of the Matter
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    Nice one, Alex. I see you're turning your horror-story writing skills from fiction to real life!  This is the kind of utterly frustrating experience that drove some in that other fictional work Unintended Consequences to kill their oppressors and so begin a revolution.   What do you think; do "vicious, cruel, unfeeling, hateful, violent, vengeful, callous, unempathetic, cold, ignorant, arrogant, egotistical, and sadistic host of bitches and bastards" get that way before joining government, or as a result of joining government?
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 26 weeks 21 hours ago
    Which Side Are You On?
    Web link mhstahl
    Jim, I have re-read the article several times, and have yet to see where the author advocated any sort of government intervention, or any sort of force or coercion at all...so I still have no idea what you are complaining about as far as the article being un-libertarian-so long as we define libertarianism as adherence to non-aggression. In fact, you are still largely agreeing with it's main thesis-rhetoric aside.   C4SS bills itself as a "Left Market Anarchist Think Tank and Media Center"...I am not shocked that you were exposed to some leftist sounding rhetoric...it being a leftist site and all. I often post articles from that site because it offers a different perspective, and many times-such as in this case-one that I think gets missed in the right-lib echo-chamber.   As far as who wags who's tail, as I understand it not only do our delightful poli-snakes not read the laws they pass, but in many cases they are in fact written by lobbyists. So there is that. There is also the vast sums of money that wind up in the pockets of said snakes. A "free market" does not exist in the US-I'm really not sure why so many free-market advocates are so eager to defend parts of a system that is fundamentally corrupt.   Not only that, but the modern "corporation" as operating today is an utter government abomination, since they all operate with the subtle but immensely powerful grant of "limited liability." Had I been writing the article, limited liability and the reckless behavior it permits, and frankly promotes, would have been my focus. Without limited liability it is difficult to imagine anyone allowing the conditions for such a huge leak to occur. With it, who cares? Certainly not the executives who oversaw maintenance, etc..they are not going to be on the hook personally for damages.   As far as the "Labor struggle" goes, I'd encourage you to take a little time and investigate the early days of the labor movement-especially in Appalachia. Government certainly had no hand in the birth of unions-it fought it tooth and nail and far too often with bullets. Not only that, but some of that "struggle" actually had libertarian merit-it was in response to force and coercion.   Thanks for the conversation-it's been awhile, and is always interesting.   Mike
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 26 weeks 1 day ago
    Downton Fever
    Page Jim Davies
    The site is structured around the familiar metatrader trading program, so I am eager to try my simple manual trading system there on their demo account. My search for an automated system that is consistently profitable has been a failure. It should function as well as the better standard forex brokers, but they have avoided the pairs that include the dollar. A smart move, methinks, for obvious reasons.
  • Emmett Harris's picture
    Emmett Harris 26 weeks 1 day ago Web link Emmett Harris
    Good point.
  • Emmett Harris's picture
    Emmett Harris 26 weeks 1 day ago Web link Emmett Harris
    They are rather loathsome.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 26 weeks 1 day ago
    Which Side Are You On?
    Web link mhstahl
    Thank you, Sam. Woof!
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 26 weeks 1 day ago
    Which Side Are You On?
    Web link mhstahl
    Hope you're wrong, Alex, but that's perceptive and certainly possible.   Four decades ago Murray Rothbard was delighted to work with the "Left", but quite soon became disillusioned; he much admired their late-60s anti-war, anti-state activism but then noticed they changed, dropping most of that in favor of feminism and other causes he thought irrelevant and probably counter-productive (they point towards greater state power, not less.) He wasn't much enamored of the drug scene either, though I think he was mistaken on that. Heck, over the weekend even Unser Führer hisself allowed as how marijuana may not be worth the fuss of prohibition.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 26 weeks 1 day ago
    Downton Fever
    Page Jim Davies
    Thanks, T-bolt.  Like all other revolutions in history, the decline of the influence of the English aristocracy was, as I pointed out, merely a transfer of power, not the elimination of power. That was true even of the American Revolution. The new masters are not necessarily better than the old bunch - si monumentum requiris... Ours, which will eliminate it, will be the first ever.   bit4xdotcom looks very interesting; another first: trading financials privately!  Have you also found a way to trade them profitably? - that would be a find indeed.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 26 weeks 1 day ago
    Which Side Are You On?
    Web link mhstahl
    If I might interject my own more general observations here, I have noticed a distinct and growing tendency within C4SS, in their otherwise admirable efforts to woo the Left towards Market Anarchism, to actually advocate their target audience's positions.   It reminds me of the "Libertarian" Party's inevitable downward slide -- although by being a political party in the first place, the LP was doomed from the start.   C4SS might well learn from that example, however, and avoid a similar decline.  Principle not populism.
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 26 weeks 1 day ago
    Downton Fever
    Page Jim Davies
    Superb writing, Jim, as always. It is a gift to be able to weave a tale and finish off with a relevant punch. I discovered today that there is a new bitcoin forex trading company that allows anonymous trading: bit4xdotcom. For those millions of people who cannot find work, this may be very useful, and may help deprive the costumed thugs of their paychecks, as well.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 26 weeks 1 day ago Web link Emmett Harris
    If they are forced to bake that cake, I cringe to think what will be in it.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 26 weeks 1 day ago Web link Emmett Harris
    “I also think that, when it comes to harder drugs, the harm done to the user is profound and the social costs are profound." While the social cost, and harm done to the user by throwing them in cages and making them unemployable, are nothing to worry about. It's hard for me to listen to politicians' bullshit any more.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 26 weeks 2 days ago
    Which Side Are You On?
    Web link mhstahl
    This, Jim, is an excellent response to Mike's sincere concerns over your first response. Because, like you, when I read the article I sensed a foul, strong socialistic odor. But, unlike you, I lacked communication skills in putting clarifying substance to that odor. Which is the genius of socialist subtly: the appearance of attacking evil when, in fact, the author denigrates freedom and the marketplace. He lauds movements in the form of "labor unrest" -- that cohabitation between leaders of organized labor and psychopaths we know of as government -- ignoring the fact this incestuousness is what has given rise to the ongoing poverty in Appalachia, not freedom and liberty of exchange. Even the title and theme song have putrid reverberations. Your "canine analogy" is apt. Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 26 weeks 2 days ago
    Which Side Are You On?
    Web link mhstahl
    Sorry you didn't understand, Mike; I must not have been sufficiently clear.   Visiting a place always broadens the mind, I agree. But if we formed opinions only about places we've visited, not many would write much. There are other ways to gain understanding. Anyway, the abiding poverty of the WV area is quite well known, and is not questioned.   The C4SS article identifies primary causes as "class struggle... environmental degradation... corporatism... labor struggle..." and various disasters like sliding ash. Only later does it mention the FedGov's War on Poverty, and then to complain that its resources went to large-scale investment projects (surprise!) instead of "offering a new way forward [which?]" It even complains that "The mechanization of these industries, however, has reduced the labor force." Golly me, who'd a thunk it.   It winds up with a moan against the "corporate state", which I'd agree is nearly accurate, but even there the implication is that the "corporate" part is the villain, rather than the "state." This is a subtle error, and may best be clarified by canine anatomy. Is the corporate tail wagging the political dog, or is it the other way around? Consider what would happen if the tail were severed. The poor animal would have lost its ability to show pleasure and excitement, but it would still be a dog. Just as a tree, with branches trimmed, would still be a tree.   This is all classic socialist drivel. What it's doing on a libertarian site is, as I said, quite a mystery.
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 26 weeks 3 days ago
    Which Side Are You On?
    Web link mhstahl
    Jim, I truly do not understand your comment: you seem to agree with the article, which is a complaint and explanation of the damaging intervention of government in the region. I have no idea why that would be strange. As far as: " What "ecological crisis"? I hear there is one in Socialist areas like China and Los Angeles, but hadn't noticed one elsewhere in these United States." Have you ever been to Appalachia? Have you read any news in the last week or so? 300,000 people w/o drinking water for a week because of a chemical spill qualifies as a "disaster " to me.... "I'm not familiar with the alleged "corporate monopoly" in the coal business but if there is one, or even a cartel, it has been and will be sustained only by government intervention. That is well established and has been for half a century at least; most notably by Professor Armentano. The fix, in that case, is obvious." That would be the thesis of the article in question: did you read it? The article cites "Great Society" programs as a well as a long history of corporatism; as the author writes, "...Appalachia is on the front lines of the war with the politically connected." I'm truly confused as to why you have an issue here. I also am perplexed as to what, exactly, you are defending and why.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 26 weeks 4 days ago
    Which Side Are You On?
    Web link mhstahl
    This is a strange article to appear on a Libertarian site. Here's an extract from near its close:   "One must question how so much wealth has been extracted from the Appalachian coalfields while the communities there remain so poor. One must question why the largest consumers of fossil fuels are great militarized nation-states. One must question why such an ecological crisis is occurring. One must question the pervasive influence of the corporate monopoly on the people’s democracy..."   Why must "one" do any of those things?   Each component of the coal mining industry (land, macinery, labor...) will in a free society carry its own competitive costs; if the supply of labor exceeds the demand, its price will be low. Perhaps that has happened, in the last century in Appalachia. Nobody was prevented, I hope, from leaving the area in search of better wages.   Consumption of fossil fuel is a function, again, of its price and demand; coal is still a highly competitive fuel and demand for it would be high whether the power it generates is used for military or peaceful purposes.   What "ecological crisis"? I hear there is one in Socialist areas like China and Los Angeles, but hadn't noticed one elsewhere in these United States.   I'm not familiar with the alleged "corporate monopoly" in the coal business but if there is one, or even a cartel, it has been and will be sustained only by government intervention. That is well established and has been for half a century at least; most notably by Professor Armentano. The fix, in that case, is obvious.   As for the "people's democracy", I thought we were here to advance a stateless society, not "the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried" (so, Churchill).   That, at least, is the "side" I am on.    
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 26 weeks 5 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Well, based on the successes Marc and his clients have had, I'd say that's pretty good prima facie that the bureau-rats are in a lot of cases loathe to try going down the path of defending that which cannot be defended.  Yes, in many cases a lawyer in a black gown will simply overrule objections, deny cross-examination, etc., but then they face having their wholesale corruption and bias exposed to the public - which more and more now contains NSP witnesses as Marc's show expands.  Further, when there's a jury involved, it gets even dicier.  All it takes is for one juror to see the judge fly into a rage simply because easy, relevant questions are being asked to blow the whole case for the DA.  And you just keep hammering the points home:    What facts and evidence do you rely upon that the constitution and code applies?   What, factually, is the "State?"   Do you have personal, first-hand knowledge that I was within the "State?"   You get the idea.  What answers they can give, if any, are entirely non-responsive.  And if the judge wants to get angry, deny motions, overrule objections, etc., the jury and spectators get to see that.    As I point out, it's not foolproof, of course.  Nothing is in a sacrosanctly corrupt government court.  But the dismissals of tickets and other government attacks serve as testimony that on many occasions, the bureau-rats are just too ill-prepared, taken off-guard, etc.  to challenge the unchallengeable.  Or a jury sees through their games -- if not in the first case, then on appeal.  There was recently an incredible traffic fine case in England where Helen not only got all the charges dropped, but was compensated to something like 900 pounds for her time and trouble.  All by simply asking repeatedly for evidence the law even applied.   My final advice is, of course, get and read the book.  :-)
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 26 weeks 5 days ago
    Vandals
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    Update:  In today's mail, I did receive 4 Label 33s from the district postmaster.  If you'll look at the .pdf image of one from the link in my essay, this label is red with white letters and a black USPIS seal.  It was also from an update of Label 33 in May, 2009.  Perhaps this is the most recent version of PS Label 33, perhaps not.   Regardless, the ones I received are white with red letters only...and are the version from June, 1980.   Maybe I should just hang onto them at this point as collectibles?  :-)
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 26 weeks 5 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Sorry to be so slow, Alex, but I still have a hard time grasping why this approach should present a judge or b-rat with a "Gotcha!"   'What, factually is or are "these United States"?' is a question whose point we on STR will well understand, for example from my own Where's the State? But that question would, if posed to a judge, surely draw little more than a rude sneer. If he deigns to reply at all (except with "Frivolous. $200 fine. Next case!") he might, in a really good mood, also refer one to those sacred documents in the National Archive.   I did once challenge the jurisdiction of a government court, by calling to the judge from the back row "I didn't give you jurisdiction, so you don't have it!" The prosecutor at once introduced the traffic ticket with the words "But your honor, Mr Davies has signed this form granting jurisdiction to the Court" but his words died on his lips when he saw that my John Hancock was missing - by deliberate omission. It was a very delicious moment. But to challenge it on the grounds that the USA does not exist as a fact... still seems dodgy. Shed more light for me?      
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 26 weeks 6 days ago Page Don Stacy
    "the framers used, maybe, the best available term at the time." Yes, I believe that is so. It was not a bad concept at the time; but language evolves, and the state appropriates the words for its own use and benefit.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 26 weeks 6 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    How, then, can you maintain that any code applies?
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 26 weeks 6 days ago Page Don Stacy
    Paul--I have to agree with you here. I guess when the Bill of Rights was being erected the framers used, maybe, the best available term at the time. I really like the value idea though. I value carrying a firearm for several reasons and the Bill of Rights is not one of the values. I value carrying a big knife as well (not a machete, or sword--too boastful). Currently where I live legislation passed to increase the blade length from 3 inches to a vague size. The size they look at is the "intent". If I carry a seven inch folding knife what is my intent? For me it is utility sake first and self-preservation next, for the state my intent could be to commit a crime; an inescapable dilemma to prove different. None of the knives I carry exceed four inches, but do not exceed four inches. I like your precise, neat, compact reply's.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 26 weeks 6 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    What, factually is or are "these United States"?  IOW, prove to me you actually have a valid plaintiff.  Then, further prove that you have a valid antagonistic assertion of "rights" -- prove there's been an injury.  Still further, prove that the place of my birth, my whereabouts at the time of the alleged violation, and my current whereabouts -- or my whereabouts at any given time -- have any bearing whatsoever on any of that.   You can't?  Well then, we're back to the first question:  How can you maintain the constitution and code applies?
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 26 weeks 6 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    I mean "facts" in the sense used in the legal system.   Take one of your examples: "what facts are there to support his argument that there is jurisdiction...?"   He might say "The fact is you chose to be born in these United States, for 24 years you chose not to leave these United States, and these United States have a Constitution that gives this Court the needed jurisdiction. Next question?"   Are those facts, as they use the term, and what others might relate?  
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 27 weeks 10 hours ago Blog entry Don Stacy
    She was just recently on Alex Jones's show.  I'd love to see Larken Rose, whose idea I believe the whole Josie the Outlaw outreach concept was, get on.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 27 weeks 11 hours ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Well, do you mean facts (or lack thereof) according to rational empirical observation, or "facts" according to the bureau-rat class?   When you put the question to some government parasite, what is his or her evidence that the precious "law," or statute, or code section, etc. in question applies, you only get circular arguments:  "Because you have taxable income."  "Because the code says so."  "Because Congress passed it."  "Because I've determined it does."  Blah, blah, blah.   But where are the facts and evidence?  Those are just opinions and platitudes at best.  If they wanted to give a real answer, they'd simply say, "Evidence?  Facts?  We (those calling themselves government collectively) have more manpower and weapons than you do.  That's why and how the law applies."   In short, Marc's book shows undeniably that the basis of all government -- perhaps even especially the "democratic" flavor -- is nothing more at day's end than Might Makes Right.  And this is why it cannot remain.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 27 weeks 14 hours ago
    The Law
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Actually, you can't really exclude them either, as that is more "mala prohibita" law. I don't care who carries a gun. I just care if it is used in a way that harms me. (edit) Actually now that I think of it, I don't care about that either. The tool used to harm me is also irrelevant.